Buen Vivir As an Alternative to Sustainable Development: the Case of Cotacachi, Ecuador

Buen Vivir as an Alternative to Sustainable Development: The case of Cotacachi, Ecuador

by Natasha Chassagne

Total words: 97, 589

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the PhD in Business & Law Centre for Social Impact Swinburne University of Technology May 2019

Abstract Sustainable Development (SD) as a concept was introduced in the 1970s to incorporate environmental considerations into mainstream development practice. SD has arguably failed to achieve its aims of intergenerational sustainability and human wellbeing thus far. This research identifies the Latin American concept of Buen Vivir (BV) as an alternative to the mainstream concept of SD. BV is a plural, biocentric approach to achieving Sustainable Social and Environmental Wellbeing (SSEW). Its plurality refers to a plurality of being, as well as a plurality of knowledge and vision. Yet despite political efforts to operationalise BV, there is a gap in knowledge for a coherent articulation of what BV entails and how it is implemented at the community level. As such it this research aims to find a path for practical implementation. This thesis asks the question: can BV become a practical and viable alternative to sustainable development? Drawing on the literature, this thesis finds that BV is a contested concept with a set of core common principles. It is contextual, with no universal definition. To advance understandings of BV on the ground at the community level, I conducted a short-term ethnographic study in the Cotacachi County, Ecuador. This research found that BV can become a viable alternative to Sustainable Development if certain conditions are met. The most fundamental condition is the transition to a post-extractive economy, as BV is seen as incompatible with extractivism - defined as the extraction of natural resources to satisfy a capitalist market. The research concludes that BV should be considered as a community tool to practically pursue the principles of BV endogenously through an approach called Vivir Bien (VB). VB is integral to BV but is defined by key actors as the process (practice) to achieve change at the community level, as opposed to the utopian goal (policy) of BV. The outcome of this approach is SSEW with communities identifying their own fundamental needs (basic and psychological needs) in the process. This thesis’ most important contribution is a synthesis of the core common principles of BV, the distinction of VB from BV, and a framework to guide both practice (VB) and policy (BV). Apart from the practical implications for communities, these findings can allow governments to position themselves to satisfy their global SD responsibilities. This research concludes that this plural, yet endogenous approach is the most promising alternative to SD to achieve SSEW.

Declarations and Statements

Declaration of Originality This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree or diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis, and to the best of my knowledge and belief no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text of the thesis, nor does the thesis contain any material that infringes copyright.

Authority of Access The publishers of the paper comprising Chapter Two hold the copyright for that content, and access to the material should be sought from the respective journal. The remaining non-published content of the thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying and communication in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968.

Statement of Ethical Conduct The research associated with this thesis abides by the international and Australian codes on human and animal experimentation, the guidelines by the Australian Government's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and the rulings of the Ethics Committees of the University. Ethics approval was obtained on 5 May 2015, by the Tasmanian Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee at the University of Tasmania - Ethics reference number: H0014742.

Signed:

Date: 16 October 2018

Acknowledgements

There are many things I am grateful for being able to do this research project that I hold close to my heart. The first is to the people of Intag in Ecuador, who inspired this project on the first place, by sharing with me their beliefs and values and their quest for Buen Vivir, the Good Life. My supervisors Prof. Robyn Eversole and A/Prof. Fred Gale have provided such invaluable guidance and I am forever grateful. There have also been a few people who have provided their support along the way. Thank you to Heidi Laugesen for help with proofreading. A special thanks – muchísimas gracias – to my local research assistant Carolina Carrión, without whom, the fieldwork component of this research might not have been possible. Last but certainly not least is my family, especially my very supporting and patient husband Antoine who has been both a rock and a sounding board during the PhD journey, and of course my beautiful children Alexandre and Zara, who were both born during the thesis.

iii

What we want is to destroy our false, inorganic connections, especially those related to money, and re-establish the living organic connections, with the cosmos, the sun and earth, with mankind and nation and family. Start with the sun, and the rest will slowly, slowly happen. D.H. Lawrence [1930], Apocalypse and the writings on revelation

We by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature - but ... we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst Marx and Engels [1968].

Table of Contents Abstract ...... i Declarations and Statements ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii List of Tables ...... vii 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.2. Research Question ...... 3 1.3. What Do We Already Know? ...... 4 1.4. Conceptual Framework ...... 5 1.5. Focus ...... 8 1.6. Aims ...... 8 1.7. Theoretical Lens ...... 9 1.8. Research Sub-Questions ...... 9 1.9. Analysis of the Literature ...... 10 1.10 Structure of the Thesis ...... 11 2. Chapter One: Towards an Alternative to Development: A Review of the Literature ...... 14 2.1. The Brief History of Development and the Growing Legitimacy of Post-Development Alternatives .. 14 2.2. Sustaining Growth: The Emergence of Sustainable Development ...... 18 2.3. The Growing Legitimacy of Post-Development Theory ...... 27 2.4. The Age of Extractivism ...... 32 2.5. Buen Vivir: A Path Toward Wellbeing and Sustainability ...... 35 3. Chapter Two: Sustaining the ‘Good Life’: Buen Vivir as an Alternative to Sustainable Development .. 37 3.1. Introduction ...... 37 3.2. Indigenous Origins to Political Discourse ...... 39 3.3. A Plural Alternative to Sustainable Development ...... 41 3.4. Buen Vivir: Equal Aims Contested Definitions ...... 43 3.5. Conclusion: A Grassroots Solution to Wellbeing and Sustainability? ...... 46 4. Chapter Three: Methodology ...... 49 4.1. Introduction ...... 49 4.2. Contribution of My Research ...... 49 4.3. Research Design ...... 50 4.4. Data Analysis ...... 62 4.5. Validity ...... 64 4.6. Why, How and What I did in the Field ...... 65 4.7. Limitations ...... 66 4.8. Terminology ...... 67 4.9. Ethical Considerations ...... 67 5. Chapter Four: The Art Living Well: Understandings and Practices of Buen Vivir in Ecuador’s Cotacachi Canton ...... 70 5.1. Introduction ...... 70 5.2. Part I – The Story of Buen Vivir ...... 73 5.3. Part II – Towards a Practical Understanding of Buen Vivir ...... 86

5.4. Good Living or Living Well? Practice vs Policy ...... 105 5.5. The Importance of Plurality ...... 115 5.6. Challenges to the Good Life ...... 122 5.7. Conclusion ...... 125 6. Chapter Five: Challenging the Good Life: Buen Vivir and the Extractivism Dilemma ...... 128 6.1. Introduction ...... 128 6.2. The Cotacachi Experience ...... 130 6.3. Neoextractivism, Government and Communities: a fundamental tension ...... 133 6.4. Sustainable Social and Environmental Wellbeing for the Good Life ...... 136 6.5. Perceptions and Impacts of Extractivism ...... 144 6.6. The Buen Vivir-Extractivism Discord ...... 149 6.7. Towards Transformation: Post-extractivism and Buen Vivir ...... 150 6.8. Alternatives to Extractivism ...... 151 6.9. Conclusion ...... 156 7. Chapter Six: Rethinking Sustainability: Buen Vivir as a community tool for practice and policy ...... 159 7.1. Introduction ...... 159 7.2. Status Quo or Transformation? The political justification for Buen Vivir as an alternative to Sustainable Development ...... 160 7.3. Implementing Buen Vivir: The Practical Pathway to Transformation ...... 175 7.4. The Issue of Measurement ...... 180 7.5. Towards Sustainable Social and Environmental Wellbeing: A Framework for Living Well ...... 183 7.6. Conclusion ...... 191 8. Chapter Seven: Towards New Horizons: Conclusion and Recommendations for the Good Life ...... 194 8.1. A Practical Resource for Communities ...... 200 Appendix 1: Example interview schedule (English/Spanish) ...... 202 Appendix 2: Themes identified by empirical research ...... 216 Appendix 3: Breakdown analysis of Buen Vivir principles (empirical data) ...... 220 Appendix 4: Coding frameworks for literature and empirical data ...... 224 Appendix 5: Example of Coding ...... 232 Appendix 6: Ethics approval statement ...... 233 Appendix 7: Ecuadorian government principles for Buen Vivir ...... 234 References ...... 235

List of Tables

Table 1: Definition of Dimensions Adapted from Alvarez (2013) ...... 45 Table 2: Principles of Buen Vivir (Literature) ...... 45 Table 3: Research Sub-Questions by Method ...... 64 Figure 4: Empirical Data Word Cloud ...... 70 Table 5: Core Principles of BV ...... 89 Table 6: Links between main issues of extractivism ...... 137 Table 7: Comparison between SDG Goals and BV Principles ...... 170 Table 8: Framework for Vivir Bien/Living Well ...... 190

vii

Research Design, Literature Review and Methodology

1. Introduction

The world is in peril. Sustainable development (SD) has failed to achieve its social and environmental goals to end poverty and social injustice and protect the environment and its peoples against the threat of climate change. As an alternative but derivative model to traditional development it was mandated with cleaning up the mess that its parent concept left behind. Development introduced colonialism, the industrial revolution and capitalism (Gardner & Lewis 1996), all of which can be said to have contributed to climate change and the social and ecological collapse we are now living in (IPCC 2015). This acknowledgement at the global policy level was a key driver behind SD, which aims to ensure intergenerational sustainability while continuing an economic growth trajectory. Environmentally, climate change is the greatest challenge and science has proven that to limit global temperature rise below two percent, society must act now both globally and locally to ensure not just ecological sustainability but social and environmental wellbeing; for present and future generations. Climate change is predicted to have direct effects on food security, human health, increase the displacement of people and increase the risks of heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (IPCC 2015). It is and will continue to affect human populations. The environment cannot be decoupled from human wellbeing. Socially, disparity between the core and the periphery1 has been growing rapidly since the introduction of capitalism. Countries in the core have exploited the natural resources in the periphery for decades in the name of Western development. This has had a raft of flow on effects from extreme poverty to social dislocation. The Brundtland Commission Report defined SD as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Our common future 1987). How we go about satisfying needs and who defines them is a much-contested debate, as the definition provided no context, nor did it provide any strategies for change. Latin America is one continent highly affected by the failures of development, where inequality, social fractures, environmental destruction and economic disparity are rife. Socially, Latin America is also the most unequal region in the world - according to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) - where the disparity between rich and poor is only widening. In terms of

1 1 It is my opinion that the terminology used to distinguish these regions is an important aspect of the author’s inevitable biases, and it is my view that using term underdeveloped acknowledges that development is the global ideal. In my research I will personally refer to the so-called developed and underdeveloped countries as core and periphery, however in the review of the literature I will employ the language of the author under review. The core- periphery theory is an analysis of the unfavourable conditions for the exchange of raw materials, unequal social structures and disproportionate income distributions typical of countries with low growth levels, which was very critical of neo- classical economic doctrine (Prebisch 1987; SENPLADES 2009b)

1 environmental sustainability, it is one of the world’s most important regions for its biodiversity. It contains over one third of the world’s tropical rainforests, and the Amazon has been described as “the lungs of the world” (Mische 1993). Latin America, however, is at a crossroads (Escobar 2010). Much of the economic growth and development in Latin America has been achieved through large-scale resource extraction. Development dependant on extractive projects is necessarily underlined by the neoliberal economic growth argument. Many argue that this approach is contrary to the original needs objectives of SD, and that it only hinders social wellbeing and environmental conservation, failing to decrease inequality and has been at the root of many environmental and social problems. Moreover, traditional ways of life and social stability are vulnerable to environmental changes brought on by the effects of climate change, a history of heavy deforestation and the threats that resource extraction projects pose in the region. Human wellbeing and environmental sustainability are not only interdependent, but they are both hanging in the balance. In response, there is now an impetus towards alternatives to development to ensure wellbeing and sustainability, rather than another alternative approach, like SD, under the current neoliberal model of development. One said alternative to development is the Andean concept of ‘Buen Vivir’ (BV). BV is a biocentric2, holistic approach to wellbeing and sustainability which is as much ecological as it is social. In that respect, it is more appropriate to regard it as an alternative to sustainable development. It is a plural concept with two entry points arising from traditional Indigenous cosmology and political discourse intended on emphasising the importance of traditional Indigenous knowledge. Endogenous by nature, BV is essentially entrenched in culture and ways of thinking in Latin America. But, beyond being an Andean cultural perspective of development, it can have real applicability in other community contexts (Giovannini 2013). As an alternative to SD, ‘meeting the needs of present and future generations’ under BV’s biocentric focus means that it would not only consider human needs but environmental needs too, so the world may keep functioning in its society-nature continuum – a relationship in which each one supports the other. The current model of development (including SD), on the other hand, is anthropocentric, placing emphasis on economic growth and individual needs for human wellbeing, and often taking a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, ignoring culture and context. A concept such as BV puts ‘development’ processes back into the hands of the people, satisfying what communities identify as their real needs from the bottom-up, rather than perceived needs from the top-down. It rejects economic growth as an indicator of wellbeing and focuses on holistic social and environmental wellbeing and the satisfaction of needs. Despite its endogenous nature, the state does play an important role in BV in the progressive countries in Latin America including Ecuador and Bolivia; and policy and regulation are key elements for ensuring the structures are in place for community-driven change, but so far political action has

2 Cubillo-Guevara et al (2016) define biocentrism as “a conception of the world whereby everything forms part of nature and implies a plural value to nature beyond its economic dimension as natural capital, reaching other dimensions such as ecological, aesthetic, cultural, religious etc.

2 failed to effect real change. While it has been locally acknowledged that Latin America needs to break away from the neoliberal development approach and implement its own approach to developing sustainably, so far this has only resulted in government rhetoric and theoretical academic analyses. This is proved to have been the case in Ecuador and Bolivia, where BV has been the key focal point for constitutional reforms; and in Ecuador codifying the ‘rights of nature’. Both countries have implemented plans for BV3 but continue with their extractivist4 policies of the past, albeit in a new fashion5. So historically in the pursuit of SD, policy and academic dialogue is not enough to achieve wellbeing and ecological sustainability. The issues at stake cannot simply be reframed in the old language of development, continuing with the status quo, it needs a fundamental shift in direction from the bottom-up. As Wendy Harcourt (2013) asserts citing Peter Block, “[w]e cannot problem-solve our way into fundamental change or transformation. We need to shift the context and language within which problem-solving takes place and change our idea of what constitutes action.”

1.2. Research Question

With that in mind, my research aims to answer the following question: Can Buen Vivir become a practical and viable alternative to sustainable development in an extractive economy?

For BV to become a viable, practical alternative to SD that ensures ecological sustainability and increased environmental and social wellbeing; it must be analysed and applied on-the-ground at the community level, with community-identified needs a core element because the exogenous approach has not worked thus far (Dale, Ling & Newman 2010). What exactly ‘community’ entails is problematic to define. As Tesiero and Ife mention, citing Bella and Newby, in 1971 there were 98 different definitions of community. By now, there are surely more. However, I ascribe to Tesiero and Ife’s (2010) understanding of a geographical community, which is appropriate for BV’s emphasis on local, communal mindset, participation, plurality and the role of institutions (discussed in Chapter Four). It includes the five following characteristics: • Human scale: closest to the people, it involves “sufficiently small structures” to enable communities to own and manage their own processes. • Identity and belonging: invokes a sense of value and acceptance within a group. • Obligations: involves an active level of participation that entails rights and responsibilities as a member of the community.

3 Or versions of it: in Bolivia the local interpretation of BV is Vivir Bien, or suma qamaña in Aymara. 4 Extractivism refers to the extraction and removal of natural resources to satisfy a capitalist market. 5 In the final stages of this research there was a change in government in Ecuador. President Lenin Moreno succeeded ex-President Rafael Correa and took office in 2017. Among the first of the Presidential decrees was executive decree no. 3 which eliminated the Buen Vivir Secretary, emitted on 24 May 2017. President Moreno vowed to continue the legacy of the “Citizen’s Revolution”, which continues the plan for the country’s Buen Vivir. The Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir 2017-2021 has since been released with 9 objectives for Buen Vivir. However, as this was released at the end stages of writing the plan was not included in the research planning and literature review.

• Gemeinschaft: entails a structure that allows and even encourages people to interact with each other, as a “whole people”. • Culture: unique characteristics of a community that define it while encouraging diversity and broad-based participation.

Community in this sense, enables a thorough examination of the dimensions of the problem, rather than implying vague borders. In Latin America though, tensions between communities and other actors need to be understood and examined. Simultaneously, it is important to understand how it is defined by the key actors and investigate the role institutions and the state play in realising BV, not only as an alternative to development, but a viable and practical alternative to sustainable development. This is what my research aims to do.

1.3. What Do We Already Know?

A vital primary component of my research design included a critical review of the literature around BV and the related concepts. By way of introduction, this section provides a brief summary of the literature reviewed in the primary stage of my doctoral research. There are five concepts that provide the bones to my conceptual framework: ‘Buen Vivir’, ‘development’, ‘sustainable development’, ‘extractivism’ and ‘post-development’. The principle, overarching concept for my research is BV, which has relatively few key, influential thinkers on the topic as in other more developed theories or concepts. The most cited prominent mainstream authors in this space are Alberto Acosta, Eduardo Gudynas, and Arturo Escobar (who comes from a post-developmental perspective). More recently scholars such as Julien Vanhulst, Adrian Beling, Unai Villalba, Ivonne Cruz and Michaela Giovannini are becoming more widely cited. Then there are key Spanish literature authors who have influence within Latin America and are indeed highly cited within the Spanish literature on BV, such as Jose Maria Tortosa, Huanacuni Mamani, Ana Cubillo, Antonio Hidalgo, Santiago García, Jose Dominguez, Anibal Quijano, Freddy Delgado, and Simon Yampara. Their works will be critically reviewed in Chapters One and Two. As a possible alternative to the traditional model of development, it is also crucial to critically review development theory; mainstream SD as a successor of traditional development; extractivism as a policy and theory which has supported development in Latin America; and post-development as the theory which critiques development and calls for alternatives. I shall thus briefly outline the key concepts in the literature pertaining to the research question, to build the conceptual framework and identify the preliminary gaps, starting with development. Traditional neoliberal development is an anthropocentric development model, meaning that human wellbeing is the core focus. It links economic growth to human progress and wellbeing is traditionally measured by a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Economically, it is underlined by capitalism. However, it is said to have failed at its primary objectives: poverty reduction and improving quality of life for everyone on the planet.

SD was subsequently introduced as a reaction to the failure of neoliberal development, with a recognition that we must start to consider the impact of development on the natural environment and aim for intergenerational sustainability. It is understood as a development alternative because it takes the aims of development and reframes them for greater environmental sustainability – that is, economic growth, within the limits of the environment. Post-development debates that SD has also failed because of increasing global social inequalities and environmental crises. Post-development theory calls the for need for alternatives to development, rather than another development alternative, to overcome the failures of development. Alternatives to development focus on wellbeing and sustainability and are not dependant on economic growth. This leads to BV, which has been identified as an alternative to development because unlike traditional development and SD it denounces economic growth as an indicator of wellbeing. Moreover, it is biocentric not anthropocentric. The ultimate outcome is collective social and environmental wellbeing through a plural, yet endogenous approach, implemented in practice and policy. BV however, is incompatible with the policies of extractivism which have historically supported development aims as a tool in the pursuit of economic growth. In that light, it is vital to examine BV in the context of extractivism and understand what challenges an extractive economy pose on the achievement of BV. The impacts of extractivism on social and environmental wellbeing have been widely cited in the literature, and in policy; however, progressive countries in Latin America such as Ecuador, are abandoning their traditional extractivist policies of the past in favour of neoextractivism, which is essentially a continuum of the process of accumulation based on primary exports, but with increased involvement of the state in its management as well as profit and wealth distribution (Acosta 2012).

1.4. Conceptual Framework

My conceptual framework is the result of a critical review of the literature in Chapters One and Two, on the above-mentioned concepts and theories. The framework has helped me understand the interlinking phenomena found in various theoretical frameworks. It begins with a critique of neoliberal development in the literature, underlined by extractivism as a development tool, which has led to the introduction of SD as an alternative development model which includes environmental considerations in development policy and planning. The critique of SD’s reliance on economic growth and its threat to the guarantee intergenerational sustainability and needs led to the post-developmentalist idea of alternatives to development. This leads to the suggestion of BV as an alternative to development. It also illustrates the issues that need to be considered in studying the research problem, the need to use multiple theories and concepts and the key relationships among them. This is a qualitative study based on original fieldwork and the conceptual framework is the foundation of my research as it not only guided my choice of literature but also the methodology, research questions and thus methods for exploring the problem empirically. In Chapter One, I will

5 illuminate how the concepts fit together to justify the research and provide an important historical, contextual and background analysis for the research. Chapter Two specifically examines the literature around BV. This critical review has helped me find the relationships, synergies and contradictions between the concepts and theories, and identify the gaps and linkages between them, and between BV itself. Figure 1 is a schematic representation of the framework.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

1.5. Focus

From an analysis of the literature in Chapter Two, I have identified BV as a contested concept, whose definition changes depending on who interprets it. This can pose a challenge to its practical implementation if we take a typical development approach, but as an alternative it can also be a great strength. BV has become a political and academic proposal as an alternative to mainstream neoliberal development, which is Latin American in origin, but not confined to those geographical boundaries. Rather its contextuality means that it is a proposal that can be also applied outside of the Andean context. The literature provides a solid understanding of the political and academic interpretations of BV, but there is a gap in knowledge in how communities understand and practice BV. In that respect, I focus on communities’ understanding and practice of BV on-the-ground to identify if BV can become a practical, viable alternative to SD. By practical and viable, I mean a practical alternative that has political implications which change the present structure of economic and social relations; but also, one that is an endogenous, community-led process for change that goes beyond policy, discourse, and government rhetoric to improve social and environmental wellbeing, and that is biocentric in its approach. I also examine the way in which it is understood by the key actors to find the points of cleavage between: local organisations, government and communities to better understand BV’s core principles. These key actor groups were initially identified through the literature review as mentioned as having critical involvement in the ever-evolving understanding of BV. It was subsequently supported by fieldwork findings. Currently, development in Latin America exists in the context of extractivism, which has come out in the literature as a threat/challenge to achieving the key aims of BV: sustainable social and environmental wellbeing. I therefore aim to identify where challenges might lie in its implementation as an alternative in an extractive economy. I do this guided by a post-development theoretical lens and directed by my conceptual framework.

1.6. Aims

In consideration of what we already know and understand about BV, the specific aims of this research are:

1) To find out how BV is defined and practiced on the ground in various contexts 2) To analyse what challenges extractivism poses to achieving BV 3) To examine if BV can become a practical, viable alternative to sustainable development 4) In that aim, to understand how it can be implemented endogenously, from the bottom-up, and what role institutions can play in realising BV.

1.7. Theoretical Lens

My research had developed primarily under a post-development theoretical lens, as identified through the construction of my conceptual framework – though it seeks to go beyond that somewhat, because post-development has been rightly criticised as being a discourse critique and not providing concrete solutions. Nonetheless, post-development remains the most appropriate theory as a platform for this analysis. Post-development arises from the post-structuralist school of thought (Cerdán 2013) mainly focussing on the critique of traditional development, economic growth and the current neoliberal economic system. While development thinkers tout development as a solution to the problems and inequalities in the global system, post-development scholars posit that development has done very little in this respect. Post-development theory therefore emerged as a reaction to the failure of traditional development in the search for alternatives to development that would ensure sustainability and wellbeing. BV has been identified as an alternative to development because of its opposition to the neoliberal idea of economic growth, and its biocentric focus. The notion of ‘alternatives to development’ aids in the analysis and understanding of the premise of BV and therefore the phenomenon under study. Yet, BV promises to offer more than a pure critique of the discourse. It promises to become a practical tool that communities can draw on to attain social and environmental wellbeing endogenously, in the face of exogenous development agendas. Notwithstanding the importance of the post-development debate, BV’s practicality (which is absent in post-development) and endogenous focus have been the most crucial factors in determining the fieldwork methodology, explained in Chapter Three.

1.8. Research Sub-Questions

Taking into account the research question, project aims, and my conceptual framework, my research is guided by the following sub-questions defined by four of the five interrelated concepts6 analysed in Chapters One and Two. These have arisen from the gaps in the literature. I have noted which sub-questions have helped structure which chapter. These sub-questions can be understood as themes that guide the analysis to answer the main research question above.

Buen Vivir 1. How do local Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities understand and practice BV? (Chapter Four) 2. What kinds of practices local communities are undertaking towards collective wellbeing and needs satisfaction? (Chapter Four) 3. Should BV be measured, and if so, how? (Chapter Six) 4. What are the challenges to achieving BV? (Chapters Four and Five)

6 Apart from the theory of neoliberal development which was included to set the historical and theoretical context to how the argument leads to BV.

Sustainable Development 5. How do these communities think of their environment/nature? (Chapter Five) 6. How do they interact with their environment and how do these practices align with their worldview? (Chapter Five) Extractivism 7. What challenges/opportunities does extractivism pose on these communities and their wellbeing and satisfaction of needs? (Chapter Five) Post-development 8. As an alternative to SD, how can BV be implemented at the community level to meet needs? (Chapter Six) 9. To which extent are institutions important in realising BV and what role do governments play? (Chapters Four and Six) 10. What are the tensions between actors in their understanding of BV? (Chapter Two) 11. How do local discourses encourage us to think more laterally7 about what both ‘sustainability’ and ‘development’ mean and is there scope for an alternative to mainstream development, applicable outside of Latin America? (Chapter Seven - Conclusion)

1.9. Analysis of the Literature

The English language literature on BV or ‘Vivir Bien’ (otherwise cited as sumak kawsay in Kichwa, suma qamaña in Aymara, or living well, good life or well living8 in English) was exhaustively reviewed with selective citation, and the Spanish literature has undergone a purposive review including mostly journal articles and books. This is because being a relatively new concept or idea in academia, there is not an overwhelming amount of English literature on the topic relevant to the research question, and accessibility of credible, peer reviewed Spanish literature on the topic is sometimes problematic. The other concepts included have undergone a purposive review, that is an analysis of the most central or pivotal literature in the field that relate to the research problem. This type of review was chosen because the literature on subjects like ‘sustainable development’, ‘development’ and ‘post-development’ is very extensive, and I have deemed the literature not included in the review as outside of the scope of my research. I conducted a critical analysis of the literature by treating it in the same way I would data. That is, once I had completed my initial review, I imported the literature and my notes regarding the conceptual framework into data management and analysis program NVivo. I then conducted a thematic coding analysis on the literature to find the points of cleavage between the theories and concepts, the principal themes that emerged within them. This approach effectively enabled me to

7 By laterally, I refer to the way change can be embraced and implemented across communities, at the grassroots level, rather than vertically, from the top down. 8 Although there are differences in their complex meaning, I will use these terms interchangeably – the main language used will be Buen Vivir.

10 identify any gaps in the existing knowledge on BV, guiding my research forward and providing a mandate for my empirical research. Greater detail regarding my approach to the literature and the methodology used for this research is outlined in Chapter Three.

1.10 Structure of the Thesis

This thesis is thus a combination of theoretical and empirical components and draws on a multidisciplinary approach that includes social science, anthropology, development studies, and political science. It is a qualitative study based on original fieldwork. My conceptual framework acts as a guide to the empirical component. Fieldwork is essential to the empirical research to understand the nature of the phenomenon, how it is understood and practiced on the ground. In that aim it was important to conduct a study with the key actors to examine their experiences and knowledge; and I did so through an ethnographic study in the Cotacachi County of Ecuador, which included a series of semi-structured interviews with key informants, fieldwork observation and discourse analysis (see Chapter Three, ‘Methodology’). In that respect, the thesis is structured as follows:

1.10.1 Chapter One This chapter critically reviews the literature on development, post-development, SD, and extractivism. I start with a brief history of development its critiques and the emergence of SD. I follow by discussing the growing legitimacy of post-development and its search for alternatives. I then conclude the chapter with an analysis of the critiques of extractivism and examines how extractivism poses a challenge to the pursuit of alternatives.

1.10.2. Chapter Two Chapter Two continues the critical review of the literature, focusing on the literature specific to BV as an alternative to development, including policy, Indigenous and academic literature and analyses how it can seek to achieve the common aims of sustainability and wellbeing. I first take a brief look at how the current notion has been conceived, from Indigenous origins to policy. I then discuss the importance of plurality. To better understand its current context, next I synthesize the core principles and dimensions arising from its multiple contested definitions, found in an analysis of the literature. I conclude by identifying the missing links in the emergent discourse and discussing its viability as a practical alternative to SD.

1.10.3 Chapter Three This chapter outlines the methodology used for the empirical study, and its contribution to research. I then discuss the research design, including my epistemological and theoretical perspective, the justification for the research site, and the methodological approach that guides my research, including the rational and chosen methods. I follow by outlining how I conducted the data

11 analysis. I conclude Chapter Three by discussing the validity of the research, methodological limitations and ethical considerations.

1.10.4. Chapter Four Chapter Four begins the second part of the thesis on the results of the empirical research. This chapter contains the most significant findings of the research as it analyses how BV is understood and practiced on the ground, at the community level. Chapter Four is divided into two parts. In Part I, I will introduce BV in the words of each group of actors – that is the community, the government and local organisations – in a narrative detailing their understanding of BV. In Part II, I then analyse the similarities between each interpretation presented in Part I, as well as found in the rest of the data (observations and documents). Next, I elaborate on the core principles of BV identified in Chapter Two, by triangulating the fieldwork findings with the literature to conclude a set of principles based on the community understanding. I then examine the grassroots perspective of needs under BV, including how the principles are currently practiced to help meet those needs. This leads to how materialism and the economy is viewed under BV to enable needs satisfaction. Next, I examine what BV looks like on the ground, as an endogenous approach and then I outline each actor’s role in achieving it. Finally, I will discuss what key informants believe are the challenges to achieving BV; and deliberate new findings that significantly contribute to the literature on BV.

1.10.5. Chapter Five Chapter Five elaborates on one of the most significant challenges to BV – extractivism - identified in both the literature and by the key informants. First, I look at the particular experience in Cotacachi, Next, I discuss the neoextractive approach and delve into the tensions between community, government, and extractive activities, whereby key informants explain their point of view, and how they believe extractivism impacts their wellbeing. To better understand that point of view I examine how the communities view nature and the role that plays in wellbeing. Next, I investigate the impacts and perceived impacts on communities, subsequently discussing the contradiction between BV and extractivism. In conclusion, I examine some of the various alternatives proposed in Cotacachi towards a post-extractive future.

1.10.6. Chapter Six While Chapter Four discusses the practical side of BV, Chapter Six presents the political implications of BV as an alternative to SD, and how it may allow governments to position themselves to meet their global sustainability commitments and responsibilities. I do so by first recalling the need for an alternative to SD. I then discuss the introduction of the SDGs in the aim of global transformation for sustainability, the failure of SD in the past, and the differences and synergies between BV and SD. Finally, I then move to the findings of my fieldwork research and analyse the ways in which all actors can cooperate in the achievement of BV. A discussion of issue of the measurement of BV follows, examining if it is feasible or even appropriate; and if so, proposing what a possible framework

12 for its implementation would look like to: 1) provide communities with a practical tool to move forward, and 2) provide governments with ways to plurally align national and global policy objectives for sustainability with local processes while changing the approach to allow communities direct their own path (Yonglong et al. 2015).

1.10.7. Chapter Seven This Chapter is the conclusion chapter and I begin by discussing the contribution of each chapter to the research. Chapter Seven finishes the thesis by outlining both the practical and political implications of BV as an alternative to SD, summarising the findings of the research, and concluding that BV can be a viable alternative to SD provided certain conditions are met.

2. Chapter One: Towards an Alternative to Development: A Review of the Literature

According to post-development, development has not worked, it has only created greater inequalities. Sustainable Development (SD) as a development alternative, has not sought to address the root of the problem, instead it has upheld the status quo of neoliberal development. As discussed in the introduction, SD has also not achieved its core aims, and in fact climate change has increased and social disparities augmented. The only objective that has been achieved (albeit unequally) is increasing economic growth, which is argued to be the cause of the aforementioned failures (Acosta 2012; Harcourt 2013; Ruttenberg 2013) and this has been behind the drive to find ‘alternatives to development’ in recent times. Before I can examine the literature on Buen Vivir (BV) as one such alternative however, it is necessary to look at the historical context in the literature that has led up to the call for alternatives. This chapter critically reviews the literature on four theoretical components of my conceptual framework, starting with a brief history of development its critiques and the emergence of SD; the growing legitimacy of post-development and its search for alternatives, and; an analysis of the critiques of extractivism, before analysing the literature on BV in the next chapter.

2.1. The Brief History of Development and the Growing Legitimacy of Post- Development Alternatives

Development is not a new concept. It has its roots in early thinking on progress in the 18th century with philosophers like Nicolas de Condorcet, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel and Auguste Comte. Gardner and Lewis (1996) argued that it started with Larrain, who reasoned for the idea of social and economic progress in his ‘age of competitive capitalism, 1700-1860. Adam Smith also played a key role in establishing the modern capitalist market thought in 1776 with his book ‘Wealth of Nations’, in which he argued that the “invisible hand” of the market (individual consumers making buying decisions based on self-interest) would result in economic growth, wealth and therefore prosperity for all (Opello & Rosow 1999). Some scholars though believe that development actually started in the pre-enlightenment period with Plato and Aristotle. The contentious theory of modern development started at the end of World War II, the day former US President Harry Truman took office (Esteva 2010). As contended in development literature, it was on this day, 20 January 1949, that Truman changed the way the world understood development by introducing the term underdevelopment to distinguish the poorer economic regions from those more prosperous economically (Cerdán 2013; Vanhulst & Beling 2013; Villalba 2013). This distinction has had profound consequences on the way development has been conceptualised and carried out since. As Esteva (2010) posits, “the word defines a perception of a condition related to poverty and backwardness” (2010). Today underdeveloped regions are also referred to as the periphery, Global South or Third World. The idea of underdevelopment thus refers to countries in the periphery, which

14 have historically been considered as ‘lesser’ because of their lack of industrialisation and economic growth. Since that day in 1949, development as a theory has grown into the Western neoliberal9 ideal of economic growth as a means of ‘developing’ the ‘under-developed’ to achieve quality of life and wellbeing for all, albeit narrowly defined. Post-developmentalists like Arturo Escobar however see development as a driver for the core’s colonial and neo-colonial desire for domination over the South (Escobar 1995; Gardner & Lewis 1996). Whichever viewpoint is taken, development has become synonymous for progress, an idea which has both negative and positive connotations depending on one’s ideological stance. But, as Esteva (2010) states, “the time has come to unveil the secret of development and see it in all its conceptual starkness.”

2.1.1. Under-Development and the Myth of Progress It is widely acknowledged now that this understanding of ‘progress’, a Western construct, is seriously flawed, (Gardner & Lewis 1996). In Latin America, the idea of progress is rejected by many as a myth that is maintained by those in power to uphold their neoextractive desires (Acosta 2013; Gudynas 2009; Villalba 2013) - a myth that follows the linear path created by neoliberalism (Harcourt 2013). The idea of progress, of ‘having more and more’ started around 500 years ago in Europe, but it has been perpetuated by capitalism; a system which places nature external to humanity (2013). It is seen by those who ascribe to it as a sure way to overcome the ‘curse’ of underdevelopment. Concretised in modern thinking, former President Truman influenced well-meaning populations in the West, turning the desire for progress and consumption into a need to find a solution to a problem that could hamper that progress, More than half the people of the world are living in conditions approaching misery. Their food is inadequate. They are victims of disease. Their economic life is primitive and stagnant. Their poverty is a handicap and a threat both to them and to more prosperous areas (Morse 2008).

If we examine the last phrase, it is clear that the intention was to not let the lack of economic progress in the periphery hamper prosperity in the core. It was again this anthropocentric, individualist way of thinking that drove the desires for what we now call ‘development’. The idea of underdevelopment has been questioned by post-development thinkers like Illich (1997) and Escobar (2012), among others. On poverty, Rahnema (2010) maintains the idea that it is a myth, a construct, and the invention of a particular civilization; and that the lack of material means is not, however, always perceived in negative terms. This is supported by Esteva (2010) who states that diversity was lost, and the world homogenised on 20 January 1949, when suddenly “2 billion people…were transmogrified into an inverted mirror of others’ reality”. Haslam et al. citing Alan

9 Neoliberalism is arguably a contested concept. The way I discuss neoliberalism throughout this thesis refers to the ideology, belief and policies associated with laissez-faire economics, and emphasizing the importance of the individual and economic growth for human prosperity, supported by free-market capitalism. This has been the way in which it has been referred to in much of the literature concerning Buen Vivir or Latin American development policies, including the Correa Government’s Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir.

Thomas (2012) support this idea of poverty as a Western construct, whereby they contend that 200 years ago most people were ‘poor’ but that this was seen as a natural state. Indeed Villacís et al. (2015) in their research interviewing people in the Amazon found that poverty in different contexts is a multidimensional political concept that goes beyond a mere economic measure. Some of the responses people gave follow, For us poverty means not having a territory, without land there is no life. That is not the problem in our province, the problem here is that there are no opportunities, no access to credit, no participation (Interview with DGRE10, 2014).

Poverty means lack of involvement in decision making. There is a lot of racism still in the province. Only a few communities have running water, but no safe water. Perhaps in the city things are different, but not all is well in communities (Interview with GTAN12, 2014).

The modern ideas of poverty have been contextually shaped by this ‘unique era’ that we are living in, promoted by the neoliberal economy (Haslam, Schafer & Beaudet 2012). Post- developmentalists are now calling for a deconstruction of that idea, and a reconceptualization of what is actually going on – the “unmaking of the Third World” as Escobar puts it (1995). On the issue of poverty, Haslam et al. (2012) note that there are two important and distinct understandings of the idea: relative poverty, which is quantifiably measured against societal standards; and absolute poverty, which is measured against benchmarks like living costs, literacy and the like. Citing Jeffrey Sachs in the ‘End of Poverty’ (2005) the authors also maintain that there is a further distinction between extreme and moderate poverty, the former of which prevents people from meeting their basic needs for survival (Haslam, Schafer & Beaudet 2012). While the idea of poverty itself is important in the development debate, its existence is too complex a notion to review here in detail. Nonetheless, Rahnema’s (2010) argument on materiality is consistent with thinking on BV. Whether or not one ascribes to the idea that poverty is real or perceived, absolute or relative is irrelevant. This does not imply ignoring the problem, but in the discursive framework of post- development it is unhelpful in the desire to overcome the ills of development to frame the argument in terms of poverty and underdevelopment, as it brings the debate right back into the framework of neoliberal development. This would necessarily hamper any efforts to look beyond. Post-development therefore calls for “new paradigm thinking” (Tesoriero & Ife 2010), a different way of perceiving the world than the way society sees itself now. As Ryan Cobey (2012) states in his thesis on BV, it was expected that countries on the periphery should focus on developing and growing their economies to the model of those in the West. This approach however, resulted in an exploitative and unbalanced unilateral resource flow that has supported the proliferation of neoliberal thinking that continues today (Cobey 2012). It is certainly the underlying assumption across the literature, that in the name of development we have created the situation as it is now: a deteriorating environment and growing social injustice. Development has been reduced to economic growth (Gardner & Lewis 1996) at all costs. There are limits to this pursuit of growth, which I will discuss later.

2.1.2. The Failure of Development and the Path to Alternatives Like a towering lighthouse guiding sailors towards the coast, ‘development’ stood as THE idea which oriented emerging nations in their journey through post-war history…Today, the lighthouse shows cracks and is starting to crumble. The idea of development stands like a ruin on the intellectual landscape. Delusion and disappointment, failures and crimes have been steady companions of development and they tell a common story: it did not work (Sachs, 1992) cited in (Gardner & Lewis 1996).

The imaginary of development is demonstrated to be very much a linear concept that has grounded economic growth as a means to progress and wealth as the utopia. This idea of development and its normative principles has been critiqued repeatedly in literature over the last few decades, particularly by post-development thinkers such as François Partant, Gilbert Rist, Wolfgang Sachs, Serge Latouche, Arturo Escobar, Eduardo Gudynas and Alberto Acosta (Vanhulst & Beling 2013). Garcia Alvarez (2013c) calls this the ‘development concept crisis’ and outlines the beginning of each period of development from Truman’s conception leading up to current post-development thinking: • 1945-75 - Modernisation/developmentalism • 1965-85 - Dependency theory • 1975-90 - Human development (basic necessities) • 1977-90 - Neoliberalism • 1994 - 2010 - Human development (human security and inequality) • 1980- 2010 - Sustainable development • 1975 - 2010 - Endogenous development (community development) • Current – Post-development.

As history has shown us, approaches that rely on growth as the core principle are often at odds with at odds with sustainability, Indigenous ways of living and community well-being and needs (Ruttenberg 2013). Let us not beat around the bush at this point in the discursive argument. The failure of development has been demonstrated by an overwhelming consensus in the literature. It has failed in colossal terms at what it was trying to achieve: poverty reduction and improving quality of life for everyone on the planet. One only has to look at the series of measures that development has introduced and the failure to meet their own objectives. One such example is the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which failed to meet its own targets by 2015 (UNDP 2014). Now, the ‘countries of the world’, heavily pushed by those in the core, have reformulated these goals in the new Sustainable Development Goals’ which build on the MDG’s post-2015, but the same capitalist and neoliberal mechanisms are being used to achieve them (see Chapter Six). That goes to show just how persuasive and persistent ‘development’ is as a concept (Gardner & Lewis 1996). Despite the acknowledgement that it has failed, the world is still discussing development as a tool, however revolutionised, to tackle underdevelopment and global poverty. As Gardner and Lewis (Gardner & Lewis 1996) state, this is not just limited to academic literature. There are thousands

17 of development agencies employing millions of practitioners which spend billions of dollars every year on the development agenda and we cannot dismiss that by simply ‘willing them into non-existence’ (Gardner & Lewis 1996). As demonstrated in the literature, development critics say that part of the reason for development’s failure is that wellbeing is anchored to economic growth and that there are no limits to that growth. This has led to pro-growth supporters seeking alternative development10 models that still uphold their ideals of growth and progress, including: Another Development (What now – the 1975 dag hammarskjöld report on development and international cooperation 1975); Human Development (UNDP); Community Development; and, SD. Vanhulst and Beling (2013) argue that these alternatives themselves have failed to effect change. The problem is that the principles underlying the development alternatives were never questioned, they were just reframed (Acosta 2012). SD is one just example of that – where economic growth and a decoupling of the environment from society are the foundations, and a clear legacy from the development era.

2.2. Sustaining Growth: The Emergence of Sustainable Development

Sustainability and SD seem to be used interchangeably these days, despite not being one and the same. Sustainability refers to the maintenance of all ecosystems and humanity in the long- term (Tesoriero & Ife 2010). Sustainability is not a new idea, and indeed some version of sustainability can be traced back as early as the 1960’s. Some argue that Rachel Carson’s book “The Silent Spring” (1962) warning of the environmental problems we were to face, was the beginning of the global environmental movement. Since then, however, the term sustainability has evolved into new and complex meanings. Tesoriero and Ife (2010) rightly argue that the term is in danger of losing its substantive meaning. In fact, the authors state that if understood correctly, sustainability requires a radical transformation of the global system, moving away from unbridled growth and consumption (Tesoriero & Ife 2010). But they also argue that the term’s downfall is that it has fallen victim to a power game whereby particular knowledge becomes reality. Paraphrasing Escobar the authors state that “language does not simply reflect reality, it constitutes reality” (Tesoriero & Ife 2010). And such is the story of sustainability. A report referred to as the Brundtland Report (Our Common Future) in 1987 (WCED 1990) brought new emphasis to the meaning of sustainability, and it was then that sustainability was framed within the neoliberal concept of SD (Tesoriero & Ife 2010). Some scholars like Svampa argue that SD has only resulted in a ‘diluted’ version of sustainability that looks to shift the limits imposed by environmentalists (Svampa 2013). The meta-narrative of SD is thus an ever-controversial, ever-contested concept. The lack of agreement on its meaning and implementation is part of its downfall. With a global acknowledgement that the world’s resources were in danger, it was originally intended as a way to repair the

10 Alternative development is an alternative approach within the dominant model, which differs from an ‘alternative to development’ which seeks to change the game entirely. For more see (Gudynas 2011a).

18 discrepancies between development and environmental degradation (Rogers, Jalal & Boyd 2008). SD has gone through a dynamic process of change since it was conceptualised over two decades ago at the United Nations Conference of the Environment and Development in 1982. Since then, there has been much public, academic, governmental, civil society, and private sector debate about what SD actually means, how we can measure it, and what the end goal should look like. One constant in the definition of SD is the three-pronged approach, first developed by Mohan Munasinghe in 1993: economic, ecological, and socio-cultural (Rogers, Jalal & Boyd 2008). Munasinghe was an economist from the World Bank, which explains the emphasis on economic growth and its neoliberal tenets. The Brundtland Commission Report introduced perhaps the most cited definition of SD today. This definition has been reused and reaffirmed on many occasions, including in the Rio Declaration of 1992. Furthermore, Agenda 21 (U.N. 1992), in its preamble affirms that “integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to fulfilment of basic needs.” This way of thinking is not too far from the idea of BV in that we must live in harmony with nature and that we cannot satisfy our collective needs and ensure wellbeing if we do not respect the reciprocal nature-society relationship. Unfortunately, contradictions and inconsistencies in this idea of sustainability hamper any efforts in its achievement. The principle of needs, for example, was not given concrete context in the Brundtland Report and indeed it is widely disputed. Despite its deficiencies, this definition is the most practical point of departure for social and environmental action, but further conceptualisation is required, such as refining what is meant by needs, contextualisation, participation, self-sufficiency, harmony and wellbeing. So, using my conceptual framework as a guide, in this research I would like to focus on the needs aspect in order to achieve sustainable social and environmental wellbeing (SSEW)11 – essentially reframing the argument from a neoliberal perspective to the context of BV. Globally, aspirational declarations, conventions and frameworks like the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, the Kyoto Protocol, and the United Nations Global Compact have increased awareness about the perils of continuing the status quo, and they provided direction for the many measurement indices and regulations that followed. But as Agenda 21 also affirmed, “sustainable development must be achieved at every level of society”. Unintentionally, this notion of sustainability also supports the principle of plurality under BV, as discussed later.

2.2.1. Critiques of Sustainable Development: The Green Economy and the Limits to Growth However well-meaning the original notion of SD, it has become a victim of terminology, paradoxically equated with the idea of growth because of the way it has been interpreted in neoliberal

11 BV has been called an alternative to development because of the way that it respects the society-nature continuum and does not give primacy to human needs over environmental needs. In that respect the terms sustainability and sustainable development are inappropriate to use regarding BV because of the way they have been appropriated by the neoliberal agenda. When discussing the outcomes of BV, I will henceforth refer to SSEW which I have developed through a review of the literature as the most appropriate terminology to convey the aims and ethos of BV. The term SSEW seeks to encompass the unique vision of wellbeing defined by BV, that is the way the wellbeing of both society and nature are integral to one another.

19 policy debates. Despite the contested nature of SD as a theoretical concept, in practice it has been widely articulated as neoliberal development and distilling the otherwise contested term to a singular notion of sustainability. Hence with the lack of consensus in theory, and a mainstream association with the status quo in practice, has come a lack of widespread political will to bring about the change that is needed to address the underlying issues at stake, not seeking to change anything about development but its rhetoric. Perhaps the biggest critique of neoliberal SD is the fact that it fosters economic growth in the same vein as traditional development. Rogers et al (2008) debate the Kuznetsian vision that argues that “sustainability will take care of itself as economic growth proceeds”, a view that believes that the more income you earn, the better able you are to look after the environment. The literature debated this falsity on a number of premises, in particular when you consider worldviews like BV, whose proponents (namely Indigenous, not economically wealthy societies) have been practising a version of the concept well before (and apart from) capitalism, yet whose entire philosophy is grounded on respect for the environment. This comes back to the poverty argument, and those well-meaning, but ultimately neo- colonial, neoliberal ideas that to tackle environmental issues poverty must be reduced and can only be done so by using the system that created the dilemma in the first place. Rogers et al. (2008) later go on to explain that the belief that most environmental degradation is caused by poverty is a myth, and in fact affluent societies are more likely to pollute than non-affluent societies. Indeed, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2015) has found a direct link between anthropogenic emissions and population size, economic wealth, lifestyle, energy use, and land use patterns. Rockström et al. argue that we have already crossed three of nine planetary boundaries they identified as responsible for generating “unacceptable environmental change”, due to human development (Rockström et al. 2009). It is evidently a vicious cycle: more development via the generation of more material wealth requires even more extractivism, which degrades the environment even further. Neoliberalists promote the importance of economic growth, and that sustainability and growth are completely compatible, but the facts cited in the scientific and academic literature demonstrate the contrary. The statistics show that there is a direct link between rising economic growth and declining ecological status. The global economy has doubled in the last quarter of the 20th century, while CO2 emissions have risen 40 percent from 1990 levels (Laville 2014; UNFCCC 1997) and 60 percent of the world's ecosystems have been destroyed (Laville 2014). Moreover, by 2005 approximately 60 percent of global ecosystems including water, air, climatic stability, nitrogen, and species were degraded to non-renewable levels (Jackson 2011; Laville 2014). Yet the growth imperative has persisted. Despite or perhaps in spite of, the crises emerging since the end of World War II, growth has been in ‘good standing’ with capitalists and revolutionaries alike (Dworkin 1974) until recent times. Pro-development scholars like Sachs (1974) have framed the revolt against growth in the ‘us’ and ‘them’ language of traditional development. Sachs acknowledges the ‘clumsy arguments’ (Sachs 1974) that because of ‘persisting poverty’, the ‘Third World’ is frustrated, but “…is this sufficient cause for challenging the very objectives of society?”

In neoliberal circles there is no justification for the scope, speed and limits to that growth. It is the ‘world problematic’, as the Club of Rome called it (1972), that even with all the knowledge we have, we still do not fully comprehend the significance and interrelationships of the problem, thereby rendering us incapable of formulating effective solutions. “The whole is more than a sum of its parts” (Meadows & Club of Rome. 1972). The most recent manifestation of this is evident in the creation of the ‘Green Economy’, otherwise known as the green growth argument. When it was clear that the SD debate was becoming worn, the international community dominated by Western thinking, conceived the Green Economy as a renewal of the concept (Vanhulst & Beling 2013). The Green Economy was conceptualised by the UN Rio+20 with the aim of finding a pragmatic solution to the environment – growth nexus (Vanhulst & Beling 2014). The aim therefore is to continue to exploit natural resources for economic growth, but in a manner that is considered more ‘sustainable’. Technology is integral in the Green Economy, which utilises technological advances to create solutions. Such solutions include for example, carbon capture and storage or emissions offset projects which seek to ensure that we can continue with the Western material values of consumption and growth, exploiting renewal resources to our advantage. The Green Economy or green capitalism has been hailed by neoliberal intellects as a ‘green revolution’. In 2008, Achim Steiner stated, "The new green economy would provide a new engine of growth, putting the world on the road to prosperity again. This is about growing the world economy in a more intelligent, sustainable way” (Jackson 2011). The term, however, remains an oxymoron. It sees nature as capital for public benefit, and especially for the aims of poverty reduction (UNEP). It is impossible to continue growing exponentially while maintaining ecological integrity. The Green Economy has essentially legitimised the idea that the role of nature is for the exploitation of society in the pursuit of quality of life - or as post- developmentalists call it “living better”, albeit at the cost of others, and the environment (Álvarez 2013c; Benedetta & Margherita 2013; Garcia 2012; Huanacuni 2010; Thomson 2011; Villalba 2013). Quality of life in this perspective is purely anthropocentric and does not consider the dependence human beings have on the environment that surrounds them. Nature therefore becomes a commodity to exploit, not a relationship to nurture. What is more, this exploitation is to purely satisfy the whims of modern society and the habits of consumption. Wellbeing is then subjectively equated with consumption and material means, rather than in its holistic sense. This is not an aspect of traditional development that is toned down under SD, rather it is amplified in a Green Economy. Neither I nor the majority of thinkers in post-development literature are arguing that we consume nothing. Even alternatives to development advocate a certain level of consumption for health and wellbeing, but one that is completely disconnected from the levels of consumption that we practice today. However, the levels of consumption in the core - the idea of more, bigger and best (and cheaper) - are unsustainable. There is no counter argument, it is just a fact. If we continue at today’s levels of consumption, we will need two planets by 2050 (Laville 2014). In fact, sustainability expert Elizabeth Laville states that in 2014 humanity consumed the total capacity of its “ecological budget” by August of that year (2014). That means it surpassed the planetary capacity to renew its resources in just eight months, living instead on ecological 'credit' (Laville 2014).

It is both unsustainable and paradoxical to advocate that those in the periphery seek the same path to development. As Galeano (1997) notes, what would happen if everyone lived on the same levels of consumption as those in the core? There would be nothing left. It would surpass catastrophe. But the “precarious equilibrium of the world, which is poised on the brink of an abyss, depends on the perpetuation of injustice. The deprivation of the majority is necessary so that the waste of a few is possible” (Galeano 1997). This consumption and commodification of nature is the basis of the Green Economy and the neoliberal development model (Carvalho 2001; Fatheuer 2011; Giovannini 2014a; Huanacuni 2010), which places a dollar value on nature so that current levels of consumption may continue. The Green Economy remains blindsided by the traditional model of development, a “single model…which does not account for cultural diversity and refuses to recognise Mother Earth as a subject of rights” (Samaniego 2012; Vanhulst & Beling 2014). As Acosta argues, it is nonsensical that the commodification of our natural resources is controlled and managed by the same people that created the environmental crisis in the first place (Acosta 2012). The damage that this nature-society dualism has had (and continues to have) on the environment was recognised back in 1972. First introduced by the Club of Rome, the ‘Limits to Growth’ thesis which was concerned with the elements that were consequential to economic growth: population, food production, industrialisation, pollution and consumption (Meadows & Club of Rome. 1972). It argued that with exponential growth we are surpassing the earths carrying capacity and this will have serious and catastrophic consequences (Delgado, Rist & Escobar 2010; Garcia 2012; Meadows & Club of Rome. 1972; Thomson 2011; What now – the 1975 dag hammarskjöld report on development and international cooperation 1975). Thompson (2011) affirms that the Limits to Growth argument is slowly gaining traction due to the rise in alternative movements like degrowth and others which will be discussed later in the chapter. Progressive countries in Latin America acknowledge that the growth debate is unhelpful. Though, certain are careful not to denounce growth and its limit outright and are still in fact employing the language of development in their rhetoric. In Ecuador for example, the Correa administration cautiously stated, While it must be stated growth is clearly preferable to stagnation, and constitutes the basis of the resources required to acquire a better quality of life, it is also clear that the possibility of generating additional income is no guarantee that wealth will be transformed into sustainable human development (2009b).

Reframing development in terms of ‘Green Growth’ has the potential to damage a fragile system even further. The environmental limits of capitalism and the ways to overcome them are of vital importance in the development debate. Economist Tim Jackson has deliberated the growth approach and its inability to result in sustainable outcomes. In his book ‘Prosperity without Growth’ (2011), he discusses the ‘growth dilemma’ whereby he asserts that growth is unsustainable. Rather than economic growth leading to wellbeing, it is actually having the adverse effect, and resource consumption and its corresponding environmental costs are having profound impacts on social wellbeing (Jackson 2011).

Comparing green capitalism with BV, Vanhulst and Beling (2014) state that its anthropocentricity “seems to situate the green economy in the antipodes of buen vivir” which is founded on biocentric principles. Acosta (2012) theorises that the Green Economy, is capitalism’s way of finding new ways to exploit the environment, colonising the climate. He continues, Even more outrageous is the increasing transformation of the atmosphere into a new commodity that is shaped, regulated, controlled, and managed by the same people who caused the climate crisis and who are now receiving government subsidies within a complex financial and political system (2012).

Essentially it is this commodification of natural resources upon which extractivism depends, and it is that commodification that is going against the original objectives of sustainability. Our environment, as Huanacuni (2010) affirms, cannot handle any more’ so-called ‘green revolutions’, or regurgitations of development couched in environmentally friendly language: “It is not just our species that is in danger, but it has also compromised the equilibrium of all ecosystems” (Huanacuni 2010). Post-development argues that the Green Economy places needs satisfaction in the realm of the market and increased consumption, so that only those needs that can be addressed by material means are satisfied. In addition, Jackson, together with Wanda Jager and Sigrid (Jackson, Jager & Stagl 2008) state that “existing patterns of consumption already threaten our quality of life, not just because of their impact on the environment, but also because of their failure to satisfy our needs. Needs that are defined by neoliberal economic growth, instead of collective SSEW is a major point of contention. Rogers et al. (2008) citing Mahatma Gandhi affirm that “this world has enough [resources] to meet the ‘needs’ of everybody, but not the ‘greeds’ of everybody.” The question therefore must be asked: what are needs, who defines them and how can we satisfy them? The starting point would therefore be to move away from the top-down analysis of needs popular in traditional development that focuses on economic growth and a Western culture of desires as needs. But the global shift towards a ‘Green Economy’ is proving this to be a challenge in an age of extractivism. The predicament is two-fold: SD is still anthropocentric; and it is still based on the neoliberal idea of progress through economic growth. Not only is an anthropocentric approach detrimental, it is also contradictory to its aims. Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration (1992) for example, affirms that, “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.” The problem is though, as has been demonstrated throughout modern history, if society focuses purely on human wellbeing, with nature being subordinate, the exploitation of the latter is destructive to the former. And so is the vicious cycle. The exploitation of nature, which has been a core strategy of neoliberal development and its alternatives, has led to the demise of human wellbeing and it has started this cycle of unsustainable destruction. So, what is called for now is radical action, particularly in Latin America, which Escobar says is at a crossroads (2010). This sentiment has also been echoed by the WCED, that “the time has come to break out of past patterns . . . attempts to maintain social and ecological stability through old approaches to development and environmental protection will increase instability” (Carvalho 2001). Although Escobar and the WCED’s support an alternative approach, the former is a post-development

23 intellect and the latter an international organisation versed in neoliberal tenets – one seeming more biased than the other. Literature that more greatly supports the argument for mainstream SD is often blindsided by the neoliberal agenda and “misses the critical analyses of how the present political economic structures impact the very possibility of achieving environmental sustainable development” (Carvalho 2001). Other literature that analyses ‘other’ contested conceptions of SD are out of scope of the argument which calls for an alternative to neoliberal development, and thus have not been canvassed in this review12. The literature that supports the idea of SSEW (as opposed to SD) provides not only a justification for this approach but an outright critical need to do things differently. As Naomi Klein (2015) argues, the current political approach to addressing climate change and sustainability has only resulted in "uninterrupted backsliding" over the past twenty years. While the climate is deteriorating, and social tensions are rising from direct and non-direct impacts of climate change and the failed neoliberal model of development; collective wellbeing in the holistic sense (SSEW) referred to under BV (as opposed to the capitalist ideal of individual wellbeing attached to the accumulation of material goods) will never be a reality and will indeed only disintegrate. This is both reflected in critiques of SD, and in support of the post-development argument, as I will discuss further later in the chapter. Though, according to Charles Taylor, what is important now is to work towards to retrieving, identifying and articulating the underlying original objectives of SD, rather than just criticising it (Vanhulst & Beling 2013) or reframing it.

2.2.2. The Unsustainability of Sustainable Development: why we need an ‘alternative to development’ To paraphrase Laville (2014) many critics and opponents to the alternatives argument believe that it is only crazy radicalists and revolutionaries that would call into question the need for economic growth. In concluding this section however, I echo Laville's three main [and simple] reasons to support the alternatives debate: 1) rising inequality; 2) declining stocks of natural resources; and 3) happiness at half-mast. It is therefore appropriate to recall the original objectives of SD which sought to eradicate inequality, ensure the continuance of ecosystems and ecological sustainability and increase wellbeing. I will now seek to briefly discuss all three issues before examining the premises behind post-development theory. First let me discuss rising inequality in global terms. Now, the idea of poverty as a Western construct does not deny the existence of catastrophic conditions in countries in the periphery. It does not negate the fact that every 3.6 seconds someone dies because of hunger, or that around 4,000 children perish every day because of a lack of clean, safe water (UNICEF). It does, however, link the existence of these conditions to a post-colonial era and the dominance of the core over the natural resources in the periphery. Post-colonially(notwithstanding precolonial forms of power) suddenly millions of people in many communities that often had access to natural resources to satisfy their own

12 One can simply not include all literature on al contested notions of SD, therefore the literature reviewed on SD is limited to post-development arguments of SD as neoliberal ‘alternative development’.

24 basic needs have had those resources taken out from the ground beneath them, and their water sources polluted by large-scale extractive activities and industrialisation in the West. It cannot be denied that the problems that exist as what we call ‘poverty’ today have been created by Western style development, all in the name if 'progress'. Certainly, this has been argued in the literature thus far. As Ed Begley Jnr. Said quoted in The Guardian, "when we destroy something made by man we call it vandalism, but when we destroy something created by nature we call it progress” (2015). If we seek out solutions to rising inequality and thus poverty, the overwhelming argument from development literature is that we need more growth. In an approach similar to that advocated by the Club of Rome (1972), instead of looking at it as a singular issue, we need to understand the interconnections between nature and society. Then the least that can be done is to return the control and management of resources to the communities that possess them in the first place, in a kind of 'ecological community development' (Tesoriero & Ife 2010). This brings me to the next point: declining stocks of natural resources. Humanity’s ecological footprint surpassed the earth’s carrying capacity back in the 1970’s, meaning that humans are consuming natural resources faster than the earth can renew them (WWF 2010). We are overshooting our planet’s ecological capacity. Alternatives to development decouple themselves from economic growth, and as such generally promote themselves as having minimal impacts on the environment. Degrowth for example, aims to reduce ecological pressures while increasing wellbeing by limiting Western-style consumption. The concept of BV goes even further to harmonise nature with society so that neither has the monopoly over the other. It is about respecting the environment and having a realistic understanding of how growth and consumption are counterproductive to environmental protection because of their dependence on the earth’s natural resources, both renewable and non-renewable. The final point is one of happiness, or subjective wellbeing. It is not different to the idea of holistic wellbeing I wish to focus on, rather it is one part of it. There is increasing evidence (Cummins 2000; Kesebir 2016; Levy-Carciente, Phélan & Perdomo 2014; Perdomo, Levy-Carciente & Mauricio Phélan C 2014) that economic growth and hence rising consumption do not lead to greater levels of subjective wellbeing, rather they can have the opposite effect in that there has been a stagnation and even decline of wellbeing in industrialised countries since 1970, despite rising wealth (Laville 2014). Happiness is subjective and contextual. It varies across cultures and community contexts. In fact, the concept of subjective wellbeing refers to how people judge the quality of their own lives (Diener et al. 1999). But subjective wellbeing is too narrow a concept to analyse the complexity of the nature-society continuum. So, it is important to distinguish between subjective wellbeing as an individualist, human-centred concept based on happiness and the broader construct of wellbeing that will be referred to in this research which includes subjective and objective aspects like environmental concerns. Therefore, in this research I wish to define SSEW as collective and holistic wellbeing that includes both quality of life (health status, work-life balance, education and skills, social connections, civic engagement and governance, environmental quality, personal security, and collective well-being) (OECD) and environmental wellbeing, while also encompassing the personal and subjective. While

25 the concept of subjective wellbeing is a commonly used measure, I argue that it is too constrained, as collective and environmental wellbeing have strong connections, and even spill-over effects on individual wellbeing and vice-versa. What BV proposes is SSEW. So, considering the above definition, it is non-sensical to argue for wellbeing from a top-down approach. As a key outcome of BV, SSEW needs to be contextual and approached from the bottom-up. Moreover, a biocentric concept like BV, it is not only human wellbeing that is considered but environmental and ecological wellbeing as well. If Laville’s three above-mentioned aspects are considered it does invoke the question, why is the world still continuing with the status quo at the expense of social equality, environmental health, and wellbeing? The justification in support of the status quo in the literature is rather weak, as demonstrated earlier. In an argument not too far flung from the idea of BV, economist Tim Jackson maintains that we have it all wrong, that prosperity has become equated with economic growth, when in fact it originally alluded to having a good life (Jackson 2011). A critique of the economic growth approach led to the introduction of the Human Development (HD) paradigm. HD is the basis of the UN’s Human Development Reports which assesses countries on a people-based policy approach – emphasizing capabilities over economic growth (Human development index (hdi)). HD was born primarily out of the work on human capabilities and functionings of Nobel laureate and economist Amartya Sen. Martha Nussbaum later built upon this capabilities framework linking capabilities to her work on human rights. Nussbaum argued that economic growth does not lead to human wellbeing. She notes, Research shows clearly that promoting growth does not automatically improve people's health, education, opportunities for political participation, or the opportunities of women to protect themselves from rape and domestic violence (Nussbaum 2009).

Where it is problematic is that it prioritises individual capabilities over collective capabilities (Tortosa 2011; Unceta Satrustegui 2013). Indeed Stewart (2013) argues that an approach to capabilities must go beyond the individual, and states, “individuals are so bound up with others that it can be difficult to disentangle them and treat them as separate’”. Citing Etzioni (1993, p. 65), Stewart argues, A basic observation of sociology and psychology is that the individual and the community ‘penetrate’ one another and require one another, and that individuals are not able to function without deep links to others (Stewart 2013).

Additionally, human wellbeing is emphasized under the HD paradigm but as with all alternative development approaches, it has a “strong anthropocentric bias” (Gale 2018) whereby the wellbeing of the environment is not considered with enough weight (Monni & Pallottino 2015). While Nussbaum’s core capabilities do consider the need to live with other species in harmony, it does nonetheless prioritise human needs above all else. “This bias towards human needs renders the cosmopolitan ‘individual’ always and only human” (Pepper 2017). A different vision is needed, "one in which it is possible for human beings to flourish, to achieve greater social cohesion, to find higher levels of well-being and yet still to reduce their material impact on the environment" (Jackson 2011).

There is therefore substantial support from both sides of politics that what is needed now is an ‘alternative to development’ (Escobar 2012), rather than more ‘alternative development’ models that act as a band aid to the neoliberal ideal (Morse 2008). Escobar (2011), has succinctly summed up what critics of SD believe, and why it is now imperative to seek out a viable, but sustainable alternative to the neoliberal model: “flawed from the start, the SD movement can be said to have arrived to its natural end”. Tesoriero and Ife (2010) state that the move away from a resource heavy perspective to alternative models has led to a rise in the ‘ecological perspective’ in development thinking. The ecological perspective is non-linear, interdependent and rests on four principles: holism, sustainability, diversity and equilibrium. Tesoriero and Ife (2010) refer to this challenge to the dominant paradigm as ‘new paradigm thinking’ — essentially a new way of seeing and approaching the world, humanity and its problems. In post-development logic, this means going beyond the dominant paradigm of neoliberal ‘development’ and envisioning alternatives to development as possible solutions (Escobar 2012). SD had the right intentions originally, but as Cobey asserts, citing Susan Strange (Cobey 2012) “the current neoliberal global political system has ‘failed to satisfy the long-term conditions of sustainability’”. As Morse states in his paper “Post (Sustainable) Development” (2008), it had originally incorporated the same aspects as post-development alternatives with similar objectives, but the problem was in its interpretation and implementation (2008). I argue further that the problem amplified with the conception of neoliberal SD when sustainability was thrown into the realms of the anthropocentric logic that dominates traditional development thinking.

2.3. The Growing Legitimacy of Post-Development Theory

Post-development theory therefore emerged as a reaction to the failure of traditional development in the search for alternatives that would ensure sustainability, improve quality of life and increase wellbeing. Post-development arises from the post-structuralist school of thought (Cerdán 2013). The post-development literature mainly focuses on the critique of traditional development, economic growth and the current neoliberal economic system. As Gudynas argues, its post- structuralist nature means that post-development theory only questions a discourse and does not offer concrete solutions to (2013a). In terms of literature, Ziai (2007) states that there have been three major pieces of work on post-development thought: ‘The Development Dictionary’, published in 1992, edited by Sachs (2009), Escobar’s’ Encountering Development’ (1995) and The Post-Development Reader (Rahnema & Bawtree 1997), all of which have been reviewed at various points throughout this research. The body of literature that has emerged since the 1980’s in post-development has consistently stated that there is no interest in development alternatives like SD, instead post-developmentalists call for an outright rejection of the paradigm, seeking “alternatives to development” (Escobar 1995). According to Ziai (2007) post-development theory includes the following four aspects: 1) an opportunity to create an alternative discourse to development; 2) that the ‘objects’ of development

27 become the ‘subjects’ of knowledge production; 3) a need to change the practices of knowing and doing; and, 4) achieving the above by mobilising the resistance of local peoples and highlighting the alternative strategies that they produce. While development thinkers tout neoliberal theory as a solution to the problems and inequalities in the global system, post-development scholars posit that development has done very little in this respect. On that note, Acosta (2012) raises the point that since the conception of modern development, how many countries have succeeded in achieving its objectives? “Very few if we consider what they actually achieved to be real ‘development.’”. So to cite Sachs, “The time is right to write its obituary” (2009). Moreover, on the question of needs, post-development social movements in recent years have highlighted the flaws of the neoliberal system. Harcourt (2013) affirms, citing Mohanty and Miraglia, "While neoliberal cultures inevitably place capitalist interests above the needs and hopes of people it is peoples movements...that have exposed the fault lines of neoliberal capitalism and placed questions of democracy, equity and justice at the centre of struggles for emancipation." Notwithstanding this fact, neoliberalists still critique the pursuit of post-development aims. Escobar (2000) identified three main critiques of post-development, which are essentially flawed: 1) development is generalizable and essentialist; 2) developmentalists romanticise the ‘local’, ignoring global power relations that sway local development; 3) they fail to acknowledge the social reality on the ground, “about the character of political practice and the agent of social transformation”.

2.3.1. Post-Development in Latin America In Latin America, discussions of post-extractivism and post-development have been featuring at the state level, as well as amongst civil society and academics, however progressive developmental policies couched in neoliberal language have caused a tense impasse as radical demands for change are being toned down in practice (Escobar 2012). Latin American scholars like Escobar and Esteva have been instrumental in influencing the global post-development debate. Though, as first and foremost a ‘discourse critique’, (Gudynas 2013a) the revolt against neoliberalist capitalism in Latin America can be understood to be post- developmentalist in origin, but its progress in policy has failed to follow through. Galeano (1997) who may be seen as overly critical of the development debate in Latin America has a few solids points that have led to the renewed push for post-development alternatives in the continent. He discusses that many of those looking at development in Latin America from an exogenous perspective may recall its ‘successes’. In Bolivia, for example, Galeano (1997) mentions the “Bolivian miracle” which saw the country going from being one of the poorest in the region to an illustrative model of developmental “success”. But, Galeano states, “Technocracy only sees statistics, not people…Now the village of Llallagua has no water, but there is an antenna with a television dish on the summit of Mount Calvario” (Galeano 1997). These oversights may be mere collateral damage to neoliberal developmentalists, but they have not gone unnoticed by the people of Latin America. In the past three decades there has been somewhat of a revolution to return to traditional values and way of life based on the fundament of BV.

The insurrection of neoliberalism in Latin America today can be linked back to two scenarios (Gudynas 2011b; Vanhulst & Beling 2014). First, in the 1900’s a political process was put in motion akin to post-development thought, as a reaction to neoliberal market reforms. At the same time, the emergence of several progressive countries in Latin America saw the rise of an Indigenous Movement that was roused by the emancipation of the Indigenous rights, knowledge and cultures that were previously oppressed. In light of this, Indigenous communities started to mobilise at the national level across Latin America but were more concentrated in Ecuador and Bolivia whose Indigenous organisations like Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas de Ecuador (CONAIE) and Confederación de Pueblos Indígenas de Bolivia (CIDOB) respectively, started to lend Indigenous voices to the political processes through state reform. As Hidalgo Flor (2013) notes, the consolidation of this movement with its propositions for social inclusion and plurality was a decisive factor in the rise of alternatives coming from the popular classes. The Indigenous movement spurred on a popular movement, which was undoubtedly the start of the post-developmental shift that can be noted in Latin American politics and mindsets today (Gudynas 2011b; Vanhulst & Beling 2014). This mindset was manifested in the concept of BV, touted as an alternative to neoliberal development (Acosta 2012; Cerdán 2013; Deneulin 2012; Fatheuer 2011; Gudynas & Acosta 2011; Harcourt 2013; Radcliffe 2012; Svampa 2013; Vanhulst & Beling 2014; Villalba 2013). BV based on the Indigenous worldviews of sumak kawsay or suma qamaña thus became the driver for shifting the political spaces towards a post-development framework. Policy makers have advocated BV as a change of paradigm from the “monocultural” neoliberal agenda to a post- development, post-neoliberal socio-economic transformation (Radcliffe 2012). And in line with post- development thinking, as a concept it critiques the “Otherising” of poverty (Escobar 1995; Radcliffe 2012) that is prevalent in development discussions, bringing control back to the people at the lowest level, rather than from government elite. Vanhulst and Beling (2014) argue that this emergence of BV discourse in Latin America was part of a convergence of global post-development movements. (Lang 2013) The legitimacy that Latin American post-development has given to the possibility of finding a viable solution to the development legacy is unprecedented. In four out of five countries in the Andes, cites Lang (2013), there has been a political break away from traditional development; and Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela have introduced new constitutions in that aim. Nonetheless, other alternatives to development that could be argued to be more mainstream in post-development literature, have also made an important contribution – most notably degrowth, which has parallels with BV.

2.3.2. In the Search for ‘Alternatives to Development’ The ‘alternative to development’ that Escobar (1995) spoke of has become an important trend in the search for a post-development practical solution than a pure discourse critique. Unceta Satrustegui (2013) argues that the post-development debate has taken two paths over the past few years: BV, which has been most critical in Ecuador and Bolivia; and degrowth, having been

29 conceptualised in France and diffused around Europe. At this point, it is then appropriate to briefly discuss degrowth as an alternative to development, and what advantages and disadvantages it could bring to the discussion of practical solutions.

Degrowth

In line with post-development, the concept of degrowth also calls for a complete paradigm shift (Latouche 2012). Essentially it radically questions the “spirit” of capitalism: consumption and development as economic progress (Latouche 2012) in the name of human wellbeing and the environment. Latouche, a prominent French intellect in the degrowth space cites Beitone and Marion in affirming that, To respond to a crisis that is inextricably ecological and social, one has to escape this endless logic of capital accumulation, the subordination of the essential to decisions predicated on the logic of profit (Latouche 2012).

Degrowth supports the post-development debate in several ways which I will discuss below, however, the most prominent of these is in the search for alternatives to neoliberalism, as Latouche (2012) says, “The aim of the movement for ‘‘degrowth’’ is precisely to let other voices be heard again and to open up alternative paths.” As a concept predicated on wellbeing and the environment, it rests on two key principles: 1) that economic growth must not surpass the biophysical limits of the planet, and: 2) human wellbeing takes precedence over the pursuit of wealth (Whitehead 2013). Degrowth has grown in popularity since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008, in a social uprising against the capitalist failings that caused the crisis in the first place. Although the degrowth movement has had a renewed force since 2008, it is not a new idea. As an intellectual and political theory, it first was introduced in the 1970’s by André Gorz and Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (Whitehead 2013), but it wasn’t until the 2000’s, and particularly following the GFC that its started to gain ground as a popular social movement (Whitehead 2013). Supporting the assumption by Martinez, Alier et al. Unceta Satrustegui (2013) points out that there are two main themes running though degrowth. On one hand, there is degrowth á la française represented in conjunction with two perspectives: one derived from political ecology and the other from a general critique of development. On the other hand, there is the idea of sustainable degrowth, which some would link into ecological economics (Unceta Satrustegui 2013). Degrowth’s main problem however, is in its terminology (Unceta Satrustegui 2013). For the most part, it does not refer to a backwards slide or decline in growth, rather it rejects economic growth as a basis for attaining quality of life. Latouche (2012) states that it has wrongly been interpreted, as the French meaning ‘decroissance’ has more positive connotations that the English ‘degrowth’. We must instead think of it as “A-growth” (Latouche 2012). Using an environmental analogy, he asks “What could be more fortunate than the fact that after a disastrous flood, a river returns to its normal flow?” (Latouche 2012) Thompson rightly argues that language and culture are paramount in understanding a

30 paradigm. Concepts like BV and decroissance can be easily misunderstood if translated literally into English (Thomson 2011). What one needs to do is fully comprehend the underlying assumptions and principles of the concept before concluding its aims. Latouche’s (2012) premise therefore is that decroissance does not equal negative growth, as that would only plunge societies into darkness, and compromise wellbeing and quality of life. While that is important to bear in mind, sustainable degrowth goes one step further in that it does not promote a literal decline in growth in all areas of society. The need for this approach has been echoed by several proponents of post-development, "The over-consumption of some groups, for example, the very rich, has to decrease. In that sense, there will indeed be less growth. But, on the other hand, some sectors do need to continue to show growth, for example, education and sanitation" (Cordaid 2012). Garcia (2012) even points out that there will come a point where degrowth is no longer an option, for example peak oil which will result in “self-limiting growth”. The proposition of BV as an alternative has juxtaposed it against degrowth (Acosta 2012; Garcia 2012; Gudynas 2011b; Thomson 2011; Unceta Satrustegui 2013). Gudynas (2011b) however, sees degrowth neither as a comparison concept to BV, nor as an objective of BV, but rather as a consequence. He states that while there are several similarities to both concepts, BV is intercultural and considers spiritual positions (Gudynas 2011b). It is also biocentric. The problem, as Latouche points out, is that "degrowth is a political slogan with theoretical consequences." Whereas, concepts like BV, have more practical promise. In that respect, Unceta Satrustegui (2013) argues that BV is not only a theoretical and political idea but also a social practice that should serve as inspiration to transform the current reality. Therefore, degrowth might not necessarily be the practical alternative to development that will result in real change, but it may have some ideas to influence BV in practice and impact extractivism.

2.3.3. Alternatives to Development as Change Escobar (1995) asserts that, “One then must resist the desire to formulate alternatives at abstract macro levels, and also the desire to formulate alternatives that take place primarily in intellectual and academic circles.” This is an argument that I believe is fundamental. The implementation of alternatives must come from the bottom-up, so as not to risk another development failure. Where development aims for value-laden change that denotes ‘good’ over ‘bad’ (Sumner & Tribe 2008) and a more top-down, paternalistic imposition of what should be achieved; change in the neutral sense can therefore mean that the change that is being sought is subjective, sensitive to plural interpretations. In this way no one ideal is correct; rather multiple contestations can be incorporated. I argue that in a post-development world, alternatives to development stand for change in a non-definitive, neutral sense of the word. Paraphrasing Sumner and Tribe (2008) I argue that there is no one-size-fits all solution, rather diversity of meanings and interpretations need to be accounted for, to understand the problem in its entirety. Although Sumner’s description of change is related to ‘development’ rather than post-development alternatives, it is a good way to approach the problem from a grassroots perspective. Nonetheless, no single meaning or understanding of what change is, and what is needed exists in isolation. It is always subject to context. In the case of post-development

31 alternatives in Latin America, a policy of extractivism that mires the ability to achieve wellbeing and sustainability are an important contextualisation. Indeed, extractivism in general is said to limit the type of change needed for SSEW. It is at this juncture that I wish to briefly discuss the policy and practice of extractivism in the literature and what it may mean for the attainment of a viable alternative to SD (see Chapter Five for further empirical discussion).

2.4. The Age of Extractivism

The human domination over nature is quite simply an illusion, a passing dream by a naïve species. It is an illusion that has cost much, ensnared us in our own designs, given a few boasts to make about our courage and genius, but all the same it is an illusion (Worster 1992).

Extractivism refers to the extraction and removal of natural resources for export to satisfy a capitalist market. This is not limited to mining and oil, but also includes forestry, farming and fishing (Acosta 2013). Extractivism has a long history, and although the activity of extractivism itself is ancient, the modern mode of accumulation by extractivism was borne out of the colonisation of the Americas and Africa which used slaves in the extraction and production of raw materials for export (Acosta 2013; Villalba 2013).

2.4.1. The Nature-Society Dualism of Extractivism Taken out of the neoliberal context, the ancient act of extraction itself is not a negative activity, since the use of natural resources has sustained life on this planet for millennia. It is the method, scale and purpose of extraction that are the culprits. Extractive activities on a massive scale are especially having large detrimental social and environmental impacts. Apart from the inherent and obvious problems stemming from deforestation, resource mining has possibly the largest impacts on the communities and environment (Acosta 2013; Gudynas 2010; Svampa 2013). Water pollution from mining water run-off, air and noise pollution from open-pit mining operations, the clearing of land, soil contamination and expropriation of land from entire communities are very tangible problems that regularly cause conflict between communities, extractivist companies and governments, as well as within the communities themselves. Extractivists argue that there are many positive aspects of extractivism – one of them being the opportunities provided by the market for income creation and wealth. This however, is a very anthropocentric viewpoint, which turns nature into a commodity for the objective of increasing human wellbeing. As Acosta points out, if the economic aspects of extractivism had such a positive economic impact, the grave inequalities that we see between the periphery and the core would cease to exist. More often, extractivism leads to disproportionate wealth distribution and does not deliver on the creation of employment on a scale as large as is promised (Acosta 2013). Moreover, it leads to the degradation of the natural environment. This expropriation of nature places human beings at odds with the environment. Proponents of post-development, BV and other alternatives to development argue that this

32 nature-society dualism will only lead to the former’s destruction, and it is only by living in harmony with nature that we can recover the true dimensions of sustainability (Acosta 2012; Arsel & Angel 2012). In that respect, many scholars and activists alike affirm that extractivism is incompatible with BV (Acosta 2012; Guardiola & García-Quero 2014; Gudynas 2010; Unceta Satrustegui 2013; Villalba 2013). Even the Correa Government acknowledged that it challenges the ability to attain ‘Good Living’, “because it reproduces a pattern of unequal accumulation and irrational exploitation that degrades the ecosystem” (SENPLADES 2009b). Though given the persistence of neoextractivism in Latin American politics, any realistic analysis of BV as an alternative to development therefore must be examined within the context of this new extractivism. This brings with it its own set of challenges, which will be illuminated by empirical data and will be discussed in later chapters.

2.4.2. “A Latin America Paradox”: A Very Brief History of Extractivism in Latin America Extraction and distribution of natural resources is not a new activity in Latin America (Svampa 2013). However, modern extraction and accumulation in Latin America can be traced back to the conquest of the Americas. While pre-Columbus extractive operations in the region relied on human labour and technological advances on a large scale, it was largely for the benefit of the region; colonial and post-colonial extraction on the other hand exploits the regions resources for the benefit of the West. In an analysis of these ‘new geographies of extractive industries’, Bebbington and Bury argue that Columbus’ diaries from his expeditionary force in 1492 demonstrate the mindset of colonial control that still dominates Western development today – an obsession with the abundance of gold and how it can be extracted on a large scale for the advantage of Western civilization (Bebbington & Bury 2013). Extractivism is increasing. During the last three decades there has been an increase of foreign direct investment of extractive exploration in Latin America, to the sum of US$93.5 billion between 1998 and 2007 (increasing 26 percent annually) (Bebbington & Bury 2013). Since, extractivism has affected (to various degrees) every country in Latin America (Acosta 2013). It is evident, as Escobar states (2010), that Latin America is at a crossroads in terms of development and its dependence on extractivism. According to Acosta (2013), this has been a mechanism of colonial appropriation. Like most countries in the periphery the region has been subject to what is called the ‘paradox of plenty’ or the ‘resource curse’ (Acosta 2013; Atkinson, Dietz & Neumayer 2007) whereby the abundance of natural resources has led to a social and ecological “perverse state of affairs” (Acosta 2013). The exploitation of Latin America’s resources for the advantage of countries in the core has not gone unnoticed by governments in the region, who are now turning to what has been called ‘neoextractivism’, to regain greater control of the region’s natural resources (Acosta 2012; Acosta 2013; Arsel & Angel 2012; Gudynas 2010; Svampa 2013).

2.4.3. The Birth of Neoextractivism: the progressive politics paradox The term ‘neoextractivism’ was coined by Eduardo Gudynas in 2009, and refers to a continuum of the process of accumulation based on primary exports, but one that contains both new and old features: with an increased involvement of the state in its management as well as profit and

33 wealth distribution (Acosta 2012). It is this involvement of the state that is the most important aspect of the neoextractivist approach prevalent today, particularly in the context of BV. In Ecuador, for example, the Correa government used neoextractive policies as a premise to attain the economic means to implement social policies under BV. This is contradictory and as Acosta argues, it reduces BV to a product (Acosta 2012) without genuine intention for change. According to Radcliffe citing Perrault (2012), this turn towards the nationalisation of resources is seen as the cornerstone of post-development in Latin America, yet the very nature of large-scale extractive activities, be they nationalised or not, seems to contradict post-development objectives. Ecuadorian neoextractivism is promoted by the 2008 Constitution whereby, “the State reserves the right to administer, regulate, oversee and manage strategic sectors, following the principles of environmental sustainability, precaution, and efficiency” (Constitución de la república del ecuador 2008 art. 313 ). Yet, as Escobar (2012) argues citing Gudynas, this orientation towards neoextractivism poses an enormous challenge and is the main cause of tension between the state and civil society. The literature argues that it is really just the same old strategy, “with a better social policy” (Transition Culture 2012). Indeed, this ‘new extractivism’ can even be considered anti-constitutional, highlighting the contradictions present in the Ecuadorian government’s approach. For example, article 14 recognises the “right of the citizens to live in a clean environmental that is ecologically balanced, that guarantees sustainability, buen vivir and sumak kawsay” (Constitución de la república del ecuador 2008). It is the idea of the commodification of nature, however, that is the major point of contention. It conflicts with the principles underlying BV that demand respect for the environment and harmony between human beings and nature. Placing an economic figure on nature is inherently problematic and unsustainable. The [market] economy has only created poverty where before there existed communities full of dignified human beings…the thought that everything has a monetary value has ended the value [placed] on life (Huanacuni 2010).

Whichever policy approach governments take to extractive activities, extractivism points to a process that is destructive by nature. It is an economic growth activity based on an idea of infinite resources, and essentially it comes back to the earlier argument of the ‘limits of growth’. To make a process sustainable it must be maintained over time without posing a threat of scarcity to the natural resource in question, however to argue this of extractivism is to “propagate a discourse that distorts the facts” (Acosta 2013). Extractivism is therefore an important context within which to examine the possibility of BV being a viable alternative to development because, as Alvarez mentions “its impulse provides little space to care of the environment, to promote social economy and to sustain food sovereignty” (Álvarez 2013a). These are all critical elements of BV (as discussed in the following chapter). Moreover, extractivism in Latin America has a sour reputation for the appropriation of Indigenous land, environmental destruction, ecological crises, and adverse social impacts affecting communities, individuals and entire ways of life.

2.5. Buen Vivir: A Path Toward Wellbeing and Sustainability

In the search for alternatives, BV is supported by a post-development approach emphasising the need to transition towards a post-extractive economy. BV values plurality, complementarity and a reciprocity with nature. “To continue to recover the old message of humanity living in harmony with nature we have to recover the true dimensions of sustainability” (Acosta 2012). The potential to do so will be further examined in Chapter Two (conceptually) and Chapter Four (empirically). The analysis in the literature around how BV contributes to SSEW keeps coming back to the necessity to reframe the original objective of sustainable and intergenerational needs satisfaction specified by the Brundtland Commission. Vanhulst and Beling (2013) stress that the satisfaction of needs for both present and future generations has been jeopardised by the inconsistencies and contradictions in its definition and use of SD, so that it has been unable to overcome its practical and normative limits. Although the idea of needs in SD is awash with vague definitions and inconsistent uses, the sustainable, intergenerational satisfaction of needs (however elusive) is still the core objective of SD programs. With SD, policymakers rely on measurement indicators to measure how actions impact those needs. On the issue of measurement, Rogers et al. (2008) discuss how Munasinghe, an economist from the World Bank argues for the importance of maintaining social and cultural systems for sustainability. While this is not the general focus of most economists, it is a vital aspect of BV. But as Rogers et al. (2008) question, how can one calculate such stability? Indeed, the issue of measurement for BV has been discussed in the literature (Delgado, Rist & Escobar 2010; Guardiola & García-Quero 2014; Phélan 2011; Tortosa 2011; Unceta Satrustegui 2013) and will be further analysed in Chapters Two, Four and Six. The idea that sustainability needs to be quantifiably measured is deeply ingrained in development thinking and therefore the issue of measurement needs to be examined, if BV is to become an alternative to SD. And as a plural approach, it is open to incorporating aspects of other alternative approaches to enable viable operationalization, but the way it can do so can only come to light after a thorough discussion of BV as it presents in the literature to date and an empirical analysis of the ways in which it is understood, defined and practiced by the key actors. This empirical analysis is what is missing from the literature to date. Notwithstanding the political developments that have taken place, there is a lack of knowledge of the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of BV as an alternative to development at the community level. This is what the remainder of this thesis aims to examine, as “Without more concrete examples”, asserts Thompson (2011), “…it remains a laudable and even logical goal, but with still inadequate road maps on how to get there.” As noted by Arturo Escobar, in the “pursuit of alternatives” we must indeed make contact with “those whose ‘alternatives’ research is supposed to illuminate” (Escobar 1995). Alternatives have to be sought in their local settings. BV is no exception and should be investigated from this perspective, that is, deconstructing current practices in an attempt to articulate BV. After all, BV is not only a theoretical paradigm but also a social practice that should serve as inspiration to transform the current reality (Unceta Satrustegui 2013).

In this research therefore, I have sought to understand BV as a concrete practical alternative (Escobar 1995) and examine the “important elements for a new type of visibility and audibility of forms of cultural difference and hybridization that researchers have glossed over until now.” Increasing knowledge and understanding of BV as an alternative can help overcome the failures of development by providing a concrete and viable alternate path to SSEW (Álvarez 2013a; Giovannini 2013; Huanacuni 2010). BV invites us to delve deeper. It aims for change in a holistic way that could be the key for attaining SSEW. It could provide the opportunity to understand the whole, not just the sum of its parts – the interrelationships, the origins and all of its dimensions – so that we may find an effective, practical, and viable solution. This chapter has discussed what we know about development, SD, the argument for the need for an alternative to SD and the challenges of extractivism. The next chapter explores a more profound conceptual analysis of BV, as examined in the literature and extracts its core principles, identified from the critical literature review.

3. Chapter Two: Sustaining the ‘Good Life’: Buen Vivir as an Alternative to Sustainable Development

3.1. Introduction

“We have gold. It flows in our rivers. We don't want it.” I was once told by a campesino (peasant) in the highlands of Ecuador speaking of the encroachment of extractive companies on their doorstep. “We don’t want the problems you have in the West”, I was told by another. “If we look after Mother Earth, she will look after us.” And such is the philosophy of Buen Vivir (BV): a complex, Latin American political and academic concept with origins in Indigenous cosmology; within which, nature and society are inseparable and the utmost respect for Pachamama (Mother Nature) is required to achieve sustainable social and environmental wellbeing (SSEW). The issue is that the constantly evolving BV still lacks coherency (Giovannini 2014a; Walsh 2010). So far, the literature tells us that it is as much ecological as it is social, with a more integrated approach to meeting needs than that of Sustainable Development (SD); whereby both human and environmental needs are considered. Its principle aims are achieving social and environmental wellbeing through a bottom-up, endogenous approach to identifying and meeting needs, as opposed to a top-down exogenous perception of needs. As an alternative development model, SD’s intention was to bring environmental considerations to traditional development. So far however, SDs neoliberal status quo discourse does not ensure wellbeing and long-term sustainability – climate change is worsening and social inequalities increasing (Dryzek 1997; Sustainable development challenges 2013). Post- developmentalists argue that this is due to many factors, but not least the emphasis on economic growth as a driver for wellbeing, the view of nature as a commodity (such as is advocated in the Green Economy) and SD’s universal approach based on Western capitalist standards. It is at this juncture that BV offers an attractive solution. As discussed in the previous chapter, post-development literature argues for a turn towards ‘alternatives to development’ instead of another reformulation of the old model. Post-development theory emerged as a reaction to the failure of development, in the search for alternatives and mainly focuses on the critique of traditional development, economic growth and the current neoliberal economic system. However, as Gudynas argues, post-development theory does not offer any concrete solutions (2013a). Both BV and SD aim for sustainability and wellbeing through ‘transformation’ (UNGA 2015) with two fundamental differences: 1) BV is an endogenous discourse allowing for contextual change to start from the bottom-up, while SD is universal and top-down disallowing for differences in culture, geography and socio-economic circumstances; and 2) the former places the highest value on the reciprocal relationship between nature and society; whereas the latter puts human needs above all else. The previous chapter discussed the critiques of SD in the literature, however in this chapter I would like to highlight the strengths of BV to tackle the areas where SD has failed: achieving SSEW. I

37 focus on the literature specific to BV through critical review, therefore building upon the current discourse on BV through a synthesis of the core common principles to examine if it could become a practical alternative to SD, as a plural solution for change. Like Vanhulst and Beling (2014), in a review of the literature I take the perspective of a ‘discursive field’ endorsed by Sachs; and Dryzek’s (1997) categorisation of environmental discourses as ‘status quo’, ‘reform’ or ‘transformation’, to evaluate BV discourse. Villalba (2013) cautions against comparing BV and trends in Western alternatives, to avoid co-optation by the dominant discourses of development. As Vanhulst and Beling (2014) argue, using BV as an attack on SD will result in it being a “short-lived discursive enterprise” rather than a practical and viable alternative. So, in the logic of Houtart (2011; Villalba 2013) what we need is “dialectic thinking to guide solutions that are neither the linear model of traditional development, nor a return to a fundamentalist Indigenous past”. Rather than creating polarized political arguments by using BV as an ‘offensive’ (Caria & Domínguez 2016) we need to examine SD’s core aims and come to a cooperative and plural solution. The literature represents the plurality of BV in two contexts. The first notion of plurality comes from the Indigenous interpretation and adopted in policy. It revolves around its biocentricity (SENPLADES 2009b) – that is plurality of being for all living things. The second is a plurality of knowledge and vision – present in Indigenous and post-development literature – that BV should be implemented in cooperation, with all epistemologies involved, including the Western scientific and technical knowledge that SD promotes (Delgado, Rist & Escobar 2010). In a resolution for a ‘2030 Agenda for SD’, the UN partly recognized plurality in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), “We recognise that there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each country, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities, to achieve sustainable development” (UNGA 2015art. 59). However, the post-2015 global framework for SD to ensure a “just, equitable and inclusive” world by 2030 provided no blueprint for how to achieve that with contributions from local communities (Howard & Wheeler 2015). This recognition provides a unique opportunity for an approach like BV to find a practical place within the global framework. Therefore, I am proposing that rather than considering BV as an opposing, ideological alternative to the dominant paradigm, it should be understood as a practical tool or resource for endogenous, community led change. This chapter is a critical review of the discourse on BV, including policy, Indigenous and academic literature13 and analyses how it can seek to achieve the common aims of sustainability and wellbeing. I first take a brief look at how the current notion has been conceived, from Indigenous origins to policy. I then discuss the importance of plurality. To better understand its current context, next I synthesize the core principles and dimensions arising from its multiple contested definitions, found in an analysis of the literature. I conclude by identifying the missing links in the emergent discourse and discussing BV’s viability as a practical alternative to SD.

13 In a similar vein to (2014) who argue that while there is no single homogenous definition of BV in the literature, there are three contested ‘streams’: indigenous, socialist (political) and post-developmentalist (academic); all three are discussed in this Chapter.

3.2. Indigenous Origins to Political Discourse

The Ecuadorian idea of BV originates from Indigenous cosmovision, loosely translated in Spanish from the Kichwa term sumak kawsay (SK). Its Bolivian counterpart Vivir Bien (VB) is translated from the Aymaran suma qamaña (SQ). Both concepts have gained traction in popular discourse since the region’s Indigenous movements in the 1990’s (Álvarez 2013a), which has subsequently had profound impacts on political and intellectual fronts. Huanacuni (2010) has broken down the translated terms from both Kichwa and Aymara into Spanish: ‘sumak’ or ‘suma’ meaning ‘plenitude’ or ‘sublime’, and ‘kawsay’ meaning ‘life’ or ‘to be living’, roughly translate into ‘a life in plenitude’. Both concepts lose their tacit meaning when translated into Spanish, and even further so when translated into English (Huanacuni 2010). Both SK and SQ have impacted on policy with progressive governments in Latin America employing them as a political reaction to the failure of Western-style development (Gudynas 2011b); though have led to differed policy interpretations. The Bolivian Government’s VB resulted in a set of ethical guidelines for government; whereas the Ecuadorian Government’s BV is considered the most robust interpretation to stand up to the challenge of becoming a viable alternative, because of the inclusion of the ‘rights of nature’ (articles 71 and 74) in the 2008 Constitution (2011). It is this plural set of rights that provides the Ecuadorian BV with a stronger policy framework for sustainability. Though their inclusion, argue Villalba-Eguiluz and Etxano (2017), is ‘more rhetorical than operative’ because of the contradictions between policy and practice. The Correa Government operationalized the constitutional changes in the Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir (PNBV: 2009-13, and 2013-17), based on neoextractive strategies14. It is arguably in this process, however, that BV has become ambiguous (Merino 2016), and is now at risk of being co- opted for various political interests. Nonetheless, each contribution to the concept of BV has been important in shaping the way we understand it. In that respect the Ecuadorian PNBV, which also includes specific targets, is more compelling than the Bolivian moral interpretation, and provides a sound practical base from which to examine the role of government institutions in implementing it; and the reason why I focus my attention on BV over VB. BV is a ‘work-in-progress’ because of the assimilation of Indigenous worldview with the ensuing political and academic definitions (Gudynas 2011b; Tortosa 2011). It is thus a plural ‘platform’ for alternative visions (Gudynas 2011b), because of this ongoing fusion between its Indigenous underpinnings and the way it is shaping and is shaped by politics and academia. Two approaches have been identified for BV (Guardiola & García-Quero 2014): the extractivist approach supported by government, which views extractivism as a means for achieving BV; and, the ecological approach, supported by Indigenous and post-development literature (Guardiola & García-Quero 2014). The Ecuadorian government has taken an extractivist approach, based on a policy of neoextractivism. Outlined in the PNBV is the government’s intention to achieve BV through social

14 Whereas traditional extractivism relied on the subordination of the state to multinational corporations extracting and selling resources for the growth of the market, this new type of extractivism, dubbed by Gudynas as ‘neoextractivism’ (Gudynas 2009) is essentially the reappearance of state management of resources for export- led growth (Lang 2013).

39 redistribution policies, acknowledging the rights of nature, and economic diversification (Villalba- Eguiluz & Etxano 2017) to build economic capacity in other areas such as knowledge and technology to transition away from the exportation of raw materials (SENPLADES 2009b) Yet, there is a clear contradiction between policy and practice (Deneulin 2012). Indeed, Villalba-Eguiluz and Etxano (2017) posit that the temporary deepening of extractive activities to eventually transition to a post- extractive model is contradictory to BV. The Correa Administration argued that a neo-extractive model aims to bridge the gap between current neoliberal development practices and future BV. One the one hand, the PNBV identifies a need for ‘endogenous development with strategic relation to the world system to satisfy basic needs’ (SENPLADES 2009b); but on the other it fails to acknowledge that a top-down analysis of needs situated within an extractive-dependant economic system geared for growth is antagonistic to the objectives of BV. Extractive activities pose a serious challenge to the attainment of BV due to their impacts on the environment, which disrupts the nature-society continuum. They are inconsistent with the principle of reciprocity with nature upon which BV is founded. This new approach to extractivism has been labelled by the Ecuadorian Government as ‘21st Century Socialism’, pitched against the dominant ideology of neoliberalism. While some scholars will argue that we cannot have political discourse without the inference to political ideology (Monni & Pallottino 2015), However, once something has been labelled under a particular ideology, it has the potential to become co-opted for certain interests. Ideology, in this way becomes a “mobilising utopia” sought as an “offensive weapon against hegemonic ideals” (Caria & Domínguez 2016). Though this will only create a polarising defence, instead of working in cooperative and plural ways for effective solutions. The outcome is that the concept either becomes radicalized, or weak and rhetorical. In global SD discourse the latter has been realized, as the dominant ideology has become an “interest syndicate” (Caria & Domínguez 2016) for pursuing the status quo, acting contrary to its own principles. In Ecuador the PNBV absorbed the new direction of the government and states that ‘Good Living cannot be improvised, it must be planned’ (SENPLADES 2013). But it fails to acknowledge that so much of the very idea of BV depends on context. As Kauffman and Martin state, it is not a “preformulated route to sustainable development…it involves dialogue within and among communities to determine the best pathways” (Kauffman & Martin 2014). In the political discourses of BV, participation is viewed as a way to understand communities’ experiences on the ground, and an attempt to meet their real needs15. In theory, this brings development decisions closer to the people, but it is still driven by top-down objectives. To truly be consistent with the principles of BV, it is essential for needs to be determined from the bottom-up based on a non-linear realisation of SSEW and not economic growth: living well, not living better. The ecological approach, however, calls on the need to emphasize Indigenous origins of BV, however the Indigenous notion of BV is something very different to what is found in political discourse

15 It is beyond the scope here to define or analyse the term ‘needs’, Chapter Four further discusses the topic. Nonetheless in this context, the mainstream notion of needs must be reformed to address the actual needs of communities.

40 and academia (Merino 2016). It is anchored in culture and a belief system, with more profound meaning than can be articulated in language – it is a worldview. From this perspective BV is an endogenous alternative to neoliberal development (Delgado, Rist & Escobar 2010) and this endogenous emphasis provides the opportunity to understand, define and satisfy the real needs of communities, instigating bottom-up change (Escobar 1992; Giovannini 2014a). Inevitably such an endogenous approach has deep implications for both global and national policy (Merino 2016). Though, it does not maintain that communities must apply it in isolation, but rather that the process should derive from the ground up, not imposed from the top-down. As Delgado et al. state, “if communities could create BV for themselves entirely, it would have already been done” (2010, p. 32). Agostino and Dübgen (2012) add that it cannot be achieved by individuals, it has to be a collective action, in cooperation with all actors involved without diluting it. BV is a conceptual puzzle and it is important to note the key part each interpretation plays in bringing the puzzle together. The challenge is how to translate BV into a practical community resource without it becoming another rhetorical tool for self-interested policy. The key lies in its core principle of plurality.

3.3. A Plural Alternative to Sustainable Development

To achieve sustainability, we require a radical transformation of the global system, moving away from unbridled growth and consumption (Redclift 2002; Tesoriero & Ife 2010). This will require a plural approach to move away from the status quo. A recognition of the situation has evoked renewed global action on SD with the recently formulated SDGs. The SDGs equate SD action with climate change, but nonetheless are grounded in the same neoliberal, anthropocentric system of economic growth that has failed the current model of development. The stated desire to break away from the traditional concept of ‘development’, (SENPLADES 2009a) seems to follow what Dryzek calls an ‘imaginative reformist departure’ in environmental discourses, where “the environment is brought to the heart of society and its cultural, moral and economic systems” (Dryzek 1997) . This discourse seeks to reform old approaches to environmental problems as economic opportunities. It is far from the radical ‘transformative’ departure proposed in the PNBV and demanded by the ecological approach. Post-development literature argues that it is no longer a compelling case that countries need developing, because wellbeing and quality of life cannot be supported by unbridled economic growth. ‘Growth is not making us happier. It is creating dysfunctional and unequal societies, and if it continues as is it will make large parts of the planet unfit for human habitation’ (Harcourt 2013). Growth though, is very much central in the conception of human wellbeing in SD (Guillen- Royo 2015). Wellbeing in this respect still relies on a top-down approach to break ‘the poverty trap’ (Ruttenberg 2013) which ignores the diverse realities and needs of local communities. It also emphasizes wellbeing in the individual, rather than the community. While wellbeing in SD is often equated to levels of happiness, happiness relies on the subjective individual. Though individual happiness does affect community wellbeing and vice-versa, the notion of wellbeing prescribed by BV focuses on communal wellbeing over individual wellbeing. This notion is subjective in that it rests on a

41 community’s identification of needs rather than an exogenous perception of needs. Wiseman and Brasher (2008) define community wellbeing as a “combination of social, economic, environmental, cultural, and political conditions identified by individuals and their communities as essential for them to flourish and fulfill their potential.” Where wellbeing under BV is innovative for sustainability is that environmental wellbeing is also required, practiced by behavior and beliefs and guaranteed by the Rights of Nature, and BV’s communal wellbeing considers context. In reference to the first point of difference with BV, post-developmentalists say that the broad approach ascribed by SD dominated by global institutions with a Western bias fails to consider local context, aiming for conformity to exogenous Western ideals (Smyth 2011). As Esteva and Prakash (1997) state, “…local proposals if they are conceived by communities rooted in specific places, reflect the radical pluralism of cultures and the unique cosmovision that defines every culture.” On the second point of difference, there is a suggestion that if we continue on the path towards BV as an endogenous alternative that decouples itself from the growth imperative and nature-society dualism of SD, we will attain more sustainable outcomes than on the current trajectory (Delgado, Rist & Escobar 2010; Gudynas 2010). An alternative perspective is therefore essential - one that post-developmentalists ascribe plurally embraces sustainability and wellbeing. This chapter emphasizes the post-developmentalist point of view that BV is under a process of co-construction. As Cerdán (2013) asserts, even within Latin America “there is a wide recognition that Buen Vivir is not a homogenous philosophy; rather, it incorporates a diversity of knowledges [sic] and philosophies.” In the same vein, Vanessa Bolaños (2012) asserts that “processes of change are not constructed from one lone actor, but always from the articulation of a correlation of forces: both within the country and the construction of new socio-political economic schemas.” The viability of BV as an alternative will thus be revealed in how it is understood in practice. In acknowledging the vital importance of plurality, one of the key challenges for BV is its multiple interpretations. If BV is a construction of multiple epistemologies, the theoretical argument needs to be less about which vision is right, and more about uniting the similarities to enable us to move forward cooperatively and plurally in practice, not just in discourse; because as Cubillo et al. (2014) argue, the polemic surrounding the contested interpretations “threatens to prevent, in practice, Buen Vivir from being consolidated as a way of life and living in harmony with nature and others...” Overcoming this starts with challenging the “dominant cognitive and cultural templates” (Vanhulst & Beling 2014) and opening new spaces for thinking about sustainability and wellbeing.

3.4. Buen Vivir: Equal Aims Contested Definitions

Both BV and SD are big ideas with conceptually loose boundaries. On SD, Connelly once stated it has different conceptions due to its “widely accepted but vague core meaning” (2007) and that this lack of consensus prevents contributions to its practice. Just as SD has been identified as an essentially contested concept so is BV as it seems to be underlined by “legitimate, yet incompatible and contested interpretations of how the concept should be put into practice” (Connelly 2007). Contrary to SD which has a universal definition but contested by its loose economic, environmental and social principles (often subject to trade-offs) (Harris 2000); BV lacks definition but contains a set of common core principles. In the words of Lukes and Runciman (1974) ‘essentially contested concepts must have a common core; otherwise, how could we justifiably claim that the contests were about the same concept?’ This does not mean homogenising the different interpretations into a single definition, but synthesizing the main common principles to develop a practical tool for change, rather than another rhetorical policy goal (Connelly 2007). Villalba-Eguiluz and Etxano (2017) argue that there is no “doctrine on the foundations and central elements of BV”. Cubillo et al. (2016) however, identified three different ‘streams’ of BV - Indigenous, socialist (political) and post-developmentalist (academic) - within which they argue three common elements of BV: identity, equity and sustainability. While the current scholarly research does provide an analysis of different interpretations and origins of BV, it does not offer this synthesis of the core principles upon which BV is founded, common across its different interpretations. It is therefore necessary at this point to coalesce the principles that are constant in BV, and which could contribute to a contextual and practical resource by taking a step towards understanding what the concept entails. Although loose principles have been recognised in both the Bolivian Constitution and the Ecuadorian PNBV, these have been decided by the State, therefore they contradict the idea of BV being a plural construction from actors at all levels. While this coalescence is a culmination of the principles identified as part of a review of the literature that discusses the indigenous, political and academic interpretations, I take the standpoint of those who advocate for an open, secular, communitarian and sustainable BV16. This “common core” acts to anchor the notion of BV, to create a platform from which to understand its applicability as a plural and contextual concept. The overarching element of BV is a life in harmony with Pachamama or Mother Earth (Huanacuni 2010). Several authors describe nature-society pluralism as ‘reciprocity’; and so human beings must acknowledge and pursue this to ensure life in all forms continues (Acosta 2010). Cubillo et al. (2016) define BV as a “form of life in harmony with oneself, society and nature”. Though if the term ‘definition’ means to assign exact meaning to a concept, BV is more complex than that given its contested interpretations. While an overarching definition can serve as a guide for policy17, for

16 This rests on the assumption that essentially contested concepts are not “value free” (Swanton 1985) and this standpoint therefore privileges the indigenous and post-development interpretations of BV to emphasize its contextuality but reinforce the original indigenous ethos and the value placed on nature and community. 17 See (Cubillo-Guevara, Hidalgo-Capitán & García-Álvarez 2016) for discussion on political strategies for BV based on this definition.

43 flexibility in implementation it is important to synthesize the common principles across the multiple contested definitions rather than referencing a single universal definition to be able to use BV as a viable and practical tool for communities. Just as SD is defined by the triple pillars of economic, social and environmental as categories for focus, Delgado et. al. (2010) define three main pillars18 for BV: social, spiritual and material. Unlike SD’s growth-centred economic pillar, this ‘material’ pillar includes a more holistic vision for economic activity. The ‘spiritual’ pillar refers to transcendence rather than religion19. Ecuadorian scholar Santiago Garcia Álvarez (2013b) builds upon these identifying six common dimensions20 of BV: livelihood, equity, sustainability, empowerment, capabilities and social cohesion21. These dimensions can be understood as ‘sub-categories’ of each of the three pillars. Table 1, below, provides a definition of these dimensions, specific to BV. The principles in Table 2 identified through a critical scoping review of academic, Indigenous and political discourse to bring together existing knowledge on BV and better understand what it involves at the conceptual level, and where the gaps may lie. The methodology for this review was undertaken by analysing existing literature as data by using data management program NVivo. The literature was thus subject to qualitative coding techniques. Those principles which were mentioned by a significant number of sources22 were included. Table 2 demarcates the core principles found in the literature into these dimensions and their corresponding pillars mentioned by Álvarez and Delgado et al. by an analysis of the definitions provided below by Álvarez.

18 Categories of Buen Vivir. 19 Transcendence in this context should be understood as a ‘psychological state of selflessness’ (Gorelik & Shackelford 2017). Transcendent “values are more likely to have pro-environmental beliefs and norms and to act pro-environmentally while the opposite is true for those who strongly endorse self-enhancement values” (Clayton 2012). 20 For the classification of the principles within the categories, or ‘pillars’. 21 These dimensions are based on Alverez’ analysis of SK as BV, which acknowledges the indigenous origins of BV, as well as its endogenous nature. For a political proposal for BV (Cubillo-Guevara, Hidalgo-Capitán & García-Álvarez 2016) provide an analysis of the main ‘elements’: identity; spirituality; statism; equality; sustainability and localism. While I would like to acknowledge the parallels to Àlvarez’ dimensions this chapter argues BV as a community tool rather than a political strategy. 22 This refers to principles that were mentioned by at least a third of the literature reviewed as being important in the realization of Buen Vivir. It should be noted however, that not all literature included for the purposes of this chapter specifically referred to the principles they deemed necessary for Buen Vivir.

Dimensions Definition

Equity Diversity, social balance, and social justice

Social Cohesión Living in harmony with others

Sustainability Mutual respect for the environment and living in harmony with nature Empowerment Participation and respect for cultural systems Livelihood A plural and alternative economy supporting a dignified life

Capabilities Expanded human capabilities where collective wellbeing is fundamental

Table 1: Definition of Dimensions Adapted from Alvarez (2013)

Principles of Buen Vivir Social Spiritual Material Equity Social Sustainability Empowerment Livelihood Capabilities Core Cohesion Principles • Plurality23 • Community • Reciprocity • Decolonisation24 • Food • Wellbeing • Non-linear • Harmony • Nature • Culture sovereignty25 • Quality of life progress • Sustainable use • Contextuality27 • Complementarity of resources26

Table 2: Principles of Buen Vivir (Literature)

The principles were allocated to a corresponding dimension by an analysis of how each principle was discussed in the literature in the context of BV, and how that relates to Álvarez’ description of the dimensions. For example, while complementarity as a principle in support of social balance and justice has been described in the literature as relationality between human beings; reciprocity in BV has been described by Deneulin (2012) as, “relationships of service and reciprocity towards each other and towards nature”, destabilising the hierarchy of society above nature in SD. On that reciprocal relationship Acosta (2010) notes that, “ensuring sustainability is [thus] indispensable to ensuring human life on the planet.” On wellbeing, Ruttenberg (2013) it as enhancing community capability, “supporting the development of human potentialities through meaningful livelihoods,

23 As the peaceful existence of diversity 24 The process of which supports a respect for cultural systems. 25 Assumes access to food as a human right, providing dignity to all in the food system, from producers to consumers. 26 Relates to the satisfaction of needs through livelihood, rather than the perusal or wants pertaining to economic growth. 27 Supports the notion of BV as being tailorable to each community based on its particular capabilities.

45 strengthening social relations and promoting ways of life in harmony with nature.” The idea of living in harmony with nature is constant but does not negate societies need to use natural resources, it just requires that it is approached differently. The sustainable use of resources was discussed as a way to ensure livelihood through an alternative economy with a consequence of greater environmental and social sustainability, “in contrast to neoliberal production” (Agostino & Dübgen 2012). The discourse highlights the possibility for much-needed transformation away from the status quo by demanding, for example, reciprocity and communal wellbeing over individual wellbeing and human needs attained by economic growth. Additionally, while sustainability in SD is manifested through the commodification of nature, BV requires a mutual respect for the environment and includes the Rights of Nature in its ambit. Likewise, capabilities that rely on collective wellbeing and particular to context, rather than individual needs based on Western-derived development metrics can help address social inequalities. Social inequalities are said in the literature to arise in the pursuit for linear- style progress linked to growth. The principle of non-linear progress espoused by BV under the dimension of equity can therefore help lead to more social balance and justice. Supporting these principles is the endogenous approach, which favours practice over discourse; and by a practical application of these principles, we can start to envisage how BV promises to ensure sustainability where SD has failed by embracing plurality, and a biocentric, communal approach to wellbeing. However, to move from discourse to practice, certain challenges need to be overcome, including transitioning to a post-extractive economy (Villalba-Eguiluz & Etxano 2017).

3.5. Conclusion: A Grassroots Solution to Wellbeing and Sustainability?

The literature raised two challenges for BV in translating a concrete model that can be put into practice endogenously. The first is by Tortosa (2011) who discusses the issue of possible indicators to strengthen the conceptual debate and support its implementation and measurement. This issue of measurement has been raised by several authors as a major challenge in taking BV forward as a concrete proposal for community action (Phélan 2011; Tortosa 2011; Unceta Satrustegui 2013) - one that can meet the global aspirations of quantitatively driven governments. Taking the linear perspective from a concept like SD where the path towards sustainability requires us to track progress, it is only logical that a nonlinear alternative would have to demonstrate its efficacy to achieve what SD has failed. On-the-ground research is needed to understand the implications of possible indicators for BV, therefore this is further canvassed in Chapter Six. The other point is raised by Phelan and Guillen (2012) who argue that for BV to be put into practice, it would require work from multiple perspectives: institutions and communities, macro, and micro - a point which supports its plural approach (Agostino & Dübgen 2012; Bolaños 2012; Gudynas 2011b). Additionally, from my review I identify three more implementation challenges: its contested nature; the political attribution of ideology; and, its existence within an extractive economy. If we acknowledge its Indigenous origins and the importance that plurality plays then we understand that for

46 it to become a viable alternative to SD, then we need to consider all interpretations. Couple this with the reality that exogenous solutions to endogenous issues are problematic in that they provide a ‘narrow conception of need’ (Giovannini 2014a) and jeopardize sustainable outcomes (Gudynas 2009); BV could be considered as an alternative with endogenous motives using plural approaches. The political definition is concerned with a reformist discourse that frolics with ideology. As such, in the current context it can be viewed as more utopian than practical. The Ecuadorian Government could better reflect on the primary endogenous norm of BV, as Villacís et al. (2015) conclude “the State must continually think about the epistemes of Good Living beyond a political speech, and as a representative example that exposes the bases of the new post-2015 agenda.” The implications would allow governments to position themselves for sustainability, paving the way forward for a convergence of meanings and offering a platform for its plural achievement. Though as long as extractivism remains at the core of development policies, there will be tensions regarding what BV means and how best to implement it (Merino 2016) because an extractive or neoextractive approach is antagonistic to BV on a structural level and inherently obstructive to the nature-society continuum. A post-extractive transition could be the only way to achieve BV (Villalba-Eguiluz & Etxano 2017). “To effect change means to effect a ‘change in the order of discourse’, to open up the ‘possibility to think reality differently’” (Pieterse 2000). Analyzing the discourse has been vital as a foundation to better understand BV and how it differentiates from SD; but using discourse alone turns into an “ideological platform [which] invites political impasse and quietism” (Pieterse 2000). As Pieterse affirms, it is possible to share post-development’s observations, without a total offensive on development (2000). So, in his words (Pieterse 2000), “Let's not quibble about details…What do you have to offer?” It involves having the resolve to transform behaviours and thinking away from neoliberal development to one of endogenous capacity, needs and environmental practices. But transformation takes time and political will. In conclusion, BV is an evolving discourse with core principles that accepts the aims of SD, while seeking to ‘reshape the contours’. The most fundamental differences between SD and BV are that the former is modelled on a system that values exponential economic growth as an indicator of wellbeing and within that is the notion that natural resources are commodities to be exploited and traded for profit; whereas the latter rejects both of these notions. Its contextuality and plurality are key strengths in translating BV into a community tool that promises to bridge the divide between Indigenous worldview and modernity, filling the gaps where SD has failed. For environmental and social wellbeing there is no one size fits all model, it depends on context (Marti I Puig et al. 2013). Regardless, there is a real gap in knowledge of how such a tool might be prescriptive enough to provide us with the concrete steps to achieve sustainability and wellbeing, yet flexible enough to consider context. Faced with these challenges and gaps, one must then find out: what does BV look like in practice on the ground at grassroots level, within an extractive economy? How can it be successfully implemented as a tool for communities to achieve change? And as an alternative, what is the point of

47 convergence with SD discourse, to allow it to meet the common aims of sustainability and wellbeing and achieve real future outcomes rather than just rhetoric? Change cannot be achieved through discourse critique alone; it requires a practical approach. While the literature on BV discuss the Indigenous, political and academic interpretations, one piece of the puzzle is missing on the path to implementation: community practice and understanding of the core common principles. What it means in practice, and to whom, remains largely unanalysed. Given that there is such academic consensus of the ambiguity of BV, there is a surprising lack of empirical research into understanding its core principles before being able to analyse its viability. For BV’s realisation, there is a critical need for a bottom-up practical alternative with global applicability beyond niche circles (Monni & Pallottino 2015). To achieve this, instead of pigeonholing BV into a political ideology or theory, it could be considered as a plural tool for communities that has wider policy implications. To do so, we need to take this understanding of which principles are constant across the various contested interpretations and compare them to how they align with an understanding of BV on the ground and what they mean in practice. If it is examined from grassroots practices and understandings, not just limited to discourse, there is a possibility of BV becoming a viable way forward, towards new horizons for SSEW. The next chapter is dedicated to that analysis.

4. Chapter Three: Methodology

4.1. Introduction

This chapter outlines the research design, including my epistemological standpoint for the methodological approach that guides my research, and the rationale for my chosen methodology. the chosen methods for field research data analysis, participant sample and location of study and, ethical implications of the research. A review of the literature on a chosen topic is a key part of the research design process (Creswell 2013). It was the preliminary step to illuminating the gaps in knowledge, which required fieldwork to be undertaken. It aided me to generate a conceptual framework based upon BV as an umbrella concept for the research. This framework guided the analysis of both the fieldwork data and the literature and provided me with a theoretical lens from which to undertake the research. It is underpinned by a succession of arguments that led to BV being suggested as an alternative to development by post-development theorists. It begins with the concept of neoliberal development and the argument of its failure to ensure social and environmental justice and wellbeing, which led to the introduction of sustainable development (SD) as an alternative development model to consider the environmental aspects of development. The argument that it has not achieved its aims either was outlined by post-development theory which critiqued it and subsequently called for alternatives to neoliberal development. The concept of extractivism comes into the framework as a development tool used to increase economic growth, but one which has been rendered incompatible with BV by the literature, and thus requiring a level of engagement in the discussion of BV as a viable and practical alternative The conceptual framework along with the research questions in the Introduction chapter build the theoretical and epistemological perspectives that guide my research, the choice of methodologies and methods.

4.2. Contribution of My Research

This thesis aims to answer the question: Can Buen Vivir become a viable and practical alternative to Sustainable Development? At this point I wish to recall the themes or sub-questions (Introduction Chapter, Research Sub-Questions) that guided this research because by each chapter addressing the gaps in knowledge asserted in those themes, significantly contributing to the body of knowledge on the topic. One of the most significant gaps in knowledge identified in Chapter Two is how BV is understood and practiced at the grassroots level. Chapter Four explores that, along with looking at what kinds of practices local communities are undertaking towards collective wellbeing and needs satisfaction (sub-questions 1 and 2). Related to that was analysing how these communities think of their environment (sub-question 5), how they interact with it and how their practices align with BV (sub-question 7) – all discussed in Chapter Five. Chapter Two also identified a gap in the discussion

49 of measurement in BV (sub-question 3), so Chapters Four and Six discussed: Should BV be measured? And does a system of tracking against wellbeing and needs already exist in the endogenous practice of BV? With a lack of coherent understanding of BV comes a lack of understanding of its challenges. These are analysed in Chapters Four and Five (sub-question 4). With these considerations in mind, Chapter Six analyses how BV can thus be implemented endogenously, and along with Chapter Four discusses the role institutions play in realising it (sub-questions 8 and 9). Overall, in answering the main research question, the conclusion chapter discusses how local discourses encourage us to think more laterally about what both ‘sustainability’ and ‘development’ mean, and the scope is for a viable and practical alternative to mainstream SD. Appendix 4 outlines the final coding frameworks and themes that were identified in both the literature and from an analysis of my fieldwork data. Table 8 in Appendix 2 summarises the themes identified in my fieldwork that were not specifically mentioned in the existing literature and Appendix 5 provides an example of coding. The ability to which this data has enabled me to answer my research questions will be discussed in detail throughout this thesis.

4.3. Research Design

Research design is an integral part of a research project (Creswell 2013). This section is concerned with the project conceptualisation, methodology and methods used to describe the approach used in the field.

4.3.1. The Qualitative Research Paradigm Qualitative methods are used when the “‘object of study’ is some form of social process or meaning or experience which needs to be understood and explained in a rounded way” (Mason 2002). Qualitative research therefore takes into consideration richness, depth, context and complexity meaning it has “an unrivalled capacity to constitute compelling arguments about how things work in particular contexts” (Mason 2002).Qualitative research (Creswell 2013) assumes that there are multiple versions of reality and recognises the researchers own epistemology and that bias is inherent in the research process as researchers will bring their own subjectivity into their research, but this is considered a strength (Braun & Clarke 2013)28. In this case, the qualitative paradigm is the only appropriate method by which to examine a concept such as BV, which requires a complex analysis based on the multiple realities of the key actors.

28 I recognise this research as a critically reflexive study "resulting from an interaction between the researcher and research participants" to uncover meaning and perceptions consistent with interpretivist assumptions (Williamson 2006) While I may take a certain standpoint, it is my intention to have reflected as accurately as possible the various perspectives of BV under investigation in my research.

4.3.2. Epistemological and Theoretical Perspective In the qualitative research paradigm there is a belief that the researcher cannot be completely objective or neutral from the research because they are part of the process (Mason, 2002, p. 7). As a researcher therefore, I am part of the knowledge process, and cannot be apart from it. My research takes an interpretive/constructivist approach. Interpretivism is described as an approach that studies “human meanings and intentions…to interpret human behaviour in terms of the meanings assigned to it by the actors themselves” (Gerring 2012). The interpretivist approach therefore believes that the world is a social construction and cannot be understood independent of its actors. (Hesse- Biber & Leavy 2011)Within this approach, I take a critical perspective, which “typically requires that researchers give voice to the words and interpretations of the people they study and be open to giving them credence in some serious way” (Jermier 1998). Influenced by this perspective, the narrative in Part I, Chapter Four aims to “portray the informant’s worldview” as beyond conventional ethnography critical theorists prefer to “refrain from speaking for their informants…instead, listen and interpret carefully as informants speak for themselves” (Jermier 1998). Standpoint theory employed by critical theorists assumes that the social situation of an “epistemic agent” influences and limits what we know and what we are permitted to know (Bowell). Taking the standpoint of otherwise marginalised actors provides the opportunity to transform the ‘status quo’ and the ways of doing and thinking of SD. Harding (2004) affirms, "Standpoint theories map how a social and political disadvantage can be turned into an epistemic, scientific and political advantage." To that end, BV in this research privileges the standpoint of those who view it as communitarian, flexible, secular and sustainable. It is a culmination of indigenous and grassroots interpretations, while elite government or academic are part of this analysis, it aims to uphold the ethos of BV as an endogenous concept, shifting the balance of power of knowledge creation to those more marginalised. The ontological nature of constructivism under the interpretivist approach argues that what we know of the world, ourselves and others is constructed through various discourses. There is no one single truth but various knowledges exist, constructed through lived experiences, (Creswell 2013; Crotty 1998). This then assumes that no single reality provides the foundation for knowledge (Crotty 1998). Knowledges are ‘social, cultural, moral, ideological and political’ (Braun & Clarke pg.30) and are always subject to the reality human beings give to it (Seamon & Harneet 2014).This is appropriate given the plurality of BV. Constructivism also diverges away from the anthropocentrism of other epistemological and theoretical assumptions. In that light, it lends itself well to an inquiry that is biocentric in nature, as it “insists that the physical realities of the environments in which beliefs are formed are relevant to the ways people know” (Cianchi ; Preston 2003). This epistemology is therefore the most appropriate one from which to analyse BV as an alternative to development for several reasons: 1) BV is identified in the literature as a plural concept within which various knowledges exist; 2) as a concept, it has emerged in the literature as an essentially contested one, in which its meaning is fluid and takes on several realities that are contextual, albeit with common core principles; 3) ontologically and

51 historically BV has been constructed and defined through lived experiences and necessitates an understanding from the perspective of the actors involved, and; 4) BV is a biocentric concept. Personal interests, knowledge and prior experience all have a part to play in decision-making during the research (Cianchi 2013; Silverman 2010), therefore it is important to acknowledge the influence I have on my research and how I am in turn influenced by it as my own epistemological and theoretical standpoint will have implications on the research. Under the interpretivist framework, a researchers background and assumptions position them in the research, and thus their interpretation of what they find stems from their own personal, cultural and historical experiences (Creswell 2013). Our readers have the right to know about us. They want to know what prompts our interest in the topics we investigate, to whom we are reporting, and what we personally stand to gain from our study (Wolcott 2010).

To that end, I will briefly turn to describe my prior knowledge and experience and what led me to the field as a researcher.

Epistemological Background: How I came into the field as a researcher

I was previously employed by a sustainability consulting company working with clients in various sectors. Of these clients, I often worked with major multinational resource extraction companies who would employ us to work with the communities in which they operate to understand the material environmental and social issues directly affecting and affected by the communities. Late 2011 to early 2012, I volunteered independently with seven different communities which make up the Cuellaje Parish in the Cotacachi County of Ecuador, under guidance from a local advisor to the council. The aim of my volunteer project was to use my knowledge and experience in sustainability to help build local capacity for SD. These communities already have established perspectives and practices rooted in culture and tradition, which align with the principles of the concept under investigation – BV. One of the most vital aspects of BV is arguably the nature of the relationship between society and the environment that supports it. On one occasion in 2011-12, while it is not typical, as an example, I had attended a cleansing ceremony held at a local cultural tourism site high up in the mountains of Intag. Wariman is an ancient sacred site of the Kara civilization. At that time the guardians of the site were to turn the site into a main tourist attraction. Following a small crowd up the hill to the main pyramid, all ceremony participants stopped to take off our boots. This is meant to signify a closer connection with Mother Earth, Pachamama, for Indigenous Kichwa. This was the inauguration; a traditional ceremony held by a Shaman in Quechua to cleanse the bad spirits and leave one connected with the earth to start the solstice afresh. The earth gives to you and you give back to the earth. This reciprocity underlines livelihoods. There is a high dependence on small-scale agriculture to sustain livelihoods, and these traditional ways of life are vulnerable to environmental changes brought on by the effects of climate change, a history of heavy deforestation and the threats like water and soil contamination that large-scale extractive projects pose in the region. Alternate and more sustainable options were therefore being discussed as more desirable methods. The final aims of the

52 project in Cuellaje were to identify alternative means of development within the Parish; build capacity amongst the communities to supplement traditional livelihoods and intergenerational needs satisfaction in line with the national political concept of BV. During the project several challenges for the future of the Parish were encountered but the most significant was defining what sustainability meant for the Parish in the wider context of an extractive economy; how each community defines SD in a local context; and what programs could be implemented to address that. The project included a series of informal semi-structured interviews with community members and local government representatives. The results of which were used solely for the purposes of the community. One of the findings was that community members were concerned about having extractive projects within their Parish and separately, that they were uninterested in Western-style development and they saw a need to develop alternatives as a means of promoting and encouraging protection of their culture, society and region’s rich biodiversity. Resulting from that experience I established long-term relationships with various community members and have access to several of these communities in the Intag region. A combination of my pre-existing knowledge of Ecuadorian culture and values, and BV in the Ecuadorian context; an understanding of the issues facing communities in Ecuador, and; experience working with resource extraction companies and their communities; I identified a need for further research, thus the initial idea of this thesis came about. Further research as a part of my PhD application led me to understand the gaps in knowledge and practice that exist in this space. It is with the intention of addressing the issues and gaps that I undertook this research project.

4.3.3. Research Site Undertaking fieldwork requires sampling involving the selection of participants in such a way that they reflect a population that is illustrative of what the research is trying to find out (O'Reilly). It may be argued that to undergo a study on how BV can be applied across contexts, as an alternative to SD, the sample and units of analysis must be able to answer to the question of generality. I argue however, that the contested nature of BV means that it cannot be standardised or generalised and must be considered in its various contexts (culture, territory, actor). I maintain that the resulting principles and proposed framework can only be generalised insomuch as they represent the features of the phenomena (in this case BV) rather than individual experiences. “Generalizability, thus conceived, concerns more general structures and is detached from individual social practices, of which they are only an instance. In other words, the scholar does not generalize the individual instance…but rather the key structural features of which it is made up and which are to be found in other cases or events” (Gobo 2008). Moreover, generalisations are easier to make under a positivist approach (quantitative research), however under interpretivist/constructivist assumptions it is appropriate to generate a “sufficient and transportable story or account” (Cooksey & McDonald 2011) or “demonstrate a wider resonance” (Mason, 2002, p. 8). The context of the key informants and locality under analysis are not representative of one culture, region or country, but similar issues are present in populations in Latin

America and globally, therefore can be attributed as a “sufficient and transportable account” to meet the quality of sampling indicators. Gobo gives the example of noise sampling in film production whereby the creak of a door “does not represent the creaking of all doors, but we associate it with them. We do not think about the differences between that creak and the one made by our front door; we notice the similarities only.” In this instance the ‘significant feature’ being the aspect of community in applying BV. It is generalizable only where it can pertain to communities. The principles underlying BV represent the similarities that can be implemented in different communities, taking into account the context of that community.

Why Ecuador?

While several versions of BV exist throughout Latin America, there are two countries that have led about the way for BV to become an alternative to traditional development: Bolivia and Ecuador. Following a review of the literature, the context surrounding the Ecuadorian government’s interpretation is considered the most robust interpretation to stand up to the challenge of becoming a viable alternative to the neoliberal development model (Escobar 2012; Gudynas 2011b; Gudynas & Acosta 2011; Radcliffe 2012; Vanhulst & Beling 2014) because of the presence of a legal framework over Bolivia’s moral framework, and also based on my epistemological background.

Why the Cotacachi County?

The fact that interpretivist/ constructivist techniques uncover particular perspectives and ways of thinking about an issue means that the complexities of ‘reality’ may be revealed. This is important in BV where multiple realities exist and there is a need to understand these realities to better understand the points of cleavage and the divergences and enable the use of BV as an alternative to SD. For sampling purposes, when researching phenomena which transverse a range of settings it is important to decide what the core criteria are to understanding the processes (Mason 2002). In this case, it is the practice of BV on the ground and how it is defined and implemented endogenously. That the sampled populations embody the idea of BV in their way of life and their politics is the most important aspect of understanding how it can become an alternative to development. For such a small country, Ecuador has a huge diversity of landscapes, people and Indigenous groups. The Cotacachi county, with a focus on the Intag Valley, was therefore chosen for several reasons: demographics, environment, politics and current practices and beliefs which provide perspective on various contexts – allowing for its wider resonance; all of which are explained below. BV has its roots in Indigenous cosmology, but its conception today is not limited to Indigenous communities and territories. It is therefore important to examine BV in a broader cultural context. Demographically, Cotacachi is home to a variety of communities from urban to rural, and from Indigenous to mestizo. There are also several prominent community members who are expatriates, some of whom have been accepted by the local communities and others less so. Intag is one of the world’s most biodiverse and ecologically rich regions. The region contains an internationally protected area, Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve. The region is also home to two of the

54 world’s 35 internationally recognised biodiversity hotspots29 the Tropical Andes and Tumbes-Choco- Magdalena. Topographically, the Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena hotspot is very diverse, ranging from ranging from mangroves, beaches, rocky shorelines, and coastal wilderness, and some of the world’s wettest rain forests (Kocian, Batker & Harrison-Cox 2011). The Tropical Andes is known for being one of the most diverse and richest regions in the world, but one whose habitats are under extreme threat from extractivist projects (Kocian, Batker & Harrison-Cox 2011). Large-scale extractivism threatens the fragile balance of that biodiversity and poses various challenges to communities and the environment. Moreover, it is argued in the literature that it is wholly incompatible with the concept of BV. Extractive activities in Intag have posed a threat to the Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve and spurred grassroots mining resistance to the possible impacts on livelihoods, communities and the environment. The Intag region is also home to one of the country’s most active environmental organisations DECOIN (Ecological defence and conservation of Intag). Outlining Intag’s support for an alternative to neoliberal development, DECOIN’s current President Carlos Zorilla stated, “It’s wrong to say we’re getting in the way of the country’s development. What I and others represent is a different vision, a proposal for another way of living, a way of life that has more to do with Sumak Kawsay (Buen Vivir) than a development depending on the extraction of minerals. We’re not naive or destabilisers, we’ve seen the results of mining in Peru, and believe me, they’re not pretty. Here in Intag we’ve got another vision of the future” (Coffrey 2014). This alternative vision articulated in Intag is consistent with BV. Inteños (inhabitants of Intag) are renowned in Ecuador for this - the foundation of which is biocentricity and collectivism. “Inteños depend upon the natural world for their livelihoods and have developed a unique culture that stresses values of mutual interdependence that complement collective and individual rights” (D’Amico 2011). In fieldwork of this nature, it is important to include a community or communities which already have a strong understanding of the concept of BV (epistemology) and whose current practices (ontology) can be studied to understand the phenomenon from the point of view of the subjects of study. Mining resistance in Intag was led by local communities and was argued in support of the environment and social justice, for wellbeing and Pachamama and based on solidarity and community (Avci 2012). Extractive activities are seen as a threat to their ability to continue their livelihoods and meet the needs of their future generations by local communities, civil society and even some government actors. As community president of Rio Verde, Carmen Proaño stated, “We can’t sell our children’s future by letting a mining company come in and contaminate our beautiful river.”(D’Amico 2011) While other realities exist at the community level, this is also the majority view I came across in my own personal experience living in Intag in 2011-12. Intag therefore, is a prime example of bottom- up social movements for change and one that supports the principles of BV and would provide an

29 To qualify as a hotspot, a region must contain at least 1,500 native species of vascular plants (> 0.5 percent of the world’s total), and it has to have lost at least 70 percent of its original habitat. Collectively, hotspot areas support 44 percent of the world’s plants and 35 percent of terrestrial vertebrates in an area that formerly covered only 11.8 percent of the planet’s land surface. The habitat extent of this land area had been reduced by 87.8 percent of its original extent, such that this wealth of biodiversity was restricted to only 1.4 percent of Earth’s land surface: www.biodiversityhotspots.org.

55 ideal setting to explore lived experiences, perspectives and realities and understand the phenomenon of BV; consistent with the interpretivist paradigm. Politically, national policies for BV are implemented provincially. Under the country’s national plan for BV, Ecuador has been divided into nine ‘deconcentrated zones’, to territorialise public policies for BV to satisfy the needs specific to distinct territories (SENPLADES 2010). Imbabura, the province within which Cotacachi resides, along with Esmeraldas, Carchi and Sucumbíos has been established in Zone 1. The focus on Imbabura over the other provinces in zone 1 however, rests on the region of Intag within its borders, for reasons outlined above. The focus on the county level of governance over provincial is because the county is sufficiently close to the people to constitute the definition of ‘community’ described in the Introduction chapter, but not too close to provide a narrow vision and understanding of BV. It is at the county level that communities share a similar identity, similar issues related to BV and in addition, the county government has instituted its own version of BV in its policies, pertinent to the culture and geography of Cotacachi.

4.3.4. Methodology My research is a combination of theoretical and empirical components and draws on a multidisciplinary approach that includes social science, anthropology, development studies, and political science. With that in mind, I have chosen ethnography as the most appropriate methodology for examining the question of BV as an alternative to SD. The Oxford Dictionary describes ethnography as “The scientific description of peoples and cultures with their customs, habits, and mutual differences.” However, ethnography as a methodology is often difficult to define because of the ways in which it has been used throughout history and its polysemous meaning, but in general pertains to a “particular form of knowledge that develops through specific techniques” (Gobo 2008). Nonetheless, the key task of ethnography is to “provide rich, holistic insights into people’s views and actions” through the documentation of culture, perspective and practices by asking questions, observing, having conversations, taking notes and visual documentation (Reeves, Kuper & Hodges 2008). This is characterised by a set of key features: 1) a focus on the researcher’s first-hand experiences; 2) collecting data in its natural setting; 3) using a variety of data methods (Picken 2009). As noted by Arturo Escobar, in the “pursuit of alternatives” we must indeed make contact with “those whose ‘alternatives’ research is supposed to illuminate” (Escobar 1995). “The nature of alternatives as a research question and a social practice can be most fruitfully gleaned from the specific manifestations of such alternatives in concrete local settings” (Escobar 1995). The Cotacachi county in Ecuador demonstrates such manifestations and as such, necessitates ethnographic research to examine local definitions and “alternative practices in the resistance grassroots groups present to dominant interventions” (Escobar 1995). Moreover, inherent in BV is the emphasis on community and endogenous-led change. To properly understand into the epistemology and ontology of BV at the local level, that is the social, cultural and historical drivers behind the phenomenon, it is necessary to seek the ‘insider’s view’ (Mason 2002), and in the case of BV, that extends to the three main categories of stakeholders: community, government and local civil society organisations.

These key actor groups were initially identified through a review of the literature, which was subsequently supported by fieldwork findings. The data confirmed the prominence of these groups as either mentioned by key informants as key actors in BV, or evidence of their role in BV through observations and documents. The fourth group of actors in the findings was ‘academics’, which highlights the importance of triangulating fieldwork findings with scholarly literature from the literature review. Emerging from the field of anthropology, ethnographies have typically been viewed as long- term methodological strategies, requiring total immersion in the culture under analysis. New types of ethnographic methodologies are emerging however, that offer alternative approaches to anthropological traditions, including virtual ethnographies and short-term, rapid or focused ethnographies, where time and on-the-ground presence is an issue (Knoblauch 2005; Millen 2000; Pink & Morgan 2013). These types of ethnographies are also conducive to interpretive assumptions, which do not rely on total immersion (Mason 2002), therefore are more time efficient. They are being used more frequently in social science research. Time and resources are often cited constraints in PhD research. Sarah Pink and Jenny Morgan characterize short-term ethnographies “by forms of intensity that lead to deep and valid ways of knowing” (2013). As a PhD, this project is also subject to multiple constraints. Given the appropriateness and the benefits that ethnographic methodology brings to this study, the most appropriate path was to undertake a short-term ethnography. A lack of time and resources are not necessarily reflected as constraints on the richness of the data in short-term ethnographies. As Pink and Morgan state, In short term ethnographies, it is not so much the use of new techniques and interventional technologies to get closer to other people’s experience that is engaged to make short term ethnographies intense/intensive and ethnographically rich. Rather it is the use of techniques and technologies in different ways (Pink & Morgan 2013).

David Millen explains that this is achieved by ‘‘more focused observation, better selection of informants, multi-person research teams with greater informant interaction and better data analysis tools’’ (Millen 2000). My use of these measures is outlined in the proceeding sections below, accompanied by the use of data analysis software NVivo, with the intention of more efficient data analysis. My project is a focussed ethnography (in terms of the subject matter) but it is also a multi- sited ethnography because of the various localities in the Cotacachi county, and Ecuador’s capital city Quito. George Marcus mentioned that multi-sited ethnography emerged as a response to “more complex objects of study”...cultural processes, objects or identities that exist scattered across places, which therefore, by their very nature, cannot be accounted for ethnographically by remaining focused on a single site of intensive investigation” (Tomlinson 2012). At a governance level, this also relates to the way the region is governed. Analysing BV at the lowest level of governance would be too narrow to glean enough substance on the topic, however the affiliation to BV is not as strong at the provincial level. In multi-sited ethnography, the choice of sites is dictated by the object of study. In

57 the case of my research, the multiple sites in which the research took place were driven by the location of the key informant, primarily identified prior to going into the field.

Units of Analysis

One of the key aspects of BV is the notion of ‘community’ and the vital role the collective places in the concept. This does not mean that the individual does not matter in the community, rather that individuals who think and act as a community are the basis for effective change. This is especially important in a topic such as the sustainability of natural resources or social cohesion which rely on the individual’s identity to the wider community and relationship with non-human aspects. Moreover, BV as an endogenous, grassroots movement with collective objectives, which means that it is inappropriate to examine the topic purely from an individual level of analysis. To that end, I approached the sample on a group level of analysis as the most appropriate unit of analysis. I acknowledge that to examine individual thoughts, opinions, behaviours and generalise them at the group level risks committing an ‘individualistic fallacy’ (Nachmias & Nachmias 2008). With that in mind I interviewed individuals within the set categories (community, government and civil society organisations) but framed my interview questions and observations in such a way as to invoke the collective nature of the subject. This is an additional reason why I chose semi-structured interviews over unstructured, to understand the individual’s way of thinking about their community/group through guided prompts. In interpretivist/constructivist research, one of the biggest problems is conducting research that is both free of bias but at the same time not too broad (breadth of sampling) (Cooksey & McDonald 2011). One of the ways I aimed to avoid bias is by seeking perspectives across the three major groups of stakeholders in my research. At the same time the selection of these individuals was focussed. I also sought out people with a range of political perspectives, given the context of the phenomenon under study. This was also the advantage of having a locally-based research assistant.

4.3.5. Methods The final analysed data included a total of 142 documents, 20 interview transcripts (22 hours and 24 minutes of interview audio), and observations which were recorded as 21,418 words (47 pages) of field notes, 4.5 hours of audio notes and 127 photographic observations. Semi-structured interviews was my primary method undertaken, followed by participant observation and, document analysis.

Semi-Structured Interviews

The sampling approach I used was ‘purposive sampling’ using the key informant approach. It is the sampling strategy most used in interpretivist/constructivist research (Cooksey & McDonald 2011). Purposive sampling means “selecting groups or categories on the basis of their relevance to your research question, your theoretical position and analytical framework, your analytical practice and…the argument or explanation that you are developing” (Mason 2002). The idea is to target individuals with specific knowledge or perspectives. Key informants therefore were chosen for the

58 potential richness of information they could provide, their knowledges and lived experiences. A key informant is defined as, Individuals with whom the researcher begins in data collection because they are well informed, are accessible, and can provide leads about other information (Creswell 2013).

The use of key informants in my research enabled me to focus the research and include the most suitable people for the study. James Spradley (1979) describes key informants as being “consciously reflexive about their culture, and either enjoy sharing local knowledge or are in a status position where this is expected of them” (O'Reilly 2009). Using the key informant approach rather than the participant approach also meant that they actively informed the direction of the research, rather than being involved in inactive participation. I conducted semi-structured interviews with a pre-identified sample of key informants. This included 20 key informants from the following categories: community members, government (local and national) and local organisations. Within those categories I sought to balance the number of key informants across the categories and a cross-section of gender, age and racial identity (i.e. Indigenous, Mestizo or Other). The result was eight key informants from community; seven from government and five from local organisations. Seven identified as Indigenous, 11 as Mestizo and two ‘Other’; among which five were women30I also aimed to speak with key informants who have worked or are working for extractivist companies, or organisations that support extractivism to gain a balanced, non-biased view of the ontology of BV within the context of extractivism. The semi-structured approach to my interviews to enable a comparison among key informants. This has allowed me to better understand the tensions and synergies between the actor groups. A comparative analysis is an important part of understanding both the essentially contested nature of the concept and identifying its common core principles. Because I took an ‘interpretive approach’ to ethnography, total immersion in the setting was not required, rather using interview methods is an effective way to examine people’s collective and individual understandings and practices of BV (Mason 2002). Under interpretivist assumptions, people are the primary data sources to gather meaning and social norms (Mason 2002). Another approach that has been identified in the literature as being useful for short-term ethnographies is research by collaboration (Millen 2000). To that end, I recruited a local research assistant to assist with organising interviews and collecting of data on the ground. Additionally, the use of a local research assistant helped with language and interpretation which can affect data quality and validity where context has been misinterpreted. Having already spent time in the field site prior to this research I initially identified the key informants primarily through existing contacts, and then through my research assistant. As approved by the Ethics Committee, the research assistant was

30 Several more women and indigenous key informants were approached but for various reasons could not participate. During the entire fieldwork study there was a mobilisation of indigenous groups around Ecuador against the policies of former President Correa. As such many that were approached were either unreachable or not present to be able to be interviewed. In terms of the representation of women in the study, my research assistant explained that Ecuadorian society is still very masculine dominated and so many women juggle work with domestic duties and child rearing and as such participation in this type of study was of low priority for their use of available time.

59 required to have the following qualifications: English and Spanish speaking with competence in written English and Spanish; be familiar with local communities; have an established rapport with local communities. She was initially recruited on a trial basis for an initial set of interviews, and then until the end of the data collection period as agreed between the research assistant and me. Prior to entering the field, I had already identified several key informants from previous knowledge and connections, who my research assistant approached for participation. After the trial period we worked together to identify others, using her local knowledge, and the requirements for the type of key informants I wanted to include to get a good cross-section of participants. Her role was then to attend the interviews with me and aid in any translation issues, or explanation of term to key informants, as well as using her presence as a local citizen introducing me, as a foreigner, in the field. Supporting this approach, Annette Lareau (1996) also argued that informal contacts work best in the field of ethnographic research (O'Reilly 2009). John Gerring, when describing ethnography in social science methodology also affirms that, "academics from many fields often find that their personal background and connections serve as an entree into the activity they are studying” (2012). Interviews were conducted in Spanish. The invitation to participate and structured part of the interview questions was first written in English, and then translated to Spanish by my research assistant who was a local Inteño but schooled in English abroad. Interviews were recorded on audio to allow for a more open and natural exchange. and later transcribed by the research assistant Simple verbatim transcription was used when transcribing the interview audio. I employed the same research assistant to undertake the transcription in Spanish. From a sample transcription, I then developed a noting system based on King & Horrocks’ (2010) basic transcription system, from which the transcriber worked. There was one interview conducted in languages other than Spanish31, which I transcribed myself using the same system. Transcribed data was then subjected to a thematic analysis, using data analysis software NVivo. NVivo was also used during preliminary research to identify a conceptual framework whereby broad themes were already established.

Participant Observation

Participant observation is a necessary method to gain a deep and rich insight into the ontological and cultural aspects of BV, and to understand the emic views, beliefs and experiences of key actors (Denscombe 2007). In this method, the researcher is the main instrument, and therefore key to data collection (Denscombe 2007). Participant observation is generally the primary method of traditional ethnography, though being a very time extensive method, in short-term ethnographies it is limited to a secondary data collection method, albeit an important one. As a strategy it: 1) allows the researcher to establish a direct relationship with the social actors in the natural environment; 2) has the purpose of observing and describing their behaviour; 3) allows for ‘learning their code’ to understand real meaning (Gobo 2008). Observation can take many settings, but it is the naturalness of the setting that is important, that is to see things as they naturally occur (Denscombe 2007). In general, participation is,

31 More than one language. I have purposefully not noted here which languages to protect the identities of individual participants.

The method in which the observer participates in the daily life of the people under study, either openly in the role of researcher or covertly in some disguised role, observing things that happen, listening to what is said, and questioning people, over some length of time (Denscombe 2007).

In the field I used the ‘participation as an observer’ approach, which will enable me to observe normal life, culture and events of interest first hand after having gained informed consent as a researcher (Denscombe 2007). Some of the settings in which I had the privilege of participating in as an observer in the community context were meetings arranged by local organisations and government around issues pertinent to BV for example, public cultural events, a BV market, a local participatory budget meeting and a local ‘minga’. A minga is an Indigenous concept, described as, A mutual aid institution in the community setting. It ensures work designed for the common good of the population. It is aimed at meeting the collective needs and interests of the community (Acosta 2012).

These events, particularly on topics relevant to BV, are an ideal forum to observe goings-on in the natural community setting because BV is concerned with satisfying collective or community needs.

Document Analysis

I undertook document analysis consistent with the interpretivist approach, which assumes that individual or collective meanings can be gleaned from text or other objects as data sources (Mason 2002). For the purposes of my research these documents included advertisements; agendas; minutes of meetings; manuals; background papers; organisational or institutional reports; books and brochures; event flyers or programs; letters and memoranda; newspapers; media releases; and radio and television programs relevant to the topic. Several were sought specifically, but mainly acquired opportunistically. Where the materials were audio-visual I either conducted a manual analysis while in the field, or imported the material where available, into NVivo for analysis. The materials were sorted into: State media, international media, independent media, social media, organisational, governmental, community documents, other. As with the other data, documents analysed were then coded in NVivo and organised into themes and case examples through excerpts and quotations via a method of content analysis (Labuschagne, 2003, Bowen pg. 28). Document analysis holds particular importance in analysing a concept like BV that is essentially contested by various actors, because it has the potential to uncover ‘hidden aspects’ of what has been intentionally communicated by the writer (Denscombe 2007). This is particularly important in ensuring the validity of what has been communicated by other methods to the researcher. A supplementary source of document was also used for data intensity - that is visual data collection such as photographs of events, situations and of participants during periods of ‘participant observation’. A selection of these photographs that observes the privacy of participants is included in Chapter Five for illustration and to contribute to the richness of the data already collected. It is a

61 method consistent with the practice of short-term or focused ethnographies and allows the researcher more time to invest in interviewing and collecting background data (Knoblauch 2005). Rather than wandering onto fieldsites as disinterested observers, attempting the impossible task of trying to catalog everything in the setting, we can use the visible orientation of the participants as a spotlight to show us just those features of context that we have to come to terms with if we are to adequately describe the organisation of their action. (Knoblauch 2005)

Once all data was collected I used thematic analysis to discover what the issues are, why they are important and where the divergences lie between actors to understand the contested nature of the concept. These findings are presented in the chapters that follow.

4.4. Data Analysis

The methodology and methods used in research have implications for analysing the data. I used a mixture of Creswell’s ‘three-step qualitative data analysis’ (2013) for interview and document data; and Strauss and Cobin’s ‘analysis in three steps’ recapitulated by Gobo (2008) to guide the analysis of observational field notes. Creswell’s approach subsequent to data collection is an appropriate method of analysis to complement the progressive observational data coding procedure proposed by Strauss and Cobin. Creswell’s approach is widely accepted among academic literature for qualitative data. The first step is preparing and organising the data, then coding the data, followed by representing the data in narrative form (Creswell 2013). To organise the data, I used a deductive coding framework based on my conceptual framework and the themes discovered in the literature (see Appendix 4), then coded the data inductively adding to the existing coding framework. The resultant representation and analysis of the data is Chapters Four, Five and Six. The coding of the data was using data analysis software NVivo inductively and deductively. The fieldwork data was then triangulated against the coded literature data to understand how the respondents have helped to answer the gaps found in current literature (see Appendix 2). Where themes emerged in both the coded literature and data, consistency and reliability was maintained through the use of ‘coding rules’ for each theme and sub-theme. I reviewed the coding rules at each stage of the analysis, and where themes were being used in a different context to ensure that I applied them consistently throughout. The objective of this is two-fold: 1) to understand from a subject point of view what the challenges are to BV practical implementation as an alternative and 2) identify what is needed to proceed and formulate recommendations for its operationalization. One of the major outcomes of this was an identification of BV’s core principles from the fieldwork data. To understand which principles are the most significant across all data methods, the principles were aggregated and triangulated across methods by number of sources32. This data was collated by including which principles, elements or aspects are important to achieve BV33. Key informants were asked the questions: “What does Buen Vivir mean to you and what is the most

32 By ‘sources’ I refer to particular data. For example, under interviews as a data method, the source refers to each key informant interviewed.

62 important thing for Buen Vivir?” When key informants stumbled on which aspects are important for the achievement of BV, they were prompted to provide what they believe is the single most important principle or aspect. There were two criteria for inclusion as a core principle: 1) the principle must have been present in at least two of the three data methods (i.e. interviews, observations or documents) and; 2) that must include sources from the interviews. Being open-ended ethnographic interviews, these principles were often mentioned in the course of the interview. For the analysis of observational data, Strauss and Cobin’s ‘analysis in three steps’ is divided into Deconstruction (open coding), Construction (axial coding) and Confirmation (selective coding) (Gobo 2008). I treated the first two steps informally, doing them by hand during collection (as a circular process of sampling, collection and analysis), and used them primarily just to guide the last, more formal step in the analysis. The deconstruction phase is exploratory, allowing the researcher to explore events that can explain the phenomenon (Gobo 2008). I used the classification strategy during this first phase whereby actions and events observed are deconstructed by assigning a code to each note, referring to a concept that was taken from the literature (Gobo 2008). In this phase I again used the themes that emerged from the literature as codes. The next stage is construction or axial coding, whereby the aim is to construct a framework comprised of five components: causal conditions, phenomenon, context, intervening conditions, action strategies, and consequences (Gobo 2008). In this phase I also undertook a preliminary coding of the interview data to aid in understanding what I observed. This preliminary coding of interview data was completed by Creswell’s approach, due to the reasons outlined above. The third and final stage of Strauss and Cobin’s process is confirmation or selective coding whereby the researcher confirms the ‘story’ that emerged during fieldwork and assigns them to a concept or theory to construct the story (Gobo 2008). This last step was completed in NVivo and coded the data inductively, adding to the coding framework. This completed the framework and helped me structure the way I wrote up the narrative of the story as I was able to see a story emerge from the codes and the way there were laid out in NVivo.

4.4.1. Data saturation I used data saturation to determine the number of key informants to interview. Gobo (2008) describes data saturation as “all events must be covered by the concepts proposed, with cognitive dissonances eliminated and marginal utility of limit incidents evaluated”. During the analysis stage using NVivo made it easier than during manual coding to understand the point of data saturation. I refer to this as ‘node saturation’ which is where for one line, it was possible to several nodes attached to it. This is what Bazeley (2013) refers to as “fracturing or slicing data” where multiple nodes “capture what is happening in a single passage of text” (Bazeley 2013, 71). However, as I was using both deductive and inductive methods to analyse my data, the point of saturation for me came when I had no more new nodes to create. In reference to interviews in the field, I used my deductive analysis derived from the initial literature review, combined with a mental analysis of new findings as they were coming in, to understand when I had reached saturation point. My initial aim was 20-25 interviews, and since I had reached that point at 20 interviews, for time reasons I terminated the interviews there.

4.5. Validity

The question of validity was considered at each stage of the research design. Methodological validity is concerned with ‘conceptual and ontological clarity’ and the ability of the researcher to translate these into meaningful epistemology (Mason 2002). In terms of the validity of my chosen methodology, I have demonstrated in the discussion above how ethnography is the most useful method for studying BV in the context of the cultural and social meaning given to it by its social actors. That is, how the meaning of BV, as an endogenous, ontological concept is demonstrated in the attitudes, behaviours, practices and discourses of the relevant actors. Following from methodology are the related methods. When it comes to validity of methods, that is how well matched the methods are to the research questions (Mason 2002), I considered this in terms of data generation and what information the potential data sources could provide, revised in the field. With that in mind, I delineated the research questions (see Introduction chapter, Research Sub-Questions) against the most appropriate method below:

Interviews Participant Observation Document Analysis Q.1-11 Q.2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11 Q. 1, 3,4, 6-9, 11 Table 3: Research Sub-Questions by Method

This categorisation greatly aided with data collection efficiency while in the field as it allowed me to keep in the forefront, what it was I wanted to know and where I should look. The methods I chose illuminate the concept of BV by offering the opportunity to delve deeper into the nature and evidence of the phenomena in the perspective of the relevant actors in their natural setting. Interpretivist ethnographies generally use triangulation of data where multiple methods are used, to validate ethnographic text (Williamson 2006). Triangulation of the data also helps to provide corroborating evidence, and thereby providing validity to their findings by coding evidence in different data sources and methods (Creswell 2013; Ely 1991; Erlandson 1993; Glesne & Peshkin 1992; Lincoln & Guba 1985). Triangulation of methods in short-term ethnography is also vital because since each method achieves specific goals “their integration yields findings with high reliability and construct validity” (Handwerker 2001). Triangulation of methods also helps avoid measurement error. In non-positivist research, measurement, Handwerker (2001) explains, happens “when you make and record observations about what you experience in the field”. In triangulating the data, Handwerker describes the application of explicit methods to increase both research productivity and the precision of ethnographic descriptions as a pretext to “create a clear vision” of both where you want to go and how to get there; to “get there without getting lost”; and to using free time in the field to the “greatest advantage” (2001). In this light, previous time in the setting, along with clear research themes, questions and a conceptual framework has helped achieve that. With reflection of my own epistemological background and the choice of ethnography as my

64 methodology, the methods used and their justification, it is appropriate to now describe what my time in the field was like, and the cultural settings in the field.

4.6. Why, How and What I did in the Field

My epistemological background provided context to my knowledge of the field, of the culture and certain traditions. My observations were subjective to prior experience, witnessing the relationship between the community and their natural environment, and my own epistemology. In Western development language we may refer to the earth or land by the generic term “environment” but the Spanish word “medio-ambiente” has limited meaning I was told on several occasions by my informants, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous. When asked what the environment means to them, many replied that the term is incomplete. Medio meaning ‘half’ and ambiente meaning ‘environment’, for them it implied a break with the environment, a disconnection to their earth (see Chapter Four). This demonstrates the deep and reciprocal connection to the land here, not only common in Indigenous cosmology, but rooted in culture and language. These deep environmental practices have found their ways into mestizo life and culture also, many agriculturists use traditional farming techniques to appropriately cultivate their land. On the other hand, many Western practices such as household garbage disposal have made their ways into everyday life. However, in many communities, local infrastructure for waste disposal is missing and proves to be one a source of environmental contamination where non-biodegradable waste is buried or disposed of, particularly in close proximity to water sources. I had many informal conversations with community members in the Cotacachi County about these issues, pertinent to BV. In conversation with a local Intag woman I was told that nappies for example are a problem as they are usually disposed of next to the river, and when it rains it contaminates the river with human waste. These issues have been recognised by local parish governments however, and in Intag, for example, infrastructure is being developed to deal with these issues. I took advantage of being a participant observer in many occasions where community members knew the reasons for my presence in the community and were interested in engaging in conversations on different social and environmental issues. These conversations constituted part of my data in the form of observations and ‘field notes’. I generally carried either a notebook and/or my tablet everywhere I went to record key aspects of these observations, which I then would fill in with richer detail later in the evening. On other occasions I profited from the knowledge and contacts of my research assistant to be able to attend community meetings as a non-participant observer. This allowed me to observe the issues that were unfolding in the community without having any biased influence on the events. I had the opportunity to attend such meetings on several occasions, and for reasons for protecting the privacy of those attending, I will not specifically name such events, but they included meetings held for economic, social and environmental purposes. More publicly, I was fortunate to attend a meeting as part of the local government’s participatory budgeting processes. These meetings provided rich insights into local practices and ways of thinking and doing.

Other such public events included community fiestas where families come together and celebrate different occasions. They were a demonstration of community solidarity and included aspects of social and solidarity economy: local family-run businesses provide every aspect from the food, to entertainment, sport and music. I attended several such occasions but one particular street party with my family in Quiroga, the locale in which we were staying was a goldmine in terms of seeing the interactions between community members – entire families were celebrating in the streets, community members all greeted each other, children of the community were playing together. Traveling with my toddler son I was quickly made aware of the value that these communities place on family and children, and subsequently community. Living amongst the community in the field and working with a local research assistant (RA) enabled me to quickly identify the key informants for my interviews. Some of the ground work for identifying and contacting key informants was conducted before arriving in the field, through the local knowledge and contacts of my RA and from my previous experience. The remainder were identified once I arrived through discussions with my RA and by taking notes and conversing with locals in the first few days of being in the field. The interviews were conducted in a public place, nominated by the key informant, often over a cup of coffee to make the process more comfortable. Through my observations and interviews (participant and non-participant) I was able to gather many documents relevant to the topic. Additionally, I kept an eye on the local and national newspapers daily, both online and in public spaces and collected articles relevant to the themes emerging on BV. Daily media played a central role in my data collection, where I would collect, gather and take notes from relevant sources. The National Dialogue by former President Correa ‘Enlace Cuidadano’ was broadcast on the radio weekly on Saturdays from the television show of the same name. When I was not out in the field I would listen to the broadcast to give me an idea of the policy direction from the Correa government. Sunday evenings I would watch a television show called ‘Buen Vivir – Ama la Vida’ discussed issues and questions around the government’s interpretation of BV.

4.7. Limitations

The topic of my research and my choice of ethnography as a methodology, and in particular a short-term interpretive methodology means that my research is subject to several methodological limitations. The first limitation is set by my choice of site for conducting the research. As a PhD research project, I must limit the geographical scope of my research to one particular study. I chose Ecuador as the most appropriate country to examine because of the current policy developments and local practices of BV, as discussed above; and the Cotacachi County for similar reasons. The second methodological limitation is related to the sample strategy. As a Latin American, and endogenous concept that is Indigenous in origin, I am concerned with the bottom-up approach, the emic views of participants at the community, government and local civil society level. By design, I left out the collection of data from multinational extractive company representatives, as well as international NGOs or bilateral development agencies. This is because I believe they may not be able to offer personal knowledge or experience of the topic from a local perspective.

There are also limitations set by my chosen methods, which are dictated by the methodology, the research question, and the time and resources available to conduct the study. The short-term ethnography approach demands that the time-consuming method of participant observation be limited to a secondary method of data collection. While this is a limitation in terms of time allowed for the study, it is not a limitation in terms of the richness and depth of the data. Finally, there are epistemological and ontological limitations in my research. While I acknowledge the importance of treating the Indigenous interpretations of BV, or Sumak Kawsay with full respect to their own ontological understandings, I also acknowledge that I am unable to speak from an Indigenous standpoint, and as such the research may unintentionally be subject to certain Eurocentrisms. However, as BV is an evolving concept based on various epistemologies and ontologies, it is appropriate to consider this research within the context of my own understandings. This by no means seeks to appropriate the Indigenous concept reduce the importance of its Indigenous origins, rather it considers the significance of BV as a contested and evolving concept in politics and practice.

4.8. Terminology

The literature discussed inherent problems with terminology in SD and sustainability, and the aim of this research has been not to replicate the same errors in BV. However, everything must start with a term, and it is in the ways in which it is used that will more likely dictate its co-option, or not. I am mindful of the issues involved in taking a Spanish term that has already lost a great deal of its substantive meaning after being translated from Kichwa, and subsequently translating it into English, I am mindful of the need to respect the origins of the concept to avoid its co-optation by the dominant ideology, and dominant language (English). I argue, however, that if we are to decolonise ‘development’ to seriously consider different ways of knowing and doing on a larger scale then we need to step outside of the core-periphery binary and vocalise these alternatives within the dominant structures. Therefore, on occasion there may be a need to translate the term into the relevant working language, in this case English, and in a way that reflects the nature of the concept and its aims. This is the case in developing a framework for implementation. For this reason, I have occasionally interchangeably used the terms ‘Buen Vivir’, ‘Good Life’, and ‘Sumak Kawsay’; and ‘Vivir Bien’, ‘Good Living’ and ‘Suma Qamaña’ respectively. However, throughout this research I have primarily opted to keep use of the Spanish term for research purposes

4.9. Ethical Considerations

Qualitative research is important for developing new knowledge, enabling a better understanding of complex concepts, and allowing researchers to investigate how communities, groups and individuals make sense of their reality (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007). It involves a study of human subjects, and as such, there are special consideration and ethical obligations involved.

The ethical implications of research that involves fieldwork, and in particular with human subjects were considered at every stage of the research design process, consistent with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (National statement on ethical conduct in human research) and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC 2007), particularly section A. As a requirement to undertaking fieldwork, I submitted a full ethics application to the University of Tasmania’s Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC)34, along with accompanying documents including a participant information sheet. This application was approved on 22 May 2015 (see Appendix 6). Researcher reflection on the ‘social and cultural implications of research’ is vital to undertaking research and to considerations of harms and merits (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007). My research involved people from a non-English speaking background and people from other countries. I sought to address these issues by research design, reflection on the characteristics of the researcher (female, under 40, conversant in Spanish and having lived for a period in the culture under study), the choice of research site, and the use of a local research assistant. The values and principles of ethical research arise from ‘an abiding respect and concern’ for others and involve ‘acting in the right spirit’ (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007) towards key informants who contribute freely to research, to public benefit. With due consideration to respect in research, I sought to exemplify culturally and linguistically appropriate behaviour; and giving due scope to the capacity of key informants to make their own decisions via informed consent. Key informants were provided an information sheet, which states that consent is implied by agreement to participate. Key informants also had the option to withdraw from the study if desired, and they were provided the opportunity to review the transcribed data. No key informants withdrew from the study or had any changes to make to the data. Consideration of harms, discomfort or inconvenience to participants was considered. Potential discomfort arising from participation in research-related conversations about personal practices, political beliefs and perspectives has the potential to invoke social harm, in that social networks or personal relationships may be damaged (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007). I possess personal knowledge of the culture and communities in which the research took place, which enabled me to assess the risks, burdens and benefits to the community and I am confident that I exercised this judgement in accordance with section 2 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007). One potential risk in that respect involves key informants discussing their political views as part of the study, and any concerns participants may have about their views being known to others. According to the NHMRC (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007) “research

34 The first stages and the fieldwork of this research was undertaken as a PhD Candidate at the University of Tasmania’s Institute for Regional Development, under the primary supervision of the Director of the Institute Prof. Robyn Eversole. Prof. Eversole subsequently moved to Swinburne University and therefore the final stages of this research was completed at Swinburne University to continue under the same primary supervision arrangements.

68 in a small community into attitudes to specific subpopulations may lead to unfair discrimination or have effects on social cohesion, property values, or business investment.” While conflicting perspectives emerged, the research focus is on the meaning and practice of BV as a phenomenon in that context, rather than the key informant as the subject under study. To mitigate potential social risks, key informants remained anonymous in the study. Strict confidentiality has been adhered to, to ensure minimal risk to key informants.Potential risks occur when research is being conducted in another country (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007), both to me as the researcher and to the key informants. These were mitigated by research design and by maintaining research merit and integrity. As a researcher conducting a study in Ecuador with human subjects, local cultural values, beliefs, customs and laws were respected. In this respect, I speak and read Spanish at a sound level and I communicated with key informants and other community members in Spanish as much as possible, including conducting interviews and other conversations in Spanish. To aid the ease of communication and to avoid any miscommunication, I recruited a local research assistant. The appropriate person was made in consultation with my supervisors with due consideration to capacity and expertise to accord participants the respect and protection required (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007). As a researcher entering a foreign country for research purposes, there were also potential risks to me, which were mitigated by the fact that the research was conducted in a familiar setting, within a geographical area that I know and have already spent some time in, and in a language that I am comfortable communicating in. I gauged views, practices and beliefs on an existing worldview that has been translated into public policy. The government at the time was a liberal democratic one, and in 2010, the country advanced from a low-income one to a middle-income economy (Caseli 2013; IDEA ; IFAD 2014). Despite the country’s history of instability in the ear of previous governments, it has enjoyed a period of political stability since the adoption of the new Constitution in 2008 (IDEA ; IFAD 2014; Stiftung 2014). Proper management and retention of data is vital for the responsible conduct of research (NHMRC 2007). To that end, data collected during my research, including documents, notes, raw data, recordings, transcriptions and translations will be kept until at least the end of the project and up to five years from the date of publication, in accordance with the Code (NHMRC 2007). Materials have been stored safely on hard drive of a password-protected computer and a password-protected external hard drive. Through exercising my rights and responsibilities as a researcher, in accordance with the National Statement (National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007) and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC 2007), I maintain high standards of responsible research.

Empirical Findings

5. Chapter Four: The Art Living Well: Understandings and Practices of Buen Vivir in Ecuador’s Cotacachi Canton

Figure 4: Empirical Data Word Cloud

5.1. Introduction

Imagine a place so rich in biodiversity and where communities have such a profound respect for that nature, manifested in a reciprocal relationship with the land. This place is the Cotacachi Canton, located 100 kilometres north of the capital Quito in the mountainous region of the Ecuadorian Highlands, and the subject of my fieldwork. The connection to the land of Cotacacheños, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous manifests in a worldview based on Buen Vivir (BV) and ensuing local politics that strives to live in harmony with nature. In Cotacachi, tells Joaquín, Indigenous local government employee, “there is a practice of wanting to conserve, to take care of, to respect the earth - and with a relationship that is not only purely material but also spiritual.” Within that philosophy is the connection to community, and the values that come with living a communal, rather than individually- oriented lifestyle. Although most people here have a tacit understanding of BV, it is more of a lived than a vocalised philosophy, and even in policy is not effectively or concretely defined. Chapter Two looked at how BV is conceptualised in the literature, incorporating the political and academic interpretations, as well as those of Indigenous origins. That chapter identified BV as a contested concept and outlined the core common principles as discussed in the literature. The questions arising in Chapter Two thus identified scope for field research, to discover on-the-ground perspectives and practices of BV and significantly contribute to the existing research. This was even

70 identified by key informants themselves. Local government employee, Leandro, for example argues that this debate around what BV is, does not extend to the people and it needs to be asked, ‘But what is Sumak Kawsay35, and follow that in the debate. The debate does not go to them [the people] and ask, ‘Let’s see, what do you think about Sumak Kawsay and how do you analyse it to be able to say we can achieve Sumak Kawsay’”. These were the aims of my fieldwork and this section of my thesis discusses the findings. The main contribution of this field research to the literature was thus garnering grassroots understanding of BV and its core principles, as well as evidence of what this looks like in practice; along with the important distinction of Vivir Bien (VB) from Buen Vivir (BV - discussed later). This chapter is the result of fieldwork findings using ethnographic methods in the Cotacachi County of Ecuador. The Cotacachi Canton has a population of approximately 40,036 habitants, 78 percent of whom live in a rural area (Actualizacion pdyot cotacachi 2015-2035 2016); fifty five percent are Indigenous (Saltos 2008), mainly Kichwa, which is one of the largest concentrations of Indigenous people in Ecuador. Possibly, for this reason, the county has a strong affiliation with the ethos of BV or Sumak Kawsay (SK) and over the past two decades the affection for BV has grown stronger through communal practices as well as community and local government campaigns. The County also has a unique model of democratic participation through a participatory budget, introduced by Indigenous Former Mayor Auki Tituaña. Through these processes, the people of Cotacachi voted for the County to be declared an ‘Ecological County’ in order to protect the area’s biodiversity - the first in Latin America. For these reasons it is the ideal case study for an examination into BV as an alternative to achieve sustainable social and environmental wellbeing (SSEW). This chapter will discuss the findings in two parts. In Part I, I will introduce BV in the words of each group of actors36 – that is the community, the government37 and local organisations38. I have chosen to ‘tell a story’ of the informants’ worldviews before presenting my analysis, because, as Ghodsee (2016) said, “Ethnographic research celebrates the diversity of worldviews that shape the social politics of local communities”, and because BV aims for community-led change it is important to acknowledge and celebrate those views to better understand what BV means within this context. In Part II of this chapter, I will then analyse the detail outlined in Part I. I will investigate the similarities between each interpretation, examining the common elements mentioned by the key

35 In much of the data the terms Buen Vivir and Sumak Kawsay were used interchangeably. If Sumak Kawsay was used in such a way as to differentiate it from Buen Vivir, I acknowledged that in the context of how it has been discussed. 36 Some of this research involves responses of a political or personal nature and therefore to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the key informants, pseudonyms will be used throughout the remainder of the research. Where people are cited through observations in field research, neither pseudonyms or identities will be divulged. 37 By government I refer primarily to local government at the Parish and County level. This is the level at which BV is implemented in policy as mandated from the national governments Territorial Strategy which seeks to support a decentralisation management model promoting BV’s participatory approach. The Plan Nacional para el Buen Vivir 2009-2013 states, “The transformation of the national territorial structure requires public policies to be suited to the specific conditions and characteristics found in each region. Inter- and intra-regional synergies and network systems must be promoted to favor the country’s endogenous development” (SENPLADES 2009a). Nonetheless, the study did include one key informant at national government level, for reasons outlined in Chapter Three. 38 By local organisations I refer to organisations based within the communities within the field site with environmental, social and/or economic objectives. Some of these organisations have external national/international reach but are nonetheless locally based with local aims. The key informants included within this category were either of managerial positions or in positions of high responsibility within the organisation. The types of organisations have not always been referred to so as not to identify key informants in small communities.

71 informants, as well as found in the rest of the data (observations and documents). This analysis will be triangulated with the literature to build upon the set of core principles discussed in Chapter Two. Next, I examine the grassroots perspective of needs under BV, including how the principles are currently practiced to help meet those needs. The following section will consolidate all of the above by examining the role of different actors in implementing BV. Finally, I will discuss what key informants believe are the challenges to achieving BV; and deliberate new findings that will significantly contribute to the literature on BV. The chapter will conclude by discussing how BV can be used as a resource for communities that provides an alternative resource to traditional development avenues and allows sustainability and wellbeing to be achieved at the grassroots level and implemented up.

5.2. Part I – The Story of Buen Vivir

BV has been established in the literature as a concept under construction, a plural one with several meanings depending on who is defining it. In my research thus far, I have argued it to be a ‘contested concept’, meaning that there is no unified definition of BV, rather its heterogeneous evolvement from Indigenous cosmology and practice, through non-Indigenous community meaning, academic analysis and political construct has left it rather vague. Nevertheless, contested concepts must have a “common core”, according to Lukes and Runciman (1974) and in that respect BV is no different. In Chapter Two identified that “common core” through a set of principles found in an analysis in the literature, constant in the different interpretations. The literature review also identified a gap in knowledge regarding the understanding of BV on-the-ground and how it is practiced at that level. In order to move forward with a concrete proposal for its application in a community setting, my aim now is to understand the tensions and cleavages between its interpretations to help bridge practice and community desires with policy without becoming rhetorical policy goal. At the beginning of the interview we discussed the key objectives of wanting to better understand how people understand Buen Vivir. In that aim, all key informants were asked to describe BV in their own words39. This is the story of BV in the words of key informants in the community, government and local organisations40 in the setting of Cotacachi County, Ecuador.

5.2.1. Community Voices

It was early morning and David, an Indigenous leader in one of the Indigenous communities in the foothills surrounding Cotacachi city arrived right on time and greeted me with a polite handshake, which was at the same time warm and friendly while keeping a certain distance. He was not in traditional dress but sported the customary plait in his hair. Outside the window the Imbabura Volcano stood proud in the distance, accentuated by lush green pastures and the occasional livestock dotted across the terrain. The landscape outside perfectly illustrated what David started explaining to me next. “Buen Vivir to us, what it signifies first and foremost is for us to conserve our environment, and more than anything not to destroy the forests, cut down the forests, not to undertake mining, not contaminate…” David spoke of nature, or ‘Pachamama’ as he used interchangeably, as if he were speaking of a family member. He continued, “[it means] to value our culture, traditions…that is our Buen Vivir, no; to share [culture, traditions, nature with others]…then we are living Buen Vivir.”

Environment

“Not to destroy the forests…not contaminate…”, these concerns were expressed by other community members when describing what BV means to them. The significance of the environment

39 An example of the question is: ‘How would you describe Buen Vivir? What does Buen Vivir mean to you? What is most important for Buen Vivir? 40 I have employed the descriptive language used by the key informants themselves, only translated into English if necessary i.e. ‘Indigenous’, ‘campesino’, ‘Pachamama’, ‘Mother Earth’ etc. See the following footnote for an example.

73 is even more accentuated by Indigenous key informants, due to the spiritual and physical connection of the Indigenous peoples with the land. This is observable in many aspects of Indigenous life, including the traditional dress. Maria, a working Indigenous woman and mother sits in front of me in her traditional costume of an embroidered white shirt and black wrap around skirt and tells me that she does all the embroidery on her shirts. The colourful borders, she explains, are symbolic of working the land and the produce harvested on her farm. As Maria emphasizes, “For us Indigenous, BV means that Mother Earth41 is in good health,” she says. “To keep contact between Pachamama and humans, to have this contact which has respect for our Mother Water, which has respect for fire….Pachamama is the motor of life. Pachamama is part of humans because Pachamama feeds us, Pachamama takes care of us, Pachamama heals us, without Pachamama there would be no more life.” But the health of the environment is easily upset. Maria lives in a community that is close to some extractive operations and has noticed the impact that contamination from these operations has on her livelihood because of water and soil contamination on farm production. Maria says that for this reason her community lacks environmental wellbeing, “Because as I said, our Pachamama, as we call Mother Earth, is sick because of mining contamination, contaminated water, deforestation cutting down trees.” She says, “For me, the environment is extremely important because if the environment is contaminated, we don’t produce [anything, agriculturally].” Gabriela, a senior and respected female Indigenous leader tells me similarly, “For us, I think that it’s [the environment] EVERYTHING. Just like the issue of good health, if I want good [agricultural] production, I need to look after nature. That is, it’s an interrelated issue. At least for us [Indigenous], from our point of view.” Likewise, Diego, a mestizo community activist states that “[Mother Nature] is the one that generates food, that generates health, from which we can interact, share. I consider [the relationship] intimately like our mother, and well, it’s conceived as MOTHER nature in the Indigenous world.” He continues to describe, “She is the one that sees us born, the one that will see us grow, the one that will see us DYING if we respect her. When we cease to exist on this planet Mother Nature could be understood as the best heritage we can leave to future generations.”

Good Health

Good health and the health of the environment are intertwined in the local worldview of BV, Valentina, another Indigenous business owner from the local communities surrounding Cotacachi city put this into perspective, explaining that for her, and Indigenous people in general, the health of the environment is immediately connected to public health. Like all women in Ecuador, Valentina has many responsibilities inside and outside of the home, and rarely has time for other activities. She kindly made the time to discuss BV however, as she explained to me that she believes it is an important issue that affects Ecuadorians, especially Indigenous people. She went on to explain the connection between public health and the environment, “We live by the environment. If the

41 Mother Earth is a direct translation. The untranslated sentence is, “Entonces para nosotros los indígenas para dar así el buen vivir es que nuestra madre tierra tenga salud.”

74 environment is contaminated, then we also get sick,” she explains in an anxious tone. “Catastrophic illnesses, one could say.”

Harmony and Reciprocity

In Indigenous Kichwa, BV is more commonly referred to as Sumak Kawsay42 (SK). For most Indigenous community members, it has significance beyond the physical, as Gabriela, a female Indigenous leader and respected community member clarifies, “Sumak Kawsay is EVERYTHING in life. It’s personal wellbeing and having this relation with the community. [It’s a] matter of living together with nature, it’s having food for my family…it’s everything.” For Indigenous communities SK emphasizes this importance of the environment and nature, there is no separation between society and nature, SK encompasses “everything”. On this point Gabriela told me with conviction, “It’s having a harmonious relationship between nature and us…whether it be as a woman or as a family, to look after our nature, to have access to water, or to have healthy produce for ourselves. All harmonious relations.” Harmony between people and nature but also within the community. Underpinning these ‘harmonious relations’ for Indigenous communities is a strong connection with culture and community. David elaborated on the cultural aspect of BV, or SK, which he used interchangeably. He explained the traditions and festivals around it, which for him encapsulated BV, where families, not just one family but all the families in a community will get together share produce and food and celebrate with dance and music. Community is paramount. Reciprocity with the environment and nature also plays a central role in BV for non- Indigenous key informants. Rodriguez explains, signalling to the environment around us, “The most important thing is how the environment is changing because no one would have BV if the environment is hurting, nothing is functioning.” However, BV signifies many things, he explains, “For me it signifies many words, there are no words to describe it. BV is something sacred, it is something pure, something healthy. For something to be BV… it has to be genuine BV.” There is an overwhelming consensus between community members that BV means different things to different people. Despite this contested nature, reciprocity, that is the reciprocal relationship between nature and society, is highlighted by both Indigenous and non-Indigenous community members as a key element in BV. For Rodriguez who relies on the land for the livelihood of his family, he believes that our relationship with nature is about give and take. The use of natural resources is understood in a sustainable and cyclical way, to satisfy needs, basic needs and the real needs of the people, with the utmost respect for the land that provides them, rather than for wealth and economic growth. Rodriguez works on native afforestation but has also turned that work into a micro-enterprise, to provide a future for his family, and for future generations. “Those that come after me will have to, I mean, give and take, no?” He tells me, talking about the planting and use of these native trees in the future. “It seems that it’s Gods doing to co-exist with nature, not that we are slaves to nature but to co-exist; give and take.”

42 Throughout this chapter Sumak Kawsay and Buen Vivir are used interchangeably by key informants. Often when asked about Buen Vivir indigenous key informants would use the term Sumak Kawsay in their responses.

Profit and wealth generation is often the underlying function of extractive industries, however when speaking with Pedro - who identifies himself strongly with two aspects of his life: that he is a Christian and that he works in the extractive industry – he also emphasizes the need for a mutual respect for nature. During our early morning interview, his answers were often short and sharp, and the tone in his voice gave the impression that he was slightly uncomfortable with BV. Still, he explains, “If we talk about nature, in nature this also includes man, and if man is included in nature, we must have full respect. If we respect nature, everything works well. If you respect her, she gives you food, she gives you shelter…everything.”

Material and Economy

Back in Cotacachi City, in a back suburb, under the flickering street lamps, my Research Assistant and I greet Diego at a room in adjunct to his home that is also used for meetings. He is a young man with a strong interest in politics and well regarded as a community activist. Diego was keen to give us his view of BV, which highlights the principle of reciprocity, but also on harmony in society, beyond the material. “It [BV] goes beyond the economic, it goes beyond the simple possibility of having a material goods. Buen Vivir must be implicit in the social exercise that people develop, in coexistence with others, in man’s interaction with nature.,” he explains. “Those rights between man and nature in which nature gives and receives; we also give and receive”. Diego continues to explain the link between this interaction and needs, “In the possibility of human needs…we have an interrelationship between man and nature, if neither one nor the other has respect…well, we can hardly live in an environment in which there is no mutual respect.” This mutual respect is even more evident for the Indigenous people given their spiritual connection to the land. As Indigenous leader Gabriela tells me that under SK, it is vital to have a harmonious relationship with nature without the desire for material wealth accumulation, “Sumak Kawsay is often interpreted [by others] as living well, or having a car, a house, jewellery, money. But for us, yes there are [material] things that are important, basics which we need. She goes on to explain, “[But] more importantly is oneself, to live a full and accomplished life. Whether it be as a woman or as a family, to look after our nature…that is, a full harmonious relationship between humans and nature.”

Community, Equality and Solidarity

One word that is often raised in descriptions of BV is equality. For Maria, equal opportunity and rights are the foundation of BV, “For me it’s been a struggle, [but] BV is when a woman holds the same rights and opportunities [as men]” But she vindicates that this is not just in an individual sense, but communally. “BV is when our community is developed with everyone having rights, so that we may have basic services. Where there is BV, there is ‘randi-randi’. “Randi-randi is a multidimensional Kichwa term meaning solidarity, or the act of giving back. Maria clarifies, “Randi-randi is lending a hand, no. To be in solidarity with one another, not to be individualistic.” For another Indigenous woman, Sofia, this idea of achieving equality also translates into solidarity. We sat in a large empty community hall used by the local youth group she leads. Just

76 turned 18, she is less confident than the other key informants in verbalising her interpretation of BV, often asking for clarification of ‘right’ or wrong’ responses, but her response to describing what BV means came quickly, “Buen Vivir must be the opinion of everyone, and the union of all.” This comes with the idea of community, of achieving BV in a communal way, not in the traditional Western philosophy of the individual. In that way, it is at the community level that change happens, with the principle of solidarity. For Rodriguez, the mestizo farmer who spoke with me at length on BV on his property, these values are learned, but transferable, which highlights the importance of education for BV. “They are within the values that are in that community,” he continues, for example, “If you have mingas in your community, [or] you help a person who is sick. Those values are learned, and then no one can stop them or delete them; and if you leave here to go somewhere else you will try to other places will try to also lend a hand.” In a similar vein, the principle of harmony encapsulates the relations between humans and their environment, as well as between each other in a community and between communities to help build the sense of solidarity. It is foundational for BV, as Pedro affirmed, “This principle of BUEN VIVIR that they have constructed, that we have constructed, we must share a society in which we all get along, if we all get along, then we will all live well.” Gabriela also shares this sentiment, she explains, “If I don’t get along with my neighbours, I have a problem. But if we live in harmony, in community, in solidarity…I think that is what we need to search for.” Gabriela explains that this way of thinking is not new, arising from a reaction to the world’s problems, but that rather it has been lost in modern society. “That is how our parents lived,” she remarks. While the principle of harmony has some correlation to reciprocity, community, and equality; it encompasses all of those values. Mestizo activist Diego explains, “This interrelation between people, between human beings, for me specifically is constructing a society, a community, the ability to share values, principles, rights, for EVERYONE to have equal conditions.” Equal conditions, of course, means that everyone has the right to have a say in their own development and in that of their community – the right to self-determination and participation – in which government actors play a role.

5.2.2. Government Voices

We meet with Joaquín, an Indigenous local government employee in the common room of a local guest house. He sits reservedly in the corner of the room and starts to explain his interpretation of BV. He is the only one of the key informants who is hesitant to be interviewed and starts the interview by explaining his position that as an Indigenous person, and notably one in a public-sector position, the term BV makes him feel uneasy. “Sumak Kawsay does not amount to Buen Vivir. This error arises in the Constitution. It is like a very simple translation of Sumak Kawsay,” he says defensively. Joaquín continues to clarify, “[In] Kichwa [it] has a much greater importance than Buen Vivir. Sumak Kawsay is like, well sumak is something sublime, something very beautiful, very comprehensive and Kawsay is to live life”, he says slightly agitated, “So together, they are

77 complimented and Sumak Kawsay becomes a personal and material tranquillity. But also, a spiritual tranquillity.” This spiritual connection is what often differentiated the Indigenous from non-Indigenous worldviews among key informants, and part of the reason that the Joaquín is uncomfortable with the National Government using SK interchangeably with BV, though other Indigenous key informants did not conclude the same. He seems more comfortable with the local government terminology of VB43, based on the same principles. He goes on to explain the Indigenous perspective, “From a philosophical point of view, Indigenous peoples have a relationship with their peers, with men and women of the community, with the gods, the sun, the moon, mountains, lakes, land. Then it [SK] signifies a spiritual relationship.”

Harmony and Reciprocity

The worldview of BV based on Indigenous cosmology, values and culture is that this relationship is reciprocal and harmonious, there is a respect between two human beings, even more accentuated by those living in rural areas. “There are people, friends who live in rural areas. I have always lived in urban areas. But the comrades who live in rural areas have a special respect for the land, like their mother.” Joaquín explains, in a metaphor that mirrors the Indigenous relationship with Pachamama, or Mother Earth. He continues, “As they say: ‘How I can mistreat my mother’ in the family relationship, say. The same goes for the earth; I have to take care of her, I have to respect, not abuse, not pollute, do not destroy it.” Those in government who live in rural areas like Intag also hold similar points of view as Joaquín. Fernando, a mestizo who also works at the local level is a very busy and politically-minded man with many ideas about BV, and explains, “the very word that says GOOD living and Buen Vivir needs to be related to the community, to the issue of nature, and to the very subject of human history.” It’s all relative, and it all impacts the ability to achieve BV. Like Joaquín, Mateo, regional representative of a national government ministry expresses discomfort in using the term personally because of the implications from its use at a national policy level. “I don’t like the word much…it’s as if it has been copied from the point of view of the Constitution.” However, Mateo admits that as a concept, there are several considerations centred around the issue of reciprocity, “I believe that Buen Vivir has many parameters. We can speak from personal point of view or of the institutional point of view. If I speak from as public official or as Mateo, Buen Vivir is based on the opportunities that human beings should have regarding in the first instance to have a healthy environment.” In urban areas, as in rural areas, the principle of reciprocity is also given high importance by government key informants. Meeting with Rafael, a mestizo National Minister in his office, his description of BV is quite a lot narrower than others in the community and local government. Reciprocity, he says, is one of the four key elements of BV. His understanding aligns with the

43 Vivir Bien is a local government campaign to achieve similar outcomes to the National Government’s Buen Vivir, albeit with a local, more practical focus. It is also translated from the Kichwa term Ally Kawsay, which shares the same aims and principles as Buen Vivir, but which is focused on daily practices rather than utopian end-goals. See more in the discussion on ‘Good Living or Living Well? Practice vs Policy’ in Part II.

National Government Plan for Buen Vivir, as he explains, “In the government, in the last development plan, they used four words to define Buen Vivir. One is HARMONY, between human beings and nature, the other is equity, the other is equality for all people, and the other is solidarity.” However, he goes on to argue that this is not the lived experience, “These are ideals. We are not living in harmony, we are not living in solidarity, equity is improving a little. In equality, there are still so many differences.” Harmony is again equated to both harmony between human beings, as well as harmony between human beings and the environment in a reciprocal manner. This harmony between human beings, Fernando explains rests on co-existence, “That is, the ideal for reaching Buen Vivir is first coexistence, achieving a co-existence in the community.” Yet this ideal of harmony is missing in modern society, no less so in Cotacachi. Emanuel, a mestizo public servant in the local government schedules our meeting late at night because he is busy with back-to-back governmental meetings addressing the current political situation. For the past week before we meet, Indigenous people around the country have mobilised in peaceful protest against the government in what they state is a suppression of rights by the national government that affect the ability to achieve BV; among them, their right to manage access to land and water. Like most other key informants in government, Emanuel is uneasy with using the term BV, and chooses instead to refer to VB, or Ally Kawsay. The reason, he says, is because BV is too utopian and does not speak to the daily lives of the people trying to achieve it. He rationalises, “Buen Vivir or Sumak Kawsay apparently is something more metaphysical and contrary to Ally Kawsay. Vivir Bien is a daily construction, is to live well every day. It’s not what YOU do to live well, that is, it’s not an aspiration but it is the day-to-day, it is what you do every day.” Nonetheless, if we consider its Indigenous origins, just as in BV, humans’ relation with every aspect of life, in the spirit of co-existence and harmony, is still central to achieving it. He continues, “In the Indigenous world, Vivir Bien is first of all being together, that is one of the main values of the Indigenous world, to not separate yourself. So, families are together, but together [also] with the land, with animals, with plants, with the mountains, that's being together is one of the main factors of Vivir Bien.”

Community

In the spirit of togetherness, community is key. But for governmental employees, community is a stronger aspect in VB than in BV, perhaps because it addresses the here and now of daily life, rather than aspirational goals. Miguel, a local public servant is a mestizo in his thirties is but has a strong affection for Indigenous history, arts, culture, and beliefs. He articulates the differences between the two, “there are two categories, [one is BV] and the other is inferior called Ally Kawsay. Ally Kawsay means living well. In this other category Vivir Bien, EVERYONE has to live well.” The rejection of an individualistic emphasis on wellbeing is pronounced. He continues “You have to understand the community, not the Indigenous [community], but the community [in general].” Miguel maintains that where there is an organised well-functioning community, there is VB. “The community will always live well,” he explains, “because the community has been organized

79 politically, socially, economically, legally…by legally I mean jurisdiction because they are living as they lived even in pre-Hispanic times. There are practices that are still undertaken today.”

Material and Economy

Miguel’s comments align with the common political argument that communities such as these had higher levels of wellbeing before Western development and the modern globalised economic system. While many of the key informants see BV as outside of the capitalist system, economic factors are nonetheless important, albeit systematically different. For Indigenous local government employee Joaquín, the economic aspect is the other half of the whole for SK, which includes the material and the spiritual – material insofar as material needs, and spiritual as in the psychological, the non-material or the human spirit rather than religion. The material is not about generating wealth as in the Western economic sense, but more about satisfying basic needs. “I would say Sumak Kawsay means arriving at a plenitude of life, it’s how to arrive at a plenitude of life, a full resolution of the material and spiritual life, “he explains. “Material in the sense that I work, I have food, I have clothing; but spiritual means inner tranquillity, peace.” In that sense it is truly seen as an alternative to the current model of development, where the material does not mean ‘progress’ above and beyond our means, as in the Western sense. Rafael clarifies this by explaining, “Ultimately what we [the Ecuadorian Government] are proposing to the world and the country is redefining what progress means, redefine what development means and redefine so called welfare or wellbeing.” For Emanuel BV offers a real alternative to development, not just an alternative within Western development, and with that comes alternative economic proposals. In the past those approaches that were alternatives within the current Western development model have failed, he tells me. “Those who were riding that wave didn’t get very far in the search for alternatives, only in economic growth, nothing else.” These alternative development models he says have, “an exclusive focus on the market, which on the one hand may or may not succeed in market terms, but they did not constitute a true alternative to development model; on the other hand, this concept without an alternative to the development model, is that which is in force, and beyond that may have been rendered invisible by the present government. I believe it’s valid and it’s there and it has given rise to the Vivir Bien movement.”

Happiness

Emanuel explains that the Western development model is problematic for achieving BV, and is the root cause for many social, environmental and economic problems, “There is a lot of frustration around me, I feel that people are frustrated I think the development model, the development policy of our countries in general is generating anything but happiness.” Rafael believes that happiness is integral to BV, and happiness is implicit in a just economy that addresses extreme poverty and discourages consumerism and capitalist wealth accumulation. Rafael insists, “Buen Vivir is not distinct from happiness, from wellbeing or from plentiful living.” He

80 affirms, “It is a conscious life which leads to Buen Vivir and Buen Vivir allows us to have a happy life.” Nonetheless, Rafael explains, the government has a responsibility to ensure the happiness of its people. Citing ex-President Pepe Mujica, he says “They say that happiness is a personal issue, that governments should not get involved in the issue of happiness. But it is a lie.” He continues to explain, “Because you need to have an environment to enable human development. That is, it is very difficult for a poor or extremely poor person, and it is very difficult for a rich or extreme wealthy person to be happy. So, governments have to help create an environment in which Buen Vivir can flourish.” To head towards a more just economy, though, Rafael explains that it is much about changing the mindsets and lifestyles of individuals, as it is governance. He states that he personally has taken steps towards change, “I have drastically changed my way of living,” he declares. “I live with, I don’t know, 20 percent of what I consumed before because I didn’t need it. I get embarrassed when I see how much stuff I bought and did not used. And people accumulate, accumulate, accumulate globally. So, it has to change.” Essentially, it is the responsibility at all levels of society to achieve this change. Ultimately, there is a recognition, even at the governmental level that BV is still a concept under construction, and that there is no single definition put forth for its meaning, as Leandro tells, “Look, even if you go to the Constitution there is not a space in the Constitution that says what it means, Sumak Kawsay.” At the same time, defining what it means in words is not enough. According to Miguel this alone will not achieve BV or SK, “How can we have Sumak Kawsay if it is only theorised in the Constitution.” It has to be practiced and part of the lived experience of communities for it to have purpose beyond policy aspirations.

5.2.3. Local organisation Voices

In an interview with Felipe, the head of a local environmental organisation, the surroundings demonstrated this environmental element and the importance that nature has in these communities. We were sitting in the middle of the Intag Valley at the end of a long and windy dirt road. The manmade surroundings were modest and capitalised on the natural environment that absorbs life here, not the other way around. Felipe was extremely hospitable and laid back, and most of all talks passionately about issues affecting BV. For him, this idea of harmony or peace is multidimensional. “To me it [BV] means being at peace. So, there’s obviously many levels to that,” Felipe explains.“ It means having enough that I don’t I don’t have to worry about a roof over my head, or walls on my house. Enough income that I can clothe myself and my family, take care of my family.” It also goes beyond the material, he continues,” A healthy environment [so] that I don’t need to worry about whether my kids are drinking poison water or breathing contaminated air. And a good relation, or, or harmonious relationship with, with what’s around me, including the environment and the culture, or the community.”

Plurality

The plurality of BV resonates with Luis, a young local cooperative manager Luis, who has spent quite a bit of time outside of the region, still demonstrates a deep connection to his community. He was enthusiastic about the idea of discussing BV and spoke with confidence and fervour. Sitting in a modern local restaurant in the urban centre of Cotacachi, discussing BV, the locality is the epitome of the plural nature of BV – that BV is not only discussed in rural, Indigenous settings, but also in urban modernity and can be applied in both contexts. For Luis, BV has meaning, but it is variable yet plural in knowledge and being, “Well for me, Buen Vivir is an idea. It’s a rather diverse idea which depends on so many factors.” Luis goes on to explain the contested nature of BV but recognises that is has a set of core principles, “It’s a type of psychological construction because what Buen Vivir means to me, is not necessarily the same for others. But as I can see it, it depends on so many factors; family is very important, health is very important, personal satisfaction is also very important. And, obviously it covers all basic necessities like: food, water and shelter.” According to Javier, the leader of a local environmental organisation, this plurality gets lost in the policy approach of the Correa government, as such BV lacks significance. While interviewing in a local government office we were borrowing, Javier tells me that BV is becoming another catch-all concept akin to sustainable development. Javier stresses, “Well, here in Ecuador, Buen Vivir, or Sumak Kawsay is starting to pass as something, and this beautiful word (sic) that we use too much [ sustainable development] which almost doesn’t mean anything, well the same with Buen Vivir, it is starting to mean nothing.” Javier’s concern was that the overuse of BV was making it lose meaning. Another view was that BV as a policy proposal is still ‘under construction.’ Sitting in the café of the monastery in the centre of Cotacachi, Laura, an influential Indigenous woman, community member and leader of a local organisation had strong personal views on the idea of BV; she had studied it in the past and therefore has valuable insights to offer. Over a cup of coffee, we discussed BV and once again the vagueness of the concept had been brought up as a link to its absence of definition. Laura contemplates for a moment when I ask her how she describes BV. As an Indigenous woman she is more inclined to refer to SK and responds, “Let's see, from my point of view Sumak Kawsay is still under search and is under construction. I mean, I would not dare to say that Sumak Kawsay exists.” However, she clarifies that, “It is a proposal that comes from many streams: academic, theoretical, Indigenous. But it is a question of Andean cosmovision that is not compatible with what is proposed in this theoretical part in academic and policy development. That's my point of view.” She continues, “I think to have this question of Sumak Kawsay, we must first understand that we are different, we are diverse, and we cannot expect that there is one thing that is uniform for everyone. So, considering that, we must understand that what it means to me to be well, perhaps it may be in conflict with another person.”

Happiness

Laura continues to explain what SK or BV means to her, “Personally I think it is to be at peace and be happy with oneself. Then it is a lot of other things [other than happiness, which influence

82 wellbeing]. That is, having guarantees as a woman to ensure access to job opportunities, academic [education], social security, the issue of leisure time”, she says. However, “For me those things are simple, and they are particular to me. I am someone who is from a small town, but a town nonetheless; and it's different from that of a rural woman.” In our conversation, Laura made a point about the ineffectiveness of happiness as an indicator of BV because it is a subjective notion in a collective idea. She tells me, “I'm holding onto [the fact] that everyone needs different things to be calm and be happy. So how to do you truly combine these for them to become reality? I think there is an attempt to do so but eventually fell into what has been said, in wanting to impose things because if not, they will not be realised.” Laura goes on to describe her understanding of happiness under the Indigenous SK, “So assuming that the conception of Sumak Kawsay, as we have been told by Aunts and Mums, that it is not from here, it is not physical. There are moments of fullness, of wellbeing...when you feel happy and that's not every day. That is not visible all the time. Which it is a totality of things for you to achieve, the maximum. That is Sumak Kawsay.” Felipe also believes that happiness is important, but that it is tangible and subjective, so cannot be measured for political purposes and thus cannot really be considered as a principle of BV. He says, “Perhaps you got to ask them how happy you are. And when people say ‘yes, I’m very happy, but, but, but.’ But that could change tomorrow. If the underlying, you could say spiritual and social, and psychological bases are not strong enough, they’ll change.” Much like Laura, for Felipe the idea of happiness is embedded with “being at peace” and it resonates more strongly with BV. “Being at peace” he says, means finding a certain happiness, “There’s more depth to that because … it could mean many things to many people,” he explains in a manner similar to BV. “It means being happy with who you are, with your work. For example, if you have a good relationship with your neighbours. You can’t have Buen Vivir without, I think those key components: you get along with your community, you like who you are and what you do.”

Community

Community is again integral to the ideas of happiness, harmony and peace. Felipe explains in relation to SK that, “You can’t live and say that you’re experiencing Sumak Kawsay if you’re fighting with your neighbours.” He has spent time in many places in Ecuador and tells of his understanding of community and SK in the Amazon, as an example. “In the Amazon, they’re the ones that perhaps have developed this idea of a life plan for communities to conserve their idea of Sumak Kawsay that they can’t express. It’s a very powerful community [Sarayacu]. They value what they have…and they’re protecting that vision.” For local cooperative manager, Luis the idea of community is also present in the economic model that should underline BV. It is less about the individual and more about generating economic wellbeing for the community, as well as creating a work-life balance. Luis tells me, “It is to work on something productive that also leads to some results within the community. It is not just to generate economic products for the individual but rather, to bring in work for more people [and to] have time to spend with your family and be able to use [the time] as you want to…for me that would be Buen Vivir.”

However, Luis believes that the current economic model endangers the environment and therefore BV and the idea of community. He explains that what the community wants and what the government implements are two different things. “If we talk about Buen Vivir, we talk about living in harmony with nature; eating local produce that is sustainable.” He took on a concerned tone as he continued to elucidate, “The current government, is trying today to install a gigantic mine. For me, it is a contrast of the idea [of BV]. It does not work. In addition, the place where they want to put the mine is part of a belt that protects the entire national park, which is a protected area here in Ecuador.”

Harmony and Reciprocity

Interrelated with the vision of community is harmony and having a reciprocal relationship with nature, according to Felipe. “A good relation, or, or harmonious relationship with what’s around me, including the environment and the culture, or the community.” For Felipe these factors are central to achieving BV. He continues, “You can’t have Buen Vivir if you are drinking contaminated water, for example. And maintaining the area’s biodiversity, and actually enriching it by things like reforestation with native species, for example.” However, this is an issue of economic power, Luis tells me, which is a contraposition to BV policy. Luis continues, “For me Buen Vivir should include quality of food, quality of water, which we don’t have, and quality of life. [But] in that sense the government cares more about the economic benefits of mining to worry about local people who also depend on these types of land to survive.”

Material and Economy

According to Laura, Indigenous leader of a local organisation, BV has been a policy response to a rejection of the current development model, but as Luis explained, the policy around BV is not necessarily in consensus with the worldview and has ultimately led to adverse outcomes for communities in Cotacachi. She says, “There is a dispute of concepts that we come across, that we are putting forth Sumak Kawsay as a matter of question, to reject this current development [model] of which we all wanted to be a part.” The material is implicit in the current development model that is founded on the economic dimension of society, and this material aspect, according to Juan, a writer at a local organisation, is subordinate to the non-material aspects of BV. Giving an example of traditional Indigenous lifestyles in the Amazon he argues, “I could tell you that in the Amazon they [the government] say they are promoting the Good Life for those people. But what is Buen Vivir really? Because these Amazonians according to us do not live in humane conditions. But do you decide this?” The material does not equate to wellbeing and certainly not to BV. He continues, “There they have no electricity, they do not have television, they do not have phone; that does not mean that they don’t have Buen Vivir because these are services that this society is adapted to having in order to feel comfortable.” He qualifies by explaining, “to have a car or a motorcycle, is that Buen Vivir? I do not think so. Because firstly, Buen Vivir is in our food, our health. I can have all the money in the world but what if I'm dying of cancer, what good does it serve me?”

Felipe agrees that the material aspect of the current development model is problematic. He states, “Everyone has a different idea of what they need… but, this idea of using things you don’t need, or replacing them when they’re perfectly fine, that’s part of this vision that’s so dysfunctional.” For BV to be achieved, he tells me, that mindset has to change. “It’s okay for us to have computers, or cameras, or even a car if you need it. No problem with that. It’s this idea that you need to renew them so often that’s so well indoctrinated in many people’s minds.” The economic aspect of BV for local cooperative manager Luis, is about being able to ensure the satisfaction of basic needs. “Now when we speak of Buen Vivir, in a way for me it has to do a lot with not necessarily with economic issues, but with needs. To ensure some kind of, economic base to meet needs.” However, Luis explains, it is not to do with individual needs, but in keeping within the spirit of the community, “It should ideally be communal work between families rather than between individuals, where we look after the health of people. It depends on healthy people, which comes from good food with local produce, rather than buying products from outside.” Despite the fact that each key informant has an idea of what BV means to them, the challenge is now to continue the discussion, to examine what it looks like in practice, and to fully understand the common core principles and the challenges to achieving it while honouring the spirit of BV. As Laura states, “The issue is to still continue discussing this Sumak Kawsay, and I think the hardest thing there is that is no secret that it is not the same for everyone, and I do not know how we will make the convergence. That is the main challenge of how we combine what it means.” Part of this challenge is to find the points of convergence between the different groups of actors who contest it, which I do in the following section, Part II of this chapter.

5.3. Part II – Towards a Practical Understanding of Buen Vivir

In a review of the literature (particularly post-development), BV has been asserted as an alternative to development, and one that can offer an alternative approach to sustainable development to improve communal wellbeing and achieve long-term sustainability. The biggest questions arising from the literature is: What is BV and how can it be implemented? One cannot prescriptively define what BV means, simply because as discussed in Chapter Two it is a ‘concept under construction’ which it can be defined differently depending on who interprets it, and that is part of its allure as an alternative. The overarching research question is: Can BV become a viable and practical alternative to SD? Chapter Two identified that yes it can provided that certain conditions are met, one of those conditions is creating a solid understanding of what it means at the community level. What we need to know at this point is what it entails on-the-ground. In that aim, Part I of this chapter asks the question: what is BV? This question was asked of key informants at the beginning of each interview (see Appendix 1). Part I detailed the answers to that question through a narrative based on the responses from the three actor groups: community members; government; and, local organisations. The overall aim was to start to build a better understanding BV through those voices. Part II subsequently focuses on the analysis of the data provided by the key informants, and gathered through observations and document analysis to answer the research sub-questions questions below, with the objective of examining the possibility of its application as a practical tool for communities with policy implications and thus becoming a viable ‘practical’ alternative to SD. Part II brings together the synergies between the different interpretations of BV (including from the literature) and delves deeper into the analysis the core principles of BV, building upon the findings of the literature review, and triangulating them with the data from the fieldwork research to provide a clearer understanding of what BV actually means and what it looks like on the ground. The principle sub-question for Part II of this chapter is: How do local Indigenous and non- Indigenous communities understand and practice BV? Answering it entails looking at several factors, explored over the following sections. The first section ‘What Does Buen Vivir Entail?’ explores how BV is understood on the ground and analysing the core principles of BV at that level. To be able to attain BV however, community needs must be met. Therefore, this section subsequently looks at what kinds of practices local communities are undertaking towards collective wellbeing and needs satisfaction. This addresses how the issue of ‘needs’ should be approached under BV and leads to how materialism and the economy is viewed under BV to enable needs satisfaction. As part of completing the understanding of BV on-the-ground, the literature in Chapter Two identified a gap in knowledge of how it is practiced at the local level. The following section ‘Good Living or Living Well? Practice vs Policy’ therefore examines how it is practiced at the local level. This section outlines one of the main findings of the fieldwork regarding the differentiation between policy and practice. This leads to the next section which explores the roles of the different actors in implementing BV endogenously. It asks the following questions: To which extent are institutions important in realising BV and what role do governments play?

After analysing how BV is understood, including how needs are met and how the economy is understood under BV; and how it is practiced on the ground and the roles of the different actors. The final section in this Chapter examines the question: What are the challenges to achieving BV? With a focus on the key challenge of extractivism, which is explored in greater detail in Chapter Five. The ultimate contribution of this chapter therefore is to understand how BV can be used as a community tool in the pursuit of it becoming a viable alternative to SD. As identified in Chapter Two, it has the potential beyond post-development because it requires practice and concrete courses of action, whereas post-development only assumes a critique of the discourse. Yet, the lack of concrete understanding of BV in a community setting is paradoxical the fact that the principles for an endogenous, community-led approach have only been identified in the literature, academically and in policy, not empirically, on-the-ground. What is understood about BV thus far in this research is that it is not intended to be another alternate development project in the name of economic growth and development. One might say that an endogenous-focused BV is in fact the anti-thesis to the current development model, albeit a plural one that can work cooperatively in different realities, and within various contexts. It’s flexibility to be tailored to cultural, linguistic, historic and geographic contexts is possibly its greatest strength, against the universal, top-down imposition of traditional development; of which sustainable development is part. It provides descriptive meaning founded in a set of core principles which delivers a direction for change but leaves the prescriptive elements up to the communities themselves. This Chapter examines the ‘what’ of BV, with Chapter Six analysing the ‘how’.

5.3.1. What does Buen Vivir Entail? There is an assumption in literature on BV that there is still a vague notion of what BV entails and how it can be implemented, partly because of its complexity and partly because of its contested nature. Cubillo et al. describe it as “a form of life in harmony with oneself, with society and with nature” and Chapter Two outlined the core principles as identified in the literature, but what that looks like in practice is ambiguous. From the literature review we understand that BV entails “building multiple realities that exist plurally under Buen Vivir itself, that would take meaning only within the boundaries each society” (Cubillo-Guevara, Hidalgo-Capitán & García-Álvarez 2016). With that in mind, this section analyses what BV entails, triangulating the fieldwork data with the literature review to build upon its principles.

5.3.2. The Principles of Buen Vivir Interviews with key informants, together with the literature have confirmed that BV means different things to different people. The advantage of this contextuality is cemented in the principle of plurality – referring to both a plurality of knowledge and a plurality of being. However, key informants felt that while the Correa government introduced a policy of BV, it failed to concretely set out its core principles in manner that can help guide practice and can be used as a practical tool by communities

87 in the pursuit of BV44. Interchanging BV and SK, local government employee Leandro states, “The slogan is there [in policy], but the basic idea is not…the problem is that they never knew what Sumak Kawsay is.” The key premise of BV is that it needs to come from the bottom-up, rather than top-down. Furthermore, as a plural concept, its co-construction should incorporate all epistemologies is necessary in order to move forward. The following section is a response to the question ‘How do local Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities define Buen Vivir’. It is a result of the triangulation of the data including interviews, document analysis and observations against the findings of the literature review45, cementing the common core principles. It is this set of principles which will help determine a concrete path for its application at the community level, in any community context. While one individual definition may differ from the next person, there are principles which are common in BV, and which can help guide a more just and sustainable society. Luis, an employee of a local cooperative which works with local producers internationally explains, Everyone has their own concept, but at the same time there are variables that are connected together. There are things that for all humanity are necessary. And that can somehow represent a certain level of personal satisfaction and satisfaction of life, and well if in this case it is that one wants to use the use the term Buen Vivir, it could encapsulate it all. Yes, there are some fundamental principles that I think people can agree on what Buen Vivir is….For example, it can be health, access to food, a community. I personally believe that there is no one who can say ‘I don’t want this in my life’.

A total of 17 principles were then identified based on the understandings of BV at the local level, and in dialogue with the principles discussed in Chapter Two. The principles (as will be demonstrated in the following sections) are both interdependent and interconnected. Table 3 illustrates the core principles aligned by their corresponding pillars defined by Delgado et. al. as the three main pillars (categories) for BV: social, spiritual and material (Delgado Burgoa, Rist and Escobar Vasquez, 2010) and Álvarez’ (2013, p. ix) six common dimensions (for the classification of the principles within the categories) of BV: livelihood, equity, sustainability, empowerment, capabilities and social cohesion (see Chapter 2). The ‘material’ pillar includes a more holistic vision for economic activity, discussed later. Here, I have taken the same framework of principles used in Chapter Two, based on a review of the literature, and triangulated the findings from the fieldwork to include a set of core principles that builds upon the literature with an on-the-ground understanding of the principles to

44 This last point is important because although the PNBV outlines several principles with certain government targets to be achieved, this is more akin to traditional development in that it is implemented from the top-down. Yet an analysis of the concept asserts that it is endogenous, to implement change from the bottom-up. I also reiterates the need to include all key actors in the identification of principles. Additionally, neither the key informants nor the literature believe that the principles outlines by the government are concrete enough to provide transformative change. For these reasons although the government interpretation has informed my analysis, it is not appropriate to recourse to this for an understanding of BV. See Appendix 7 for an outline of the government’s principles. 45 To see the themes that emerged from the data that were not found in the literature review, please see Appendix 2.

address the above-mentioned gaps. A discussion of these principles follows46.There is no hierarchy between the principles therefore the discussion below is not ordered by principle, but rather I discuss the principles by their relevant dimension, as this seeks to demonstrate the interconnectedness of the principles.

Principles of Buen Vivir Social Spiritual Material Equity Social Sustainability Empowerment Livelihood Capabilities Cohesion • Equality • Community • Reciprocity • Self-determination • SSE economy • Good health • Holistic rights • Harmony • Healthy environment • Respect • Decent work • Culture • Solidarity • Food security • Participation • Leisure time • Education

Table 5: Core Principles of BV

Social Cohesion

Community in BV is the turning point between an individualistic notion of development and the idea of seeking communal wellbeing and sustainability. The principle of community refers to aligning one’s values to prioritising the community above the individual. In places like Latin America there is still a strong notion of community, unlike in many Western countries; and the community is what ties everyone together and provides support, which positively affects wellbeing. Though two other principles must be present for community to function: harmony and solidarity. Without those two, there effectively is no community spirit. Rodriguez, a local farmer in the Intag Valley explains, “A community is the second home, because a community is everything. You cannot be part of a community if you are isolated from others. My home is where my family is, and my second home is the community, which we must defend and fight for and try to give the best within the community.” The value of family was frequently discussed, and for many as the foundation of wellbeing, and part of community. Though it does not necessarily mean that for one to obtain wellbeing, one must be part of a family unit. For some, that is simply not possible. However, for most key informants community signifies that the involvement of families, not just individuals, in community life enriches community cohesion and solidarity. Rafael explains, “they do not have to be blood. What I believe is that we need to all talk. Talk and agree on the best solutions [to community problems]”. It denotes solidarity. Complementing this vision is the idea that community and harmony between people is necessary for wellbeing, and therefore BV, as explains founder of a local organisation, Felipe, “That’s

46 This discussion is organised by the dimensions of BV rather than the principles because the interrelated nature of the principles means that often several principles were discussed in one paragraph. The discussion therefore can often be grouped under one dimension, further demonstrating how I have categorised the principles under their respective dimensions.

89 what wellbeing is for many people, absolutely – you get along with your neighbours. You can’t live and say that you’re experiencing Sumak Kawsay if you’re fighting with your neighbours.”

Sustainability

Reciprocity, the principle built on relationships, is of equal importance to BV. Two thirds of key informants say that it is the cornerstone of BV; this differentiates it from other alternative approaches. Reciprocity here is defined as the integral relationship between human society and the natural environment that heeds a sentiment of greater respect than the current development model. As a biocentric concept, the principle of having a healthy environment is central to the idea of BV; as a society which pays greater respect to the cyclical nature of our relationship with the environment will arguably have a heathier environment as a result. That relates to the sustainable use of resources over their commodification for economic growth , and an understanding that humans need the environment in order to survive (Acosta 2012). As Diego, a political activist and respected community member asserts, “There is a relationship between man and nature and when one does not respect the other, it’s difficult to live in an environment where there is no mutual respect…The possibility between man and nature which gives us rights to give and receive [from nature]; and also, we give and receive.” Giraldo (2014) describes the concept in relation to keeping a certain harmony between all living beings, “emphasizing a full life with access to the sufficient and necessary with absolute correspondence with the wellbeing of Mother Nature and of other human beings.”. Mother Nature is how the Indigenous key informants prefer to refer to the environment (Pachamama), criticising the Spanish translation of environment for its lack of commitment to all living and non-living things. In Spanish, the term environment (medioambiente) is separated into two parts: ‘medio’ (medium, middle, or half) and ‘ambiente’ (atmosphere or surroundings). Leandro explains, “The environment, everything is the environment. That is what environment means. So, I do not conceive of medioambiente. Because half is half. It's ambiente for us. It is important to have an environment [ambiente]. The environment is not only nature.” Pachamama thus encompasses more of an eco-centric approach as opposed to the human-centred values system under traditional development. Juan, a farmer, and writer in the Intag Valley asserts, “It is very important”, then asks jokingly, “where is the other half?” he continues, “Do you believe that we live in a half-environment or a whole-environment?” A healthy environment which hosts fertile, uncontaminated land also helps ensure food security. The State of Food Insecurity (FAO 2001) defined food security as “a situation that exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. This is closely aligned with the idea of intergenerational needs highlighted by the Brundtland definition of Sustainable Development. It also aligns with the meta-narrative for neoliberal SD. The post-modern perspective on food security however, highlights the complexity, diversity and flexibility needed in thinking about food security (Maxwell 1996), which is more in line with the notion of BV itself. The post-modern shift takes the above definition and nuances it to focus on the subjective not objective meta-narrative of food security; it includes the livelihoods of individuals and communities rather than

‘food first’ and includes bottom-up, participatory approaches to food interventions (Maxwell 1996). When the issue of a healthy environment is raised, it is usually followed by a need for food security, and the fact that food security cannot be ensured without a healthy environment. In places like Intag, this is generally raised in relation to the impacts of extractive activities on agricultural land. Food is a central part of Ecuadorian social life, but the ability to cultivate and harvest food is especially valued in the rural areas of Ecuador like Intag. To those in urban areas it means having access to safe and healthy quality produce, without the risk of transgenic and chemical use. For Maria who lives in a semi-rural Indigenous community, access to land and the capacity to work it is vital to her wellbeing and survival, as an Indigenous person; but also, as a woman. In rural areas this means being able to have access to land, and to learn to work the land and yield one’s own produce to consume and to provide a livelihood, despite impacts from climate change. To achieve Buen Vivir we must encourage women to work our lands. Right now, if I do not work I do not eat. And at times we women sit and chat about the fact that if everyone went to work [in a professional sense] all over the world and earned money; when you stop working Pachamama in agriculture what do we eat, the dollar bill? NO.

The right to healthy food and the right to property to fulfil social and environmental function and guarantee food security is codified under the 2008 Constitution, and it is also the objective of the recently introduced Law of Rural Land and Ancestral Territories (Ley orgánica de tierras rurales y territorios ancestrales república del ecuador national assembly 2016).

Empowerment

The ability and capacity for a community to manage their own resources endogenously and determine their own path to development is the basis for community self-determination. A respect for others’ opinions and situations helps foster a healthy environment where participation and self- determination can flourish and endogenous solutions to local problems can arise – “the power is in local communities” ('Una oportunidad insólita de cambiar el mundo' 2010). Stated in the PNBV is Ecuador’s objective to promote endogenous development to improve “the people’s capacity for self-determination in their public decisions, and in their political, territorial, food, energy, economic, financial, commercial and cultural matters” (SENPLADES, 2009, p. 61) through food and economic sovereignty “and the achievement of balances between production, work and environment, with self-determination, justice and sovereign international relations” (SENPLADES 2009a). Economic sovereignty refers to the strengthening of actors and processes which allow direct participation in public decision-making. Participation can be understood as a necessary requirement for self-determination, and both of these principles can be understood as a necessary precondition to achieve BV endogenously. As Leandro, a local government employee affirms, “not one person decides any one thing; but we all decide, we all have to participate. Participate in all senses of the word.” For youth leader Sofia participation is all-inclusive and equitable. She argues, “Buen Vivir is participation for everyone, that

91 everyone is treated equally: the elderly, the disabled - That there is no discrimination. It should be the opinion of all and the union of all.”

Equity

Equity in participation is also a crucial element and helps provide equality of opportunity regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion or other factors. Diego argues that for him, community wellbeing “is society, community, sharing values, principles, and rights for all on an equal footing.” Equal opportunity is expressed as a fundamental right, but equality is also a principle in its own right, which gives entitlement to rights. Fundamental rights potentially cover all of the core principles but is equally important as a principle in its own right to expressly ensure that fundamental rights are upheld equitably in order to achieve BV. Fundamental rights are a set of legal protections in the context of a particular jurisdiction and includes rights to which all human beings are fundamentally entitled (Universal declaration of human rights 1948). While the argument for universal and individual rights seems contradictory to the contextual and communal in BV, the rights contained in the most modern constitutions are similar to those contained in the International Bill of Rights47 (Gardbaum 2008). The difference with those rights necessary to obtain BV is that it emphasizes “rights for all”, refocusing the communal wellbeing objective, and also includes the ‘Rights of Nature’. This is not to negate that the individual has rights, but these rights should be regarded in the context of communal and sustainable social and environmental wellbeing. Because of this emphasis on communal wellbeing over the individual, and the inclusion of the ‘Rights of Nature’ I refer to those fundamental rights as ‘holistic’. The Rights of Nature are codified in the 2008 Constitution under articles 71 to 74, which institutes those rights, provides the right to restauration and applies the principle of precaution, and article 74 allows the people to benefit from the use of these resources to obtain BV (2008). Thus, holistic rights under BV not only includes human-centred rights but also those delegated to nature. On the Rights of Nature, Luis argues that it is fundamental for intergenerational ecological sustainability but also refers to the sustainable use of resources with reciprocity in mind, It is achieving long-term as a human collective power a healthy environment for generations to come; an appropriate environment that can be sustainable in the long term. You can maintain that good relationship with Pachamama in this case, or the environment without destroying it completely. No need to use all the resources we have now to have a good quality of life.

Capabilities

Despite a general respect for the environment throughout Ecuadorian communities, many recognise that an awareness of the effects and consequences of certain practices and ways of life on the environment is not purely instinctive; it comes with education. There is also a feeling in communities that people’s behaviours and attitudes towards this have changed for the better since the recent government laws and campaigns, returning to ancient practices and utilising modern

47 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant for Social and Economic Rights, and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights

92 technology and knowledge to protect and conserve land. It was not necessarily on the part of mal- intention, rather it had become customary practice owing much to a push for development by previous governments and the international community. In his environmental work, regional representative of a national government ministry Mateo tells, Northern Ecuador including up to Esmeraldas used to be called the green province because it conserved 50 to 80 percent of its forests. Then that's when this law came in that 50 percent of your land should be worked. If you were in possession of 100 hectares of forest, the same state forced you to ‘work’ it. You had to prove you're working on that site by clearing 50 percent of the forest. That is, of the 100 hectares, 50 you had to uproot, and then you could settle the title. That law is dead now, and we have started to raise people’s awareness. But if we talk about the environment it is not only taking care of the trees or look after water. It’s changing attitudes ranging from the child, to the parent, to society itself. Then changing it [attitudes] requires a lot of work. So, ensuring a healthy and balanced environment is the biggest task of all.

The right to education is also considered a fundamental right (SENPLADES 2009a), and likewise is a core principle of BV. It is also by education that we learn values as a society. Therefore, education is not only vital to create future opportunities, but also it is helps create values and a savoir vivre, and as mentioned, an awareness of BV. Mateo, argues, “I believe that education is one of the most important, fundamental pillars that there is because it cultivates values , and principles. If I'm well educated I will have values and these values, I will also pass on to my children.” Moreover, education can improve social wellbeing, providing wide-ranging benefits to a community by promoting active citizenship (OECD 2013a). Education considers the context of culture. The practice and respect of culture through education is crucial to BV and ensuring that communities retain their particular capabilities at no detriment to their culture. As Head of a local organisation Felipe argues, for many people culture is an important part of BV, “so cultural identity is important for many people…for the Indigenous people it becomes more of a central issue.” Maintaining good health, like culture, is a major resource for communities and is seen as a basic capability for wellbeing (Fukuda-Parr 2003) and according to Mateo, “the right to health is the most important thing for human beings.” Public health issues can have detrimental impacts on the economy and can affect community capabilities, especially if issues relate to mental health. In the pursuit of SSEW, Sen’s capability approach was apt in that it claimed the moral requirement for the freedom to achieve wellbeing (Sen, 2001). This freedom means increasing citizens’ participation and access to the things value – like good health, culture, education and the environment. But where it differs from capabilities understood within the context of BV is that that freedom for wellbeing should be understood in terms of individual capabilities. Where Sen was concerned with the ability of development to expand individual capabilities, BV is more concerned with collective capabilities of a community to achieve SSEW. It reaffirms that the principles of BV are interrelated. Capabilities are intrinsically linked to livelihood.

Livelihood

One economic aspect that can impact on mental and physical health is that of having access to decent work opportunities. The issue of decent work was revealed as a core principle of BV not only by key informants but also by government policy. However, decent work for oneself encapsulates not only having financial security, but also a sense of personal fulfilment in one’s work. For key informants, decent work not only means a fair income, job security and decent working conditions but also includes having leisure time to enjoy outside of work. For local organisation representative and Indigenous woman Laura, one is implicated in the other, and it is especially as issue for women. She says “I personally think that [BV] is to be tranquil and well within oneself. Then, those two things mean a lot of other things. That is, as a woman how you ensure the issue of access to job opportunities, academia, social security, taking advantage of your own time.” Access to decent work and leisure time are economic issues. While the ethos behind BV denounces economic growth above all else, the economy is still an important factor for achieving it. The difference is a focus on a social and solidarity economy48 (SSE) rather than a market economy, the latter emphasized under traditional development. The SSE is concerned with collective capabilities in the realisation of an alternative. Thus, collective capabilities are intrinsic to the material pillar. Moreover, capabilities reinforce livelihood, and vice-versa. Scarlato (2013) argues that the SSE, in particular social enterprise, emphasised under a BV approach can help enhance capabilities. Scarlato (2013) describes “social enterprise as a means of supporting grassroots mobilisation to emphasise the concept of collective capabilities”. Scarlato (2013) further argues that “the concept of collective capabilities helps to reconcile the individualist orientation of the human development approach with the principles of reciprocity and collectivity that underlie the buen vivir vision.” For the majority of key informants, capabilities and livelihood are central concerns and are understood as a question of meeting fundamental needs while retaining rights, community, and self-determination. Meeting fundamental needs is imperative to attaining BV.

5.3.3. A Grassroots Perspective of Needs In Chapter One the question arises, ‘what are needs, who defines them and how can they be satisfied?’ If needs are not satisfied, then the principles of BV cannot be met, and vice-versa. While there is a set of core principles, the different interpretations of BV revert to the issue of needs satisfaction. As community is the basis of BV, different conceptions of needs must be discussed on that level, not in an individual sense. In other words, each community’s needs are different and therefore that determines what BV looks like to any particular community. On meeting those fundamental needs, however, it is important to consider the grassroots perspective, rather than take a Western developmental approach to needs. According to Indigenous community leader Gabriela, more can be done on that level to achieve BV. She states that we need to understand “what would be the best mechanism to work more

48 Buen Vivir aims for environmental and communal wellbeing and intergenerational sustainability to live well, and not better as growth-centred development models prescribe. A doctoral thesis by Michela Giovanni thoroughly examined how effective SSE and in particular social enterprises are for achieving Bun Vivir. Her focus was based on ethnographic fieldwork in Chiapas Mexico (Giovannini 2014b).

[cooperatively] with our people. Mostly with young people to change their materialistic ideas.” That is, the much-needed change away from materialistic wants as a façade of actual fundamental needs. That indicates that governments must facilitate that change, as many key informants believe. In the case of Indigenous communities, Gabriela believes that, “the government should allocate a resource for organizations to start to strengthen ancestral knowledge. But that it is not based on the government's need but our REAL needs. So then, we decide how we want define Sumak Kawsay.” The issue of needs is a complex one, and in order to be able to satisfy needs under BV, there must be governmental support for an endogenous approach like BV. Needs, in a contested concept is complex terrain, however there was a consensus in the data – supported by the literature - that needs should be determined by the people themselves based on actual needs and not identified exogenously in relation to an individualistic, consumerist vision of needs. Felipe explains that the idea of needs is different for everyone, but that it should not be based on consumerism. Felipe thus calls into question the modern, neoliberal idea of needs, which is tied to the economic market and consumption. It is also part of the complexity of the rhetorical discourse on needs and identifying, assessing and satisfying needs, as either wants or requirements (Jackson, Jager & Stagl 2008). Jackson et al, citing Campbell make two points about consumerism and needs: one is related to an actual ‘need’, ‘requirement’, ‘necessity’, and ‘deficiency’ while the other can be attributed to ‘desire’, ‘pleasure’, and ‘love’ with related antonyms of ‘boredom’ or ‘indifference’ (Jackson, Jager & Stagl 2008). They state, “In a world in which economic consumption is threatening to erode the integrity of the global ecosystems, it is particularly vital to be able to identify which bits of consumption contribute to human needs satisfaction, and which simply operate as pseudo-satisfiers and destroyers.” The latter is closely tied to consumption and economic growth and can actually inhibit the satisfaction of actual needs. Local government representative Fernando tells, The difference is in buying to meet our needs, then I do not think we will ever meet them. Because one can make the grave mistake of saying: Well I need a computer. It seems that acquiring such equipment satisfies the need. But it is not so, one enters into the world of consumerism. But later they are going to bring out a computer with more technology. The reaction is ‘I want more and more’. Then the difference is that one is consuming to satisfy [needs] but not to satisfy the basics for me, as a person. Let's talk in the case of food, I buy it because I need to feed my body. Then I have a tool that will be used for my family. But if everyone has to have the best then we will never satisfy our needs. And that's the grave error that we have make and [then] we fall into the grand majority.

If we return to the Brundtland Report’s use of needs rhetoric in SD, as a society one cannot guarantee that current and future needs are met if those needs are based on material consumption, desires and wants. They must be thought of as basic needs; those needs which are required to be satisfied for human life to continue in a dignified manner; though the identification of actual needs, and especially at a community level is a complex issue. According to local writer Juan, BV must be decided by the people themselves. For all of the key informants, BV has not yet been achieved, and though many say that it is very difficult to achieve, meeting basic needs is a start. Diego says,

At least I think you can satisfy priority needs: access to drinking water, access to sewage, electricity, decent work, living in a healthy environment, to have the possibility of freedom of communication and decision. Not to have limits to decide what you want for your life and what is necessary for your life, and not necessarily your life, not to be prosecuted; and neither the political community nor the governance structure be the cause [of that].

Many informants and community members in Cotacachi showed concern for the top-down identification of needs by governments and exogenous organisations as is common practice in development policy. They point to several failed development projects instituted by either international non-governmental organisations or national government priorities. They were futile, they argue, not because of a lack of good intention, but because they failed to let the communities decide what their actual needs were. Instead, relegating to an outsider’s perspective of what was needed in the community. These were environmental, economic development and women’s empowerment projects which could have been successfully implemented by other means if the communities themselves determined their own needs. One such example is an international organisation which donated a commercial oven to a small community hall, to provide an opportunity to generate income by opening a dining hall. It remains unused because as one community member told me, “In such a small community we don't need to eat out.” Many in these communities have an alternative conception of needs than in Western society. Some externally-established projects, says local government employee Emanuel, create imagined needs that did not exist prior. Speaking of the World Bank PRODEPINE (Indigenous and Afro- Ecuadorian Peoples Development Project49) he tells, “the idea was to bring the Indigenous to power, make them feel the allure of power…the PRODEPINE project and the World Bank gave 20 million dollars directly to the Indigenous, generating other needs. The golden ponchos as they were called here were groups of Indians with gigantic salaries.” This type of mindset is evident in their fight against mining in the County. In informal conversations with community members I was often told that they are simply not interested in wealth generation as long as they have their basic needs met. Things like family, community, personal relationships, a healthy environment and food security are more important than economic progress in the name of development; especially when economic growth is generated by resource extraction, which they say inhibits and even prohibits the ability to meet basic needs and achieve Buen Vivir. Basic needs were often cited by key informants as those needs imperative for survival and a dignified life: food, shelter, clothing, and essential public services as such as clean water, sanitation, public transport, health, and education. Basic needs, like shelter are also considered material needs; however, the perception of what that entails may differ from society to society. For example, in the West, it is a widely held view that one needs to own a home and emphasis is placed on the size, aesthetics and location of that home; while in rural Ecuador these expectations may differ. Emmanuel illustrates, [In the West] you cannot imagine living well if you do not have a good home; and a good house means of cement, iron, with a tile roof, with a second and then a third floor. You cannot imagine Buen Vivir or Vivir Bien if you do not

49 For more information on this project, see (World Bank 2003)

have a good car, quality, and the latest model, right? If you have fine clothes, and if you have a smart phone, and especially if you have money; without that the West cannot imagine living well or development, unlike the Indigenous and also the peasant world. But intrinsically if there is the concept of living well or good life these aspirations no longer matter. It is what you have is, what little God has given me…but that does not mean you're unhappy or inferior because of it.

Looking at needs only through the basic needs lens poses a risk of falling back into the neoliberal theory of development, whereby GDP is the measurement of wellbeing, because as the theory suggests economic growth creates the necessary wealth to cover basic needs for all and hereby attaining ‘development’ (Phélan 2011). If this approach has not worked to achieve wellbeing, social justice and sustainability, then it must be changed. When questioned about what key informants believed the needs of the community are, they generally cited basic needs such as those defined above. In Cotacachi, many communities still have unsatisfied basic needs. For Indigenous business owner Valentina, unsatisfied basic needs, as well as a lack of capacity is what is missing for her community to attain environmental and social wellbeing. She says, “there are communities without clean water. There are communities that do not have all basic services; It makes these communities still lack basic services, such as mains sewage and drinking water.” Basic services play a crucial role, therefore so does local government in providing those service. As Fernando says, Well-being is improved with real services. For example, a community without a water quality service cannot really live, cannot have wellbeing. So, welfare is reached with basic services that meet the satisfaction of the [needs] of the people… with economic efforts we can gradually reduce these obstacles, those unsatisfied basic needs such as unsatisfied basic services, water, sewage, the issue of environmental sanitation, the issue of access to education, of access to quality health services.

Likewise, Felipe says that there are basic tangible needs that governments can help satisfy, The governments say we got to build more clinics. And many communities will be happy with that. Or we’re going to build a road, and many communities will openly accept a road, because that’s part of this indoctrination that, that the inhabitants of a country may have: that roads are good, clinics are good, hospitals are good, ah, a big school with fancy equipment is good. So, the physical aspects of wellbeing will be met to a certain point by government. Those are tangible.

However, throughout the interviews it was clear that these needs are not the only needs to be satisfied. Though, he continues, to achieve BV there are many intangible, psychological needs that cannot be satisfied economically. “There are many intangible things that a government can’t really give you: this peace with yourself, peace with communities, peace with your environment.” The satisfaction of these intangible needs is also essential to ensure that wellbeing exists. Psychological needs mirrored in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow & Lewis 1987) such as culture, leisure time, community and family, and the more spiritual needs such as respect and a sense reciprocity with the environment are equally as important for both wellbeing and sustainability. Hence these needs being cited as core principles to achieve.

Another alternative approach to needs satisfaction was conceived by Manfred Max-Neef in 1991 under Human Scale Development (HSD) (Max-Neef, Elizalde & Hopenhayn 1991). The objective of HSD is development that “is focused and based on the satisfaction of fundamental human needs, on the generation of growing levels of self-reliance, and on the construction of organic articulations of people with nature and technology, of global processes with local activity, of the personal with the social, of planning with autonomy and of civil society with the state” (Max-Neef, Elizalde & Hopenhayn 1991). It includes nine axiological needs: subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, identity, idleness, creation, and freedom; and four existential categories, or ‘satisfiers’ which help in the satisfaction of these needs: being, doing, having, and interacting (Ivonne Cruz 2011; Jackson, Jager & Stagl 2008; Max-Neef, Elizalde & Hopenhayn 1991). In Max-Neef’s theory, not all satisfiers are equally successful. There are destroyers, which completely fail to satisfy the need; pseudo-satisfiers, which generate a false sense of need satisfaction and; inhibiting satisfiers, which satisfy one need but inhibit the satisfaction of other needs (Jackson, Jager & Stagl 2008). The approach outlined by Max-Neef based on fundamental needs, rather than basic needs, is the most appropriate in the context of BV. These reasons are threefold and are manifested in what we know about BV thus far: 1) they allow for contextualisation and particularities in different contexts; 2) they are based on self-determination, participation and a reciprocal relationship within the community and with nature, and; 3) they include both the tangible basic needs and intangible psychological needs. This last point in particular was discussed by key informants as being a crucial factor in BV. The fundamental difference between Max-Neef’s conception of needs and that of Maslow is that there is no hierarchy in Max-Neef’s needs (Max-Neef, Elizalde & Hopenhayn 1994). This is an important distinction for BV because as key informants demonstrated they are all interrelated. What is interesting in Max-Neef’s argument given the contested nature of BV is the need for ‘transcendence’ that is how needs are satisfied over time and between cultures. It is the ‘satisfiers’ or the ‘having’, ‘doing’, ‘being’ and ‘interacting’ which changes according to culture, context and circumstance (Cruz, Stahel & Max-Neef 2009). Looking at needs satisfaction through the lens of BV rather than traditional development diminishes the risk of the above-mentioned negative satisfiers because of the focus on communal needs with a respect for the environment rather than individual needs based on “desires and preferences expressed through the market” (Jackson, Jager & Stagl 2008). The satisfiers allow communities to identify ways in which their needs can be satisfied, not just identifying the needs and then leaving it to institutions or organisations to determine how these should be satisfied. For example, in the context of Intag where the government is closing local schools, the need for ‘understanding’ comes under the principle for education and can be satisfied by providing local schools to minimise the risk to children travelling by foot or shared transport. The concern for the lack of local schools was widely felt by key informants. Leandro, a local government employee in Cotacachi Municipal government explains, We have a huge territory and they [national government] want to close our schools. Bilingual schools too. Disadvantaging people, and I mean disadvantage in the sense that… imagine children have to walk two or three kilometres, or one kilometre [to go to school].

Local farmer Rodriguez says that these needs have not been considered, “[s]o far what has been done in the community is trying to prevent schools from being closed, but it was impossible. Because a school is the soul of the community, it is the light of your community because it is your future.” From the governmental perspective there is a direct correlation between the satisfaction of needs and happiness, which the national government along with local organisations believe is the cornerstone to BV. For that reason, the Correa government created the now defunct Ministry for BV, whose mandate is to satisfy the basic needs of Ecuadorians. One of the ways it aimed to do so is by replacing GDP with a measure for happiness ('Freddy ehlers: El buen vivir es sinónimo de felicidad' 2015). Former Minister for BV Freddy Elhers describes BV as a “synonym of happiness” ('Freddy ehlers: El buen vivir es sinónimo de felicidad' 2015), though most key informants believe that BV is more complex than that. But, Rafael explains, “Buen Vivir enables us to have a happy life. Not always. It may not always be happy but to live with greater happiness.” However, like wellbeing, it can be said to be an outcome of the achievement of BV rather than a principle to achieve it. Though if both the tangible and intangible needs are satisfied, one can conclude that this will lead to greater levels of happiness. Indigenous community leader, Gabriela, also includes the satisfaction of basic needs, along with psychological needs as a driver of happiness, “Being happy is, being in harmony with your family at home, that you have your basic necessities, food, that you eat healthily. I know that there are always things that I feel will ensure [so] that my children are well. In other words, that they have decent work and food to eat.” Happiness was an important outcome for government and local organisational key informants. Although happiness is generally considered in academia as subjective it is directly related to the cohesion and harmony in a community, as Felipe explains, “It means being happy with who you are, with your work. For example, if you have a good relationship with your neighbours. You can’t have Buen Vivir without [them]. I think those are key components: you get along with your community, you like who you are and what you do.” According to the Australian Unity’s Australian Wellbeing Index (AUWI) (Australian Unity 2016) happiness is achieved when three elements are present: relationships, financial security, and good health. The Index measures subjective happiness and equates it to individual wellbeing. Although the AUWI assesses individual happiness, the importance of harmony within a community and one’s personal relationships demonstrates that if the more psychological needs are satisfied - a sense of community, harmony and solidarity - then individual happiness will follow, which will have a cyclical effect on communal wellbeing.

5.3.4. Materialism, Economy and Buen Vivir One element of BV that has been identified by both the key informants and policy for BV is that to achieve it and meet fundamental needs, the productive matrix must change, and a new economic model must be adopted (SENPLADES 2013Objective 10). Thus, the material pillar of BV moves beyond material ‘progress’ or accumulation and economic growth and focuses on the

99 principles which are vital to satisfying fundamental needs and achieving the communal vision of sustainability and wellbeing. While BV rejects the notion of economic growth and wealth accumulation, the economy is still imperative to a Good Life, though it is based on a reciprocal relationship with the earth, not one that purely views natural resources as economic commodities; meaning that within a BV economy, society must truly live within the limits of the earth’s capacity – reminiscent of the 1972 argument ‘Limits to Growth’, commissioned by the Club of Rome. It is arguably time to begin looking towards an economic approach that promotes sustainable living because as Mander and Goldsmith (2014) argue, “we now face chronic, uncontrolled global crises in deforestation, biodiversity loss, climate change, fisheries depletion, soil loss, land degradation and freshwater depletion. Perilously, economic globalization is pushing the Earth beyond its limits.” Two thirds of the key informants mentioned that there are biophysical limits to the earth that must be respected, but that are not because of the attitude and consumeristic ways of life in modern society. They believe that it is an issue of awareness and education, that once people fully comprehend that the resources are running out, they stop or slow down their materialistic consumption patterns. BV takes the idea of intergenerational sustainability set out in SD seriously, since it relies on the nature-society continuum. As Laura, an Indigenous member of a local organisation stated, for many in society, Resources are something you have, and you take advantage of. That CANNOT continue like that because we are part of it. At some point the forest is going to end, water sources will be dried up, if we continue as we are. I think that the dispute is that, in saying that we say resources will not be around forever, that we say finally the resources are not only ours. But we have to be aware that we have children and possibly will have grandchildren. They no longer will have what we are talking about or what we are calling resources.

This does not mean reverting to a conservationist approach to resources whereby we stop using resources altogether, but it involves a more sustainable approach to resource use that is currently considered under sustainable development. As a society, it is about viewing our relationship with nature in a completely different way. Laura recalls an anecdote from another Indigenous colleague, What one lady told me seemed to me to be very, very good, she said, ‘they tell us that sustainability is to take absolutely everything there is, absolutely every little thing, some things more than others but we have to use every little thing.’ And she said that she does not like that because what they do is rather to use only what they need, and the rest has to stay [unused]. So, it was a very interesting reflection…I think it's a matter of seeing nature not only as a resource [but] as Pachamama [Mother Earth] not just something you use and that is there to serve you.

Felipe explains that this way of viewing nature is a matter of education and awareness, it is a learned worldview, If you’re living this idea of Sumak Kawsay, to be at harmony with, or at peace with your environment, and if you’re aware that your actions will disturb that, you’re much less likely to take what you don’t need. It’s awareness of… your lifestyle, the goods you need to live well, to be aware of what that causes to the environment. Most people don’t realise that they

100

need to mine 60-100 tonnes of mineral dirt, subsoil to get one ounce of gold. If they were aware of it, if they could see the cyanide, if they could see the destruction, they would NOT buy that gold ring. So, awareness is absolutely important in terms of our relationship with natural resources.

It is also a matter of viewing ‘other’ types of wealth other than economic, to place equal importance upon them. This conception of wealth is not comparable to the neoliberal idea of placing monetary value on non-economic aspects, such as the economic value placed on natural resources, rather it entails a full appreciation and respect of non-economic aspects of society, such as environmental (including aesthetic value), culture, community. Felipe explains that it is important to make society aware of that fact, We can really concentrate on making people aware that economic wealth is just one type of wealth, and it’s not the most important wealth for achieving Sumak Kawsay. The social wealth is very, very important; the cultural; the environmental wealth. I think that’s what needs to be drummed over and over again.

Though neoliberal development places an economic value on everything, and that has been part of the problem for attaining sustainable development. It acts as somewhat of an oxymoron when society turns nature into a commodity. In addition, society’s wellbeing has been measured in quantitative economic terms, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) being the leading indicator of wellbeing, and economic poverty the baseline for development progress. It must be mentioned however, that not all societies see their level of economic poverty as a measure of their happiness and wellbeing. The Indigenous peoples of Latin America, for example, do not view wellbeing in this type of linear fashion, and such is the ethos of BV. The key informants, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, place greater value on non- material or non-economic wealth and consider that poverty has many dimensions that must be considered, not only economic. Luis, although now an urban resident, is from Intag Valley and understands the strengths and challenges of rural communities, which often have policy priority when it comes to economic poverty alleviation and development. He clarifies, Poverty is not only economic. Poverty has many parameters. A person can honestly have a good level of economic [security], but if he does not have time to enjoy with his family, he is poor in time. A person can have free time, can have money, but if he does not have anyone with whom to spend time, he is poor socially. Poverty has many factors obviously usually always qualified on economic factors.

The Correa government introduced new measures for poverty, in line with the PNBV to measure various forms of poverty in the Multi-Dimensional Poverty Index developed over two years by a Statistical Poverty Commission, which included two key national bodies INEC (National Institute for Statistics and Census) and SENPLADES (National Secretary of Planning and Development) with support by the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative. The former head of the SENPLADES, Pabel Muñoz, affirmed “poverty is reflected in multiple dimensions and is the result of multiple factors; the most important inequalities. To eradicate it we must generate equal opportunities, equal access to resources, and economic and social justice” and do so by implementing “profound

101 changes in economic structures and power relations” (Ecuador presenta su propuesta para medición del índice de pobreza multidimensional) Within the Correa government’s MPI there were also dimensions of poverty that are not included, though vital for BV, such as social cohesion and a reciprocal relationship with nature. Luis also spoke of the poverty of being disconnected from the land, and the nature of modern society where we have the convenience of supermarkets, but the deficiency of not knowing where our food comes from, how it is grown, and the quality of the produce. In a globally connected world where the majority of societies are urbanised, ensuring that connection to the land is not an easy task. Many people are disconnected to where their goods, including natural resources and food, come from. At the same time, there is an increasing scepticism of the globalised fast goods and services consumer industry, and we are seeing more movements going ‘back to roots’ such as organic food, slow food, localization, and slow living (Mander & Goldsmith 2014). As Goldsmith and Mander (2014) note, “The importance of the natural world, in intrinsic terms and for human life, is fundamental. Without it, we cannot survive. Yet we have sufficiently divorced ourselves from it to become capable of devising an economic system that is destroying it.” Felipe recognises that that this idea of using only what is needed is not a novel one borne from BV, “I think Gandhi had it right when he said ‘there’s enough stuff to go around, if people are fair with it. And not nearly enough if we take too much.’ So, the idea is to just take what you need from the environment, and that includes the elements, or natural resources. Just what you need.” This by no means infers a return to the past (Gudynas & Acosta 2011), as critics might suggest), rather it requires new ways of thinking. As Gudynas and Acosta affirm, We don't stop building bridges, and we don't reject Western physics and the mathematics to build them. But the size and materials used to build those bridges will be different. And they will bridge rivers and ravines in other places i.e. where they can contribute to local and regional transportation needs, and not where they contribute to meet the needs of the global markets (Cordaid 2012).

It comes back to the question of fundamental needs satisfaction, and the approach taken under BV emphasizes needs outside the realm of wealth creation, profit, economic growth and linear human progress. Returning to the earlier argument by Jackson et al. regarding needs as wants (Jackson, Jager & Stagl 2008), then an at the community level, an alternative economic approach is required. For the key informants, this involves activities based around an SSE), rather than a neoliberal growth economy. This is an important point where both practice and policy concur. Javier, head of a local organisation which works with communities on environmental issues clarifies, The social economy can be defined in many ways, no, but it is the alternative economy compared to the dominant model that we know. In this case the economy is conceived from territories, from communities FOR communities, and also BY communities. So, it includes, as well as wealth, commissioning local talent; the use of local resources, local agricultural resources, no? the respect for local traditions; participation in political decisions; organization or policy in general; and, a very important element is work that is respectful of the environment, not destructive.

102

Defined separately, the social economy is also seen as the “third sector”, and an important, stabilising backbone to counter problems such as poverty and social exclusion(Kawano 2013). The solidarity economy on the other hand seeks to radically transform the whole neoliberal social and economic system (Kawano 2013). Together the SSE offers an alternative economy which can work within the current economic system, albeit towards transformation. RIPESS define a SSE as “an ethical and values-based approach to economic development that prioritises the welfare of people and planet over profits and blind growth” (Global vision for a social solidarity economy: Convergences and differences in concepts, definitions and frameworks 2015). It “combines and balances logics of accumulation, redistribution and reciprocity, expressed in a democratically regulated market, an equitable reassignment of resources by a participating State, and the affirmation of practices of mutual benefit in the framework of a society and a culture of solidarity” (Global vision for a social solidarity economy: Convergences and differences in concepts, definitions and frameworks 2015). This understanding of the SSE supports the principles of BV. Giovannini further affirms that the SSE it can be part of a strategy to concretise BV because it, identifies economic organizations created by people who freely join to develop economic activities and create jobs on the basis of solidarity, reciprocity, and cooperative relations…This approach implies direct participation by civic society in the decision-making that affects the common good in order to implement concrete economic alternatives (Giovannini 2014b).

The SSE tends to include cooperatives, social businesses or businesses with a social purpose, fair trade, ethical agri-economy, small-scale and rural enterprises, microcredit and charities that trade with a focus on community and reciprocity (Utting, van Dijk & Matheï 2014). There is some tension though about whether fair trade should be included because of an unequal distribution of gains (Samba Sylla 2014). Many small producers in Ecuador feel that the fair-trade system is not socially and economically just because of the need to pay for hefty certification fees, which most small producers alone cannot do, and without certification, their products become unsellable in the face of certified competition. Juan tells, We [community farmers] organized ourselves to be organic but organic certification is worth US$5000, but otherwise, you cannot sell that product. We will have organic honey, [but] organic honey has to be certified. My coffee is organic but must have a stamp. We have certified coffee with a certification from the United States. Not even Ecuador. You have to pay US$5,000 for them to tell if your coffee is certified. Ecuador does not certify product quality, it has to be Europe, the United States to say whether it is worth anything or not. I think as a farmer you have to spend US$15,000 to certify your products. So that is a way to stop your initiative.

SSE however is the ideal model of economic development for BV because it shares many of the same tenets: both call for ethical consumption, communal wellbeing, redistribution of wealth and a system that is inclusive, and participatory. Not least, like BV, it is founded in endogenous self- determination, usually small in scale and local. It is a plural economy and BV requires plural cooperation on all levels to produce knowledge that can enact long-term change. A plural approach must work cooperatively within the current model away from ‘reform’ and ‘status quo’ and towards ‘transformation’ (Dryzek 1997).

103

It is an accepted fact that for sustainability and wellbeing we now need transformation – acknowledged in the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development - to move away from unbridled growth and consumption (Redclift, 2002, p. 4, Tesoriero and Ife, 2010, p. 43). Using an approach like BV with an economic pillar based on SSE can bring the ‘people dimension’ (UNGA 2015) to the global sustainability agenda whilst acting for long-term, effective change. In policy, Ecuador’s new Constitution of 2008 established a ‘social economy based on the principles of solidarity’(SENPLADES 2009a). It “rejects the false dichotomy between State and market promoted by neoliberal thought, and establishes a complex interrelation between the State, the market, society and nature. The market will no longer be the sole engine that promotes development. Instead it will interact with the State, society and nature” (SENPLADES 2009a). The Correa government called for a strengthening of the social and solidarity economy in the 2009-2013 PNBV as “Mechanisms for Inclusion, Social Protection, and Guarantee of Rights in Light of the New Agreement for Coexistence to Strengthen Social and Economic Capacities” (SENPLADES 2009a). The Plan states that BV, stresses solidarity, reciprocity and cooperation, and the concept of “distributing while producing” and “producing while re-distributing.” As a result, a popular, social and solidarity-based economy is the main tool to make (re)distribution and the process of wealth generation inseparable from one another (SENPLADES 2009a).

In that respect, productivity is still important under BV, it is just the model of productivity that changes, as it aims for SSEW over economic growth. Government plays a major role in ensuring the structures are in place for allowing communities to move to this model. The SSE model that aims to converge human needs with environmental ones aims to integrate all forms of public, private, combined, popular and solidary economic organization, in order to encourage production, productivity and competitiveness, ensuring food and energy sovereignty, incorporating value added, with maximum efficiency and promoting full employment and respect for workers’ rights, fair, complementary trade in goods and services on transparent markets, equitable, solidary distribution of the benefits of production and socially and environmentally-responsible consumption (Riera 2008; SENPLADES 2009b).

If politically the new productive structure is undertaken in a genuine attempt for change it will mean transitioning from an extractive economy towards a more diversified and inclusive economy. However, at the policy level there were several contradictions in the Correa government’s strategy towards transition: 1) that wealth accumulation remained the key objective, akin to neoliberal strategies, and; 2) the postponing of transitions towards post-extraction rather than change starting now as the PNBV states, “Although accumulation of wealth will depend initially on commodity extraction, the strategy will be to promote new non-polluting industries and diversify exports based on bio-products and ecological services, which will significantly relieve pressure on the environment” (SENPLADES 2009a).

104

5.4. Good Living or Living Well? Practice vs Policy

Photo 1: Mural in Quiroga 'Vivir Bien Movement'

In response to the research sub-question: How do local Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities understand and practice BV? It is now appropriate to look at how BV is practiced on-the- ground to complete that understanding. Though until now I have discussed the particular of BV, its principles, approach to needs and its economic aspect, there is a significant finding which emerged from the data which enables communities to work towards attaining BV and meeting their fundamental needs practically. That finding is identified as Vivir Bien (Living Well). It involves changing in attitudes and behaviours towards BV, through grassroots practice under Vivir Bien (VB). This finding differentiates BV (policy, utopia) from Vivir Bien (practice, day-to-day), with both being integral to one another. The literature on BV (Agostino & Dübgen 2012; Lang 2013; Thomson 2011; Tortosa 2011; Vanhulst & Beling 2014; Yates & Bakker 2013; Zimmerer 2012) often refers to VB and BV interchangeably, with the former referring to the Bolivian conception (based on Suma Qamaña) and the latter the Ecuadorian conception of the same idea (based on Sumak Kawsay). Yet, the data refers to VB in a different fashion. According to the fieldwork findings, they are two notably different concepts, albeit with the same roots, and do not relate to cultural differences of the terms but rather conceptual differences. The term VB or Living Well referred to in this study originates from the Kichwa Ally Kawsay, rather than Aymara Suma Qamaña. The difference is beyond pure semantics, it is one of attitudes, beliefs and behaviours. It transcends the argument in the literature for practical guidelines for BV because for the majority of the key informants VB is just that. Whereas, BV is seen as a

105 political act, a utopia based on the idea of SK, or even a concept that has been co-opted by government and has no relation to their day-to-day reality and the change they are trying to achieve. When it comes to application, the same principles apply to VB as they do to BV, albeit from a practical perspective, from the bottom-up. Javier, head of a local environmental organisation, like many other key informants calls BV a utopia; but affirms, “Well, you can also have a utopian goal.” Javier argues, “Buen Vivir is a goal. I’m not saying that it exists, because it does not. It’s a goal, which can also be a utopian goal. But for the least part, is it something that exists? No. It’s a goal. It’s a path – a path where you have to coalesce principles, ideas [and] bold proposals… and that’s the difference because then we have Vivir Bien.” Joaquín further explains, “I would say that it [BV] is the ultimate [goal] of society, but it’s like climbing stairs. I believe that it can be utopian…It is a goal to be obtained.” The need for concrete examples of practice was identified in the literature and was one of the most significant contributions of this study. These practices are not found in the utopian BV, but rather in VB – the daily practice of ‘Living Well’, as opposed to the aspirational political interpretation of ‘Good Living’. For intergenerational sustainability and collective wellbeing to be achieved at the grassroots level – by communities for communities - the argument is not about pursuing a utopian political ideology, but rather it is about the changes that communities make for the future, but on a day-to-day basis. Those day-to-day acts and decisions are referred to as Ally Kawsay or VB, literally translated into English as ‘Living Well’. In Cotacachi County, VB is also a local government campaign for wellbeing and sustainability to reinforce the importance of daily practice for community-led change. Cotacachi Mayor Jomar Cevallos50 claims that the local hydroelectric energy project, HidroNangulvi, for example, is a “clear example of how to build Vivir Bien”, albeit with governmental and external cooperation (Hidronangulvi 2016). The site Nangulvi is located in the Intag region, where communities have continually voiced their opposition to large-scale extractive projects and searched for alternatives to replace the need for them. Through micro projects with local water sheds, HidroIntag aims to put the management of local water sources back in the hands of the communities, effectively increasing their self-determination. HidroNangulvi looks to integrate community actors, civil society and local government in the self- management of watersheds, albeit in accordance with the PNBV, and provides an example of plurality of actors and knowledge in the pursuance of BV. Mayor Cevallos states that the construction of VB at the local policy level, Involves acting in accordance to the principles and knowledge of our people, who as the highest expression of life, manifest the harmony of their daily actions with nature, the friendly use of the benefits of land and permanent care of water. And so, it is clear that our responsibility is, drawing on proposals that put the interests of peoples and environmental protection first; [through] projects that define the responsible use of the elements that give life (Hidronangulvi 2016).

VB is the epitome of endogenous, people-led change and BV is about scaling that up to ensure that the political structures and policies are in place to achieve the end goal: collective

50 For the 2015-2019 period.

106 wellbeing and intergenerational sustainability, or SSEW. BV relates to high-level policy, to utopian aspirations; whereas VB relates to the particular, the contextual and the practice – the basis for change and transformation emanating from the ground up. BV is thus essentially the tool that communities can use to help realise VB at the local level, because it provides the space, the political structures and the resources to attain SSEW; through the process of implementing the principles in practice, with the co-operation of all actors and in the aim of attaining BV. Leandro explains, Sumak Kawsay is a climax, is to reach a place where everything is beautiful. Where we become happy, but it is not the everyday. The quotidian we call it Ally Kawsay which is more common, we are always talking about Ally Kawsay. Of course, the epitome of the two is wellbeing. That is, to live well. We say Ally Kawsay is living well and Sumak Kawsay is good living. But Sumak Kawsay is the space in which we arrive somewhere. We don’t have a process to obtain it. For that reason, I don’t have much affinity with Sumak Kawsay because I don’t know what the process is to reach that something. You don’t take into account the process, but you take into account the act of climax. Ally Kawsay is more day-to-day.

Joaquín explains, “Sumak [Kawsay] is high level and Ally Kawsay is very, very detailed…earthlier.” It is therefore concentrated in the practices, beliefs and attitudes of the community, rather than high level policy. This makes it more amenable to practical implementation in communities, and through an understanding of the principles and challenges to implementation, it can be transformed into a useful tool for communities to achieve SSEW for themselves, on a daily basis with consideration for the long-term. BV policy is more of an aspirational goal, rather than a concrete practice. It must be emphasized that for VB to be achieved at the grassroots level, there must be a significant amount of political will. The political structures must be in place to allow this transformation to occur. In BV, governments act as facilitating institutions, rather than the main actors. That includes creating the systems and structures necessary for endogenous change. The most vital path for creating BV therefore is by practice. As Juan affirms, “In reality, I believe that BV is not just a word. For BV, it needs to be demonstrated in facts, so that I can say ‘well, we are promoting BV’.” In the context of SSEW, aspirational goals such as those enacted in international and national policies by the United Nations and various governments have only strengthened the status quo and not led to the concrete change that society needs. An alternative that can work cooperatively with global and national goals but enact real change at the community level is what is now required; and a hybrid BV-VB, policy-practice approach offers that. Community practice of VB is implicated in the achievement of BV, where people- led change is fundamental. Emmanuel states, “I think the role of people living well is fundamental, that is, without people, without the active movements we could not have Vivir Bien or Buen Vivir or anything else.” Miguel explains that both BV and VB are necessary, “Logically we must have Ally Kawsay to achieve Sumak Kawsay. Logically Sumak Kawsay is always ahead, we are always looking for it, waiting for it. It is the ideal state.”. In other words, both VB and BV feed off each other, and are necessarily dependant on one another. In that light, for VB to occur, four conditions must be present: equality; solidarity; participation; self-determination. These are also core principles of BV. None of the

107 four conditions can exist in a political environment hostile to endogenous change. Therefore, BV must be incorporated in policy at the political level to allow the necessary structures required to implement VB. County Government employee, Leandro, tells me that both at the level of community understanding of VB, as well as part of Cotacachi’s political campaign, these four points are very important, The first [point] is the horizontality of society, that is him and you, to both be equal. We can turn around, we can agree, we can discuss. We can make things very interesting, if you respect my judgment, and I respect your judgment. Obviously, we can have different criteria, but it's come to that…The theme of solidarity is being lost. In small towns it still exists, [but] no longer in big cities. A simple example, [in a big city] you pass next to a person who has fallen down or is on the ground and [you] won’t stop. But here it is still like ‘how are you neighbour, what happened?’. ….Minga51 [collective] work, democratic living teaches us that we live by doing things for others. For us participation is not only being representative of a space and people who suddenly represent me must accept what I say. It is a place where people have the process which also decides those spaces, no…and self-determination as we understand it, that I get to decide, the space, or model of the space [for participation], so to speak. So those four aspects are fundamental to us achieving Ally Kawsay.

The principles of BV examined above underpin practice. At this juncture, if it is determined that VB is the practice of BV in communities, it is necessary to look at some examples of what this practice looks like on the ground to complete our understanding of BV. The next part of this section does so, categorised by the relevant principles; and again seeks to demonstrate the interconnectedness of the principles. Although I have argued throughout this research that BV has application outside of the Andean context, it is important to bear in mind that these examples are specific to the community or communities in which they are manifested, however they provide a picture of how some of the principles are played out in practice. These examples have been determined not only through responses by the key informants, but also through documents and observations of both rural and urban daily life in the Canton52.

5.4.1. Healthy Environment, Reciprocity and Education Environmental practices are by far the most visible, affirming the biocentricity of BV in practice. In the communities themselves citizens are partaking in a number of environmental conservation activities. Indigenous leader David says for example, that in his community in the foothills of Cotacachi city, efforts concentrate on reforestation of land which was previously obligated to be cleared by governmental regulations.

51 The Diccionario Kichwa - Castellano / Runa Shimi - Ministerio de Educacion defines a minga/minka as “communal work”. It generally entails Laboral work involving two or more people that benefits the community. 52 The nature of the research design and methodology was such that the principles were determined by triangulating the literature review with an analysis of the fieldwork data. Therefore, examples of practices specific to each principle were not sought out in the field. The examples of practice discussed here were resultant of analysing the observation data and therefore not all the principles were covered. Nonetheless, the discussion below seeks to demonstrate the interconnectedness of the principles.

108

During a visit to one of the Indigenous communities, I was made aware of how integral their practices are. On one farm facing the Imbabura volcano, perched high up on the hills bordering the Pichincha province I was given a tour by the owner’s daughter. Many of these Indigenous communities also capture rainwater for use and reuse on agricultural land, as well as in households. The family is self-sufficient, only needing to go to the supermarket once in a while for items like rice, but on the property fruit, vegetables and herbs are grown for both food and medicinal purposes. The daughter explained that by default all produce is organic, “for the environment and for good health, it's better without chemicals”. Families within the community share produce, because she explains, “without a strong community, there is no Buen Vivir". Information sharing on practices is also common practice resulting in capacity-building and awareness between families and communities. All families in rural Cotacachi grow their own produce, and many in urban areas. Where families do not have access to land or skills to do so, there are still many small produce markets which sell organic produce. Communities also create micro-enterprises between families to either swap or buy local produce, creating pockets of local economies.

Photo 2: Indigenous Produce Markets

Buses service the Intag Valley infrequently at times, so following a round of interviews with key informants one community member gave us a lift back to where we were staying. He was passionate about environmental education, stating that he has noticed a significant change in biodiversity over the past years. One issue is with the extinction of several native species in the region, including the Andean bear. However, he explained, "For the last few years there have been many strong campaigns to teach people about the value of the biodiversity and animals and that we have to look after them. In fact, since, we have seen a significant rise in numbers of lots of the species, so it has worked." This awareness and education for environmental conservation practices has resulted in a greater connection to the land and a better relationship, reciprocity with the environment. Laura tells, “Daily I prefer to refer to nature, more in terms of Mother Nature. Mother Nature is everything, not only the land that is cultivated…it is the whole environment…and also from my experience, everything I do is going to come back to nature. So, if I go shopping, I don’t ask for a bag [for example]. In the daily life of Cotacacheños, the presence and/or threat of mining exploration and operations is a major preoccupation, nonetheless most people recognise that paradoxical role that

109 energy plays in the wellbeing of their family and community lives. Community members have thus identified a need for more renewable energy projects as an alternative to non-renewable destructive mining activities. One of the ways in which this has been manifested is in small-scale hydro-electricity plants, such as those developed in cooperation with HidroIntag and the Municipal Government, including the HidroNangulvi project discussed in section above. The project HidroIntag project was created as a result of Cotacachi’s participatory democracy processes. The micro projects seek to create “integrated environmental management of watershed[s] and promote a non-extractivist local economy” (HidroIntag 2009) by integrating community actors, civil society to manage their own water resources by “generating investment in rural development, promoting energy efficiency, access to local employment [and] self-management of watersheds” (Hidronangulvi 2016). The Nangulvi project in particular helps to conserve over 440 km2 of native forest, situated in the buffer zone of the Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve, one of the most biodiverse areas on earth (Hidronangulvi 2016). Through local government and organisations, the communities define the criteria for the selection of works and the objective is to reinvest the resources generated by the ten mini hydroelectric plants back into the community in economic, social, and ecological projects identified by the communities themselves (HidroIntag 2009). With a similar concern for maintaining the region’s rich biodiversity, local environmental organisation DECOIN has purchased primary and secondary cloud forest in the Intag Valley to create 41 community owned and managed reserves, bordering Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve. In addition, it has helped create 37 community watershed reserves, creating “genetic banks” for native plants and animals, in cooperation with UK NGO Rainforest Concern (Zorrilla 2010). As part of this project, the communities have planted over 50,000 trees and have received training on how to take, analyse and interpret water samples, to self-manage the reserve (Zorrilla 2010).

110

Photo 3: Ecological County Mural in Cotacachi City

Communities in Cotacachi have taken not only action on environmental issues seriously, but also education. This is demonstrated in many environmental education campaigns by the communities themselves, including one project selected for the local government Program of Support for Decentralised Management of Natural Resources in Northern Ecuador (PRODERENA). The ‘Citizens Minga for Environmental Education’ seeks to capacitate 30 participants with local environmental knowledge including community leaders, members of water boards, council members and general community members in the environmental management of two Parish areas in Cotacachi: Imantag and Quiroga. During the project training booklets, maps and models were developed to inform communities on what is happening with their environment. They included information such as: What is happening with the water, how many water boards there are, and how much water is available to communities. The training included topics proposed by communities such as burning, biodiversity, ecological reserve, and waste management (Rivera 2007).

5.4.2. SSE and Decent Work Several alternatives to development have been proposed and pursued in the Canton “in the context of economic and political crisis”, also with the view to conserving and protecting its biodiversity, and promoting local talent and participation (Hidronangulvi 2016). There are currently 1,200 people directly involved in 34 groups or organisations for economic alternatives in the Intag region alone (Hidronangulvi 2016). One of the most successful alternatives is the Agri-artisanal Association for Coffee Farmers of Rio Intag (ACCRI). ACCRI has been in operation for almost 20 years and helps small coffee producers and families diversify their normal crops to include organic

111 coffee crops for sale both locally and nationally, both of which would be difficult to achieve in small- batch production – there are no large-scale monocultures involved. Representatives at ACCRI say that this project has helped keep communities and families interested in the continuance of agriculture, as well as provide community members with a consistent alternative income, as coffee plantations have a long-life span. Small local producers and artisans also have the opportunity to sell to the local and tourist markets through regular ‘fairs’ supported by the national and provincial governments as a part of the social and solidarity economy, and include various sectors, for example food/agricultural produce, artisan handicrafts, community tourism and textiles. These economic initiatives are held with the strategic aim of operationalising the proposed economic model in the PNBV, but also provide small producers with an opportunity to sell their produce outside of their specific community context.

Photo 4: Buen Vivir Markets

Community-based eco and cultural tourism is another initiative being promoted by the local government, through the will of the communities. Tourism has been one of the ways in which the national government have sought to diversify the economy and change the ‘productive matrix’ (SENPLADES 2013). Many community members have identified small-scale community-based tourism as a possible sustainable alternative to extractive activities (Actualizacion pdyot cotacachi 2015-2035 2016). There are more than 30 families who now work together to offer tourism activities such as guided hiking and horseback tours in Intag and the surrounding areas (Olivera 2010). There are also programs of cultural exchange between families in Cotacachi and tourists, organised by several different groups. Local tourism agency Runa Tupari, for example works with Indigenous communities from the Peasant Organisations Union of Cotacachi to organise volunteer tourism stays with local families to exchange culture and to participate in domestic and agricultural work.

112

Photo 5: Sustainable Tourism Signs @(L) "Sustainable tourism as an alternative to development in the Intag zone Ecuador

Besides providing economic alternatives to traditional market activities, several artisan groups like Mujer y Medioambiente (Woman and the Environment) in Intag work to continue traditions such as handicrafts and other handmade produce with natural materials, giving full consideration to the environmental impact of their craft. Working as a cooperative, they sell their produce for a fair price within local communities, as well as to tourist markets, providing an income for its artisans. Luis says alternative to development projects like the above-mentioned are important for building community solidarity, “What it represents in the initial stage is learning to work together. They [community members] realise that it is easier to work together to achieve quality to later have products which can be sold, and which also represent where they come from.”

113

Photo 6: Indigenous Artisan at Work

5.4.3. Culture, Community and Solidarity Cultural conservation is an important aspect of BV, and not limited to the Andean context, but it is one that can be applied across various communities, as culture is a vital part of community identity and therefore plays a role in the harmony and solidarity of a community. Although there is a strong element of globalisation in daily life – for example, manifested in popular culture, global brands, the adoption of anglicised expressions into Spanish - the importance of culture is especially evident in cultural traditions and celebrations in Cotacachi, as well as in public spaces such as the Casa de las Culturas, which serves to inform not only tourists but local communities. Indigenous community leader David argues that “to recover Sumak Kawsay, Ally Kawsay, one needs to know, to value our customs, our traditions….That is our tradition.”

114

Photo 7: Street Party in Quiroga

Idea of community is often manifested in the ways in which community members work together, not just for the wellbeing of individuals, but to enhance the social and environmental wellbeing of the entire community. This can be demonstrated in the various mingas held in any one community, since a minga is defined by community work for mutual gain. For example, many small communities throughout Cotacachi do not have reliable water treatment systems that service the entire community, and often mingas are held to ensure that the community has access to clean and quality water. Several community members will gather together at a set time and place and decide on the work that needs to be done, and tasks will be delegated to complete it. There is often an elected community leader to take charge of the work. This is not just limited to physical environmental work. Rodriguez speaks of the importance of the treatment of ‘disadvantaged’ community members, for community wellbeing. Sofia provides the example of building literacy in her community as a way in which BV has been pursued. She tells, “the elderly who do not know how to read and write, we work in groups [in the community] forming mingas [to teach them].” Communal work, as well as all of the above examples help build community, harmony, and solidarity, in the spirit of BV.

5.5. The Importance of Plurality

Now that I have examined the community understanding and practice of BV, I would like to discuss one of the main underlying elements of BV - its plurality – to examine the role of government and local organisations as other key actors in BV. This is because, as has been aforementioned in the literature and confirmed by key informants, communities themselves cannot achieve BV by acting alone.

115

Plurality is referred to in many senses: a plurality of vision, a plurality of knowledge, plurality of being and plurality of change. In that respect, BV, as a people-led approach combines with the knowledge and vision of other actors to achieve change. BV as a concept is not ignorant in discounting others’ input in achieving SSEW, which is crucial in a globally connected world, and in the context within which modern societies live. While all key informants believe that BV can be achieved by communities themselves, it must be noted that they do not believe that it can be achieved in isolation. The previous section on practices outlined some ways in which communities can implement the principles of BV through practice, or VB. Although this is community-led, governments and institutions have a vital role to play. Key informants also identified organisations as having a key role in the achievement of BV, as will be discussed below. Thus, this section looks at the research question: to which extent are institutions important in BV and what role do governments play? Then following from the above finding, it also examines the role organisations have to play. On BV as an alternative, Ruttenberg (2013) stated that, “[c]ommunity-based findings must then be compiled and articulated politically to elicit adequate policy response, thereby ensuring that development policy is designed to address social wellbeing needs as determined at the local level. This process…is of utmost importance to achieve a hybrid two-way symbiosis between bottom-up and top-down approaches to development policy alternatives” (Ruttenberg 2013). I further argue that the operationalisation of BV requires not only endogenous-led change with policy support but also external cooperation in the form of local, national or global organisations acting as ‘moderators’ or mediators of a bottom-up approach to ensure that processes do not become co-opted by government or external interests. In that role, organisations can thus play “their role in the development ecosystem as a vital part of ‘multiple bottom-up strategies that link engagement and advocacy in formal spaces with broader social mobilization and coalition building efforts’ (Banks et al., 2015, p. 714), rather than merely serving to reinforce the status quo” (Howard & Wheeler 2015)). This would transform it into a viable practical alternative, rather than a political slogan. To that end, I will now discuss the role of governments and local institutions.

5.5.1. Buen Vivir: Political Slogan or Viable Alternative? BV risks entering a crisis of legitimacy akin to that of SD because of the contradictions between government policy and practice, and that policy endangering grassroots practice. Its legitimacy as a viable alternative to mainstream development has been questioned by intellectuals, and the confusion surrounding its core philosophy has led to it being called an ideology - both in the literature and on the ground - rather than a concrete practice, which is what is required if it is to be a viable alternative. As discussed in Chapter Two, this is partly due to the homogenisation of interpretations: Indigenous, political and academic. Felipe (2014) affirms, the philosophy of BV is “a utopia which, for its realisation demands acute cultural transformations and a revision of the same bases of modern Western civilization”. However, by the term utopia, Felipe refers neither to the idea of a utopia based on SK, as discussed by key informants above, nor to the ‘execution of government projects’ (Acosta 2012; Álvarez 2013a; Cerdán 2013; Cobey 2012; Delgado, Rist & Escobar 2010; Escobar 2000; Escobar & Ciobanu 2012;

116

Giovannini 2013; Radcliffe 2012) but to the political construction that has been interwoven by government, social movements and academics. Felipe argues that utopias exist as opposing dialectics to ideologies, which only help to ensure the continuation of the status quo. Those in defence of ideologies, he says, will question a utopia as an ‘impossible dream’ (Felipe 2014). However, he maintains that a utopia is ‘not simply a dream, but a dream that indispensably aspires to be realised.’ So, from that perspective, BV as a utopian alternative political project, has to be separated from ideology to serve a high-level, guiding purpose in which it is possible unite community needs with national and global goals. Nonetheless, the majority of key informants associated the term ‘BV’ with a political campaign on behalf of the Correa government which has only delivered contradictions, rather than a path for action53. Many therefore described BV as a ‘political slogan’. Head of local environmental organisation, Javier argues ‘I believe that the word will be transformed in the very short-term into a tainted word, a slogan. But the propaganda is very good, very beautiful, but that it is full of contradictions.’ Likewise, local government employee Miguel says, ‘The way I see this word used…is as a slogan. Something that has been gathered from the Andean world and used as an alternative proposal. [But] I think it is the most viable alternative.’ Indigenous head of a local organisation, Laura explains the contradiction, ‘The President said that to achieve Buen Vivir we need housing, we need EVERYTHING. Where do we get this? "From our natural resources," he said. And then that is the justification to continue mining and selling oil blocks. So that is a pretext for extractivism. In the same light, local government employee, Emmanuel states, “Regrettably, Buen Vivir as it is conceptualized today in Ecuador is just a slogan”. For him, this also includes the way BV has been conceptualised in the literature, continuing to explain “those who took this word, [for example] Alberto Acosta and others have not really tried to give a sense to the idea that is trying to become a reality that in some places, and give it a more proper sense that is ours. “Despite the reference to BV as a ‘political slogan’ or ‘marketing’ spin for the Correa government to achieve its contradictory neo-extractivist aims, key informants also pointed out that there is a role for governments, institutions and policy that should be highlighted in a genuine attempt to connect policy with practice.

5.5.2. The Role of Governments When people spoke to me about practices of BV at the governmental level, whether it be in general conversation with a taxi driver or in formal interview with a key informant, they most often referred to government at the local level. Much more regard was given by the majority of key informants to local government as a key actor in realising BV54. Therefore, local government plays a central role in obtaining BV, in parallel with community because government must provide the institutions, structures and resources to implement VB at the local level. According to Rafael,

53 Similarly, Villalba & Etxano (2017) also argue that the political use of BV is “more rhetorical than operative”, largely due to the ‘neo-extractive’ approach taken – further discussed in chapter Five. 54 I take my definition of local government from the Oxford Dictionary, therefore by local government I refer to both the Parish and Municipal levels as the lowest levels of governance in Ecuador. Because the field ‘site’ was limited to the Cotacachi County, my analysis does not include the Provincial Government.

117

“governments must help create the environment in which BV can flourish.” One of the ways in which they can do that is to allow for the endogenous identification of fundamental needs. The exogenous identification and satisfaction of needs through a top-down approach puts limits on a community’s self-determination. The exogenous approach is foundational in the traditional model of development, which has also supported the neoliberal economic model adopted throughout the West and promoted as development in countries in the periphery. As this study finds, satisfying needs through self-determination and community capabilities can be best practiced through direct participation in a participatory democracy. Giovannini (2012) argues that the SSE helps achieve self- determination “intended as BV, in opposition to externally driven aid actions and development policies or projects, that are often imposed rather than collectively shared and approved by the concerned communities.” Full participation of the people is one of the core principles of BV, but it also a precondition and requires political will. Moreover, participation is not only required for the implementation of BV, but also for its definition (Cubillo-Guevara, Hidalgo-Capitán & García-Álvarez 2016). It is therefore the community who defines what it means to them. As Joaquín says, A democratic government must demonstrate above all, greater humility and greater love for his community, his people, his society. Humility to say "I alone cannot do it, I have to work with all of you together" because it is not a problem that I alone have created, and I do not have all of the solution. That's what I call participatory share the challenge of making positive democratic decisions. The issue, I think is that it commits all citizens to be part of a team - stop being ‘me’ to become ‘us’. Our government has to be built and driven by all citizens. I would take care to strengthen the social capital that exists, human capital. I think the fundamental is people, the community and organization.

This has been the aim of the Cotacachi Municipal Government since 1998. In Cotacachi participation takes the form of a participatory democracy, applied through a participatory budget. This mode of participation is more beneficial than traditional top-down participation because as Giovannini (2016) states, it “has also an impact on the community as a whole, given that it facilitates both the identification of new needs emerging from the community and the implementation of strategies and the exploitation of resources, which are suitable to addressing these needs.” The participatory budgeting experience has largely been a positive one in that has been well received within communities and local government, with positive results for health, education, sanitation, equity and general quality of life (Saltos 2008). It has also been awarded for internationally- recognised best practice in citizen’s participation and has served as a “true exercise of the rights and responsibilities of the citizens, and has strengthened the capacity of individuals, groups, and organizations to face their problems, defend their interests, and act as resolute, responsible, and active agents in the canton’s democratic life” (Saltos 2008). Participatory budgeting is designed by a participatory democracy governance model, from the bottom-up. In the case of Cotacachi, the participatory budget is underlined by four principles: 1) territorial, ethnic and social participation; 2) budget transparency; 3) solidarity and self-determination; 4) a social and moral commitment to ‘unity in diversity’ (Saltos 2008). The municipality is kept to account through a process of transparency which includes an evaluation forum for citizens and the

118

‘Assembly for Cantonal Unity’ (AUC) (Saltos 2008). The AUC was formed by local government and organised civil society with the objectives to collaborate, coordinate, and plan in a participatory manner, meeting annually represented by the county’s existing territorial, gender, generational, and thematic diversity (Saltos 2008). The participatory budgeting cycle is an eight step process: 1) information and coordination with social actors from each territorial ‘zone’; 2) identification of works and projects with workshops held for and attended by all residents; 3) prioritization of works and projects through workshops in each ‘zone’; 4) presentation of the proposal by a technical team; 5) coordination, where consensus is reached; 6) presentation of the final budget for approval by the local government; 7) execution of the works and projects; and 8) evaluation of the process through workshops held with social actors (Saltos 2008). If used for consensus and dialogue it can be understood as a tool for democracy, stimulating social capital (Cabannes 2004). A participatory democracy can be defined as considering “the opinions, criteria, and decisions of the people, and seeks consensus in order to achieve the social, economic, and environmental development of the community” (Saltos 2008). Participatory budgeting is directly related to the SSE, questioning the relationship between the political and economic spheres, as procurers have more control over the direct benefits to the city or community (Cabannes 2004). Moreover, it is theorised that a participatory democracy through participatory budgeting has the potential to improve a community’s wellbeing, because of a better understanding of actual needs and a “responsive government” to provide the resources; especially in areas with minimal public resources because citizens will “select projects that will best address their community’s most demanding needs” (Boulding & Wampler 2010). The advantage of participatory budgeting is that it can be replicated in any community or city, if the political will and structures exist, despite levels of economy; though they do require a ‘culture of participation’ and ‘mobilised citizenry’ for their success (Cabannes 2004). Cabannes examined 25 cases of successful participatory budgeting systems around the world and found that the annual budgets varied greatly from more than US$ 2,200 per resident in St. Denis and Bobbing in France, to less than US$ 20 in Villa El Salvador, Peru (Cabannes 2004). While in general it is held in good esteem with some community members believing that it has greatly contributed to the wellbeing of the community, others are more sceptical that the process has started to become co-opted by certain interests. In one participatory budgeting workshop I attended, the element of mobilised citizenry was present, though some community members felt that their needs from the previous year were still not being met, mostly due to resources. It has been a case of trial and error says Leandro. When the participatory budget was first introduced there were conflicts over decisions, it was more of a process of representative participation. He recalls one meeting which he attended whereby community members did not feel their participation was respected, saying, "but why should we come to inaugurate [the new public works] I did not even know they were going to do that." But as he recounts, “it was in the budget and who made that budget? The leader of the neighbourhood. And the leader of the neighbourhood said, ‘Oh that I saw that the neighbourhood was deteriorating so I requested it.’ But there were other people

119 that said no.” Though, he continues, “there was a conflict and so the organisation went to work from the grassroots. That is, in this case, the people decide.”

Photo 8: Participatory Budgeting Workshop, Nangulvi

Participatory budgeting within a democratic participatory approach if undertaken effectively and with genuine intent addresses the dimension of ‘empowerment’ within a BV framework and could help dispel sentiment of BV being just a political slogan or an empty utopia.

5.5.3. The Role of Organisations Civil society and the social organisation of communities is vital for helping communities satisfy their fundamental needs, through associations and local organisations. It is also necessary for effective and democratic participation, as Joaquín explains, Where there is a diverse, pluralistic social fabric it is an important step in the governance of Cotacachi, the municipality of Cotacachi. If we build the concept of the organization of urban, rural women rights, of children and youth to urban and rural areas, the organization of farmers, the tourism sector, the artisanal sector, urban neighbourhoods; we contribute to that space for citizen participation that could only be much more effective in their demands and actions. [But] building the social fabric can be done when there is political will and when there is a vision of what you want to do. Because if it is to manipulate a group and give them food only, that is much easier. But that's populism, that's patronage.

Social organisation helps achieve change for the community, by the community. Laura uses the example of Cotacachi becoming Ecuador’s first ecological county by decree, through the will of the people. “Organization played an important role. As with all organizations of Cotacachi, some more some less, but they finally gathered together and proposed to the mayor saying "well, we want this, and we are all going to conceive that Cotacachi become an ecological canton."

120

The need for cooperation in the form of help also from external organisations was unanimously stated from all key informants, who see the value in working plurally with organisation to meet needs and achieve BV. Diego states that this may be in the form of, “support from the other institutions of advanced management to meet the needs that perhaps the same structure or policies of the parish [local government], cannot cover. At least the most unmet needs in the communities. I think that there is [scope for] support and also includes international support.” Cooperation though, does not elude merely to financial aid with no consideration of the actual needs of the community. Because “satellite cooperation” is not beneficial, as Joaquín argues, because it “means only leaving machines for instance, does not contribute to capacity, the training of people in production, and so suddenly it does not meet its target. But if there is a much closer coordination, it is better taken advantage of.” Gabriela similarly states that outside support is good, however, “it also pushes us to start working on, reflecting on what we want [as a community]. So, cooperation comes to work on the real needs of the community.” Fernando argues that the needs of the community and the sustainability of projects has not been a priority in the past with international cooperation. He says, If it was sustainable or not often did not matter. And I think that cooperation must today cooperate in things that are sustainable in the long term. It must be a common goal of society. It has to be that they help to sow the seeds that people want. So, we believe that cooperation is fundamental to achieving [needs], at least in the COOTAD [Code for Territorial Organisation, Autonomy and Decentralisation] it gives us the authority to sign agreements and achieve goals and what we have to do is commit to cooperation but not to impose the implementation of projects and programs based on the objectives of cooperation. But cooperation based on the objectives of the community.

There have been cases in the past of cooperation in Cotacachi, notably in Intag, with international NGOs and development organisations that have exogenously imposed certain development projects and programs on various communities without taking into consideration the actual needs of that community. Most programs have been aimed at building the financial capacity and creating economic opportunities for women and youth, and although community members have appreciated the intention behind the programs, at the same time they have concerns that they have not contributed to satisfying their real needs, and ultimately once the organisation has left, the project has failed in its objective. Besides financial assistance, organisations can also help in the plurality of knowledge and technical abilities. In local hydroelectricity project HidroNangulvi, HidroIntag is cooperating internationally through technical and financial support with Cuban sovereign energy institute CUBASOLAR, Ecuadorian engineers, the Central University of Ecuador, as well as Hydropower professionals from France (Hidronangulvi 2016). HidroIntag is a local organisation which helps build small-scale, community run hydroelectric plants for the use of communities to provide a source of alternative energy other than large scale extractivism (Hidronangulvi 2016).

121

5.6. Challenges to the Good Life

Now that we have a more solid understanding of BV, including what it looks like in practice, and the role of the key actors, the discussion would be incomplete if we did not at least try to understand the main road blocks to achieving it. Key informants were generally quite forward in offering their opinion on its challenges. After careful reflection of what BV meant to them, a discussion on the challenges to achieving it followed at the end of the interview. In comparison to the many principles or aspects of BV that were mentioned by all the participants, and earlier identified in the literature, the list of challenges was relatively few, albeit significant.

5.6.1. Key challenges The most significant challenge to BV is building a solid understanding of what it is. In the words of local cooperative manager, Luis, “First above all else, it is having a qualified concept. When we know what Buen Vivir is, or at least being able to construct this Buen Vivir as a generalised idea, [this] is the first challenge. To know what the objective is.” This chapter has built a better understanding of what BV is, from the local level, and triangulated that with the literature. Now that the conceptual puzzle has started to form, one can then start to examine the other key challenges to achieving BV. The next most significant challenge to achieving BV was revealed to be the issue of education – that is both access to decent education and the lack of education or awareness in relation to BV. Mateo explains, “I believe it is important for many families. Here we want quality education. We don’t lose hope. In this aspect, hopefully the government will work as soon as possible to transform the education [system].” Diego further argues, “I believe that we need a specialised education, education of quality, an education that does not distinguish colour or nationality. In terms of education for BV, Felipe explains, “Education, starting at home, with your examples of, you know, being conscious when you buy something. So, we need to change society, so people have a different vision of what they need to have this wellbeing.” It can also help society to distinguish between the ‘false’ needs or desires and fundamental needs. As Rafael explains, They tell you that you will be happy if you travel, if you have credit cards, if you buy this, if you have all these values and is not true. So, this needs to change, [but] it is a very complex task. You have to start with children, as Mujica says. Mujica says that the older generations, which includes us, we are lost. We do not change our way of living. So, we have the discourse for this, but a way of living that does not agree with the discourse. Then the children possibly can grow to be real environmentalists, having children whose parents do not tell them "you have to study this to have money.

Mateo argues that education is needed to change attitudes and behaviours, and governments play a hand in that through their development policies. It all needs to change. In the same vein as work. Perhaps the same government instead of providing financial support…let's talk about the bonuses55 that many people turned to, to buy the basics food items and

55 This refers to the Ecuadorian government’s program ‘El Bono de Desarrollo Humano’ which provides beneficiaries with an equivalent of $420 in payments over a year.

122

neglecting their work; when [instead] we can think of how to make produce our farms better. And [educate for] cultural change, above all: our reality, education, values are living as consumerism. Everybody is trying to buy and to have and have [more]. But we do not know what point to stop.

The next greatest challenge was precisely that of changing a culture of consumerism, prevalent in capitalist societies. Rafael explains, The problem is that the idea of progress is to have more; the idea of development, developed countries are the most economically powerful, and well-being is more or less defined at the middle-class level of rich countries in the world. Not everyone can live like the middle class of the United States and Europe because the world would explode. But the media, the internet, the publicity…for me, the global cancer is called marketing. Marketing is destroying humanity. With marketing you create needs that are not needed.

According to Emanuel, “the first challenge is mental. We have to stop being slaves to [material] things.” The challenge also rests on the economic model of unbridled growth that supports and encourages consumerist behaviours. This model of development is unsustainable, as scientists state that the earth only has enough resources for each person to consume 1.8 “global hectares” of resources annually, which is the equivalent of what a person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes (Hickel 2015a); yet the current model dictates that all societies should strive for Western levels of development. Economist Peter Edwards argues, “We should look at societies where people live long and happy lives at relatively low levels of income and consumption not as basket cases that need to be developed towards western models, but as exemplars of efficient living” (Hickel 2015a). Implicated in this development model is the challenge of extractivism (discussed in greater detail in the following chapter). The majority of key informants felt that extractivism poses a significant challenge to BV. So, while it was not always directly discussed as a challenge to BV, it was often mentioned as having adverse impacts on the community, the environment and wellbeing. It was affirmed both in the literature and the field data therefore that BV and extractivism are incompatible. Miguel argues, “never can you reach Sumak Kawsay with extractivism.” Fernando further argues that, It is contradictory. We exploit all the resources we have. We extract all the oil, mining and are over indebted and sold with these products, with these strategic sectors; but we want to start with planting trees, trees that never again return us to having these resources. We must be clear. So, it is dependency, the country’s, and society’s dependence - we are a very consumerist society - that leads us to be extractivist.

The transition towards a post-extractive society therefore is necessary, as BV can only be achieved in the absence of large-scale extractivism. Changes of attitudes and behaviours manifested in VB can help achieve this transition. The extractivist challenge is thus also one of policy. As Emmanuel explains, beyond local government there is a push for extractivism, though participation supported by local governments can help communities voice on this issue get heard. He states, There are few municipal resources to invest in it, but beyond that we have a political position that is putting the issue of extractivism on the table at the national level. [Through participation] we are able at least to have a slightly

123

higher voice heard a little better and to generate a more critical thinking on this issue.

Participation was mentioned by a quarter of key informants as a major challenge. There are various participatory approaches used in development by governments and development professionals. As an alternative to development, to fully involve communities in decision-making the most appropriate approach, and the only one suitable for BV is ‘shared control’. With shared control, Citizens become empowered by accepting increasing responsibility for developing and implementing action plans that are accountable to group members and for either creating or strengthening local institutions. The development professionals become facilitators of a locally driven process. Stakeholders assume control and ownership of their component of the project or program and make decisions accordingly. At this level, local participation is most sustainable because the people concerned have a stake in maintaining structures or practices. Participatory monitoring—in which citizens, groups or organizations assess their own actions using procedures and performance indicators they selected when finalizing their plans—reinforces empowerment and sustainability (Ondrik n.d.).

While full, grassroots-led participation has been identified as a key challenge, taking a shared control approach allows the community on one hand to implement VB for themselves, and on the other hand meet local government expectations for participatory budgeting in a hybrid approach that allows the environment for BV to flourish in a meaningful way. Javier distinguishes between global challenges and local challenges, which further affirms the need to situate the local practice and policy of BV within the broader aspirational or utopian goals for sustainability and wellbeing; because in the age of globalisation, no community lives in total isolation. He explains, Speaking of the global and the local56. Globally, what is needed it is courage of our leaders to make decisions, for example we have the world summit COP21 in Paris on climate change57. Let's look at the decisions they make. That's Good Living or Living Well. But will say " aye no, no" it will keep your model and says, " oh no, we will not." Because if I lose profitability for Australia and France alike, they do not want to do anything for example. Then in the local, first we need to seriously start recognising that the planet is already in danger. We need awareness. On all levels. At the governmental level, at the institutional level, at the family level. Principally an awareness for people to say, “we need to change now!” Or what are we waiting for, that there’s no petrol left? Or that we have exhausted all the copper and the world’s resources? And then say, ‘now what do we do?’ It will be too late.

56 Global action is vital to promoting change on a local level and local changes are necessary to achieving a broader, global change, and vice-versa. 57 COP21 took place on in Paris in December 2015. The outcome of which was the Paris Agreement, opened for signature on 22 April 2016, whereby the 196 nations in attendance agreed to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels; requiring governments to report on their progress. As of 7 September 2016, there were 180 signatories to the Paris Agreement, with 27 of those having deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance or approval accounting in total for 39.08 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions. In accordance with article 21, the agreement enters into force “on the thirtieth day after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary.”(The paris agreement - status of ratification 2016) It nonetheless remains unbinding.

124

Practical steps taken by communities through a VB approach, along with the correct political structures and environment to help achieve BV will help tackle the challenges that block the achievement of BV and relegate it as only a utopian goal. So, there is a responsibility of both communities and government to meet these challenges. Communities can start to address these by changing their practices, by practicing VB through the application of core principles and actively partaking in participation decision-making. Governments can meet these challenges by both their role in global policies and in providing the necessary conditions for communities to achieve BV endogenously. Only if these challenges are met both locally and globally, argues Javier, can we “have confidence in the creativity of man and civilisation and of society to do extraordinary things. But on the path towards BV, not on the path of repeating the same errors that have led this planet to environmental saturation.” Entirely overcoming these challenges however, requires a transformation of society and politics, but in the meantime through communities taking a VB approach, we are not ‘waiting for the world to change’ to start acting practically on sustainability and wellbeing issues, nor are we assigning great universal, aspirational goals which are destined for failure, but we are enacting change from the people and scaling it up through participation.

5.7. Conclusion

This chapter has aimed to empirically examine what BV looks like including its specific pillars and principles, as well as needs satisfaction under BV. It also looks at the role of government and organisations in a plurally applied hybrid approach. Finally, it explores examples of BV in practice before discussing the key challenges to its full achievement. As a concept under co-construction, there has been a lot of uncertainty about what exactly it entails, what its principles are and how they can offer a concrete path for its practical application. One of the ambiguities lies in its heterogeneity, the fact that it is contested by different groups of actors; which is why this chapter sought to bring together their points of convergence to better understand the concept. The fieldwork data combined with a review of the literature has found that a set of core principles which are delineated under three pillars: social, spiritual, and material. This changes from the three-pronged social, environmental, and economic pillars of SD where the latter two are reliant on a market economy with economic growth as its end-goal. These pillars denote a more holistic and biocentric approach to SSEW. The principles are interrelated and interdependent. If the principles are not applied, then fundamental needs cannot be met and vice-versa. Therefore, an integral approach to needs satisfaction must be taken which includes not just basic needs, but psychological needs too; and not just human needs, but those of the environment too. These needs must be identified at the community level, allowing communities to define their own approach to BV. In that respect, BV as a policy opening up structures and spaces for endogenous change would be a tool for communities to achieve SSEW. BV policy can therefore make it possible to achieve the aims at all levels of society

125 but is nonetheless influenced by community practice and decisions regarding needs. There is thus a vital role for government, especially at the local level to create these structures and processes necessary for achieving VB within communities. This can best be achieved through a participatory democracy where participatory budgeting plays a key role in community self-determination. Organisations also play an important role in implementing BV through financial and knowledge cooperation, and by acting as ‘moderators’ of a bottom-up approach to prevent political co-optation. If BV is to become a viable alternative, then its application in community practice is a key determinant. In the data this is referred to as VB, which is the day-to-day changes made to reality. Coupled with the utopian goal of BV, a hybrid approach must be adopted which merges policy and practice through endogenous processes. A hybrid approach where VB the community practice and BV the policy converge may seem complex in a development model that is very much top-down driven, but it is necessary because 1) political will and cooperation needs to be present to achieve BV, and; 2) daily practices at the individual, family and community level are what will ultimately bring about real change. In such an approach VB is scaled up to achieve the principles of BV and influence policy. BV policy can be understood as the political condition to facilitate the attainment of VB on a practical level, and VB can be understood as the endogenous implementation of the principles of BV. Both are necessary and equally as important, albeit one at a high level (BV) and the other at a practical level (VB). Therefore, "new institutional mechanisms capable of reconciling participation with heterogeneity are required on the part of the state” (Max-Neef, Elizalde & Hopenhayn 1994). BV thus offers real promise as a viable alternative to SD that can lead change through concrete practice, though the concept itself is at risk of being co-opted for political interests because of contradictory policies which risks it being relegated as an unachievable utopia. Nonetheless, broad aspirational goals can work alongside specific concrete practices, but must be achieved plurally. In this symbiosis, the concept then takes on dual meaning: BV or Good Living is the aspirational political ideal, which can be associated to larger, global goals for wellbeing and sustainability such as the SDGs; and VB or Living Well, which is the practical tool for communities to achieve wellbeing and sustainability for themselves, within the spirit of endogenous led change, self-determination and participation. While the material pillar of BV denounces traditional development’s emphasis on growth, economic productivity still plays a crucial role in BV, albeit on more just terms. The SSE approach adopted by the Ecuadorian Government provides an ideal economic model for communities to meet their own needs and determine their own path for BV. It changes the paradigm from one promoting growth and accumulation to one based on needs, community, and the sustainable use of resources; helping to achieve intergenerational social and ecological sustainability. While the social and ecological dimensions are the most important outcomes of BV, the unique material pillar is fundamental in understanding BV’s contribution to sustainability and wellbeing and ensuring that the approach remains an alternative to traditional development models rather than an alternative within the current model. As an approach, BV provides a viable and practical alternative to SD, though to reach the point of BV will require a transformation of both society and politics whereby several challenges must be overcome: access to education to achieve changes in attitudes and behaviours; and a move away

126 from an extractive society, to a more sustainable and inclusive one, because ultimately (as Chapter Two affirmed and the following chapter will analyse further), extractivism and BV are incompatible. In building upon the definition offered by Cubillo et al (2016) in Chapter Two, I conclude the following explanation: BV is a plural and contextual alternative to sustainable development, based on community, harmony, and a reciprocal relationship with nature; and founded on the three pillars of: ecological, spiritual, and material. In conclusion, BV is ultimately a project for civilizational change, with a plural agenda whereby practice at the community level influences the political agenda and cooperation is required. It is endogenous-led change, which requires a hybrid two-way approach between community and government in a post-extractive economy to achieve social and environmental wellbeing for current and future generations. Approaching it in this manner makes it more operational and practical than a utopian policy idea, and in that way change and transformation is not impossible. In other words, its practical application can help achieve the transformation required through enacting change at the level of the people and scaling it up whilst governments provide the structures and spaces to do so, including a genuine transition to post-extractivism.

127

6. Chapter Five: Challenging the Good Life: Buen Vivir and the Extractivism Dilemma

6.1. Introduction

Communities in Cotacachi highly value the natural environment in the Andes, one of the most pristine environments on earth. In the highlands of Ecuador, Intag is one of the world’s most biodiverse and ecologically rich regions. The region contains an internationally protected area, Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve and is also home to two of the world’s 35 internationally recognised biodiversity hotspots: The Tropical Andes and Tumbes-Choco-Magdalena. two of the most important ecological zones on earth, with a high degree of endemism of plant and animal species, 49 percent of all bird species in Ecuador, seven vegetation ecosystems with 13 percent of total species of Ecuador, and 28 endangered species including the mountain tapir, spectacled bear and brown spider monkey and mantled howler monkey (Waldmüller 2015). Though many communities there fear their environment and values are threatened by the push to have their lands exploited for copper, gold, and other valuable minerals for the good of the global market and in the name of economic growth and development. Indeed, many of the region’s endangered and vulnerable species are under threat from deforestation and a loss of habitat that extractivism58 would pose. Escobar said, “The nature of alternatives as a research question and a social practice can be most fruitfully gleaned from the specific manifestations of such alternatives in concrete local settings” (Escobar 1995). What’s more, inherent in BV are the principles of community, reciprocity and the sustainable use of resources. In that light, this chapter will discuss the viability of BV as an alternative to SD in the setting of my fieldwork site, Cotacachi County, in the context of extractivism. Not only do communities in Cotacachi have a strong affiliation with the idea of BV, but they also have direct experience with extractivism, which was identified as a key challenge in the previous chapter.

So, based on the findings of my fieldwork, this chapter explores the sub-questions: • What challenges or opportunities does extractivism pose on these communities and their ability to achieve BV? • How do these communities think of their environment/nature? • How do they interact with their environment and how do these practices align with their BV?

Development policy in Ecuador, like much of Latin America is underlined by ‘extractivism’. Extractivism refers to the extraction and removal of natural resources in large-scale to satisfy the

58 References to extractivism or neoextractivism throughout this research refer to extractive activities that are large-scale, predatory, not to the actual activity of extracting natural resources.

128 market. This is not limited to mining and oil, but also includes large scale forestry, farming, and fishing (Acosta 2013). Many scholars and economists alike argue that in Latin America, an extractive-based model of development has failed to decrease inequality and has been at the root of many environmental and social problems. As it was identified in the literature and by key informants, extractivism poses a challenge to the full achievement of Buen Vivir (BV). The current model of development and its derivatives, including Sustainable Development (SD), emphasizes individual wealth and wellbeing, and the use of natural resources as a commodity - the sustainability of such has often come into question by communities, organisations and even governments and economists (Cerdán 2013; Escobar 1995; Esteva 2010; Guillen-Royo 2015; Lang 2013; Morse 2008; Sneddon, Howarth & Norgaard 2006; Sustainable development challenges 2013; Ziai 2013). However, the reality is that we are still very much in a global system that values extractivism (even neo-extractivism59), and the biocentrism of BV struggles to thrive in this current context. Indeed, it challenges the delicate equilibrium of BV which focuses on the importance of solidarity, environmental and communal wellbeing, and mutual respect between society and the environment. The challenge exists on several levels. Firstly, on the political level where the exploitation of natural resources on a large-scale has underlined global economic development policy for decades, but conflicts with action against climate change. Secondly, at the grassroots level, where communities are either directly suffering from the economic, environmental, and social impacts of extractivism or fighting to keep extractivism out of their communities. And lastly, at the environmental level, where impacts from large-scale activities have been attributed to causing climate change (IFRC 2010; IPCC 2015). This challenge must be at least confronted immediately and genuinely, if not resolved, if BV is to be a viable, practical alternative. To that end, this chapter first looks at the particular experience in Cotacachi, which has led to tension and conflict between communities and the government. Next it discusses the tensions between community, government, and extractive activities, whereby key informants explain their point of view, and how they believe extractivism impacts their wellbeing. The following section investigates social and environmental wellbeing, analysing community meanings of nature and the environment to understand how the environmental impacts of extractivism affect the communities, and how they view the role of natural resource use. The next section subsequently discusses these impacts and perceived impacts of extractivism on communities. The penultimate section analyses the contradiction between BV and extractivism before concluding with an examination of some of the various alternatives proposed in Cotacachi towards a post-extractive future.

59 Neoxtractivism is defined as a continuum of the process of accumulation based on primary exports, but one that contains both new and old features: with an increased involvement of the state in its management as well as profit and wealth distribution (Acosta 2012)

129

6.2. The Cotacachi Experience

The people of Cotacachi are highly embroiled in environmental activism and the promotion of BV. The Cotacachi Canton was the first declared ‘Ecological County’ by decree in Latin America. It has a population of approximately 40,036 habitants, 78 percent of whom live in a rural area (Actualizacion pdyot cotacachi 2015-2035 2016), and because of this rurality, Cotacacheños are highly susceptible to the impacts of extractivism in these areas – especially in the Intag region, which discussed previously, has one of the world’s highest rates of biodiversity. Extractivism and its impacts were freely discussed in Cotacachi, from television and radio programs to everyday conversations on the street. This public sentiment at the community level is often heard in popular opinion, but not often seen in daily life. Throughout the canton there are graffitied slogans on the side of a house that said "Viva Correa", but there are very few anti- government scrawls. Riding in a taxi through the surrounding hills the Indigenous pueblo of Otavalo on a visit to the nationally protected Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve, I noticed an abundance of pro- government graffiti. The taxi driver insisted that this did not necessarily imply strong support for Correa in the region but that it is a counter campaign by the government itself, Because there is strong resistance against him at the moment, all around the country. The issue is that there are policies for new taxes on families, an expansion of mining which negatively impacts communities, but fundamental needs are still going unmet. You can’t have Buen Vivir if the government is exploiting petroleum. It damages the environment, that’s not Buen Vivir.”

These recent policy decisions have spurred another social movement in Ecuador60. “It's not fair when people are struggling to look after their families”, the taxi driver argued. The current situation in Cotacachi started in 1989 when Japanese company Bishi Metals started exploration in the area, mainly for copper. But after facing stern community opposition supported by the local government, the company left. The Environmental Impact Assessments conducted by Bishi Metals were made public to communities by research undertaken by DECOIN, who were consequently made aware of the impacts which included desertification from extensive deforestation of the area, heavy pollution of rivers including cyanide and arsenic from the dumping of waste materials, and the estimated displacement of 100 families (Stahler-Sholk, Vanden & Kuecker 2008) . This increased mining resistance even further and led to locals burning down the mining camp after officials refused to meet with them. In recent times, mining opposition has been more pacific and strategic. In 2004, the Ecuadorian government granted a mining contract to Canadian company Ascendant Copper based in the city of Junín, in the northern reach of the Intag Valley. Ascendant Copper focused years of effort on gaining a social licence from the surrounding communities, but later was severely undermined by unauthorised acts of violence committed by company employees and security forces on opposing community members (Rogge & Moreno 2008). Additionally, the County Government took steps to undertake a case study of similar sorts of extractive activities in Chile to inform its communities of the impacts.

60 Refers to Indigenous protest against several of Correa’s policies. See Chapter Four, Part II for more.

130

Once in office, the Correa government then moved to expel the company from the territory in 2008. Since then mining resistance in this region has been led by local communities and supported by both local organisations and local governments in the pursuit of environment and social justice based on solidarity, community and environment61. This move was welcomed in many communities. Extractive activities are seen as a threat to their ability to continue their livelihoods and meet the needs of future generations. As community president of Rio Verde, Carmen Proaño stated, “We can’t sell our children’s future by letting a mining company come in and contaminate our beautiful river.” (D’Amico 2011). This is not a minority, radical perception, but rather a sense of their reality, even reflected in local government policies62. For example, former Mayor of Cotacachi Auki Tituaña worked with the communities to become an ecological county within which extractivism is banned (at the local government level) and local Parish and County governments have worked with the communities to also establish economic alternatives to extractivism, providing support and resources. However, the national government clearly supports a new policy of extractivism, resulting in a disconnect between local and national governments on the issues of extractivism and BV ('Alcalde de cotacachi dice estar en desacuerdo con el gobierno' 2015)63. The social unrest and tensions that extractive exploration and concession have caused between communities and government (particularly national) have been significant. As Avci (2012) states, these types of socio-environmental conflicts are concerned with a conflict over material resources and are essentially manifestations of contested understandings of development between society and the state, and “desired society” (Bebbington & Bebbington 2009), involving greater demands for respect for culture, and a community’s relation to their environment (Escobar 2006). One of the most vocal environmental groups in the region, DECOIN has been in direct attack from the government for its opposition to mining since 2013. In 2013, Amnesty International appealed for the safety of one of its founders Carlos Zorilla after former President Correa accused Zorilla and other individuals in Intag of defending foreign interests in a televised speech, and called on the Ecuadorians to react after several Intag community members blocked entry access of National Mining Agency employees. In 2014, tensions in Cotacachi heightened when Javier Ramirez, Junín community leader, was arrested in Intag for opposing the Llurimagua concession for copper mining in the region by state run mining company ENAMI. He was held on charges of rebellion, terrorism, and sabotage. Some community members in the Intag Valley have told during conversation that following his arrest, there have been several people who have gone from being in opposition to extractivism to in support of it because of fear of persecution, and this has greater social fragmentation between communities and family members. Other community members told me of the conflict that has resulted between friends

61 While the majority of local governments support a resistance to developing extractivism within their territories, it must be noted that there also exists an internal conflict between local Parish governments. While the Municipal government openly supports the resistance to mining, there are a few Parish governments who do not support the resistance, and according to some community members there have been public officials who have in fact supported mining, which has added to the factions between community members. 62 For example, various ordinances for the care and protection of the environment, see (Plan de desarrollo y de ordenamiento territorial 2015) 63 More information on the points of conflict between Cotacachi and National Governments can be found in ('Alcalde de cotacachi dice estar en desacuerdo con el gobierno' 2015; Tituaña 2004)

131 and family members between the supporters who have gone to work as fly-in-fly-out employees for the mine and the resisters who have been working hard to keep extractivism out of the region. These factions have created fear and insecurity among communities and severely weakened social cohesion. Starting in August 2015, Indigenous groups were in protest around the country during much of my time in the field. For much of his term in office, there was opposition against President Correa for his contradictory policies. These protests were staged to start a social movement which would see the end of the Correa government64. One of the main driving forces behind it is the continued expansion of extractive projects in the country, especially in the Shuar and Achuar territories in the south, but with an overall concern for the granting of mining and petroleum concessions, without genuine prior and informed consent from communities (Zorrilla 2015). In the province of Imbabura, which comprises the Cotacachi Canton, the movement/protest included most major Indigenous groups, as well as other community members and a transportation strike. On a local social network community, the mobilisation continued in the name of ‘Ally Kawsay/Vivir Bien’ The government wants to open up 50 thousand hectares of Cotacachi to mining, which will lead our land to destruction, to contamination, to pillage while displacing communities, oppressing innocent people, corrupting its public servants with crumbs and condemning us all, but above all future generations. The people of Intag have always been an example of dignity and struggle, but it affects us all, we need to defend ourselves to the death, it is time to do it from our suburbs, communities, colleges, associations, we are going to show the government that life cannot be sold and that they need to keep their criminal claws away from our land and our people and also from the rest of the communities threatened around the country (Rubio 2016).

These social movements are the expression of self-determination of the people, who are increasingly frustrated with the contradictions between BV policy and government actions, as well as the vertical nature of the decisions that greatly affect their lives. Moncayo ('Patricio moncayo: 'Hablan de matriz productiva, pero recuerdan la devaluación'' 2015) believes that the PNBV cannot be conceived vertically, or from a more top-down driven process, simply because it involves not just government, but also society, organisations, and private enterprise. A more horizontal, democratic, and participatory process is warranted. In Cotacachi, as discussed in the previous chapter, this effort for more horizontal governance at the local level has resulted in more successful community opposition to extractivism as an economic and development policy and through these democratic participatory processes, this opposition has gained local government support. Laura argues that this verticality could be changed if government act as facilitators, For example, health and education [reforms] have been a totally vertical thing…So they are not guaranteeing free access to health and education because there is an institutional imposition towards the territories and sometimes even the way people [get into office] is tenacious. They arrive thus with conflated by authority "and that here is done thus, because that is the law". It is imposed…It is

64 Former President Correa did not stand for re-election in 2017, though his political party attempted to push for constitutional changes to allow for indefinite re-election of former presidents (meaning he could stand again in 2021), these changes were quashed by 64.2 per cent in the public referendum and public consult of 4 February 2018 held by President Moreno ('Consulta 2018: Resultados a nivel nacional' 2018)

132

vertical in many areas [at the national level], in planning; and Buen Vivir too, is vertical. So, what we have done in Cotacachi for a long time…is generating things from the people, that has been like for a while. It is like that at a cantonal level, a political organizational example, a proposal of government…The role of the government, I believe that it should be a facilitating role…because they say everything is done is for the benefit of the people; it is not true. But if we change the vertical role of government management, say, things could be done differently. So, that is why I say that it should be a facilitating role and that is, that it respects the dynamics of where it is going to act and not only at the level of local and national government but also the whole of the state.

On the recent marches, Municipal government employee Leandro explains, There are people like those who go out and march. You cannot minimise this issue because there have been things in Ecuador which come back to the needs of these people…Well, it’s incredible the amount of repression that we have suffered in these last few weeks on this issue. So…the division of the Indigenous movement leads us to that; they have brought us to that [matter] which I agree on, Sumak Kawsay. [They are saying] “But look, we [just] want Sumak Kawsay.”

The Correa government sought to silence anyone who publicly opposed extractivist projects, which led its actions to be condoned by the United Nations. The attempt to silence DECOIN and the arrest of Javier Ramirez are just two examples in Cotacachi. In recent years, the Correa government shut down three prominent civil society organisations, Accion Ecologica, the Pachamama Foundation and Union Nacional de Ecuadores, for their opposition to extractivism sparking UN human rights experts to declare in a statement against the government’s actions that, It seems Ecuador’s government is systematically dissolving organisations when they become too vocal or challenge official orthodoxy…This strategy to asphyxiate civil society has been implemented through two decrees - 16 and 739 - that give the authorities power to unilaterally dissolve any kind of organisation (Expertos de la onu condenan medidas represivas contra organizaciones de dd hh 2016).

The experts warn that, The direct consequences are the progressive silencing of any group that challenges or offers alternative ideas to those of the government and, therefore, reduces the visibility of the situation of vulnerable and marginalized people…It's ironic, that the same government of Ecuador leading the positive international effort to hold companies accountable through a binding treaty is reducing the space for local groups to hold them accountable (Expertos de la onu condenan medidas represivas contra organizaciones de dd hh 2016)

6.3. Neoextractivism, Government and Communities: a fundamental tension

According to political and academic analyst Patricio Moncayo, the basis of the Correa Government’s development model, “as with all models, is ideological. The right claims neoliberalism and the left [as with Correa] revokes the regulatory power of the State. There is a conceptual error. The debate is on the capacity of government, which permits it to successfully face problems which emerge like the current situation” ('Patricio moncayo: 'Hablan de matriz productiva, pero recuerdan la

133 devaluación'' 2015). The current situation which Moncayo speaks of is the social mobilisation in Ecuador, which challenges the notion of BV. As discussed in Chapter Two, the Ecuadorian government has opted for the extractivist position in BV, albeit with a neoextractive approach, stating that the continuation of extractive activities is necessary for national fiscal revenue in the fight for poverty reduction (Acosta, 2013, Guardiola and García-Quero, 2014, Gudynas, 2013). Poverty reduction, it is argued, is a means to ensuring wellbeing, albeit with a decreased reliance on resource exports (SENPLADES, 2013). The Government stresses that an endogenous model such as BV has a higher cost structure and will first need to allow for new infrastructure and capacities to allow it (SENPLADES 2009b). justifying its neoextractive approach. The argument for the neoextractive model maintains that extractive activities can help alleviate poverty and affront the inequalities that traditional development has created. This increase of flow of revenue to the state from extractive activities is said to help the government implement the necessary social, environmental, and economic development agenda to achieve BV (Arsel & Angel 2012). On the benefits of mining, President Correa said “Water is more valuable than gold, in principle (…) but this gold can serve us to control floods, for roads, schools, health and, in effect, we need water and copper to overcome poverty” ('Rafael correa reforzó el discurso minero en zamora' 2015). Gudynas (2013a) argues, “although extractivism veers away from social justice because of its high social and environmental impacts, the governments of the left are attempting to return to it though wealth distribution measures, especially benefit payments. But essentially this is an economic justice that is very manipulative and looks a lot like charity and benevolence.” This creates a false dichotomy. As Gudynas asserts “the myth of progress and development is maintained under a new cultural and political hybridity” (Acosta 2013). Article 74 of the Constitution (Constitución de la república del ecuador 2008), states that “Persons, communities, peoples, and nations shall have the right to benefit from the environment and the natural wealth for Buen Vivir” and that “their production, delivery, use and development shall be regulated by the State”. The contradiction is that the neoextractive policies deny any kind of management of natural resources by communities, reducing their self-determination and effectively entertaining the continuation of extractivism under a different name. This is contradictory and as Indigenous woman and member of a local social organisation Laura states, it has helped form the tension between the government and the people, who initially believed in the good intentions behind BV policy and the Rights of Nature, Then, the moment that it starts to diverge is when the question of Sumak Kawsay is maintained here [in the community] but others begin to violate it. That is, there are Rights of Nature that are violated under the pretext of achieving Buen Vivir. There are rights of the peoples and nationalities of the population in general that are violated under the pretext of attaining this other [conception of wellbeing]. So, this separation [between BV policy and the Rights of Nature] that there is now, is an explicit contradiction and it is why many people were quite critical when the constitution was approved.

If we consider Dryzek’s categorisation of environmental discourses as ‘status quo’, ‘reform’ or ‘transformation’; neoextractive policies just straddle between status quo and reform because they

134 seek to problem-solve through slight adjustments to the status quo (Dryzek 1997), in this case through the state and ‘administrative rationalism’. It is taking the wealth derived from the extraction of natural resources and putting it back into the hands of the state, rather than multinationals based in another country. But it does not lead to the kind of transformation needed to fully realise BV, which would involve greater efforts towards a post-extractive economy. In this part of Ecuador, and particularly in the Intag Valley, the opposition to extractivism runs deep, but there are still those who believe that it is a necessary evil. Community activist Diego argues, Well, natural resources I think they play an important role in the productive environment. There are things you need to generate, to attain Sumak or Ally Kawsay. They are important but should always be handled with extraordinary care. They must be handled prudently; we must not satiate [our own needs] with resources because we must also think about future generations.

He continues, “The other thing is that the needs of the communities are very great, and I believe that this is the political departure to be able to venture into the extractive issue. I think that they need them to be able to exercise Sumak Kawsay.” Conversely, Laura expresses that by the time these policies allow for the complete departure from extractivism, it will be too late, The President said that to achieve Buen Vivir we need housing, we need everything. Where do we get this? "From our natural resources," he said. And then there is the justification for mining and to continue to sell the oil blocks. But that does not sit with me and it will never sit with me as a pretext of extractivism. They have said one and a thousand times that to get out of extractivism we will continue extractivism, but only for 50 years, no more. Then they will have nothing more to extract.

In this political sentiment, Rafael justifies, NOBODY likes extractivism, starting with President Correa. The thing is that there are times when you have no alternative. I do not think anyone is happy that oil is being pulled out, not in Yasuní or anywhere65. But what happens in the world if we stop oil? The world disappears, companies disappear, products disappear... Everything is made of plastics: planes and cars, and everything. So, we have created a system in which it is not possible to live without oil.

However, Emmanuel argues that the problem is the scale in which we consume that dictates the need for large-scale extractivism, We have been cut off from the knowledge we had [before modern development]. We have put a bandage on our eyes to consume because ultimately, if you do not consume, you are not useful to multinationals that produce everything you consume. Everything is multinational, so they need you to consume, no one but them, you do not need it; they need you to consume. Ultimately you can have food, housing, clothes without recourse to multinationals, you can. Here [in the region] there are seamstresses, there are people who produce, and there is

65 Former President Correa had contentiously allowed for the drilling of Yasuni. The Referendum and Public Consult of 4 February 2018 held under the Moreno government asked the question: Do you agree to increase the intangible zone by at least 50,000 hectares and reduce the area of oil exploitation authorized by the National Assembly in the Yasuni National Park from 1,030 hectares to 300? ('Consulta 2018: Resultados a nivel nacional' 2018) It resulted in a 67.31 per cent ‘yes’ vote, however the question was part of the public consult, not the referendum, meaning that it does not result in changes to the constitution as an effect.

135

textile industry. People can dress, can eat, can inform themselves…you can have fun, you can build [a life] without resorting to multinationals.

A move towards post-extractivism for the objectives of BV aligns with the need for BV to be an endogenous-led but plural process: a conscious change at the community level and the higher political will to allow for those changes through policy and political structures. However, in the instance of Cotacachi, despite many community efforts, it is still a case of top-down policy enforcement from the national government versus local resistance. Despite the increasing social mobilisation, the national government has strengthened its neoextractive policies, evident in the expansion of mining projects such as state-run Enami and Chilean-owned CODELCO’s Llurimagua project. This neoextractive approach is therefore arguably even more vertically inclined than a traditional extractive approach because the impetus is coming direct from the top-down, from the state, rather than from exogenous actors such as multinationals. ('Patricio moncayo: 'Hablan de matriz productiva, pero recuerdan la devaluación'' 2015) For Leandro there is an inherent connection between the struggle for BV and the inability to achieve it, and the social movements that have been driven by a policy of extractivism. And as head of a local organisation, Felipe states, between the community and the government, the conflict ultimately rests on the fact that “there’s different visions of development, of what wellbeing is. Completely different.” Emmanuel argues that, “what is not said is that this state of wellbeing has another face, which is the plunder and exploitation of the rest of the planet. They [the West] exploited South America, Africa had no state of wellbeing [according to them], I suppose [also] in Australia if they did not displace all the Indigenous there, there would have been no such state of wellbeing.” While extractivism hampers the ability to achieve BV, another issue is that extractivism also severely disrupts the ability for communities to achieve put it in practice through Vivir Bien (VB) or Ally Kawsay, which is a necessary condition for BV. “It is not enough to only have this utopian goal as a point of arrival “one day in the future”. Emmanuel continues, “We see that this [Buen Vivir] is not something that we are going to arrive at tomorrow, or the next day or in five years. Rather we want to achieve something daily.” SSEW is not an endpoint, but rather a state of being.

6.4. Sustainable Social and Environmental Wellbeing for the Good Life

While many key informants feel the opposite, in a national speech in Quito in September 2015, President Correa argued that the petroleum boom in Ecuador has led to social wellbeing ('Enlace ciudadano 440, desde quito' 2015), highlighting those tensions. The results of this research have found that extractivism negatively impacts on both social and environmental wellbeing, as will be discussed below. Table 5, below, is a dendrogram of the main issues that were discussed by key informants in relation to extractivism and the links between the issues. This dendrogram shows the taxonomic relationships developed from an analysis of the data coded using NVivo data management software.

136

Table 6: Links between main issues of extractivism

Many key informants feel that their communities do not have an adequate level of social and environmental wellbeing because of the threats of extractivism and the environmental destruction on productive land that can come with these types of activities. Local government employee Fernando states, “I could say one or two things about the central government and its policy of Buen Vivir applied to the territories. Well, there’s no wellbeing, we are searching for wellbeing. My way of doing things is not only about chasing things built of cement because cement is not wellbeing.” Wellbeing is the end goal of most conceptions of development, however it is in the way wellbeing is defined that may be problematic in its own achievement. First, wellbeing under BV correlates to the wellbeing of a community, not an individual. Secondly, as opposed to the neoliberal

137 concept of development which is anthropocentric, that is, that the needs of society come first and foremost; BV is characteristically biocentric meaning that neither society nor the environment have dominion over the other but are interconnected and reciprocal in nature and therefore the wellbeing of one is inherent in the other. This biocentric focus makes environmental sustainability a core element of BV. I call this environmental wellbeing because in BV, both the political and cosmological conception, nature is an actor, thus its wellbeing is important for its survival, and indeed human survival. Typically, the human dimension of wellbeing is considered paramount and wellbeing is thus elevated to a social concept. But this does not consider the reciprocal relationship between humans and their environment – the continuum between nature and society. If we have true environmental wellbeing, we have sustainability, which also correlates the health of the environment to the wellbeing of society – sustainable social and environmental wellbeing (SSEW). There were three issues mentioned most frequently in the empirical data in relation to the consequences of extractivism on social and environmental wellbeing: 1) the limits of natural resource use; 2) the impacts caused by large scale extractive activities, and; 3) the need for alternatives to extractivism. Most of the informants were not in favour of extractive activities in Cotacachi. This did not mean that all informants were against the act of extracting raw materials from natural resources, however the consensus was that the activities should not be undertaken in areas with such high biodiversity, in protected areas66 and in close proximity to communities to protect, this fragile state of SSEW; and on such a large scale for commercial purposes. One community member, Pedro, who used to work in the petroleum industry said, “when mining is well managed, there is no problem, but when mining is irresponsible and cuts down forests, they clear entire communities even, that contributes nothing to maintaining the environment and Buen Vivir.” Although when asked about the responsibility of mining companies for ‘well-managed’ practices, the focus was on the economic impacts rather than environmental, Well the foreign companies that come to extract anything, be oil, be mining, whatever, there are some companies that are very smart and are leaving the community certain things. For example, donating schools, buildings, all that, and that's good for the community, yes? there are others, there are other mining companies that, on the other hand, do not leave anything, do they? And they only take advantage to extract, extract, extract. Of course, they are controlled by the government [regulations], but the government cannot be there, seeing everything they do.

66 The referendum and public consult of 4 February 2018 asked citizens: 5) Do you agree to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador to prohibit metallic mining in all its stages, in protected areas, in intangible zones, and urban centers, according to Annex 5? Annex 5: Add a second paragraph to article 407 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador with the following text: "All types of metallic mining are prohibited in any of its phases in protected areas, urban centers, intangible zones". Replace Article 54 of the Organic Environmental Code with the following text: "From the prohibition of extractive activities in protected areas intangible zones. -The extractive activities of non- metallic mining hydrocarbons are prohibited within the National System of Protected Areas and in areas declared as intangible, including forestry exploitation, except for the exception provided in the Constitution. , in which case the relevant provisions of this Code will apply. All types of metallic mining are prohibited in any of its phases in protected areas, urban centers, intangible zones. " ('Cuáles son las siete preguntas de la consulta popular y el referéndum en ecuador?' 2017) The people voted ‘yes’ by 68.2 per cent. It is unclear as yet how this will play out in reality for Cotacachi with areas of high biodiversity value and protected areas such as Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve.

138

There is a cultural nuance when it comes to understanding the meaning that the environment has for communities here. To better understand the ways in which key informants believed that extractivism challenges the ability to achieve SSEW through BV, it is necessary to delve into the meanings of environment and nature within the context of BV – that is the cultural and linguistic signification attached to both concepts, and how they impact the levels of wellbeing in society.

6.4.1. Meanings of Nature and the Environment To better understand the environmental aspect of BV, key informants were asked to describe what the environment means to them. Depending on their responses they were also asked to signify what nature or Pachamama means and what the differences are between them. All of which had fundamental significance for all key informants. These responses contributed to the identification of the principles discussed in Chapter Four and they are an important aspect of understanding the connection of these meanings to the real or perceived impacts of extractivism in the SSEW in these communities. The fact that for key informants, humans and their environment cannot be separated underlies the principles in Chapter Four. On the meanings of nature and the environment, Local government representative Fernando speaks of the totality of the environment, “The environment is everything around us, no. It is all around us from the common environment we live in, the community we live in, the water, the river that is all around us, the air and in itself, the whole biodiversity. …it has to be a complete, whole environment. For me it must be whole. It has to be an environment where one coexists.” In Western society we tend to think of the environment as separate to human beings, and in English its connotations are as such. The Oxford Dictionary (Stevenson 2010) defines the term ‘environment’ as ‘the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates’, and ‘the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity’. These definitions imply an innate separation between living beings and their environment. The key informants thus infer that the Spanish term, if used in its figurative meaning and not in its literal sense includes not only all living beings and geophysical elements surrounding them, but also the relationship between them. Leandro tells, “For us in Ally Kawsay the environmental issue is extremely important. That is, we want to live in harmony with nature…we are part of this whole ecosystem. That is, we do not want to exclude ourselves [from it].” Many prefer to use the term ‘naturaleza’ or ‘Pachamama’ instead of ‘medioambiente’ when talking about the environment specifically, although one is often inherent in the other. Diego for example, describes nature as being part of the environment, It [the environment] is of extreme importance because without nature we would need to immigrate to another planet in order to survive. It is that which generates food, which generates health, which we can interact with, share. I consider it as intimately as our mother. It is the one who sees us born, the one who will see us grow, the one who will see us die if we respect her. When we cease to exist on this planet...it could be understood as the best legacy that we can leave to future generations.

139

The description of Pachamama used by key informants can best be translated as Mother Earth in English, that is, ‘the source of all its living beings and natural features’. This is closer to the understanding of ‘environment’ by key informants as it is a holistic view of the earth as one connected whole, rather than separate hierarchically organised elements. Rodriguez explains that Mother Earth is fundamentally important to human survival and relates not only to current but also to future generations, It means everything, everything because it is like the Mother, like the Father, we must look after it. We must always be in harmony with it. Never must we think only in terms of 50 or 80 years, but that I am going to live for thousands of years because there will be generations coming after us. But many people say, “not I, I am going to live for [only another] 30 years and leave it sterile”.

However, in Indigenous cosmovision, the meaning of environment is much more profound. Indigenous key informants speak of Pachamama as personified. Indigenous community leader David explains, “I mean that Pachamama is a person. So, a person with hair etc.” This conception is spiritually based and limited to Indigenous cosmology and cultural context and therefore cannot be readily transferred outside of that worldview. Rodriguez explains the distinction between Pachamama and nature from his point of view, “The difference is that nature for me can be rebuilt if it is damaged or maintained if it is doing well or left it as it is. But Pachamama, the earth, the land for me is untouchable, it is unmovable. It is our shoes [it grounds us].” As a non-Indigenous campesino who works on the land, the distinction may be different or non-existent from an Indigenous or city-dweller. Nonetheless in the context of BV, SK, or VB, one cannot exist without the other in good health. In that respect, nature is part of Mother Earth and therefore has a more profound connotation that the Western use of the term natural resources. It is for this reason that nature must be used sustainably with full consideration of the impacts of that use and the cyclical relationship with human beings. And nature, in that respect is the holder of rights, as Luis explains, For me it’s [the environment] fundamental. The protection of the environment where we are sheltering, where we are living is our home. It's like taking care and maintaining your home. It means starting to respect all rights, also those of nature. There is a new tendency in international law, that is precisely to promote the Rights to Nature, which for me this is fundamental. It is to achieve as a human collective the long term and to guarantee for generations [to come] a good environment We do not need to use all the resources we have now in order to have a good quality of life.

6.4.2. The Sustainable Use of Resources Although the Indigenous SK heavily denounces the legacy that modernity has left on the state of the environment, the evolving concept of BV seeks to embrace all epistemologies, but in a holistic way. This does not mean returning to the past (Gudynas 2011b), rather as the previous chapter suggests it requires new ways thinking, based on fundamental needs rather than satisfying desires for unbridled consumption and wealth creation through the exploitation and commercialisation of nature. The Ecuadorian ‘rights of nature ‘do not imply a nature untouched, a ‘virgin nature’, (Acosta 2010). BV does not lead to an unrealistic conservation of natural resources, rather their sustainable

140 use allows for their regeneration for use by future generations – a key objective of sustainability. As Prada Alcoreza (2011) stresses, It is true that ancient societies, civilizations, world-systems have exploited also the land, domesticated plants, domesticated animals, domesticated the genomes, mined minerals, but did so to meet specific needs… [not] the satisfaction of profit.

When asked about how they think about their natural resources, key informants all spoke of them as necessary and indispensable, part of their environment and so respect must be shown. Diego says natural resources play, A role of inconceivable meaning because it is linked absolutely everything that we need. It is the one that gives us a hand, it is the one that helps us to live, the one that helps us breathe. So, I think it plays the role of life. It is the role of the mother: the biological role, the role in which allows us to develop in our environment.

Likewise, Indigenous local government employee Joaquín affirms, “water is critical, land is critical to survival and family development. Electric power too. Even better if it is with clean energies. Then it is a complement to life.” However, many key informants discussed the fact that it the way that society uses these resources that put a strain on the environment. As Emanuel argues, You can get wood without reducing the regeneration capacity that nature has, without exceeding the limitation capacity. You can build a house without resorting to cement, because cement is pure and hard extractivism, cement is an industry that is digging up nature and extracting energy and producing a material that is easily marketable. But you can build the same house without resorting to cement.

Their use is linked to the way we conceive of natural resources, which as Laura argues, is fundamentally damaging in itself, [We think] a resource is something that you have and you readily take advantage of. That cannot continue like this because we are part of it [the environment]. At some point the forest is going to end, at some point the sources of water will dry up, if we continue as we are. So, I think that the dispute is in saying that what we call resources will not always be, that what we call resources are not only ours. But we have to be aware that we have children and we are going to have grandchildren, possibly. They will no longer have what we are calling resources.

Almost all key informants believe that it is a question of respecting the biophysical limits of the environment, not upsetting the fragile balance which will destroy the earth’s natural regeneration capacity. This balance is already being threatened by the impacts of climate change caused by human activity - both already underway and forecast to increase by climate scientists (IPCC 2015). There is a strong argument amongst the key informants that the key to overcoming these challenges is not to stop using natural resources altogether, but to use them in a more sustainable manner, to use only what is needed to meet fundamental needs, not for rampant consumerism and wealth creation. Indigenous leader Gabriela believes that “you should use what is necessary, and I believe that God or the Pachamama gives to us so that people can live but not to accumulate wealth,

141 perhaps in a single family or a single company. I believe that everything is made for us to survive or live on this planet, but we also have to take [only] what is necessary. Leandro explains the rationale behind the sustainable use of nature in both VB and BV, It is a direct relationship [between nature and society], it is a relationship in harmony, it is a relationship of "you take this, and give me that". So, it is not a relationship of “I use you and it doesn’t matter what happens to you”. It's not “I exploit your mines and put something back on you”. That is, if I use the mines here and there I plant 300 trees.

There are two principle issues involving the use of natural resources, they are: market consumerism, i.e. the consumption of products and goods; and energy production and consumption, i.e. the extraction, production and end-use of natural resources for energy. Both rest on a lateral- scale change of behaviours and attitudes, and sustained by the continuance of unbridled consumerism, and therefore without promising alternatives we cannot achieve positive change. For Luis, the unsustainable use of natural resources does not only involve mining and petroleum, he points out it also extends to all extractive activities using renewable resources on a large scale, activities which have been promoted as solutions to SD. He states, Natural resources provide us with everything human beings need. Unfortunately, from my point of view there is a tendency of the overexploitation of nature, extreme consumerism, [and] a transformation of natural resources into some kind of product. What happens in many places, and what I do not want to happen in my country is that there are large plantations of sugar cane, of corn, a single monoculture, a single product to meet energy needs so that machineries can work. We are sacrificing a form of food to fuel machines. One can live a little more harmoniously with what we have. But this is what is happening and that is exploitation, precisely because of the economic needs that people have.

Transformation of the energy matrix in Ecuador has been supported in policy by both the Constitution and the PNBV. The Constitution (Constitución de la república del ecuador 2008) states, The State shall promote, in the public and private sectors, the use of environmentally clean technologies and non-polluting and low-impact alternative sources of energy. Energy sovereignty shall not be achieved to the detriment of food sovereignty, nor shall it affect the right to water. (Article 15)

The State shall guarantee that the mechanisms for producing, consuming, and using natural resources and energy conserve and restore the cycles of nature and make it possible to have living conditions marked by dignity. (Article 408)

Strategies such as those seek to maintain neoliberal development through the market via a ‘sustained economic growth’, or as the OECD describes it ‘inclusive green growth’ (Inclusive green growth: For the future we want 2012). While the extractivism of combustible renewables like those mentioned by Luis above is a much more positive step in the right direction, away from non- renewable extractivism, they still have major impacts on the environment and communities where production and extraction are present on a large scale. In a policy paper on ‘Transforming the Energy Matrix’ Dafermos et al. (Dafermos et al. 2015) critique this model of renewable energy under a green growth strategy because,

142

Although they are based on the use of renewable energy sources and are therefore supportive of the re-orientation of the mode of energy production in the direction of greater environmental sustainability and eco-friendliness, the logic of mass production of a commodity for a homogeneous, mass consumer market remains the organising principle of those infrastructures. As a result, they do not have the capacity to meet the increasingly more varied needs of energy users. Worse still, by keeping users in a state of passive consumerism and energy illiteracy, the underlying centralisation of the means of energy production constitutes a barrier to the emergence of a post-consumerist knowledge society.

Emmanuel also affirms that this must change, Extractivism, from my point of view, is an economic model which extracts natural resources to commercialise them and transform them into a product to obtain money. I don’t think that it should be this way. I think we should be able to develop an economic model which doesn’t extract resources, but generates them.

Dafermos et al (2015) suggest that “Proposing alternatives that harmonise energy needs with ecological sustainability requires a re-consideration of the concept of “development” and a search for new evolutionary paradigms for society.” In a strategy which combines ‘the promotion of efficient energy savings based on changing consumer habits, of new ways of exchanging goods and services, of territorial re-arrangement’, the authors propose a model of energy production using ‘small-scale generation, consumer accessibility and end-user participation’ – effectively organising natural resource use around the idea of ‘commons’ rather than as a ‘commodity’. The small-scale hydroelectric infrastructure being developed in the Cotacachi County, discussed in the previous chapter is one example of this approach.

143

6.5. Perceptions and Impacts of Extractivism

Photo 9: Graffiti in the Streets of Quito 'Up with Intag, Down with Mining'

Taken in context of local understandings of nature, the environment and how communities believe resources should be used, one can better understand the concern for the impacts that extractivism brings and the perception of those impacts based on the above-mentioned experiences of conflict in Cotacachi. Key informants were asked the open-ended question: “What about mining, forestation and other extraction, what do you think about what they are doing and why?” The impacts of extractive activities are what most concerns people here and the top concerns by far were the social and environmental impacts that extractive activities have and could have on communities in the county. Across the data, the impacts discussed most were those adverse impacts on water, social repercussions, the wider environment, and human health. There were no positive benefits mentioned by the key informants. These issues are all interlinked, especially water quality, environmental contamination, and health issues. It must be noted that the most problematic large-scale extractivism in the Cotacachi County is situated in the city of Junín, approximately 2.5 hours north of the furthest community I visited within the county area. There are many temporary workers from within the county who travel in and out of Junín to work in the mines, which has caused strain on the social fabric of communities. Some

144 support mining activity and others less so but do it to earn more income for their families. As such, the impacts within Junín are well known to the surrounding communities. Felipe tells, “It’s the most environmentally destructive economic activity besides war, which I consider an economic activity. It destroys not only the rivers and the forest and the top soils and so forth, but it also destroys community.” On the environmental impacts Luis states, “the mining consequences there are in the places they are present are terrible. From contamination and water, a large mining company needs industrial quantities of water to obtain the metals they are after. What’s more, the chemicals they have to use…”

Mateo argues, I am completely convinced that a mine, extractivism, will always have an environmental impact. It is something we cannot stop…I believe that the impact, in a certain manner, is the strongest first of all in the surrounding territories and communities, because it is a change of life in its totality, from being in harmony with one’s environment, with one’s nature. [But] the impact to the landscape and the contamination on water sources are what is most affected.

Though, there exists other forms of extractivism within the county, none evokes as much opposition as mineral mining. Therefore, the majority of opinions of key informants regarding the environmental impacts of extractivism67 in this study are indirect impacts formed by perceptions of the impacts of mining, rather than the direct lived impacts of mining and other types of extractive activities68. This in no way seeks to undermine those opinions, rather it sheds light on the ways in which extractivism, if allowed to be pursued on a large-scale can affect the SSEW of a community; and creates an argument for as to why alternatives should be sought. Perceptions and concerns, particularly in the community of Seís de Julio de Cuellaje are founded on a looming reality, because of its location downstream from Junín. As local Inteño famer Rodriguez affirms, “the mountain ranges of Junín are super close, we are adjoining neighbours. We are only two rivers away. We would be the first to be contaminated.” That said, there were several key informants and other community members base their opinions on the economic and social impacts of mining on the lived experience. Often extractive activities cover various terrains, taking the resources from one place, transporting them to another, and if they are not exported as raw materials, they can also be treated in a separate location. This extends the impacts not only from the place of extraction, but in various locations. In one Indigenous community outside of Cotacachi city, limestone mining for cement production has had several social, environmental and health related impacts within the community. Indigenous community member Maria explains, “These [impacts] from mining have affected us quite a lot because, for one thing, when the plant recently extended it was capped with dust and yellow. And

67 There are several key informants who, by their association have experienced the environmental impacts of mining first hand, but no details as to their association and experience can be divulged in order to protect their identity. 68 For more on the community views of the Environmental Impacts Studies carried out, see Zorilla, C (2011) Mining Paradise: The new mining threat in Intag, 28 March, available at http://www.decoin.org/2011/03/mining- paradise-the-new-mining-threat-in-intag/

145 this is what is happening: last year I harvested seven to eight quintals of corn, and the following year production was already reduced.” These impacts Maria tells, have disrupted fragile ecosystems, “All of this has changed our climate. Faced with all of this we have lost our agricultural production.” Diego speaks of the destruction caused by another mine in the Parish of Selva Alegre, “It is an open-pit mine that is practically depredated, there is no responsible management of remediation. They say that we oppose everything. However, we want Ecuador to live a productivity that is not linked to damaging nature.” Limestone is often mined at the surface in large quarries, which leaves contaminants exposed to open air with the potential to contaminate the local environment. Additionally, vibrations and noise pollution from the activities is known to have adverse consequences on human health in surrounding communities (Tripathy & Patnaik 1994; Yeboah 2008). In 2010, several community members blockaded access to the mine, calling for it to be closed due to its environmental and social impacts. This protest was supported by local organisations and a member of the Provincial government, but the national government moved to stop the protests and reopen the mine. While extractivists will argue for the positive benefits of extractive activities like economic development, job creation, and overall wealth creation, the reality on the ground seems is not as black and white. Many scholars contend that the capacity to generate local employment opportunities through extractivism which truly benefit local communities is quite weak (Acosta 2013; Granoff et al. 2016), and the wealth distribution, even under a neoextractive model is too uneven to bring wide- scale benefit. In addition, the economic benefits of extractivism are obsolete once the activities cease in small towns that have been built on the back of those activities. Even though companies are obliged to have closure plans which includes the economic impacts of closure among the environmental remediation plans, many communities can never fully recover, losing their ability to diversify their production economies, and some even end up as “ghost towns”. Indeed, the true “economic costs of the social, environmental and production-related impacts” are often not calculated but if they were taken into account, any economic benefits to the local economy and the state would be disregarded (Acosta 2013). There is a suspicion among key informants that the positive benefits are often exaggerated on the part of the government or the companies seeking social licence. Diego states, [They] should have transparent accounts and tell the population with an absolute reality what it is exposed to. Do not lie them. When the socializations [social impacts] of the extractive projects are carried out, there is usually a lie. "There will be no pollution, there will be no depredation of nature, there will be no socioeconomic and socio-cultural problems, and there will be work for most people."

Many point to the impacts that extractivism has on traditional or alternative livelihoods. One case in point is the Pacto Parish, whose main livelihood depends on the sustainable production, sale, and export of organic panela, but where mining activities were also present (Játiva 2004)69. Italy is

69 At the time of reporting the local government has taken its opposition to the mine to the national government and the case was still under dispute (Játiva 2004).

146 one of its principle importers and in 2002 announced that unless mining stopped in the area, they would halt the importation of panela because it could not guarantee organic certification of the product. This would have been the end of Italian cooperation for the Parish, which benefits 4,000 people in Pacto, directly employing 2,000 of them with an annual total of US$50,000 (in 2004). Whereas, the mine only employed 20 locals on a monthly wage of $200. Despite the majority opposition to extractivism, there were also a few key informants who believed that extractivism should be conducted responsibly to limit the impacts. Similarly, I was told by both key informants and in informal discussions that there is some (limited) community support for extractivism. The consequences of these “pro-mining”-“anti-mining” factions have been studied independently and included by the County Government in the update of the Development Plan and Territorial Ordering of the Santa Ana de Cotacachi County 2015-2035 in its diagnostic for social cohesion in the county. In a report70 on the psychological damages caused by mining companies and the state in the Llurimagua project in Intag, it was stated, Although the resistance to the mining extraction process has strengthened certain sectors, has consolidated alternative sources of economic sustenance and has provided greater communal organization, the community division has created rupture among the members of the community itself, which has generated labelling and power relations, people who are in favour of the extractive process are labeled as "pro mining" and people who are against the extractive process as "anti mining." This labelling dynamic divides the community and creates a break in ties between friends and family.

It is evident that at times of the conflict there has been psychological damage, understood as "the damage suffered by a subject as a result of an injury to his / her psychophysical integrity or health, consisting in the reduction of the possibilities of developing his personality normally in the social environment (Massimo, 1994). It is the consequence of a negative event that goes beyond the ability to cope and adapt to the new situation (Echeburúa, Corral y Amor, 2004). " There is a situation of widespread insecurity that expresses feelings of fear, suffering and fear that mining companies continue with their activities and are rooted in the area so that the population must leave their territories and their homes. The Community of Junín is in a situation of police occupation and a "de facto state of emergency". In Intag, the national police restrict human rights such as freedom of movement, rights of participation, right to work, freedom of expression, freedom of thought and opinion, and freedom of association.

The police invasion as a control measure to the community has altered diverse dynamics…a logic of fear has been established: to leave their homes, their children and to be imprisoned. The intimidation and political violence exercised by public officials who should be in charge of providing protection is so intense that the population is in a situation of uncertainty about the sense of community, solidarity, social organization and justice, and has been violated. The strength and the trust that existed between the neighbours and families, [is] generating serious psychosocial affectations.

To the contrary of these findings Pedro argues that, “the two things that affect our country and our environment are: the extraction of petroleum and the extraction of minerals. But when this is done

70 See (Íntag: Una sociedad que la violencia no puede minar. Informe psicosocial de las afectaciones en íntag provocadas por las empresas mineras y el estado en el proyecto llurimagua 2015)

147 consciously[with due regard to consequences], there is no problem.” However, he is not in the line of direct impact of extractive projects. The social impacts of extractivism can be severely detrimental to a community, its social cohesion and solidarity, as demonstrated by the Psychological Report. While the social programs for wealth redistribution promoted under a neoextractive approach seek to “compensate some of the negative impacts…cushion social demands and pacify social protests” (Gudynas 2009) they can only go so far to mitigate social damage. Moreover, social conflicts such as those discussed in the context of Cotacachi aggravate the situation in light of extractivism and gravely undermine any positive impacts of neoextractive policies because the blows are felt on a deeper socio-physiological level among community members, and rather seek to act as an economic band aid. This refers to not just enhancing quality of life economically, but the non-materialistic sense of community, family, cohesion, peace, and wellbeing.

Felipe argues that large-scale extractivism disturbs the social fabric of a community, which he says, is harmful to BV …Mining disrupts that. It contaminates people, people’s idea of what happiness is, by introducing materialism, consumerism and, and strengthening the monetary economy; while harming the other types of wealth a community has: environmental wealth, cultural wealth, social wealth. That if it’s not devastated, it’s severely harmed. So that disrupts the whole idea of sumak kawsay. People may not say “mining will destroy our sumak kawsay”, but when they fight, it’s really what they’re fighting for, so they can live in harmony.

Several key informants point to the fact that not only does it destroy social cohesion, but it also reduces quality of life for those who work in these activities. Luis tells, The social reality of the people around the mines is completely different from that of a farmer [for example]. Life, the quality of life of a miner is not the same quality of life of a farmer. Because, for example, the miner spends 7, 8 hours INSIDE the mine. Places that for me, in terms of quality of work are completely revolting, with tendency for illness. Generally, mines what they do is extract and people have to migrate from other places in order to obtain a job and money. There are some cases in Ecuador, like Porto, where there is gold. What attracts the most attention when passing through this town is that most people are yellow. And it is because most of them spend their time in the mine, with no contact with sunlight. And [then] they leave at night. They have illnesses. They are people who have a fairly low quality of life and have a life span of about 50 years. Then, the social repercussion also extends to small cities around the mine, which mainly market alcohol and sex.

Then there is a fear of what legacy these impacts may leave for future generations. Gabriela tells that communities fear “all of the contamination and illness that comes with it.” She explains, “for example, in Intag there is a [protected] water reserve. We are conserving it for our grandchildren’s’ grandchildren. But if we exploit all of this, according to what I have seen, it will become a desert. There will be no produce, no animals, no water, everything will be contaminated. There will be no life.” There was a strong link between contamination, water, and human health in the key informants’ responses. Valentina states, “If the environment is contaminated, we get sick. More than anything

148 else [the most concerning impact] is the contamination of the environment [because] we can get ill. Catastrophic illnesses.” Key informants expressed concern that the magnitude of the impacts of extractive activities are so strong that they risk changing the way of life completely. All the impacts combined risk a strong decline in quality of life, not only for communities affected, but also for surrounding communities too. Between the impacts of extractive activities and the social fractures caused by different approaches to extractivism and variances in opinion on the necessity for extractivism to satisfy needs, it is clear that the ‘extractivist logic’ of the current development model is inherently detrimental to the attainment of BV. Rafael senior National Government Minister affirms, “We talk about a healthy and balanced environment, that we should act so that contamination is not so devastating, that it doesn’t destroy…I believe these types of activities can put the brakes on the processes of Buen Vivir.” BV and extractivism are simply incompatible.

6.6. The Buen Vivir-Extractivism Discord

Many of the participants cited how these impacts subsequently hamper a community’s VB. “Social wellbeing, environmental wellbeing, no [we don’t have it] because…our Pachamama, as we say Mother Earth, is sick because of the contamination from mining, the contamination of our water, and the cutting down of forests, of trees,” affirms Maria. “For us, Indigenous People, to have Buen Vivir, our earth has to be in good health,” argues David. Luis tells extractivism and BV are incompatible, “It’s a contradiction of the idea, which doesn’t work.” Even Rafael tells me “these types of things are impossible to be 100 percent compatible. We can talk about remediation [of the environment], but we can never recover the environment in its totality.” The tension is the greatest is between VB and extractivism, since VB is the daily practice of the principles of BV that provides the conditions necessary to eventually achieve the utopian goal of BV. While the key informants mostly discussed the issue of extractivism in relation to BV rather than VB, it is clear by the analysis of VB in the previous chapter that any activity, policy, or situation which has tangible impacts on a community prevents the daily practice of VB, which will ultimately hinders the SSEW of a community, and therefore obstructs the long-term goal of BV. Nonetheless, the impacts of extractivism cannot be resolved in the immediate, but it is imperative to immediately start transition from reform to the transformation of society. Community attitudes, beliefs, practices, and behaviours manifested under a philosophy of VB will help to lead to the market and policy changes, which ultimately influence a post-extractive society. It is a virtuous cycle. On that note, the search for alternatives to extractivism is a preoccupation in Cotacachi. Tourism and small-scale or community-scale agriculture are the most popular locally-practiced economic activities found in the data. These alternatives support the national government’s political promotion of an SSE but the support and structure at that level is lacking in practice.

149

6.7. Towards Transformation: Post-extractivism and Buen Vivir

Keeping in mind then the perceived impacts of extractivism and the resultant impacts on SSEW, one must determine that BV cannot be fully realised in an extractive (or neoextractive) economy. All but one key informant was optimistic that society can find alternative solutions in time to prevent further catastrophic effects of climate change. Speaking on transforming to a post-extractive society, Javier uses the example of copper being extracted in Junín and asks, Why still come to extract copper? It may be one of the last deposits in the world, so what do we want? Extract the last bit. And then what? We must ask the question now, now when we still have time. If we ask that question, that would be the first thing we could do for Buen Vivir or Vivir Bien. And then, we can have confidence in the creativity of man and civilization and society to do EXTRAORDINARY things, but on the way to Buen Vivir, not on the path of repeating the same mistakes and bringing the planet to environmental saturation [point].

Overwhelmingly, both the key informants and the literature affirm that the community vision for BV is really only achievable in a post-extractive economy, one that prioritises alternatives and seeks to reduce both citizens and the States dependency on extractive sectors71. It is important to reiterate that post-extractivism emphasises being mindful of the earth’s physical limits and reducing extractivism to only what is needed. This means resizing some industries to reduce the economic dependence on extractive activities and abolishing the large-scale extractivism of non-renewable resources. This is compatible with Latouche’s argument for degrowth in certain sectors, as discussed in Chapter One. This will not happen overnight, but society must revaluate the resources that it uses, We need to understand that a process of multiple transitions is needed to get out of extractivism; For example, we can not suspend oil activity overnight, but we can not continue to expand the oil border…alternative sources of energy such as solar and wind energy would have to be better utilized…[It’s]fundamental, to ask ourselves why we need so much energy, we must change the way we consume energy. (Urbina 2015).

Gudynas (2013b) argues that a transition period is necessary, which implies transitions and changes on various scales, from local, to national, to global. Because of the nature of extractivism as an economic activity, post-extractive proposals cannot be implemented purely at the community level, nor can it be implemented by one country alone, but cooperation at all levels is required. That said, to be fully sustainable, proposals must emanate from the bottom-up, from the context within which change is to have the most impact. In this aim, Gudynas(2013b) identifies several phases of transition. The first is to move away from what he calls ‘predatory extractivism’ to ‘sensible extractivism’ defined by government policy and regulations to mitigate the social and environmental impacts of extractivism and allow governments to move away from a dependency on exports72. Then the focus moves to ‘indispensable extractivism’

71 See discussion on the SSE in Chapter Four, Part II ‘Materialism, Economy and Buen Vivir’. 72 This ‘sensible extractivism’ is where the Correa government pitched its policy for BV in theory – accumulation and growth to be able to address social and environmental needs, to then be able to transition towards a diversified post-extractive economy, Though in practice it has been pursuing a business-as-usual approach of

150 whereby extractive activities operate only to satisfy fundamental needs in a sort of ‘dematerialism’ of the economy. Although as Gudynas (2013b) states the persistence of ‘business-as-usual’ development will prove a challenge to transitioning away from ‘predatory extractivism’, alternatives must be pursued, starting at grassroots.

6.8. Alternatives to Extractivism

Despite a policy of neoextractivism, the Correa government recognised the need to diversify the economy, in order to eventually find alternatives to the extractivism and export of primary resources. This is part of its strategy to ‘exit’ from extractivism, as Laura mentioned earlier. The PNBV (2009b) identified these at the national level as, “petrochemical, bioenergy and biofuel; metal- mechanic industry; biomedicine, pharmaceuticals and generics; biochemistry; hardware and software; and environmental services.” With greater focus on the SSE, the government states, “in addition, priority is placed on value-added generating activities with important effects on employment generation and the satisfaction of basic needs (with emphasis in social housing), food, small-scale fishing, crafts, community tourism, textiles, and shoe confection.” Much of the latter is already being well developed at the local level in Cotacachi, manifested in practice, or VB. Through the will of the people the local government has enacted a range of policies with the aim of preventing mining from entering the communities in Cotacachi. This includes civil society led ‘development’ initiatives, supported by local governments, such as tourism as an’ alternative to development’; activities for the protection of various assets as part of the Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve; various ordinances for the care and protection of the environment; and the ordinance of the county as the first Ecological County in South America. Many community members say these economic initiatives will empower them to be able to demonstrate that they do not need extractivism to meet their fundamental needs. It also helps families and communities become self-sufficient through SSE activities, providing economic return within communities. The communities feel like there are alternatives to extractivism, but there are three key challenges preventing these alternatives from being viable on a wider scale: 1) full governmental support at the national level; 2) financial resources, and; 3) global consumerism that drives the need for extractivism. The local government here has been promoting alternative economies to extractivism since late 1990’s, some of which were mentioned in Chapter Four (Practices for Living Well). In 2001 the Pachacutik Movement started to take hold in Ecuador, and in the Cotacachi county it was supported and promoted by the former Indigenous Mayor Auki Tituaña. National newspaper ‘El Comercio’ applauded the proposal for “an alternative and more profitable economic model” that is “not based on petroleum and the extraction of our non-renewable resources, but on agriculture, tourism and the protection of the environment” ('Entre el orgullo y el olvido' 2001).

large-scale ‘predatory extractivism’ irrespective of the social and environmental impacts and community sentiment, albeit under the new name of ‘neo-extractivism’.

151

Much of this is demonstrated in the turning of backs of local communities on a globalised market economy and a strengthening of the SSE, and a determination to nurture traditional and local ways of doing things. Auki Tituaña, who is a trained economist, reinforced this commitment to “restoring and preserving the cultural traditions and ecological integrity of the area” (Rainforest Information Centre Working with local people and governments to create 'Eco-cities') as reaction to the threat of large-scale extractivism in the region. This renewal of local custom is part of the quest for SK according to local Indigenous leader David. “One needs to value our production, our customs, our traditions to live Sumak Kawsay”, he says. There is evidence of this in both rural and urban societies. On one Sunday morning in the community of Pucará on the edge of the Intag Valley a group of people were gathered on the local volleyball court surrounded by their harvest of beans. After a small truck began running them over, back and forth, they began collecting them in large hessian bags. “Buena Cosecha?” (Good harvest) my research assistant asked and was responded to with a resounding “yes”. Further down the road is a panela producer, a local farmer with panela production on his property. Many of the neighbours pass by to buy panela from him rather than the supermarket in town. Trade is often within the community. Though in some communities where produce is more abundant, it is sometimes taken to Quito for trade. Yet it remains small-scale and thus more sustainable than large-scale extractive activities. Joaquín affirms, “the community are making efforts to develop agricultural practices, education and culture for the benefit of all. In this regard the survival of communities is very relevant for us, owed to this communitarian system.” In the same light, ‘Buen Vivir’ markets are often held around Cotacachi County in the ethos of the SSE, bringing together local artisan producers with the idea of promoting sovereignty and food security. There has been a push to maintain and strengthen the Indigenous custom of ‘el Truque’, which is a type of community barter market system.

152

Photo 10: Buen Vivir Market

Nowhere is this resistance against extractive activities more evident than in the development of the community and eco-tourism sectors within Cotacachi. Associations like AACRI (Artisans Association of Coffee Farmers of Rio Intag) also work cooperatively with other organisations for small- scale sustainable tourism. The aim is for a “different kind of tourism” that is an agricultural exchange (Bold 2007). Many key informants also believe that this kind of tourism helps sustain the environment and their culture. Youth leader Sofia tells that communities have much to exchange with tourists, “We teach them how we work with the environment, how we sow plantations, how we recycle etc.” The Municipal government has identified tourism as a “management instrument which contributes to the conservation of the National System of Natural Protected Areas, in the framework of impact assessments and with the participation of local populations in the operation of their activities and in the distribution of their benefits” (Plan de manejo reserva cotacachi cayapas 2007 2007). Eco- tourism is already well developed in Cotacachi County, with community-based tourism projects the next approach for the sustainable development of tourism activities. One of the most renowned ecotourism sites is the Laguna Cuicocha. At just over 3,000 metres above sea level, Laguna Cuicocha is a 3.2km wide natural high-altitude lake situated in the crater of the still active Cuicocha volcano. The lake is the start of the nationally protected Cotacachi-Cayapas Ecological Reserve, one of Ecuador’s 46 protected areas. The 243,638-hectare reserve encompasses many natural riches over three provinces, including the Cotacachi Volcano, Laguna de Piña and an abundance of wildlife and plant species. Next to the Galapagos Islands and the Amazon, it is one of Ecuador’s most visited eco-

153 tourism attractions. Cotacachi-Cayapas Reserve also borders much of the county, adding to the dilemma large-scale resource extraction brings to this territory. At the cultural and natural heritage site of Nangulvi in Intag, a tourist centre has been set up by the Ecotourism Network of Intag, in cooperation with several local organisations for ‘Sustainable tourism as a development alternative’ to bring together local tourism operators to strengthen the capacity as an alternative to extractivism in the region. Locals believe that tourism is one of the most viable economic activities that can help the country and the region move away from extractivism. At the entrance of the community of Pucará, like many others in the region, is a large sign that says, “Welcome to Pucará, a productive, ecological, touristic and solidarity community free from mining.” Similarly, a sign that welcomes visitors to the region states, “Youth, work and development for an Intag free of contamination. No to Mining!”

Photo 11: Anti-mining sign at the entrance to the Pucará community

This sentiment is also echoed by most of the key informants. As Diego argues, If we say no to mining, we can say yes to tourism. And I believe that that is where we should be looking for alternatives, which work in conjunction with what [natural and cultural riches] we have. We have extraordinary nature, we have a beautiful landscape, gigantic cultural riches and I believe that that is the way we should be thinking….in tourism potential, not petroleum potential.

Gabriela maintains alternatives which are more socially and environmentally just are required, I believe that we should not exploit mining. We should be looking for other alternatives to continue working. For example, instead of mining, more tourism, more production. Something that [better] serves us. At best mining serves the state…or at best the state doesn’t even benefit like it should, rather companies benefit more.

Artisan production is also a way that many communities, especially Indigenous ones are finding alternatives to extractivism. Although these types of handicrafts are unique to each

154 community, there is evidence of the resurgence of ‘slow living’ and crafts as ways to make a living, which include small-batch handicrafts, artisanal clothing production, gourmet foods such as traditional methods of cheese production, wines, distillery, and condiments. The Indigenous markets in Otavalo, one of the largest and most famous in South America, is testimony to the opportunity to trade these products not only at the local level, but also with some exporting internationally. The turn towards these types of economic alternatives is gaining momentum globally. In some communities, extractive activities such as petroleum production have threatened traditional artisan livelihoods with impacts on the land and the means of production for resources such as plants and wool. Consequently, producers who were unable to make ends meet were sold petroleum by-products which were substantially cheaper than traditional resources and allowed them to cater en masse to an international market such as for commercial tourists. Nowadays there are many cooperatives and associations which represent producers who use traditional methods and means of production, but by consequence of representation, producers are able to sell their products to a global market, albeit still using small-scale production methods. Currently, there are 34 groups, associations and organisations who support the sustainable development of the watershed of Rio Intag, creating a communal value around local agri and tourism resources with the principles of environmental conservation, equality, and encouraging local talent, participation, and social justice (Hidronangulvi 2016). They employ approximately 1,200 families across the seven Parishes of Intag. Products are exported in the Fair-Trade markets in Europe and Japan, as well as locally and nationally (Hidronangulvi 2016). AACRI is an example of such an association. Started in 1998 with the aid of local environmental organisation DECOIN in response to the social and environmental problems caused by mining in the region and to provide communities with the opportunity to create alternative livelihoods. It aims to provide local coffee producers with a way to access the global market, while continuing small-batch, sustainable and organic production. ACCRI currently supplies coffee to several countries worldwide, but much of their coffee is produced on small-scale family farms in the Intag Valley. Luis, who works for AACRI says, “The coffee that we cultivate is not monoculture, it’s not large-scale coffee production that belongs to one person or group of people, rather it is small lots of production, or terrain where producers can have coffee along with traditionally cultivated crops such as frit, corn, beans or flowers, for example.” This alternative activity also provides producers with an advantage in a competitive neoliberal environment, Luis explains, “They realise that it is easier to work cooperatively for quality produce to later have produce that can compete and can be sold in a better way and can also represent where they come from.” These are but a few examples of how alternatives to extractivism are being sought in Cotacachi. As Gudynas asserts, in the transition to post-extractivism, it is necessary to offer direction and ideas to actual changes (Gudynas 2013b). In the pursuit of BV, such alternatives are thus necessary for change, and representative of the types of economic activities which can be replicated in other communities in a cultural and contextually appropriate manner.

155

6.9. Conclusion

This chapter has examined the dilemma of extractivism through the challenges that it poses on the principles of BV. It has been demonstrated that there is much local opposition to it. Extractivism is not compatible with the concept of BV, because the impacts that it poses on communities are mostly negative, threaten the environment and cause social tensions within the community. It conflicts with communities’ understandings of nature, the environment and wellbeing; and the impacts of these activities on communities, either through lived experience or informed perception have reinforced these points of view. Mutual respect for a healthy environment and strong communities are the basis of BV. The impacts that large-scale extractivism have on communities challenge their social and environmental wellbeing and any ability to achieve BV in the future, especially in Indigenous communities where there is a strong attachment to the land and its resources and a great reciprocal respect for it. It is clear by the local discourses here that each sector of society has a role to play. Particularly important is the role of community in changing attitudes, behaviours, values and beliefs in consumerism and environmental practices, but also in governments in managing a transition towards post-extractivism through policy, regulations and offering the spaces and structures for communities to drive change, such as though an SSE. After all, as Delgado et al. state, ‘if communities could create BV for themselves entirely, it would have already been done’ (Delgado, Rist & Escobar 2010). The first challenge is a conceptual and psychological one. As Javier points out, We need awareness. At all levels, not only at the level of the rulers, those who govern us, but also at the level of institutions, at the level of families, at the level of, primarily of consciousness. And for people to say, "Let's change now!” Or what are we waiting for? That there is no more oil? That we have exhausted all the copper, all the resources of the planet? And then say, "oh, what do we do?” It's going to be too late.

In conclusion, this chapter has found that a transition to a post-extractive economy is necessary to fully realise the utopia of BV. Practices of VB, including implementing alternatives at the community level can help achieve that by reinforcing behaviours, changing attitudes and practices that will positively shift both the market and policy in a positive direction. It is a virtuous cycle. With regards to BV within the current context of (neo)extractivism there are two key factors. Firstly, a change at the community level leading to less consumerism will necessitate less extractivism. This is not limited to communities at the field site, but (arguably) even more so in countries in the core, whose consumer habits drive the necessity for natural resource consumption and in turn influence policies of extractivism for development in countries in the periphery. Extractivism is market driven so a VB approach will influence the future of natural resource use. Secondly, we may not be able to change the global economic system overnight, nor should we attempt to because radical opposition does not lead to long-term change. But governments in a democratic society are forced to be responsive to their citizens. If global consumer habits influence changes in the international market then governments will be forced to find and embrace alternatives to large-scale extractivism, for example social economies, alternative economies and so forth.

156

As discussed in the previous chapter, according to those interviewed, the role of government is to ensure and enforce regulations around extractive activities, but to also work towards making economic alternatives more available to communities and providing them with true participatory processes and management on their natural resources. Extraction and use of natural resources should be limited to meeting fundamental needs not growth, and the diversification of alternatives should be promoted to achieve SSEW through economic sufficiency (not growth) and construct the path towards post-extractivism. Politically, transition should start in the immediate, with clear commitments. This involves governments of all levels taking solid steps towards alternate routes, rather than a simple ‘reformist departure’ of the status quo. The Cotacachi Government has made good headway but requires the support of National Government also. The Correa Government alluded to making this transition through the diversification of its economy and the introduction of the ‘knowledge economy’ with projects like City for Knowledge, Yachay, and the SSE for example, but the gap between policy and practice is still very wide. As Acosta (Acosta 2013) argues, “This double curse of natural resources and ideology is not inevitable and can be overcome.”(Acosta 2013) In terms of energy use, the type of strategy discussed by Dafermos et al (Dafermos et al. 2015) and supported by the views of the key informants is more consistent with the principles of BV. At the same time, while it challenges the status quo beyond the dominant development model, it does not radically oppose it in rhetorical discourse, but rather it suggests alternative solutions that can lead to transformation. The need to turn towards community-led alternative solutions is necessary if society is to take the direction outlined in the SDGs for a more ‘people-centred’ approach (UNGA 2015). It suggests that a plural cooperation to transformation - which as mentioned in the previous chapter and further discussed in the following chapter ‘Rethinking Sustainability’ - is required for the achievement of BV. It would therefore require embracing local priorities over global markets and transitioning to transformation through the scaling-up of community-led change. Therefore, the role of communities is to monitor and/or change their own individual and community practices around natural resource use as well as the global consumption of products. Natural resources should be used in a sustainable manner, using only what is needed, not for economic growth and wealth creation under the guise of ‘development’. Extractivism and consumption are a vicious cycle, as one encourages the other in a global market. As voiced to me, extractivism and its drivers have not created the freedoms we think we have. “We are slaves. Slaves to this concept of growth and development.” The less focus there is on individual consumption and wealth, the greater emphasis is put on community values, encouraging solidarity and social cohesion, and true liberty. Although this chapter focuses on the case of the Cotacachi County, the dilemma not only affects the reality of those communities touched by extractivism in those communities, but as we see with climate change and social justice issues, it has global repercussions. However, where once capitalism was king on a global scale, small pockets of alternative ways of doing things are popping up everywhere. These are not just in the Ecuadorian highlands, but this chapter has sought to provide examples of this type of determination. It is now not such a radical idea to think and strive for a post-

157 extractive world. As Emmanuel told me “The first challenge is mental. Of course, there will always be [some sort of] mining, but we have to stop being slaves and construct another society.” And if we can achieve this transformation, BV will be a viable alternative to SD in the pursuit of SSEW.

158

7. Chapter Six: Rethinking Sustainability: Buen Vivir as a community tool for practice and policy

7.1. Introduction

Beyond the post-development discourse critique of post-development calls for alternatives to development, this thesis has proposed Buen Vivir (BV) as an alternative to Sustainable Development (SD), as a practical tool for communities to achieve Sustainable Social and Environmental Wellbeing (SSEW). The previous two chapters have empirically demonstrated the viability of BV as a practical alternative to SD, if several conditions are met. Chapter Four argued that for BV to be viable, transformation (politically and practically) is required. That chapter discussed the practical implications of BV. This transformation is conditional upon several factors: 1) that BV is a plural approach to change, requiring cooperation from all actors73; 2) it nonetheless remains an endogenous, community-led approach to change with real democratic participatory processes to achieve it; and, 3) the ability to fully achieve BV hinges on a transition to a post-extractive society, with full respect for the environment and our relationship to it. This chapter will thus discuss the political implications of BV as an alternative to SD, and how it may allow governments to position themselves to meet their global sustainability commitments and responsibilities. With that in mind, it will examine the following research sub-questions: • As an alternative to SD, how can BV be implemented at the community level to meet needs? • Should BV be measured, and if so how? • To which extent are institutions important in realising BV, and what role do government’s play?

I will do so by first reiterating the need for an alternative to SD. I will discuss the introduction of the SDGs in the aim of global transformation for sustainability for the post-2015 era. I will then examine why these global, universal approaches have failed in the past, and what the risks are for the SDGs, and analyse the differences and synergies between BV and SD at a policy level to find the common aims and thus areas for cooperation between governments and communities. Finally, I will then move to the findings of my fieldwork and analyse the ways in which all actors can cooperate in the achievement of BV. I will examine the issue of measurement in BV, if it is feasible or even appropriate and if so, what a possible framework for its implementation would look like to 1) provide communities with a practical tool to move forward, and 2) provide governments with ways to plurally align national and global policy objectives for sustainability with local processes while allowing communities direct their own path to sustainable social and environmental wellbeing (SSEW).

73 See the discussion on the roles of the different actors in Chapter Four.

159

7.2. Status Quo or Transformation? The political justification for Buen Vivir as an alternative to Sustainable Development

Despite the contested history of SD, in practice it has commonly been articulated within a neoliberal agenda, and therefore distilled into a singular notion. In that respect, SD is widely understood in the literature as a successor to the neoliberal development model – an alternative development model. The most widely cited definition of SD is found in the Brundtland Report to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. This is the mainstream, dominant interpretation of SD, widely embraced at a global policy level. Yet, this universal, singular notion of SD has failed to achieve its social and environmental aims. In the light of critiques of past failed attempts to secure a global sustainable future the recent Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are, like predecessor global commitments, aspiring, but they are not necessarily focused enough to achieve the transformation desired, or indeed required for SSEW74. On that path, “there is a risk that the discourse of SD be the perfect excuse for watering down the models of unbridled growth and hiding inequalities behind generic promises of unreal change” (José Gutiérrez Pérez 2006). While we need global commitments for sustainability such as international treaties, declarations and conferences, history tells us that these are good as a guide, but fail to achieve the drastic, everlasting change required for the transformation discussed in previous chapters. That is: at the political level a policy of post-extractivism, and the structure and spaces needed for a shift in power to provide communities with the opportunity to decide their own development needs; and at the community level, a global change in attitudes and behaviours towards more environmentally and socially sustainable practices. Though, as Bullard asserts, “What we lack is the imagination to think about how to live differently, how to unravel the power structures that obstruct change, and how to rethink ‘development’ (Bullard 2011). It is time to rethink sustainability and how we can seek to achieve genuine SSEW. This considers the wellbeing of both human and environmental equally with the acknowledgement of the relationship between humans and our environment as inseparable and reciprocal. As anthropologist Jason Hickel (2015a) states, “This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.” BV deconstructs old worldviews of sustainability and offers new ways of thinking. As demonstrated in the previous chapters, it offers the opportunity to rethink the way sustainability and wellbeing is currently approached in development (and particularly in the West). And contrary to neoliberal SD, its contested definition signifies a type of flexibility which allows it to be adapted differently to different contexts that have different values and needs, rather than one universal application based on Western values. It is therefore contextual with a core set of principles that

74 See Chapter Five, ‘Sustainable Social and Environmental Wellbeing’ section.

160 promise to address the original aims of SD that have been lost through misuse and misinterpretation by the status quo and help communities identify and meet fundamental needs. As Chapter Four identified, BV is a hybrid practice-policy approach to achieving wellbeing and sustainability, which is stimulated from the bottom-up, not top-down. That is, it has promise to provide concrete practical pathways to SSEW endogenously, while having profound policy implications. To that end, I re-emphasize that BV should be considered a plural alternative in the form of a community tool whereby all actors75 have a role to play: communities in changing behaviours, attitudes and practices, and practising their rights and responsibilities under BV; governments in providing the necessary structures and processes for change to be achieved at the community level, listening to and allowing communities to define their own path endogenously; and, organisations, in facilitating change at the local level, acting as mediators or brokers between governments and communities to ensure that the change processes remain endogenous and are not co-opted for political gain. This necessitates cooperation and dialogue between the key actors (2013; 2002). In practice at the community level, it is referred to as Vivir Bien (Living well), which refers to the behaviour and daily practice of communal social and environmental wellbeing. In policy it is referred to as BV. The principles of BV which incorporate both policy and practice as identified in Chapter Four, are an accumulation of the various ontological, epistemological, and theological underpinnings, which have resulted in contested meanings, and which change according to the context in which they are interpreted. This contextuality is one of BVs greatest strengths and the factor which maintains it as an alternative that can fill the gaps of a failed one-size-fits-all SD approach. It has the potential to change the way of knowing and doing entirely in practice, but in doing so address policy around global commitments to encourage a forward momentum. With critiques of the rehashed and again revitalised neoliberal universal approach to SD, a change in approach for the practical application of SSEW may be a beneficial solution. While the argument for BV originates from post-development theory, it goes beyond that, because as Gudynas (2013a) argues, post-development fails to offer any concrete solutions and mainly focuses on a critique of the discourse. Moreover, critics of post-development argue that “they romanticized local traditions and local social movements, ignoring that the local is also embedded in global power relations and that, indeed, many struggles today are about access to development” (Escobar 2000). Kiely (1999) notes, 'When Rahnema (1997) argues that the end of development "represents a call to the 'good people' everywhere to think and work together", we are left with the vacuous politics of USA for Africa's "We are the World". Instead of a politics which critically engages with material inequalities, we have a post-development era where "people should be nicer to each other"'. It is not enough to appeal only to a moral obligation, change must also be addressed structurally. This is pertinent to the approach of BV suggested by this research which by no means alludes to an “uncritical, romantic celebration of the local” (Kiely 1999 pg. 30).

75 I have only included reference here to community, government and organisations because these three are the main actors in realising BV, as identified in the literature review; thus, there is no scope in this thesis to address the role of other actors. There is indeed, however, a role for other actors such as companies, especially multinational corporations for respecting the processes and protocols of the communities in which they operate, and in adhering to policies and regulations set out by the governments which govern those communities.

161

The approach I propose takes elements from post-developmentalism without causing an unworkable and radical juxtaposition which threatens to impede any proposed change. This approach has been conceptualised through a critical review of the literature in Chapters One and Two, and empirically supported by the fieldwork undertaken in Ecuador (Chapters Four and Five). The fieldwork study was vital to understand how BV is conceptualised on the ground and how, it is manifested practically to defend those communities against neoliberal conceptions of development which are inappropriate for attaining SSEW in those communities. It embraces the importance of an endogenous approach, and aims for wide-spread change, starting at the local level and scaling it up to work cooperatively with the global agenda for sustainability and wellbeing. This is because no one approach could prove viable by ignoring wider political processes and by waging an outright attack on the dominant hegemonic ideology. To that end this chapter is concerned with how the local interfaces with the global. By starting local with a recognition of the political implications that global power relations can have on any endogenous approach, BV seeks to provide communities with the tools to change their own reality whilst addressing the fact that the world is globally connected and thus all actions have wider political implications.

7.2.1. Enter the Sustainable Development Goals: What are the risks? The ability for SD’s original objectives to be attained has been under much criticism, especially in recent times with growing inequalities and increasing impacts of climate change globally. Victor (2006) argues that “instead of bringing together nature, the economy, and social justice, sustainable development has spawned overspecialized and largely meaningless checklists and targets. Particularly harmful has been a series of consensus driven UN summits that have yielded broad and incoherent documents and policies.” The SDGs have been the global community’s attempt to overcome that through advocating ‘transformative change’ (Hujo et al. 2016; UNGA 2015). The SDGs came into effect on 1 January 2016 and include 17 Goals and 169 targets, which are to be implemented by governments universally, regardless of local context. They provide an overarching perspective of how to measure progress to the global SD agenda – hence their universality. The objective of the Goals is to directly tackle the global challenges that threaten sustainability, such as: poverty, climate change, unsustainable growth, migration and displacement, public health epidemics, inequality, social inclusion, lack of decent work, political instability, and violent conflict (Hujo et al. 2016). With such an ambitious global ambit, and momentum towards a sustainable future, we should by now be living sustainability, and globally social inequality and injustice should be declining, if not halted. Yet the situation is precisely the contrary. So, what went wrong in the past and what are the future risks for SSEW under the SDGs? I argue that three crucial aspects of SD may have contributed to its failure thus far: 1) universality76; 2) the focus on economic growth as a solution, and; 3) the continuing anthropocentric

76 Despite its claim to universality, SD is widely contested. Essentially, as an alternative development model, like its parent model, traditional development, its universality is hinged on a Euro-centric, Western idea of what development should look like for global progress. In Chapter Two, I argued that SD has a universally applicable definition but is contested by its loose principles, Connelly argues that “given the contested nature of the concept,

162 nature of neoliberal SD, which disregards the cause and effect of humans’ relationship with nature. In trying to include all manner of voices to make SD universal, it has turned it more into an aspirational utopia than a practical solution. Therefore, if not approached differently, “the SDGs are not just inadequate, they are dangerous; they will lock in the global development agenda for the next fifteen years around a failing economic model that requires urgent and deep structural changes” (Hickel 2015b). As Villacís et al state, “It needs to be clear that although goals are universal, and they help the world to have hope and to work together towards a sustainable future, it is crucial to consider different realities… Nature has no political limits” (2015). The SDGs have been praised as a game changer because while the MDGs applied to countries in the South, the SDGs apply universally to all. Yet they are nonetheless anchored in the traditional neoliberal development model, and as such do not allow for the consideration of different realities. Goal 17 on partnerships, for example emphasizes economic partnerships and privileges the role the World Trade Organisation is to play in the implementation of the Goals; in particular debt relief and financing and strengthening the multilateral trading system through free trade (Weber 2017). These ideas perpetuated by neoliberal development have been criticised for being at the root of global inequality in the first place. An approach that “neglects its relationship with the entire social context from which it derives, loses the capacity to propose viable solutions to society’s problems becomes irrelevant and redundant” (SENPLADES 2009a). Villacís et al (2015) affirm the importance of taking into account unmeasurable ‘social variables’ and conclude that an approach to sustainability that includes “‘interculturality’ and ‘traditional knowledges’ will help to understand and build sustainable societies according to their culture and world view.” In that respect, the SDGs could only be successful in achieving transformative shifts towards SSEW if the goals are viewed as a global guide, but the substantive and substantial change happens at the local level, driven by communities. “Transforming our World”, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that will guide the implementation of the SDGs resolves in the preamble to “take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world on a sustainable and resilient path” (UNGA 2015); and the UN affirms that this “transformation requires attacking the root causes that generate and reproduce economic, social, political and environmental problems and inequalities, not merely their symptoms” (Hujo et al. 2016). This latter statement demonstrates that even within the global discourse on the SDGs contradictions are starting to emerge that, if not kept in check, will lead the SDGs down the same failed path as SD. Hickel points out that “Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save the world, but beneath all the hype, it’s business as usual” (Hickel 2015a). Howard and Wheeler (2015) rightly ask, if business-as-usual is failing, how “is it possible for the new framework to be meaningful and accountable to the people it is designed to benefit?”

different actors will identify different positions or areas as constituting ‘real’ sustainable development and legitimately challenge others’ definitions” (Connelly 2007) This differs from BV as BV is not intended to have universal application, rather, guided by a set of core principles it is applied by communities for the community itself.

163

One of the greatest critiques of development, and subsequently SD, is this notion of developing countries seeking Western style exponential growth fuelled by the exploitation of natural resources – be they renewable or not. Similarly, Gupta and Vegelin argue, the “SDG agenda runs the risk of being hijacked by the ecological and developmental interests of the rich and focus on economic growth at the cost of the other aspects” (Gupta & Vegelin 2016). Howarth argues that the original aim of SD was “strongly bottom-up”, emphasizing needs rather than growth. However, since its conception, the needs aspect has been appropriated for consumption, fuelling growth akin to the countries in the Global North. On one hand, the UN Report of the High-Level Panel (HLP) of Eminent Persons on the Post- 2015 Development Agenda stated that developed countries need to “re-imagine their growth models” (A new global partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development 2013). On the other hand, Goal 8 of the SDGs is devoted to increasing economic growth akin to neoliberal development. Target 8.1, for example, calls for “at least 7 percent gross domestic product growth per annum in the least developed countries” (UNGA 2015). This is the mortal flaw at the heart of the SDGs, “[t]he core of the SDG program for development and poverty reduction relies precisely on the old model of industrial growth — ever-increasing levels of extraction, production, and consumption. And not just a little bit of growth… How can they be calling for both less and more at the same time?” (Hickel 2015b) As Bullard asserts, Visions of the future based on linear progress towards modernity and happiness are illusions. Indigenous peoples and others who live with nature already know this. Sustainability is circular, complex; it is about harmony, relationships and rhythms. It is not an accounting exercise for rationing how we use the Earth's resources (2011).

What would be more effective to reduce global inequality under Goal 8 would be to include proposals for wealth distribution, rather than continuing the pursuit of economic growth (Weber 2017). In addition, shifting the focus from economic growth to SSEW would change the political outlook, but if done effectively, the policy implications are not likely to have any negative impact on quality of life. As Nobel Prize winning economist Thomas Schelling maintains, the argument to continue on a growth trajectory for the sake of human wellbeing does not stand up, “If someone could wave a wand and phase in over a few years, a climate mitigation program that depressed GNP by two percent in perpetuity, no one would notice the difference” (Howarth 2012). In fact, as Howarth (2012) asserts, There is good reason to believe that efficiently designed policies that reduced private consumption in order to increase both leisure and environmental quality would serve to increase human wellbeing.

On maintaining economic growth and consumption, one of the most concerning issues with the current model of SD is the issue of the physical limitations of the environment. As set out in the Brundtland Report (Our common future 1987), “The concept of SD does imply limits—not absolute limits but limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human activities.” This anthropocentric view of how the world works also ignores the nature-society continuum which

164 has more profound impacts on wellbeing than GDP. Higher GDP does not necessarily translate into an increase in quality of life in communities where basic needs are met; and in more affluent societies it speaks rather to fulfilling desires, translating into greater consumption, therefore more exploitation of natural resources in a paradoxical situation whereby “all individuals face pressures to maintain high income and consumption levels to avoid falling behind in relative terms. The paradox is that nobody thereby gets ahead” (Howarth 2012). Moreover, the original language used by the Brundtland Commission, described a process that is inherently anthropocentric. It did not acknowledge the rights and needs of the environment to allow ecosystems to continue functioning. (Gudynas 2009, 2010; IPCC 2015; Svampa 2013)While there is nothing inherently wrong with the original aims of SD (economic and social justice and needs satisfaction, and environmental protection), the problem lies in the processes by which these aims have been pursued since it was incorporated into mainstream neoliberal arguments. These processes continue with the SDGs. The approach now needs to be rethought to allow for any chance of transformation for SSEW.

Sustainability may yet be possible if sufficient numbers of scholars, practitioners and political actors embrace a plurality of approaches to and perspectives on sustainability, accept multiple interpretations and practices associated with an evolving concept of “development”, and support a further opening up of local-to-global public spaces to debate and enact a politics of sustainability (Sneddon, Howarth & Norgaard 2006)

Where the universal nature of SD is criticised, BV offers the opportunity for communities to determine their own version of the concept, speaking to their unsatisfied fundamental needs, albeit within a core set of principles. Unlike the SDGs whose target 7b, as a brief example, for ensuring access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all (Goal 7) stipulates that by 2030 the expansion of infrastructure and upgrade of technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries must be attained (UNGA 2015); the community in question can determine its own sustainable energy needs, aligned with the principles of BV. It does not negate the need to find sustainable energy sources for all, but as Patterson et al. (2015) ask, “How do governments, the private sector, and communities interact in deciding on appropriate and sustainable energy systems, and how does this differ in different contexts?” Recognition of the cultural, geographic, and socio-economic context is crucial. It should not be determined exogenously, rather these needs should be determined on-the-ground and implemented in plural cooperation with the different actors. This is the point at which SD and BV have the potential to converge, given that the SDGs appeal for a more citizen-empowered approach to achieving sustainability in the plan for ‘people, planet and prosperity’ (UNGA 2015); even though the goals and targets have so far left out any reference to ‘people’ in their capacity to achieve sustainability and are designed to be ‘universal’ in scope. The emphasis of participation in BV policy aims to link policy with communities’ experiences on the ground, further empowering a grassroots approach. In Cotacachi, this has been manifested in the democratic participatory approach discussed in Chapter Four. While there is no scope here to analyse its success thus far, it demonstrates ways in which BV policy seeks to align itself with

165 endogenous processes. Nonetheless, these processes must be examined with caution, because of the risk of the co-option of community interests for a ‘business-as-usual’ SD agenda (2015). An endogenous biocentric approach that, in practice, reduces the level of consumption, consumerism and consequently natural resource use will have a significant impact on national and international policy. This necessarily has flow-on effects in the market, which will stimulate the need to consider an alternative to the growth model. This is where the SSE under a BV approach comes in. Giovannini (2014b) argues that the SSE “encourages sobriety [in consumption] and respect for the environment.” In that respect, sustainable degrowth or “A-growth” becomes an outcome of a BV approach, and one that has positive effects on SSEW. Eventually the argument for unsustained economic growth and a one-size-fits-all approach to needs satisfaction will not hold and the focus will be forced to shift, reducing the risk of co-optation in the argument for the status quo. This is not to say that this approach calls for a direct attack on SD, nor does it seek to morph into a neoliberal approach couched in alternative language. To the contrary, the BV approach is one that cooperates with the current paradigm in a plural system so that it may stimulate systematic change from the bottom-up – transfiguring the status quo towards transformation. After all, as mentioned, an attack on the current model will not result in this transformation needed for SSEW. Cooperation on various levels is imperative: cooperation to understand how the BV approach suggested by this research fits in the current paradigm so it can be embraced and not rejected, and; cooperation between actors with everyone playing their role.

7.2.2. Differences and Synergies between Buen Vivir and the SDGs As opposed to SD which has an accepted definition but contested principles, BV is contested by its definition but has a set of core principles that have been identified in the literature and the fieldwork (see Chapters Two and Four). The metanarrative of SD articulated through international frameworks such as the SDGs is very prescriptive, even despite goals that are deemed as “nationally appropriate” because the overall vision is still a very Eurocentric neoliberal approach. The problem is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to change. It depends on many contextual, geographical, socio-economic, and cultural factors. In that way, it cannot be prescribed from above. BV on the other hand provides a descriptive approach to achieving SSEW, which sets out principles and the direction for change but leaves the prescriptive elements up to the community itself. This allows the community to identify its own needs, rather than the needs to satisfy a global developmental agenda; and it also creates greater accountability for the social and environmental consequences of decision-making within a community77. The consequence is that as people have a more active and central role in their own development, they feel a greater sense of responsibility and connection to their own environments and communities. Chapter Two identified two key differences between BV and SD, which were that 1) SD is a universal, top-down approach, compared to the endogenous, community led approach to change under BV, and; 2) SD’s hierarchical nature puts human needs and wellbeing above all else, whereas

77 See the discussion on participatory budgeting in Chapter Four.

166

BV emphasizes the importance of the reciprocal nature-society relationship in meeting needs. In the same light, the SDGs are universal. The problem is that this disallows for contextual differences in realities on the ground. BV on the other hand depends on contextual differences by community identification and satisfaction (with cooperation) of needs aligned through a set of (descriptive) core principles which allows communities themselves to decide how to (prescriptively) interpret them. So, in other words, while there is a set of core principles for BV, these are by no means universal goals linked to set global indicators, rather they allow for communities to tailor their needs to their own realities. At the same time, the 2030 Agenda (UNGA 2015) states, We recognise that there are different approaches, visions, models and tools available to each country, in accordance with its national circumstances and priorities, to achieve sustainable development; and we reaffirm that plant Earth and its ecosystems are our common home and that Mother Earth” is a common expression in a number of countries and regions.

Although the perspectives are different, this acknowledgement means that there is scope for BV as a community ‘tool’ and an alternative to SD to be recognised as such in a global framework in a plural and cooperative way. Another key point of difference, as briefly mentioned earlier, is the emphasis in SD on economic growth. Although the growth model has been criticised and recognised as an obstacle to achieving social justice and environmental sustainability by some policy-makers and economists alike (Jackson 2011), it still prevails in the SDGs - the Declaration stating “We resolve also to create conditions for sustainable, inclusive, and sustained economic growth…” (UNGA 2015). Gupta and Vegelin (2016) describe inclusive growth as neoliberal growth which takes on social aspects, but does not place any limits on that growth, threatening ecological sustainability. In fact, the growth aspect of SD, not only makes ecological conservation difficult, but it also threatens human wellbeing, because there is no evidence that the benefits ‘trickle down’ to those at the bottom (Guillen-Royo 2015). SD, as an alternative development paradigm, seeks to address the ‘lack of popular participation’ in mainstream development (Pieterse 2000). In that way both BV as an alternative to development and SD as alternative development have a lot in common. Participation is key for both approaches. Although for SD it is still very much reliant on the sort of top-down model of participation in which the people’s needs are dictated by a higher political agenda. Altieri and Masera (1993) state “Conventional “top-down” development strategies have proved fundamentally limited in their ability to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable development.” Whereas, BV focuses on democratic participation of the people whereby the people themselves drive the agenda and identify their own needs, most effectively through local participatory processes. Although there have been efforts under the new global framework to include the voices and perspectives of the people, the extent to which local and marginalised communities can participate in the global policy process are limited (Howard & Wheeler 2015). The ‘transformative change’ for participation defined by the SDGs “also means changing norms and institutions, both formal and informal, that shape the behaviour of people and organizations in the social, economic, environmental and political spheres” (Hujo et al. 2016).

167

In the implementation of the Goals, the 2030 Agenda has recalled the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, as an inclusive, multi-stakeholder partnership between governments, the private sector and civil society, which nonetheless places the state at the centre of implementation. While the SDGs call for a revitalisation of the Global Partnership, BV focuses on cooperation between actors, with communities taking the lead, governments facilitating the processes and guiding the private sector through regulations and laws, and organisations playing a mediating role for communities. The difference between the two is that the former, despite the language of ‘partnership’, is still hierarchical and top-down, having greater risk for the co-optation of these processes than the latter which provides communities with greater empowerment and capacity-building. There is no scope or desire in this research to analyse if or how BV can politically seek to meet the targets of the SDGs, rather, it focuses on the broader Goals78. Nor is there interest in aligning BV with the SDG targets because while the broad-based universal goals evoke the common aims for sustainability and wellbeing, the prescriptive one-size-fits-all nature of the targets sustains the same criticisms of traditional development. This is important because while the Goals demonstrate somewhat similar aims to sustainability and wellbeing as BV, the targets are still anchored in the status quo, the neoliberal model of development. This in itself contradicts the SDGs acknowledgement for different “approaches, visions, models and tools” for sustainability. And as former EU President Barroso said, “We cannot face the challenges of the future with the tools of the past” (Van den Bergh 2011). The SDGs very much remain an alternative for development, whereas BV is considered an alternative to development - an important distinction because while it is advocating a new paradigm, it is also one that can work plurally within a global system. As Villacís et al (2015) assert, it is “unrealistic” to think of a model which can work completely outside of the current global system, as communities do not exist in political isolation - recalling the plurality of BV. Kothari et al (2014) believe that comparing similarities between the two means that the original meaning of BV has been distorted “and/or clubbed with other contradictory concepts”, co-opting “the voices and language of those advocating radical alternatives” (2014). By no means do I advocate co-opting the voices of BV, to the contrary, I argue that the way to make these voices heard without co-optation is by demonstrating how grassroots change can work within a wider system. While it is vital to radically change the ways of thinking and doing towards transformation and away from the status quo, I also recall the earlier point of the dangers of summoning radical discourses as opposed to plural and practical solutions if effective change is to be achieved, because so far, no outright assault on the dominant paradigm has been successful in achieving the widespread practical transformation necessary for SSEW. Therefore, based on the fundamental differences and parallels between BV and SD discussed above, in analysing BV as an alternative approach to SD, it is important to acknowledge how the principles of BV outlined in Chapter Four can align with the 17 SDG goals, for a cooperative, plural, and practical approach to change. Table 7 is the result of this comparative analysis between

78 For a policy comparison between the MDGs, the SDGs and the Ecuadorian Government targets for BV outlined in the PNBV, see Alternatives FOR Development or Alternatives TO Development (Villacís, Mora & López 2015).

168 the content of the SDGs and the principles of BV identified in Chapter Four. The aim of this analysis is to extend a more horizontal understanding of issues relating to social and environmental wellbeing, and complete the rest of the conceptual puzzle of BV as an alternative to SD, which cannot be explained without contrasting (Pennings, Keman & Kleinnijenhuis 2006) the framework for BV with the global framework for SD implementation for the reasons outlined above. It is about challenging more lateral thinking beyond ‘development’. By taking a BV approach, the aforementioned problems with mainstream SD can be addressed by local communities living in local environments. ‘Think globally, act locally’ is a well-known motto in this context. And, changing the focus to biocentric, endogenous and needs-based, rather than anthropocentric, exogenous and growth-based will help achieve the transformation needed.

SDGs BV Principles Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere All principles Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved Food security nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture Healthy environment SSE Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for Good health all at all ages Community Harmony Healthy environment Reciprocity Culture Leisure Time Decent work Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education Education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all Equality Holistic rights Culture Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women Equality and girls Respect Democratic participation Holistic rights Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management Reciprocity of water and sanitation for all Healthy environment Self-determination Holistic rights Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable Healthy environment and modern energy for all Reciprocity Equality Self-determination

169

Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable Reciprocity economic growth, full and productive employment and Self-determination decent work for all SSE Decent work Leisure time Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive Decent work and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation SSE Reciprocity Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries Equality SSE Self-determination Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, Community safe, resilient and sustainable Harmony SSE Healthy environment Democratic participation Food security Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and SSE production patterns Reciprocity Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change Healthy environment and its impacts Reciprocity Self-determination Goal 14: Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas Reciprocity and marine resources for sustainable development Healthy environment Self-determination Food security Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of Reciprocity terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably managed forests, Healthy environment combat desertification, and halt and reverse land Self-determination degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Food security Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for Community sustainable development, provide access to justice for Solidarity all and build effective, accountable and inclusive Harmony institutions at all levels Democratic participation Respect Self-determination Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and Democratic participation revitalise the Global Partnership for Sustainable Self-determination Development Solidarity Table 7: Comparison between SDG Goals and BV Principles

170

Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms everywhere At the community level, this relates to the consideration of other types of wealth, as identified by the key informants, including social wealth, cultural wealth, ecological wealth, aesthetic wealth etc. These types of wealth matter because not only do they change the perspective of how communities perceive their environment and society, but they also direct the course of action for change. Therefore, from the perspective of BV, poverty and the poor are also defined by a lack of these other types of wealth; the term ‘poor’ does not only consider economic poverty. Considering that poverty is not only reduced to an economic indicator, but also that it can be presumed as cultural, social, and environmental poverty is an important factor in tackling the issue, therefore all principles are relevant. In that aim, multi-dimensional poverty reduction should be a key outcome of the full realisation of BV.

Goal 2: End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture. Policy here is important for ensuring food security at the local level. This includes livelihoods and a bottom-up participatory approach to food intervention. It also means embracing traditional knowledge for agriculture and food systems and allowing and promoting alternative economies. At the grassroots level, this involves promoting and utilising sustainable agricultural practices and knowledge sharing. It also means communities and individuals changing attitudes and behaviours towards a more harmonious relationship with the environment and its resources.

Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote wellbeing for all at all ages. For the aims of BV, this goal is closely aligned to others such as Goal 2, Goal 14, and Goal 15 because of the emphasis on its biocentricity. I reiterate the importance of reciprocity and harmony with the environment and acknowledging our cyclical relationship with it. In that respect, environmental issues also deeply affect individual human health, which has repercussions on the wider community. It also aligns with Goal 16 because of the emphasis of collective over individual wellbeing. Under BV, community wellbeing can only be achieved through social cohesion and a ‘peaceful and inclusive society’. Other types of knowledge are also important here, for example allowing for the ability to embrace traditional Indigenous medicine if it is deemed most appropriate.

Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all Education is a core principle for BV and it is vital in promoting its principles. As revealed in the data, access to quality education that considers culture, without discrimination, is also imperative for improving wellbeing for communities. Education at the home and in the community is also an important factor for SSEW.

Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls

171

This is important because without equality, communities cannot be empowered to increase their own capacity and self-sufficiency. It can be achieved both at the community level through respect and encouragement in participatory processes, as well as at the institutional level through ensuring access to democratic participation without discrimination and the satisfaction of holistic rights.

Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all Attitudes towards natural resource use must focus on the principle of reciprocity to ensure sustainable water use and avoid water wastage and pollution. This involves both education at the community and institutional level to ensure a healthy environment. It also means allowing for the self- determination of communities to manage their own water sources, in compliance with international law79, ensuring holistic rights80 in the context of BV.

Goal 7: Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all At the community level, education, behaviour, and attitudes towards a harmonious relationship with nature and its resources can help ensure a healthy environment. This includes not least energy production and consumption. The self-determination of a community is vital to ensure the local management of natural resources for energy use and the most appropriate form and scale of sustainable, renewable energy in the context of that community.

Goal 8: Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all This goal is the most contentious and problematic for a BV approach, and as such, the focus on ‘growth’ should be reinterpreted to imply stable social and environmental conditions – focussing on redistribution rather than growth and the diversification of productivity towards post-extractivism. BV does this through the SSE and participatory budgeting which will result rather in a-growth or sustainable degrowth as an outcome81 – whereby there is a decline in the more damaging or ‘dirty’ sectors of the economy such as extractivism and support for more sustainable sectors in an SSE that will result in greater social and environmental wellbeing such a small-scale renewable energy, health, education, knowledge etc. This approach is important for the transition to a post-extractive economy. The principles of self-determination and reciprocity are central for communities determining their own path, without detriment to the environment.

79 Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Assembly 1966) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (International covenant on economic, social and cultural rights 1966) states: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence. 80This includes both fundamental rights and the rights of nature. See Chapter Four. 81 See discussion on Degrowth in Chapter One.

172

Goal 9: Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation Like Goal 8, the principles of decent work and a focus on the SSE as an alternative to neoliberal economic development will help foster innovation and sustainable, small-scale industry that is contextually appropriate and considers different geographic, cultural, socio-economic, and historic realities. Also, like Goal 8, this must include a focus on the principle of reciprocity to ensure that alternative economies flourish with a harmonious relationship to nature.

Goal 10: Reduce inequality within and among countries The wide-scale adoption of a BV approach as a community tool or an alternative to SD can help reduce inequalities both within and among countries if the principles are fully met, with a particular focus on equality, SSE, and self-determination; because of the conditions for democratic participation and a transition to a post-extractive economy. This is only possible if it does not remain in the radical, alternative and niche discursive arguments and is seen as a viable alternative that can become a plural and cooperative practical resource for SSEW.

Goal 11: Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable The scale of human settlements under BV focuses on the community. Therefore, the principles of community and harmony are vital, as is democratic participation to ensure resilient and inclusive communities. Safe. resilient and sustainable communities can be enhanced through policy measures like food security and SSE and community practices for a healthy environment help support that.

Goal 12: Ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns Both the data in this study and the literature on BV have found that the patterns of consumption and production must change to be able to fully realise BV. For as long as economic growth remains an objective for wellbeing, production and consumption will not be sustainable, as it relies on an extractive (or neoextractive) model. The sustainable use of resources has been identified as a core principle of BV, which juxtaposes it against the neoliberal model of nature as a commodity. At the community level, the change of behaviours, attitudes, and practices of which is a key factor in the implementation of BV. It can also be promoted through education for BV and its principles. At the policy level, governments must act swiftly to transition to a post-extractive economy.

Goal 13: Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts. Action which helps combat climate change and its impacts is an outcome of BV, rather than its goal, but a BV approach through principles such as reciprocity, self-determination and a healthy environment would result in the necessary attitude and behavioural changes needed at the community level to mitigate and climate change and curb its impacts. At the institutional level this entails transitioning towards a post-extractive economy.

173

Goal 14: Conserve and sustainable use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development; Goal 15: Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably managed forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss. Both goals are inherent in the philosophy of BV as a biocentric alternative to SD and at the heart are the principles of reciprocity and a healthy environment. As mentioned in the discussion of Goal 3 above, the wellbeing of the environment and the wellbeing of society are intrinsically linked, and actions taken to improve one will either adversely or positively affect the other. Therefore, close consideration must be given to the nature-society relationship, which includes the use and management of all natural resources and ecosystems. As with Goal 12 above, this must result in their sustainable use and a change of production and consumption patterns, respecting nature, and the environment as fragile commons, rather than a commodity.

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. Harmony, community, and solidarity are core principles of BV and directly affect community wellbeing. At the policy level, the implementation of democratic participatory processes through participatory budgeting can help build inclusive communities that are both accountable and pursuant to their own fundamental needs. At the community level, this means understanding one’s responsibilities and rights in the participation of public processes, to ensure that needs are identified at this level, and not imposed upon by institutions for greater political purposes. The latter point can help ensure the principle of self-determination. This identification of needs must be done with full consideration of the principles of BV.

Goal 17: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. A more horizontal understanding of partnership is required here than is outlined by the SDGs. Partnership under BV refers to the plural nature of the approach and the need to cooperate with all actors, without the risk of co-optation for a higher development agenda. As the unit of scale under a BV approach is the community, this involves communities determining their own path and identifying their own needs, with support from governments through policy and political processes, and cooperation with organisations as facilitators or mediators. Solidarity within a community can help realise SSEW through the implementation of BV principles. Democratic participation at the grassroots level is a means of implementation, in cooperation with all relevant actors. It must be kept in mind that even if BV policy were to successfully address needs from an endogenous perspective, aligning national policy for BV with global SD discourse does evoke certain challenges. Howard and Wheeler (2015) question ‘on what basis can a global framework be truly responsive to citizens’ participation’? Because there is always a certain extent of ‘homogenization of context’ for implementing a global policy framework, Howard and Wheeler (2015) suggest that the

174

SDGs be implemented through a critical community development lens. The key is in community-led change with due regard to wider policy implications. It is about creating a more horizontal understanding of SSEW, challenging us to think more laterally about sustainability and development.

7.3. Implementing Buen Vivir: The Practical Pathway to Transformation

Implementing BV at the local level can help achieve practical transformative change which also aligns with the global discourse, provided there is support from local government and a promotion of its principles at grassroots through education, awareness and a VB philosophy It starts with a recognition that communities of all contexts have “agency and the capacity to identify solutions themselves” (Howard & Wheeler 2015). This community-led change has wider implications because it sets in motion a series of similar movements which eventually have an influence and effect on global policy, and it shows the importance of linking community-based alternative approaches to wider policy spaces. Felipe, head of a local organisation in Intag uses Cotacachi as an example, It needs to start from the bottom up. Here in Cotacachi County, we [the people] actually managed to pass an ecological ordinance. And that was the idea really, to start changing things around. It’s happening all around the world where cities in the U.S., Australia and everywhere are not waiting for the national government to impose CO2 controls, [for example]. In our case…the idea of this ordinance, with all its faults, is not perfect by any means, but it came from the grassroots. We convinced the local government and then if you can convince the provincial government, and…well [its] decentralising [decision-making], but also creating these positive examples of development and wellbeing.

Though as Howard and Wheeler (2015) state, a community, grassroots approach, “does not mean leaving communities to find their own solutions while the state retreats”; but it means long- term, meaningful support from institutions to create spaces for communities to increase their own capacity and self-reliance. Thus, the hybrid convergence of practice and policy is important for the implementation of BV . This type of approach allows communities to take hold of the processes and promoting local knowledges while embracing the plurality of knowledges necessary to allow BV to flourish. This is where organisations as mediators can step in. Eversole (2014) identifies ‘knowledge partnering’ as a new kind of development partnership for development practice. “A knowledge partnership can be defined as a relationship in which individuals, groups, and organizations share their knowledge in order to create innovative solutions” (Eversole 2014). Although, as discussed throughout this research while cooperation is essential, local knowledge and an endogenous approach is nonetheless privileged. As reiterated by Utting (2015), “effective co-construction also relies on full commitment by the government, which in turn requires sufficient capacity, coordination and resources in all relevant branches of government at both national and local levels”. The following section will discuss this hybrid approach to implementing BV, and in that respect, it will also look to the fieldwork data to understand what is required for its implementation.

175

The most effective way to achieve this hybrid, plural implementation, is through true democratic participation, also a condition for achieving BV. For example, the SDGs identify that “forums that facilitate and institutionalise participation need to be created and strengthened to ensure that policy design and implementation foster transformative outcomes” (Hujo et al. 2016). This cannot be business-as-usual as societies and economies cannot reach transformation by imposition; “[t]he top-down approach is no longer possible” (Jackson 2015). The type of participation in itself must be transformative and contribute to SSEW. This supports the democratic participatory approach reinforced through the participatory budget processes and collective local management of resources and outlined as a priority for the achievement of BV in Chapter Four. Organisations, both local and external to the community have a key role to play in ensuring that such democratic participation links communities with policy in spaces which allow communities to challenge any political decisions that are not in their interest (Howard & Wheeler 2015). In that respect, organisations can work as mediators or intermediaries to keep governments to account and minimalize the risk of co-optation through these processes by helping communities represent themselves in policy decisions, and knowledge partnering with communities when necessary. It also helps link local issues and needs to national and global policies and frameworks through dialogue (Howard & Wheeler 2015). This follows the views of key informants that cooperation between actors is needed to fully achieve BV – it cannot be a sole effort on behalf of the communities, nonetheless, it is first and foremost local. As Leandro says, it is Collective work from the grassroots. The work has to be first there. I cannot as a leader or as a member of the community start cooperating with others without the knowledge of the people in my community. I must first come together with the people of my community and then obviously build networks to continue working.

The importance of organisations to mediate between community needs and political decisions was noted by Luis, who states, “a community can do wonders with all the people who work in joint projects, but if tomorrow the state comes and only for economic interests establishes a mine that will totally change the work of ALL the community for generations.” The intention of the cooperating organisation also must be genuinely in support of grassroots processes by connecting “engagement and advocacy in formal spaces with broader social mobilization and coalition building efforts, rather than merely serving to reinforce the status quo” (Howard & Wheeler 2015). In that respect it is also important to acknowledge the role of the community in changing their practices, attitudes, and behaviours in line with the BV principles. VB Living Well is a crucial element of achieving ongoing change for sustainability and wellbeing in a community within the long-term goal of Buen Vivir. Assuming the conditions and structures are in place politically for a community to strive for Buen Vivir, the role of the community in its daily practices is a fundamental condition of meeting the principles. The core principles underlie practice and conversely communities can draw on practices82 to promote the principles by:

82 Based on the findings in Chapter Four

176

• Adopting a reciprocal approach to our relationship with nature • Public participation and enabling decision-making in a manner that honours that reciprocity • Fostering solidarity and harmony through an environment of community • Ensuring equity in participation in public decision-making • Manifesting a responsibility to participate in decision-making • Educating future generations on the principles of Buen Vivir • Participating in economic life • Understanding their fundamental rights and responsibilities, including those of the environment • Exercising those rights • Promoting and protecting cultural values and practices • Valuing the role of health in a community.

These practices, guided by the principles of BV, can feed back into a policy framework for BV, which in turn with the above analysis helps to demonstrate how the local interfaces with the global. Cooperation is a vital factor in practice. For many the cooperation of organisations and the state helps bring resources and finance to help capacitate and meet the fundamental needs of a community. This cooperation however, is not only economic, but also of knowledge. It arms communities with the capacity to be critical against policy decisions, as Leandro says, what is needed is to, Work with the people so that the population is critical, so that the population has the capacity to discern, capacity to debate, to have informed criterion based on something. Then through that we would achieve richer consensus, ideas would be richer, and participation would [also] be richer.

Positive examples of this plurality and cooperation can be seen in the HidroNangulvi project for small-scale hydroelectricity, as discussed in Chapter Four; and in the conservation of Cotacachi- Cayapas Reserve whereby Organized civil society together with local governments has been working for more than 15 years in forest heritage conservation, based on the participation of the local population in environmental management…[for the] education, promotion, lobbying, defense of human rights and nature, strengthening of sustainable productive groups and creation of a network of 41 water reserves that exceed 1,000 hectares, in the hands and benefit of communities for water for human consumption. (Hidronangulvi 2016)

The policy implications of a democratic participatory approach to implementing BV can be further distilled into the first three of six guiding principles for transformative change through the SDGs (Hujo et al. 2016): 1. Re-embed markets in social and ecological norms by making policies and building institutions that make the economy work for society and respect planetary boundaries, rather than the other way around (BV principle: SSE) 2. Reverse the existing normative hierarchy to position social and environment priorities

177

above economic ones (BV principle: Reciprocity) 3. Promote and enable meaningful political participation and empowerment through inclusive and transparent political processes, access to information and assets, and governance reforms at the national and international levels (BV principle: democratic participation).

On the first guiding principle, implementation of BV would shift the focus from economic growth and GDP as a driving indicator of wellbeing to a more socially and environmentally-just economic approach through an SSE. The SSE comes under the material dimension of BV, and as discussed in Chapter Four, economic principles under BV go beyond material ‘progress’ or accumulation and economic growth and focus on satisfying fundamental needs and achieving the communal vision of sustainability and wellbeing. The SSE requires ethical consumption, communal wellbeing, redistribution of wealth and a system that is inclusive, and participatory; founded in endogenous self-determination, usually small in scale and local. Ultimately, the change in productive matrix from a growth model based on the exploitation and exportation of natural resources also requires a cognitive change on behalf of both society and the state. Linked to the material dimension is the issue of poverty. As identified in Chapter Four, a BV approach conceives a different approach to poverty than in the current model of development – one which also considers poverty from environmental, cultural, and social wealth and which does not measure economic poverty based on externally devised development indicators, but rather on the contextual needs of the community in question. This is not to say that economic poverty is pushed aside, but it is approached differently. Goal 1 of the SDGs seeks to ‘eradicate poverty in all its forms’, but it still only alludes to material poverty. Moreover, they aim to eradicate extreme poverty for everyone, everywhere by 2030, but “eradicating poverty of this magnitude would require more than just weeding around the edges of the problem — it would require changing the rules of the global economy to make it fairer for the world’s majority” (Hickel 2015b). Changing the global economy on a structural level may not be a feasible target in the short-term, but the approach to productivity that BV takes by diversifying the economy with reciprocity in mind and moving towards post-extractivism promises to help achieve the change necessary. Moreover, proposals such as the SSE which are central to BVs economic approach can help focus on redistribution on the micro or community level, which can feed back into policy over the long-term. To that end, neoliberal arguments which have typically used measures such as GDP would become redundant as wellbeing under BV also takes into account multiple non- economic poverties or wealths. From a post-developmental point of view, the issue of poverty is problematic and the consequence is that poverty alleviation “slips off the map” (Pieterse 2000), which can have dire consequences for those populations which have been adversely affected by development in the first place. There is no doubt that extreme economic poverty is real, and so a denial of poverty will only result in worsening conditions. The SDGs however, “fail to accept that mass impoverishment is the

178 product of extreme wealth accumulation and overconsumption by a few, which entails processes of enclosure, extraction, and exploitation along the way (Hickel 2015b).What is needed in the dialectical debate is an acknowledgement that development’s economic-centred notion of poverty is outdated and there needs to be a focus on the other dimensions of poverty equally, as well as an acknowledgement of the root causes of extreme poverty. ‘Other’ notions of poverty, or ‘softer’ issues of poverty or non-material wealth e.g. social cohesion and a healthy environment must be considered and promoted at a policy level and in full consideration of reciprocity through locally-identified needs. Otherwise it risks reverting back to the top-down, growth-centred approach of the current model, which does not consider divergent and contextual realities (1988). The problem with an exogenous identification of needs is that it seldom results in positive outcomes because it is often economically rooted and does not take into account local context, nor does it consider the other ‘wealths’ of a community. Well-meaning governments and outside organisations often identify needs based on Western indicators for development, akin to the targets promoted by the SDGs, but do not consider the real needs and realities on the ground, which can often lead to better social and environmental outcomes. Rodriguez says it’s “because each community or city has its own history, and when organisations of government projects come out of political intervention, they come without having anything to do with us. Nothing is adapted to our reality here in any respect.” He argues that, “[Our needs] have nothing to do with NGOs or public employees. They can be heartfelt and want to do the right thing - but from above, since the government mandate comes already written, says this or that has to be applied – but it’s got nothing to do with them.” Laura also states that the exogenous identification and satisfaction of needs is neither effective nor beneficial in a community and often creates a false reality, The question is how political action separates you from all things technical. So, what happens in [development] planning and what is often very vertical is that they [the government] come and impose things on you. I have seen it in other places, how they impose their needs to construct something. Instead, they first build you the sewer, [then] they tell you that you have to clean the street.

The fulfilment of ‘soft’ issues and the principles of BV cannot be measured by top-down, exogenously identified quantitative methods and therefore can only be captured at the local level, with a focus on qualitative means. As discussed in Chapter Four, needs satisfaction under BV must not only cover basic needs related to economic development, but it must also include all other types of psychological needs. This is where it is important to ensure that the identification, implementation, and measurement of the principles of BV is pursued endogenously. The question for the policy implications of such an approach then becomes, how do we measure whether these needs are being met? As Valentina also argues, once the political structures are in place for such participation, communities also have a responsibility to participate and become accountable to the process, “We ourselves must manifest, propose needs.” Therefore, governments and organisations play a role in

179

BV, and consequently measurement, not of linear progress, but rather the achievement of its principles (and subsequently SSEW) through change and the satisfaction of needs should nonetheless be assessed.

7.4. The Issue of Measurement

With a better understanding of what BV entails, the roles of key actors in achieving it, and how best to implement it, it is now appropriate to discuss the issue of measurement. Chapter Two found that the measurement of BV was an issue broached in the literature and that empirical research was needed to examine if BV should be measured and how. In every political system there is a requirement to understand whether fundamental needs are being met, at the very minimum. The data related to the measurement of BV is somewhat contradictory. At the institutional level BV is measured in terms of statistical values by the national government, in quantitative measurements that allow governments to track progress over time. From an exogenous standpoint, Delgado et al (2010, p. 37) assert that “if as external actors we are interested in the construction of BV we need to define indicators to better understand it”. However, in the Indigenous origins of SK, there is no such thing as linear progress, it is in fact antithetic to the attainment of Sumak. That suggests that in the true ethos of BV, it should not be measured. While it may be inappropriate to refer to a Western developmental concept like ‘progress’ in an alternative concept like BV, going from a state where BV does not yet exist, to one where it has been achieved involves change. Therefore, one must consider the issue of measurement if policy is to play any part of it. Moreover, most key informants, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous believe that BV can and should be measured. While there is certainly a vital role for the local and national quantitative measurement such as water, energy, emissions, waste, public health and education, sustainability and climate change research often belittle the role of qualitative measurement, such as is conducted in social science for example. These sorts of data also have a place in the quantitative measurement of BV, which in line with the principles for BV, can better be understood to support a set of aspirational, long-term goals for policy. In that regard there are two roles for measurement: one refers to the quantitative measurement of government targets towards the aspirational goal of BV, considering the satisfaction of basic needs; the other refers to the qualitative assessment of VB to ensure that people’s fundamental physical and psychological needs are being met, and the rights of both society and nature are being upheld. On the one hand, the key informants generally accepted the role of statistical measurement in understanding issues that impact on BV such as education, housing, water sanitation and decent work. On the other, many believe that most of the principles of BV cannot simply be reduced only to statistics and merit a more qualitative understanding. The need for qualitative measurement and assessment of data on behaviours, values and beliefs in the SDGs has already been identified as a priority policy area for implementation of the Goals. Therefore, through qualitative understandings of

180

BV assessed locally, governments would be able to easily determine how each of the BV principles aligns with the qualitative measurement of the Goals. Indigenous community leader David sees the value in understanding whether or not a community has advanced against the principles of BV through qualitative means and suggests, “a census to find out if they have progressed if they have identified themselves as having Buen Vivir. Then according to that do an analysis depending on the communities, to assess whether they are making progress.” Javier argues that there are certain things that affect BV that are already measured, but not statistically, Because if you ask the father of the family who is living with a school which has closed down, he has measured that [impact on his family]. That is, he realizes that there is a difference between what is and is not Buen Vivir for him. In other words, one can measure the distance, the difference, that is the easiest to measure. The gap between reality and what happens, and the application of Buen Vivir. But what is not measurable is the process, that is not possible.

Laura also believes that BV should be measured qualitatively. She argues, I think that this issue of measuring Buen Vivir from the institutional part is closely related to the issue of economic development. That is, a part of economic development. So that's misleading because then everything is money, [but] it is not true. In other words, we can have a good income but these other things that do not allow us to be tranquil and happy also exist.

There is an acknowledgement by organisational and governmental key informants that happiness is often related to economic development or levels of poverty. Talking about the correlation between poverty and happiness, Rafael, a senior employee at a National Ministry of the Correa Government tells me that it is hard to be happy when one is poor, though he is speaking of the economic dimension of poverty, “it is [happiness] very difficult for a poor person, or someone of extreme poverty, right? Just like it is very difficult for a rich person or someone of extreme wealth to be happy.” Rafael was the only key informant to view poverty as a challenge to BV. Javier asks how this translates to daily practices, “In the end, the challenge to Vivir Bien is the universal desire to be happy. So then, how do we measure that?” This highlights the importance of a hybrid practice-policy approach to BV because, as Gale (2018) states “what individuals think and feel is an outcome of the complex biological, social, cognitive and cultural factors and cannot be taken at face value.” The need to move towards a more holistic measurement of wellbeing has long been noted by governments, as well as academics and economists. At the 2012 High Level Meeting on Wellbeing and Happiness: Defining a New Economic Paradigm, the Prime Minister of Bhutan, Jigmi Y Thinley (Royal Government of Bhutan 2012) stated, The GDP led development model that compels boundless growth on a planet with limited resources no longer makes economic sense. It is the cause of our irresponsible, immoral and self-destructive actions. Irresponsible, because we extract, produce, consume and waste ever more, even as natural resources are rapidly depleting. Immoral and unethical because having consumed far beyond our share of natural wealth, our reckless profligacy amid unconscionable inequities comes at the cost of what belongs to generations unborn. Self- destructive, because, aided by technology, we are bringing about the collapse of our ecological life support systems. Having far outlived its usefulness, our fundamentally flawed economic arrangement, has itself, become the cause of

181

all problems. Within its framework, there lies no solution to the economic, ecological, social and security crises that plague the world today and threaten to consume humanity. Mankind is like a meteor, blazing toward self-annihilation along with all other innocent life forms. But this course can be changed if we act now.

The same sentiment was echoed widely and strongly amongst the key informants with the opinion that if we carry on with business-as-usual it will lead to the eventual self-destruction of the current way of doing things. Akin to H.E. Thinley’s metaphor of a meteor, Emmanuel likens human kind in the current system of development to living organisms without the capacity to stop producing. “[In the current system] we do not have the capacity to stop, because [similarly] if the thermophilic bacteria had the capacity to stop they would not manage to transform the compost to 70-80 degrees, but they cannot stop, they produce, and reproduce, that feeds back…it’s the self-destruction of the system.” The inclusion of multidimensional aspects of poverty in national planning is a good step in the right direction to including other values other than economic, however to comprehensively tackle the issue of BV these policy measurements must also include the ‘softer83’ issues of poverty or non- material wealth such as social cohesion and a healthy environment with full acknowledgement of the cyclical character of the nature-society relationship. These soft issues are arguably imperative to happiness, which in turn is an outcome of BV as revealed by the data. For many of the key informants, happiness leads to wellbeing, it is part of the outcome not the end target for BV. As Indigenous community leader Gabriela stated, “to be happy is wellbeing, [living] in harmony.” Moreover, ‘soft’ issues cannot be effectively measured quantitatively and therefore can only be captured at the local level. This is where it is important to ensure that the identification, implementation, and qualitative measurement of the principles of BV is pursued endogenously. There must be a co-construction of knowledge and a hybrid convergence of policy and practice for BV to be achieved. It cannot be solely based on communities acting individually, nor can it be attained by governments acting unilaterally. As Utting (2015) states, “effective co-construction also relies on full commitment by the government, which in turn requires sufficient capacity, coordination and resources in all relevant branches of government at both national and local levels”. Therefore, the role governments and organisations play in BV measurement - not of linear progress, but rather the achievement of its principles through change and the satisfaction of needs - must be assessed. BV is a contested concept though, that is tailorable to specific context, unlike other more universal frameworks for measurement such as the Human Development Index (HDI). There is the argument that the priorities reflected in the HDI were no longer appropriate as they did not reflect the “needs and values of the population that affect” (Ruttenberg 2013). To address that gap, BV may best be served by ‘living indicators’, measurement that is tailorable to the specific community context, their understanding of BV and their fundamental needs as related to the core principles. Javier affirms that only this type of measurement can help society understand if BV has been obtained, “because if you understand that we also need indicators to see that we are advancing [towards BV]. But perhaps

83 By soft issues I refer to those more socially oriented issues which cannot effectively be measured statistically.

182

[by] MOBILE indicators, LIVING indicators.” According to the data, this can only be successfully achieved through democratic participatory processes, supported by a socially organised society. What this might look like is further discussed in the next section. As the data from this study demonstrates, the measurement of BV should be centred around community-defined indicators, to empower communities to understand the priority areas for meeting their own needs for SSEW. As Laura says, indicators for BV “can be qualitative. But I think they should be indicators that are developed here - in the community - from our reality. So, we are going to measure [it] ourselves or [for example] how we are going to define the question of poverty.” This type of community-driven assessment is more closely aligned to the practical implementation, VB. Qualitative data can make sense of aspects of the community which cannot be captured quantitively and make “measures more comprehensible and relevant to respondents, provide contextual information to explain particular outcomes, and, most importantly, ensure than influence measures of human well-being are based on what matters to people” (Camfield 2014). This is important because, as Fernando asserts, “Buen Vivir has to be a strategy to change the way people think in the long run. It has to be sustainable by the same society, it does not have to be sustainable by a political party. Good living has to be transformed into rights but also into obligations.” (2015)The processes for BV are implemented practically and managed endogenously, at the community-level, facilitated by governments and with the support of organisations. From that perspective, communities must have the tools with which they can start to identify their fundamental needs and implement the principles of BV, for both long-term structural and systemic change (BV) and daily through behaviour, practice, and attitudes (Vivir Bien). At this juncture, I therefore propose the following community framework for Living Well as a community tool, based on the entire findings of this research.

7.5. Towards Sustainable Social and Environmental Wellbeing: A Framework for Living Well

This research has identified the need for a framework of ‘Living indicators’84 that are in line with the principles of BV to provide the community with an effective tool to achieve BV and in the process, satisfy their fundamental needs by their own processes. It requires locally-identified needs and a community assessment of the principles of BV. The following framework85 in Table 8 below is a

84 That is, indicators that are not fixed to a wider development agenda, and that are tailorable to the context and reality of a particular community. 85 The structure for this framework is based on the Principles for BV identified as part of the fieldwork for this study, and Manfreed Max-Neef’s classification of fundamental human needs and is inspired by the University of Sunshine Coast Sustainability Indicators developed based on the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Sustainable Cities Index. There have also been many other efforts to develop indicators for wellbeing and sustainability, the following were included in my background research, but not in the development of the framework: • STEPS Pathways to Sustainability Framework • The Happy Planet Index • Hume City Council: Pathways to Sustainability Framework 2015-2019 • Mauri Model Decision Making Framework (Mauri-ometer integrated sustainability assessment) • Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies (October 2007) • Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Index

183 proposal for a community tool based on the findings of this research86, which allows communities to identify their specific needs under each of the principles of BV through a stop-light approach. It is a convergence of both practice and policy, which provides communities with the capacity to identify their fundamental needs and determine, in cooperation with other actors the ways in which to actualise those needs. The community thus defines the indicators under the principles of BV, and according to their own fundamental needs through democratic participatory processes. Fundamental to the framework are the three pillars identified in Chapter Two: social, spiritual, material. The framework puts social and environmental wellbeing at the core and comprises three necessary and interrelated elements: principles, practices, and fundamental needs satisfaction. As pointed out in Chapter Four the HSD approach to fundamental needs, which comprises both basic needs and psychological needs, is the most appropriate in the context of BV because: 1) it allows for contextualisation; 2) they are based on self-determination, participation and a reciprocal relationship between the community and with nature, and; 3) they include both the tangible basic needs and the intangible psychological needs identified as part of this research. Therefore, I have adapted Max-Neef’s nine axiological needs for Human Scale Development (HSD) to align with the BV principles. Additionally, HSD takes the approach of fundamental needs and self-reliance as a bottom- up process; where the state facilitates this process, rather than drives it (Guillen-Royo 2015). Like BV, the economy has a subsidiary rather than primary role, supporting the satisfaction of fundamental needs without detriment to the environment. Participation plays a central role in the implementation of the methodology which emphasizes the importance of a horizontal relationship between communities, local, regional, national, and global governance (Guillen-Royo 2015). Nonetheless, it still focuses on human needs, whereas fundamental needs in BV include both human and environmental needs. Therefore, the principles which encompass environmental needs (reciprocity, healthy environment, food security, holistic rights) can be aligned with the Max-Neef’s axiological needs that consider the environment (subsistence, protection, and leisure) to identify ways in which to ensure those needs are being met through the BV principles. The nine axiological needs are: Subsistence, protection, affection, understanding, participation, leisure/ Idleness, creation, identity, and freedom87, and can be described as: • Subsistence: health, food, shelter, work, living environment • Protection: care, freedom of choice, autonomy, social security, health systems, dwelling

• Global Reporting Initiative (GRI Sustainability Reporting) • World Happiness Index.

86 The indicators populated in the table are purely an illustrative analysis and are not based a needs analysis conducted at the field site as it was beyond the scope and purpose of the fieldwork to comprehensively study the needs of the community (the community did not conduct this analysis for the purposes of this research and as a researcher it is beyond my mandate to undertake such analysis of these communities, especially given that the purpose of BV is community-driven and community-identified needs, not an exogenous analysis of needs). However, most examples were based on issues that arose during the fieldwork in relation to BV, but no analysis was undertaken to classify them within the framework. 87 Further explanation of the nine axiological needs and the corresponding existential needs, which Guillen-Royo (2015) describes as ‘satisfiers’ (having, doing, being and interacting) can be found in Chapter Four (A Grassroots Perception of Needs) .

184

• Affection: being respected, loved, having fun, friends, family, privacy, a relationship with nature • Understanding: Critical capacity, education, schools, universities, communities, curiosity, investigating, learning • Participation: Duties, responsibilities, work, collaboration, opinions, freedom of expression, associations, rights • Leisure: Imagination, fun, games, landscapes, living environment, sports, intimate spaces • Creation: Boldness, invention, designing, building, skills, innovation, abilities • Identity: Belonging, esteem, self-knowledge, religion, values, community, language, customs, norms, values, social settings • Freedom: Autonomy, passion, rights, equality, choice, exploration, awareness.

Rather than using statistical measures for the quality of life in a particular community based on a universal standard, the Framework for Living Well necessitates ‘living’ indicators with a qualitative focus based on endogenously identified and satisfied needs and the principles of BV. The community identifies its specific fundamental needs based on the 17 core principles of Buen Vivir and classified by Max-Neef’s axiological needs. They do not indicate ‘linear progress’ against traditional development objectives, rather they base social and environmental wellbeing on the attainment of community-defined BV through the satisfaction of fundamental needs. BV aims for net positive change based on the particular geographical, socio-economic, and cultural context of a community. Moreover, basing a framework on the principles of BV drives the consideration of needs in a more biocentric way, respecting both environmental and human needs rather than viewing the environment as a commodity to meet the needs of society. This is first and foremost a community tool, to support community’s own processes for defining what BV is to them and what the fundamental needs are of the community and its environment in order to attain BV. Nonetheless, participation is the pre-requisite condition for both the principles and the fundamental needs being actualised. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind the importance of democratic participatory processes in implementing the framework, and in particular instituting a participatory budget with cooperation between the community and local government. The measurement of the satisfaction of fundamental needs within the community setting can be undertaken by a using the stoplight approach (green, yellow, and red): green meaning it has been met, yellow meaning it is of concern, and red meaning immediate action required. The stoplight approach allows a community to decide whether a principle has been met through the satisfaction of locally-identified fundamental needs. The indicators are based on community perception of the current state of BV and can assist local communities in conjunction with local governments to identify priority areas for action for BV for a participatory budget. A stoplight system can incorporate information in a way that one can easily see whether a principle has been met when statistical indicators are inappropriate; and is recommended for qualitative indicators as the best

185 way to understand if conditions are met (Wgi’s working group on “indicators” 2016). The framework contains a few examples of how the framework might be populated with identified needs. The intention is that this proposed framework contains community-identified needs within the principles of BV. It can be used by communities and for communities and can be used to support community processes in participatory planning and budgeting in cooperation with government, for example in stage two of a participatory budgeting cycle 88whereby communities identify projects via workshops held for and attended by all residents. The framework can be used in a two-step process, first to identify which needs are unmet and then to identify ways in which the needs can be satisfied. In the third step of the cycle, the stoplight representation can help with prioritising needs to determine the implementation of projects. In stage eight of the cycle it can help communities identify which principles have been met through this process. At the same time, it can help communities understand the different roles in satisfying those needs through practices, values, attitudes, actions, organisation, and policy89. The indicators can be further scaled up from the community level to demonstrate how BV locally can be complimented to meet national or local governmental requirements, and a cross- analysis with Table 7 above can assist policymakers understand how each principle allows them to meet the broader SDGs. The stop-light method can also help communities identify their various poverties (factors which are lacking in a community e.g. environmental, economic) and their wealths (factors which are rich in the community e.g. cultural, social).

88 The research identified eight stages of the participatory budgeting cycle. For more, see Chapter Four. 89 These are defined as satisfiers under the HSD matrix.

186

Fundamental Needs BV Principles Subsistence Protection Affection Understanding Participation Leisure/ Creation Identity Freedom Idleness Equality Equal opportunity for women and girls to participate in public spaces Fundamental Rights Rights for land-owners in mining exploration areas Community Special community events to foster community identity Solidarity Opportunities for community markets to encourage local trade

187

Harmony Peer support services for recent migrants SSE Resources to support the creation of small- business and social enterprises Decent Work Opportunit ies to join cooperativ es and trade unions Leisure Work-life Community balance: environment spending for youth time with including family and spaces for friends activities Good Health Support Access to services for sports clubs physical and and mental health activities

188

Culture Skills sharing among the community to prevent loss of traditional knowledge and skills Education Access to local The promotion schools with of educational quality education resources in community library spaces Reciprocity Support for innovation in community alternative energy projects Healthy Environment Protection of Clean water (uncontamin courses ated) green from spaces for pollution and outdoors contaminatio activities n Food Security Equitable access to fertile land

189

Self-determination Policy transparency and public information regarding land use and resources Respect A sense of public security in certain areas Participation Regular skills Better workshops representation for small- for disability business and special owners needs in public decision- making

Table 8: Framework for Vivir Bien/Living Well

190

7.6. Conclusion

The argument around the SDGs is that they seek to reinforce the status quo, rather than promising transformative change. There is therefore, a real risk that they will fail to achieve SSEW unless an alternative approach is taken. And given the constant re-evaluation of SD and the re- emphasized urgency of the environmental situation, is it wise to continue with the status quo? But the introduction of the SDG’s globally does not mean giving up on alternative avenues for achieving sustainability and wellbeing. Never has the term ‘think globally, act locally’ been more prevalent than now when thinking about how we can achieve sustainability now and in the long-term. Both BV and SD share the same fundamental aims: guaranteeing social wellbeing and ensuring the intergenerational sustainability of the earth’s environment; albeit with vital differences in the processes by which to achieve those aims. One major difference is that mainstream neoliberal SD is universal (yet contested) in the way that it aims to bring all societies in line with its Eurocentric, modern idea of progress. It is based on the traditional model of development, a “single model…which does not account for cultural diversity and refuses to recognise Mother Earth as a subject of rights” (Samaniego 2012; Vanhulst & Beling 2014). Whereas, BV leaves it to the communities themselves to decide what BV means to them. Nonetheless, there is one major similarity between SD and BV, which is they are both contested concepts – they both mean different things to different people. Translating that into the broad-based universal SDGs, it is a weakness because it has rendered them too ambitious and ambiguous at the same time; however, for a grassroots concept, this is where BV’s strength lies because it is contextual, but local communities do not exist in isolation. The key for guarding this strength therefore and understanding how BV fits within a global framework is by looking at local implementation of the principles and seeing how align with SDGs; not managing the implementation of the SDGs locally by co-opting BV and trying to fit the BV principles to the SDG targets. In other words, bottom-up, not top-down. As discussed in Chapter Two, plurality under BV means that all actors must work together. It takes into account all knowledges while remaining an endogenous process. The role of government is to provide the structures and spaces to allow the endogenous implementation of BV to flourish. To do so, there must be some sort of policy structure aligned with BV, and the research demonstrates that this high-level policy framework is identified as BV, an ideal state to arrive at; as opposed to the ongoing practice of a set of principles, referred to as VB. This does not mean generalising the endogenous framework or reverting to a top-down variation of participation as has been done in the past in development, but rather, as this will just risk becoming a part of the status quo. Rather, it means that the power structures must shift to let communities manage their own notion of BV as the agents of their own processes; and communities working with organisations as the mediators between the community and government, not as agents of BV. This partnership with organisations is key to avoiding the co-optation of processes to a wider agenda that has been criticised of occurring in processes of development and its variations.

191

As an alternative to SD, BV can help move from status quo to transformation through a bottom-up, yet plural approach, which aims to shift the focus from growth for development to SSEW while reinforcing the importance of biocentricity. I argue that it is in the combination of bottom-up change, contextualisation and biocentrism that can possibly help us to concretely achieve SSEW. That said, envisaging BV as an alternative to SD, does not necessarily render it as an offense, or an outright attack on the current model. Nor does it mean watering it down to become another development alternative. BV as a plural concept and tool for community-led change can be implemented from within the current economic development system leading the status quo on the path to transformation, provided that the structural and political processes are in place to do so. This way of approaching BV is important to avoid the co-optation and outright refusal by the power structures, of an alternative that could ultimately lead to long-term change, rather than short-term rhetoric. As Escobar argues, this change towards transformation “may require moving away from development sciences in particular and a partial, strategic move away from conventional Western modes of knowing in general in order to make room for other types of knowledge and experience. This transformation demands not only a change in ideas and statements but the formation of nuclei around which new forms of power and knowledge might converge” (Escobar 1995). Grassroots change has profound policy implications, but that in a circular notion policy also has the responsibility to allow for that change to happen. As Mander and Goldsmith assert, (2014) Long-term solutions to today’s social and environmental problems require a range of small, local initiatives that are as diverse as the cultures and environments in which they take place… Most importantly, rather than thinking in terms of isolated, scattered efforts, it is helpful to think of institutions that will promote small scale on a large scale.

Pursuing the principles of BV at the community level as VB, as described above allows us to guard the authenticity of BV as an endogenous process. And examining these principles against the SDGs like in Table 5 allows us to understand how practical, local-level change fits into a global agenda for sustainability and wellbeing, without generalising BV and losing its contextualisation. As Howarth (2012) argued, “A sustainable future will emerge if we build institutions that, on a practical level, sustain the natural environment and the social and technological conditions that will empower future generations to define and pursue their own conception of the good life”. BV will require rethinking sustainability as an endogenous approach with the support of governments and organisations for its full realisation at community level and the attainment of SSEW. Implementing BV in this way can help achieve the utopian long-term goals for sustainability and wellbeing envisaged in BV and SD policy, as well as in global action for SD, with more rapid and genuine effect. Nonetheless, its implementation must come from the people on the ground, with a high level of political will and facilitated by organisations who can act as mediators to help prevent the co- optation of local processes for a wider agenda. At the grassroots level, which includes changes that need to be made day-to-day on a practical level to achieve real social and environmental justice and sustainability built around communal practices. At the political level, it refers rather to a political concept anchored in law and policy which provides the structures and processes for communities to pursue their own conception of BV through democratic participation.

192

There is scope for measuring BV but only through a combined qualitative and quantitative approach to ensure the convergence of policy and practice. Locally implemented and qualitatively measured ‘living’ indicators that seek to satisfy community-identified needs would not only help achieve self-determination and real, grassroots-led democratic participation; it would also help influence policy by feeding back into the more quantitative structures of measurement required at a governmental level. Allowing both the achievement of SSEW at a local level through VB, and government to fulfil its global political responsibilities. To that end, the proposed framework for Living Well that would seek to serve as a tool for communities on the ground to identify fundamental needs through ‘living indicators’ based on the principles of BV and manifested in VB. Helping communities meet the principles of BV for its full realisation could be a beneficial way of capacitating communities to realise their own conception of BV.

193

8. Chapter Seven: Towards New Horizons: Conclusion and Recommendations for the Good Life

This thesis has aimed to find out if Buen Vivir (BV) could become a viable and practical alternative to sustainable development (SD) in an extractive economy. To do so, I conducted a short- term ethnographic fieldwork study within the Cotacachi county in Ecuador – a region which has a historical battle with extractivist activity, but one where its people also value their ability to live the Good Life, to fight for Buen Vivir. The Introduction Chapter discussed the research questions, which were addressed in each relevant chapter of the thesis. It provided a brief background into the problem, why this research is needed, and introduced my conceptual framework. The conceptual framework was based on BV as an overarching concept and draws on the following concepts and theories for its conceptual analysis: SD, post-development and extractivism and their derivatives (alternatives to development and neoextractivism respectively). It has helped to guide the design of the research, the choice of methodology, the use of methods and the way in which I analysed and interpreted the data, and ultimately how this thesis has been shaped. I also outlined my focus, aims and the theoretical lens used in my analysis of the literature, and provided an overview of the thesis structure. Chapter One reviewed the literature based on the conceptual framework starting with a brief history of development to the emergence of SD. Through a critical review, I found that mainstream SD has failed to achieve its aims. It was developed in reaction to the failure of traditional development to consider environmental aspects in development policy and practice. The main critique of SD is two- fold: that it is anthropocentric, and it is still based on the neoliberal idea of progress through economic growth. I discuss how this model based on unbridled economic growth has been argued in the literature to be at the root of social and environmental problems like climate change, global inequality, and poverty – the latter of which certain intellects maintain is a modern construct. This failure of development has led post-developmentalists calling for ‘alternatives to development’, and I discuss the growing legitimacy of the post-development argument. Underlying the growth imperative is the drive for extractivism, which has long driven development policy in much of Latin America. Though, as the literature discussed it has resulted in a nature-society dualism which has led to greater social and environmental issues. In recent times the more ‘progressive’ countries including Ecuador have changed the focus to neo-extractivism. The literature argued that this is just ‘two sides of the same coin’ (Acosta 2013). The only thing that has changed is the role of government. The literature asserted that what is now important is working towards retrieving, articulating, and identifying the underlying objectives of SD, rather than criticising it. Instead what is needed is ‘new paradigm thinking’ (Tesoriero and Ife, 2010), working towards a dialectical solution to achieve transformation and Sustainable Social and Environmental Wellbeing (SSEW) rather than a direct attack on SD. Heeding the post-developmental call for ‘alternatives to development’, I propose BV as

194 an alternative to SD. In that light, Chapter Two continued the literature review with a critical conceptual analysis of BV. It was guided by the central research question: can Buen Vivir become a viable and practical alternative to Sustainable Development? The review affirmed BV as a possible alternative to SD, but in the literature, this has only resulted in discursive critique and has not offered any concrete and practical solutions. Chapter Two started with a discussion of the Indigenous origins of BV, but affirmed that as a plural concept, and one ‘under construction’ it is a culmination of community, politics, and academia. Nonetheless the importance of its endogenous approach must be emphasized but implemented in cooperation with all actors and epistemologies. This chapter identified BV as a contested concept, and one which lacks universal definition but contains a set of core common principles – as opposed to SD which has a universal definition but is contested by its loose principles. I argued that this point may be its greatest strength as it leaves it up the communities to provide the prescriptive elements, meaning that it is contextual and sensitive to the realities on the ground. There were two main contributions to the literature in this chapter. Firstly, the identification of BV as a contested concept was crucial in advancing the understanding of BV. The second main contribution was the synthesis of the core principles of BV. Through an analysis of the literature I identified 15 principles of BV, demarcated to six dimensions: social cohesion, sustainability, empowerment, livelihood, and capabilities. This is further classified under three pillars: social, spiritual, and material. This chapter also found that BV is a plural concept. Rather than being heralded as an offence on SD, it can be embraced plurally, because to try to force a sudden and immediate change in the system is unrealistic and will end up in BV being largely ignored and a ‘short-lived discursive enterprise’ (Vanhulst & Beling 2014). This critical review of the literature started to put the pieces of the conceptual puzzle together for a better understanding of what BV entails. A coalescence of the core common principles is a start, but it was missing the empirical evidence: how do communities understand and practice BV; and is there scope for measurement? This necessitated empirical research to complete this understanding and work towards a concrete path for implementation. This paved the way for my field research in Ecuador because as Escobar justified, “The nature of alternatives as a research question and a social practice can be most fruitfully gleaned from the specific manifestations of such alternatives in concrete local settings” (Escobar, 1995, p.223). Chapter Three then introduced the methodology used for the empirical research undertaken as a short-term ethnographic study in the Cotacachi Canton, Ecuador, to address those gaps in knowledge. This chapter justified the reasons for the choice of field site and methodology and discussed the methods used, including: semi-structured interviews, observations, and document analysis. It also made use of thick description to explain what was done in the field and outlined the way in which the research was conducted to allow for efficiency in a short-period of time. This included using a local research assistant and making use of the researchers’ prior knowledge and connections in the field, in an ethical manner. It detailed the way the data was captured and analysed using NVivo data management software. The use of NVivo in both the literature review and the fieldwork data greatly helped with

195 organisation and efficiency, and also allowed me to see where the gaps lie and where the fieldwork data has helped to address those gaps. It was an essential tool for me going into the field to understand what exactly I needed to find out to make a valuable contribution to the literature. The resultant data was discussed in the second part of the thesis: in Chapters Four, Five and Six. Chapter Four began Part II of the thesis on the empirical findings. This chapter essentially analysed the practical implications of BV, and was divided into two parts structured around the sub- questions: • How do local Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in Latin America understand and practice BV? • What kinds of practices local communities are undertaking towards collective wellbeing and needs satisfaction? • To which extent are institutions important in realising BV and what role do governments play? • What are the challenges to achieving BV?

In Part I, the aim was to relay the narrative as told by the key informants of their own understandings of BV. There is inevitably a factor of researcher interpretation in any recounting of the data, but my aim in this section was to use their own words and structure the section in a way that made sense according to the gaps in knowledge. All key informants had a solid understanding of BV and were able to clearly articulate that, but rarely had they been given the opportunity to vocalise what it means to them – it has been more of a tacit understanding. I believe that it is important for the outcomes of this research to include that narrative, with as little analysis (besides the organisation of the data) as possible. It was also an important step towards finding points of convergence between the groups under analysis. Part II then analysed the data around those sub-questions. There were three significant contributions to the research: 1) the addition of the community understanding of BV to the principles identified in Chapter Two; 2) the emergence of Vivir Bien (VB) as the practical implementation of the principles of BV; and 3) the key challenges to implementing both. The distinction of VB (daily practice) from BV (policy) was the most important findings because it highlights the dual practical-political implications of BV. Key informants emphasised the importance of meeting fundamental needs, in order to achieve BV. In their understanding, fundamental needs include basic needs and psychological needs such as culture, leisure time, community, family, and more spiritual needs such as respect and a sense of reciprocity with the environment. A fundamental needs approach channels Max-Neef’s (1991) conception of needs and allows for 1) contextualisation; 2) self-determination, and; 3) both tangible and intangible needs. In that respect it also takes into consideration the needs of the environment. To meet fundamental needs under BV a new economic model must be adopted. The data and the literature identified a social and solidarity economy (SSE) as the most appropriate economic approach that aligns with the principles under the material pillar. It takes into account other types of

196

‘wealth’, which also act as capabilities. In terms of non-economic wealth, it is important for policy to include these in poverty measurements, to enable a move away from economic growth as a driver and measure for wellbeing. The idea of using only the natural resources you need to meet fundamental needs, not desires, is central. An SSE can help guide this approach because means taking a biocentric and local perspective to meeting needs, rather than the fast, consumer-based economy to satisfy desires. Chapter Four also demonstrates that it is not enough for society to leave sustainable social and environmental wellbeing (SSEW) to governments, authorities, and institutions; change must also happen at the local level in attitudes, behaviours, and practices of the people. The local level change is referred to Vivir Bien (VB) or Living Well, and it is how the principles of BV are manifested laterally, on a daily basis in practice. VB is not an endpoint, but rather a state of being, as opposed to the political utopia of BV. In that respect several examples of this practice were highlighted in this chapter. These practices are manifested by the communities and generally involve cooperation with one of more key actors. Although the examples were particular to the context of the field site, they nonetheless exemplify what the principles related to (dimensions of) a healthy environment, reciprocity, education, solidarity, culture, community, decent work, and the SSE can look like on the ground. This analysis brings me back to the plurality of BV. I discuss how cooperation is vital to implementing BV at the local level, because if communities could do it by themselves, it would already be achieved. The empirical data found therefore that each group of key actors plays a role. The role of governments at all levels, but particularly local government is to act as facilitators providing the spaces and structures for communities to identify and implement BV for themselves. This includes ensuring genuine participation through a participatory democratic approach. In Cotacachi this is demonstrated through participatory budgeting. Government also has a role though policy and regulation to lead towards a genuine post-extractive economy. This will not happen immediately, but transitions can start immediately starting with policy and supported by consumer and community behaviours and practices. It involves a shift in thinking and doing from society at the centre of the idea of wellbeing, to a more biocentric idea whereby the needs of the environment should also be taken into account. This can be done on the political level through programs, policy, and education, and according nature rights; and it can also be done at the community level through a shift in values and ways of thinking about the environment and the use of natural resources. The role of communities is then to fulfil their rights and responsibilities in terms of participation, as well as following the principles for BV in daily practices in a VB approach, changing attitudes and behaviours to reflect that. Finally, the role of organisations is to act as the power brokers or mediators to avoid the co-optation of BV for political purposes, help communities find their ‘voice’ and assist with knowledge and resources where appropriately identified by communities. After developing a solid understanding of what BV entails, how it is practiced and the role of the different key actors, Chapter Four concluded by finding several key challenges to achieving BV, discussed by key informants (as also supported by the literature). These challenges referred principally to the implementation of the principles at the local level (VB), and included education for

197

BV, changing behaviours, beliefs, and attitudes; but they also included more political challenges such as participation and the extractivist economy. The most significant of these challenges was the imposition of large-scale extractivism and its incompatibility with BV because of its social, environmental, and economic impacts. Hence, these issues were analysed in greater detail in Chapter Five. Chapter Five affirmed the incompatibility of large-scale extractivism with BV, as identified both in the literature and by the empirical data. It was based on the sub-questions: • What challenges or opportunities does extractivism pose on these communities and their ability to achieve BV? • How do these communities think of their environment/nature? • How do they interact with their environment and how do these practices align with BV?

I started the analysis with a look at the experience of extractivism in Cotacachi. The Cotacachi Canton resides in an area with a high degree of biodiversity and endemism of plant and animal species. This natural environment is highly valued, and many communities fear their environment and their values are threatened by the push for extractivism in the name of development and economic growth. These communities also highly value the philosophy of BV. The Correa government had opted for an extractivist position for achieving BV, albeit under a neoextractive model. The neoextractive model claims that extractivism, if managed by the State, can have benefits that can help achieve BV in the long-run. At the national level, extractivism is argued to create greater wellbeing. However, it ignores the negative social and environmental impacts that large-scale extractivism has proven to have on communities and the environment. This creates a false dichotomy and is problematic for a concept like BV, which considers the wellbeing of both the environment and society with equal importance. My research found that this contradiction was at the root of tensions between the government and communities, who originally believed the good intentions of BV policy. In that respect I examined how the conceptions of environment and nature, have different meanings to the key informants than to Western society, which is crucial for their particular perspective on natural resource use. The wellbeing of society and the environment are integral to one another. One cannot exist without the other. That said, the use of natural resources is necessary, but the scale and way in which we extract and use them needs to change. It requires new ways of thinking and doing based on fundamental needs, rather than desires to move towards transformation and away from the status quo. This analysis helped better understand the impacts, and perceived impacts of extractivism on the community’s SSEW. The main contribution of this chapter was empirically cementing that a policy of extractivism is incompatible with BV – therefore necessitating a move towards post-extractivism. The opposition to extractivism in Cotacachi has led to local government support in favour of economic alternatives in a bid for post-extractivism. Local government here has been heeding change in more horizontal processes, generating transformation from the people. Ultimately, these changes also require genuine national government support which may be more likely obtained if the political implications of BV can

198 be demonstrated. Finally, Chapter Six examined the political implications of BV in an era of global SD action, and how the implementation of the principles of BV might allow governments to position themselves for their global political responsibilities, specifically in addressing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, it explored the sub-questions: • As an alternative to SD, how can BV be implemented at the community level to meet needs? • Should BV be measured, and if so how? • To which extent are institutions important in realising BV, and what role do government’s play?

The importance of this chapter lies in the fact that for BV to be viable there is a need for a high-degree of political will to provide the spaces and structures for communities to define and implement it for themselves, and for them to achieve change and practice VB through the principles of BV. Therefore, this chapter first discussed why an alternative approach is necessary, further elaborating from the discussion in Chapter One. Notwithstanding the fact that both concepts are contested, I then analysed the differences and synergies between BV principles and neoliberal SD manifested in the SDGs. The aim of this comparison was to extend a more horizontal understanding of issues relating to social and environmental wellbeing. The reasons for comparing BV to the SDGs and not to any of the more nuanced contested definitions of SD is because the literature identified BV as an alternative to development. I further argue that BV is an alternative to sustainable development because of its biocentricity. The SDGs are the manifestation of global action for the mainstream conception of SD, which is understood as an alternative development model. Neoliberal SD takes into account environmental factors but remains nonetheless within the realms of neoliberalism. Therefore, any alternative to development with an environmental focus would have to be contrasted against neoliberal SD. Moreover, the contextuality of BV maintains it as an alternative that can fill the gaps of a failed one-size-fits-all SD approach. In Chapter Six, I next examine how BV might be implemented at the community level to honour the ethos of endogenous change. I discuss the issue of measurement and find that key informants believe that there is scope for the measurement of BV, but that it should be community- driven and focussed on qualitative ‘living’ indicators that allow for contextuality. To that end, this chapter concludes with a proposed framework which addresses the key informants concerns for measurement– meaning that ‘living’ indicators are defined by the community itself based on the principles of BV and implemented through a stoplight framework. This allows for communities to define what BV means to them, identify their own fundamental needs and ways in which these might be satisfied . Ultimately, approaching the implementation in this way would allow a cooperative and plural relationship with government and organisations, whereby government act as facilitators and organisations act as mediators, while allowing for communities to ‘take the reigns’ in their own alternative to development. It also helps address the earlier-mentioned concerns of post-development critique, providing a concrete practical plural pathway to transformative change.

199

It is a two-speed hybrid practical-policy approach incorporating the above-mentioned roles of the different key actors, but one whereby a community can implement it for itself while aiming for change through VB, or the daily practice of BV principles (addressing the role responsibilities of communities). The boundaries of power and knowledge will have shifted if this is a genuine process. Moreover, the scaling-up of BV from practice to policy places governments in a position to satisfy their global commitments to sustainability, albeit with a local agenda. Approaching BV in this way does not automatically halt dominant development thinking and practice, but it alters the hegemonic nature of the system “so that the range of existing social experiences that are considered valid and credible alternatives to what exist is significantly enlarged” (Escobar 2010). In that sense, it prioritises the local over the global, the particular over the universal, and the communal over the individual. At the same time, it embraces others’ knowledge and experience, rather than refuting it or hierarchising it. It refocuses the debate towards biocentrism over anthropocentricism and focuses on fundamental needs over consumerist desires. A biocentric approach helps reduces the level of consumption, consumerism and consequently natural resource use whereby alternative economic models are called for. Under BV, alternatives are part of an SSE which limits levels of consumption and encourages a sense of reciprocity with the environment. Sustainable degrowth or “A-growth” becomes an outcome (but not the aim) of a BV approach, which would see the more damaging sectors of the economy decline and replaced with smaller, more sustainable local economic alternatives. In this hybrid approach, the framework in combination with the BV-SDG comparison table would allow governments to understand how the attainment of each principle helps governments fulfil their global responsibilities and in conjunction with more quantifiable local and national development objectives to help achieve transformation for SSEW from the ground up, without relegating BV to a political slogan. The framework, along with the principles for BV highlight both the practical and political implications of BV, and thus are two of the most significant outcomes of this research.

8.1. A Practical Resource for Communities

To conclude, my research has demonstrated that BV can be a viable alternative to SD if the following conditions are met: • A transition towards a post-extractive economy: this involves immediate action from both governments and communities. • Implementation is achieved plurally from the ground up in a participatory democracy: community-driven change, facilitated by governments and mediated by organisations. • Attitudes, behaviours, and policies reflect a biocentric approach to wellbeing – aiming for SSEW over the primacy of human wellbeing in the satisfaction fundamental needs.

BV can be understood as contextual community and biocentric approach to achieving sustainable social and environmental wellbeing. It therefore does not have a universal definition, but rather a core set of principles which leaves the prescriptive elements up to communities themselves.

200

Collective SSEW is the ultimate outcome. There is no room for individualism, nor for anthropocentrism. This research therefore concludes that BV should be approached as first and foremost as a practical resource for communities to achieve change and transformation for SSEW through the VB, or the practical application of the principles of BV – albeit with political implications. The practical application of the principles is referred to as VB and is the basis for achieving the transformation required. The practice of VB is scaled up first qualitatively through community implementation of the framework for BV to identify and satisfy fundamental needs. It then serves as a guide for governments seeking to satisfy their own development objectives at a policy level quantitatively and qualitatively, which in turn can be used to position governments against their global policy responsibilities for SD under the SDGs. However, the plurality of BV must be highlighted and respected, as must the needs to equally respect the rights of the environment as much as the rights of humans. This means that as a society (in both government policy and community practice) we need to move towards a state of post-extractivism, sooner rather than later. Transformation away from the status quo of development is needed. The transformation towards new horizons for the Good Life and Living Well away from prioritising societal needs with nature as a commodity, and the individual over the collective, …May be a slow process, but it may also happen with relative rapidity…The dialectic [in the West] tends to push for another round of solutions. Even if conceived through more radical categories – cultural, ecological politicoeconomic, and so on. This will not do. The empty defense of development must be left to the bureaucrats of development and those who support it…it is up to us, however, to make sure that the life span of the bureaucrats and the experts as producers and enforcers of costly gestures is limited (1995, p. 217).

In the pursuit of transformation for SSEW, it is therefore no longer appropriate or desirable to follow the anthropocentric growth-centred path of neoliberal SD. The time is right to write (sustainable) development’s obituary (2009). This thesis has demonstrated that BV as a biocentric and plural yet community-driven alternative to SD striving for a post-extractive society has the practical promise and viability to help achieve that transformation equitably and sustainably.

201

Appendices

Appendix 1: Example interview schedule (English/Spanish)

Example Interview Schedule (English) Semi-Structured Interview Schedule Example – Community Members Question # Question description Purpose 1. What is your name? Personal detail 2. If you could, could you please describe a Personal detail typical day for you/what do you do for a living? 3. How would you describe Buen Vivir? What Open-ended with does Buen Vivir mean to you? What is prompts most important for Buen Vivir? 4. Do you believe the community has a good Open-ended with level of social and environmental prompts wellbeing? 5. What is done in the community to achieve Open-ended with Buen Vivir? Who does it? What about local prompts organisations? Can you give me some examples?

6. What else do you think can be done/what Open-ended with does the community need to improve prompts wellbeing and the environment in the community? How do you come to that conclusion? Who provides that? What is the role of community members? What do you think is the role of government? 7. How important is the community to Open-ended with you/what does community mean to you? prompts 8. What kinds of things do you do at home to Open-ended with ensure Buen Vivir and how do you think prompts they contribute to the community? 9. How do you know when Buen Vivir is Open-ended with achieved? How do you know what should prompts be improved? 10. What does Pachamama mean to you? Open-ended with prompts

202

11. How important is the environment to you? Open-ended with How important is it in the community prompts wellbeing? 12. What role do natural resources play? How Open-ended with are they used? Are there limits to their prompts usage? If so, what are the limits? 13. What is the community doing to protect the Open-ended with environment? How does this contribute to prompts Buen Vivir? 14. What about mining, forestation, and other Open-ended with extraction, what do you think about what prompts they are doing? Why? What does this mean for Buen Vivir? 15. How do you think community members Open-ended with working collectively can themselves work prompts towards Buen Vivir? Should there be cooperation with others outside of the community? 16. What do you think the Open-ended with governments/companies/organisations’ prompts role is in Buen Vivir? 17. Do you think about what the government is Open-ended with doing to achieve Buen Vivir? prompts 18. What do you think are the challenges to Open-ended with achieving Buen Vivir? Why? prompts 19. Which age group are you in: 18-30, 31-45, Personal detail 45-60, over 60? 20. Where are you from? Do you identify as Personal detail Indigenous? Mestizo? Other?

203

Semi-Structured Interview Schedule Example – Civil Society Organisations Question # Question description Purpose 1. What is your name? Personal detail 2. What is your job/role? If you Personal detail could, could you please describe a typical day for you? 3. How would you describe Buen Open-ended with prompts Vivir? What does Buen Vivir mean to you? What is most important for Buen Vivir? 4. Can you tell me what your Open-ended with prompts organisation is doing to help achieve Buen Vivir and improve wellbeing? 5. Do you believe the community Open-ended with prompts has a good level of social and environmental wellbeing? 6. What is done in the community to Open-ended with prompts achieve Buen Vivir? Who does it? What about government? Can you give me some examples? 7. What else do you think can be Open-ended with prompts done/what does the community need to improve wellbeing and the environment in the community? How do you come to that conclusion? Who provides that? What is the role of community members? What do you think is the role of government? 8. Are the needs of the community Open-ended with prompts considered? If so, how is this done/how do you work with communities? 9. Do you know if Buen Vivir is Open-ended with prompts measured in some way? If so, do you think this is effective? If yes, why? If not, what, in your opinion can be done to understand if Buen Vivir has been achieved?

204

Do you know if the communities themselves have some way of monitoring if Buen Vivir is achieved? What do you think should be monitored? 10. What does Pachamama mean to Open-ended with prompts you? How important is the environment to you? 11. What role do natural resources Open-ended with prompts play? How are they used? Are there limits to their usage? If so, what are the limits? What are organisations like yours doing to protect the environment? How does this contribute to Buen Vivir? 12. What about mining, forestation, Open-ended with prompts and other extraction, what do you think about what they are doing? Why? What does this mean for Buen Vivir and wellbeing? 13. Do you think community members Open-ended with prompts working collectively can themselves work towards Buen Vivir? Does your organisation have a role to play in assisting communities to do that? 14. What do you think the Open-ended with prompts governments/extractive companies’ role is in Buen Vivir? 15. Do you think about what the Open-ended with prompts government is doing to achieve Buen Vivir? 16. What do you think are the Open-ended with prompts challenges to achieving Buen Vivir? Why? 17. How do you think community Open-ended with prompts members working collectively can themselves work towards Buen

205

Vivir? Should there be cooperation with others outside of the community? 18. Which age group are you in: 18- Personal detail 30, 31-45, 45-60, over 60? 19. Where are you from? Do you Personal detail identify as Indigenous? Mestizo? Other?

206

Semi-Structured Interview Schedule Example – Government Question # Question description Purpose 1. What is your name? Personal detail 2. If you could, could you please Personal detail describe a typical day for you? What do you do for a living? 3. How would you describe Buen Open-ended with prompts Vivir? What does Buen Vivir mean to you? What is most important for Buen Vivir? 4. Do you believe the community Open-ended with prompts has a good level of social and environmental wellbeing? 5. What is done in the community Open-ended with prompts to achieve Buen Vivir? Who does it? What about local organisations? Can you give me some examples? 6. What else do you think can be Open-ended with prompts done/what does the community need to improve wellbeing in the community? How do you come to that conclusion? Who provides that? What is the role of community members? What is the role of government/your role? 7. Are the needs of the Open-ended with prompts community considered? If so, how is this done/how do you work with communities? 8. Do you know if Buen Vivir is Open-ended with prompts measured in some way? If so, do you think this is effective? If yes, why? If not, what, in your opinion can be done to understand if Buen Vivir has been achieved? Do you know if the communities themselves have some way of monitoring if

207

Buen Vivir is achieved? What do you think should be monitored? 9. What does Pachamama mean Open-ended with prompts to you? 10. How important is the Open-ended with prompts environment to you? 11. What role do natural resources Open-ended with prompts play? How are they used? Are there limits to their usage? If so, what are the limits? 12. What is the government doing Open-ended with prompts to protect the environment? How does this contribute to Buen Vivir? 13. What do you think about what Open-ended with prompts mining, forestry, and other extractive activities? Why? What does this mean for Buen Vivir and wellbeing? 14. How do you think community Open-ended with prompts members working collectively can themselves work towards Buen Vivir? Should there be cooperation with others outside of the community? 15. Do you think about what the Open-ended with prompts government is doing to achieve Buen Vivir? 16. What do you think are the Open-ended with prompts challenges to achieving Buen Vivir? Why? 17. Which age group are you in: Personal detail 18-30, 31-45, 45-60, over 60? 18. Where are you from? Do you Personal detail identify as Indigenous? Mestizo? Other?

208

Example Interview Schedule (Spanish) Entrevista de mi-estructurada Ejemplo Comunidad Pregenital # Descripción/Pregunta Propósito 1. -¿Cuál es tu nombre detalle personal 2. Si pudieras, ¿podría describir un día típico Detalle para ti / ¿Qué se hace para ganarse la vidapersonal? 3. ¿Cómo describiría buen vivir? ¿Qué Composición abierta con quiere decir buen vivir para usted? ¿Qué indicaciones es más importante para el buen vivir? 4. ¿Cree usted que la comunidad tiene un Composición abierta con buen nivel de bienestar social y indicaciones ambiental? 5. Lo que se hace en la comunidad para Composición abierta con lograr buen vivir? ¿Quién lo hace? ¿Qué indicaciones pasa con las organizaciones locales? ¿Me puede dar algunos ejemplos?

6. ¿Qué otra cosa crees que se puede hacer Composición abierta con / qué hace la comunidad la necesidad de indicaciones mejorar el bienestar y el medio ambiente en la comunidad? ¿Cómo se llega a esa conclusión? ¿Quién establece que? ¿Cuál es el papel de los miembros de la comunidad? ¿Cuál cree usted que es el papel del gobierno? 7. ¿Qué tan importante es la comunidad para Composición abierta con usted / ¿qué significa comunidad para ti? indicaciones 8. ¿Qué tipo de cosas es lo que haces en indefinido con casa para garantizar Buen Vivir y cómo indicaciones piensa usted que contribuyen a la comunidad? 9. ¿Cómo se sabe cuando se logra buen Composición abierta con vivir? ¿Cómo saber lo que se debe indicaciones mejorar? 10. ¿Qué significa la pachamama para usted? Composición abierta con indicaciones 11. ¿Qué tan importante es el medio ambiente Indefinido con para usted? ¿Qué importancia tiene en el indicaciones bienestar de la comunidad?

209

12. ¿Qué papel juegan los recursos Composición abierta con naturales? ¿Cómo se usan? ¿Hay límites indicaciones a su uso? Si es así, ¿cuáles son los límites? 13. ¿Qué está haciendo la comunidad para Composición abierta con proteger el medio ambiente? ¿Cómo indicaciones contribuye esto al buen vivir? 14. ¿Qué pasa con la minería, la forestación y Indefinido con otra extracción, ¿qué piensa usted acerca indicaciones de lo que están haciendo? Por Qué? ¿Qué significa esto para buen vivir? 15. ¿Cómo cree usted que los miembros de la Composición abierta con comunidad que trabajan en conjunto indicaciones puede trabajar por sí buen vivir? ¿Debería haber una cooperación con otras personas fuera de la comunidad? 16. ¿Qué crees que el papel de los gobiernos Composición abierta con / empresas / organizaciones está en buen indicaciones vivir? 17. ¿Cree usted acerca de lo que el gobierno composición abierta con es haciendo para lograr buen vivir? indicaciones 18. ¿Qué cree usted que son los desafíos participación abierta con para lograr buen vivir? ? Por qué indicaciones 19. ¿Qué grupo de edad está en: 18-30, 31- detalle personal 45, 45-60, más del 60 20. De dónde es usted? ¿Te identificas como detalle Personal indígenas? Mestizo? Otro

210

Entrevista semi-estructurada Ejemplo - Sociedad Civil Organizaciones Pregunta # Descripción Pregunta Propósito 1. ¿Cuál es su nombre? personal detalle 2. ¿Cuál es tu trabajo / Si pudieras, Detalle Personal ¿podría describir un día típico para usted? 3. ¿Cómo describiría buen vivir? Composición abierta con ¿Qué quiere decir buen vivir para indicaciones usted? ¿Qué es más importante para el buen vivir? 4. ¿Me puede decir lo que su Composición abierta con organización está haciendo para indicaciones ayudar a lograr Buen Vivir y mejorar el bienestar? 5. ¿Cree que la comunidad tiene un composición abierta con buen nivel de bienestar social y indicaciones ambiental? 6. Lo que se hace en la comunidad Composición abierta con para lograr buen vivir? ¿Quién lo indicaciones hace? ¿Qué pasa con el gobierno? ¿Me puede dar algunos ejemplos? 7. ¿Qué más crees que se puede De composición abierta con hacer / qué hace la comunidad la indicaciones necesidad de mejorar el bienestar y el medio ambiente en la comunidad? ¿Cómo se llega a esa conclusión? ¿Quién establece que? ¿Cuál es el papel de los miembros de la comunidad? ¿Cuál cree usted que es el papel del gobierno? 8. ¿Las necesidades de la Indefinido con indicaciones comunidad consideran? Si es así, ¿cómo se hace esto / ¿cómo se trabaja con las comunidades? 9. ¿Sabes si buen vivir se mide de Composición abierta con alguna manera? Si es así, ¿crees indicaciones que esto es eficaz? Si es así,

211

¿por qué? Si no es así, lo que, en su opinión se puede hacer para entender si buen vivir se ha logrado? ¿Sabes si las propias comunidades tienen alguna forma de supervisión si se logra buen vivir? ¿Qué crees que debe ser monitoreado? 10. ¿Qué significa la pachamama Composición abierta con para usted? ¿Qué tan importante indicaciones es el medio ambiente para usted? 11. ¿Qué papel juegan los recursos Composición abierta con naturales? ¿Cómo se usan? ¿Hay indicaciones límites a su uso? Si es así, ¿cuáles son los límites? ¿Cuáles son las organizaciones como la suya haciendo para proteger el medio ambiente? ¿Cómo contribuye esto al buen vivir? 12. ¿Qué pasa con la minería, la Indefinido con indicaciones forestación y otra de extracción, ¿qué es lo que usted piensa acerca de lo que están haciendo? ¿Por qué? ¿Qué significa esto para vivir buen y el bienestar? 13. ¿Cree usted que los miembros de Composición abierta con la comunidad que trabajan en indicaciones conjunto puede trabajar por sí buen vivir? ¿Su organización tiene un papel que desempeñar para ayudar a las comunidades a hacer eso? 14. ¿Qué crees que el papel de los Con indicaciones de gobiernos / empresas extractivas composición abierta está en buen vivir? 15. ¿Cree usted acerca de lo que el Composición abierta con gobierno está haciendo para indicaciones lograr buen vivir?

212

16. ¿Qué cree usted que son los De composición abierta con desafíos para lograr buen vivir? indicaciones ¿Por qué? 17. ¿Cómo cree usted que los de composición abierta con miembros de la comunidad que indicaciones trabajan en conjunto puede trabajar por sí buen vivir? En caso de que haya cooperación con otras personas fuera de la comunidad? 18. ¿Qué grupo de edad se Detalle Personal encuentra usted 18-30, 31-45, 45-60, más del 60 19. ¿De dónde eres? ¿Te identificas Detalle personal como indígenas? Mestizo? Otro

213

Semi-estructurada Entrevista Ejemplo -Gobierno Pregunta # Descripción Pregunta Propósito 1. ¿Cuál es su nombre? Detalle personal 2. Si pudieras, ¿podría describir un Detalle Personal día típico para ¿Qué haces para ganarte la vida? 3. ¿Cómo describiría buen vivir? Composición abierta con ¿Qué quiere decir buen vivir para indicaciones usted? ¿Qué es más importante para el buen vivir? 4. ¿Cree usted que la comunidad Composición abierta con tiene un buen nivel de bienestar indicaciones social y ambiental? 5. Lo que se hace en la comunidad Composición abierta con para lograr buen vivir? ¿Quién lo indicaciones hace? ¿Qué pasa con las organizaciones locales? ¿Me puede dar algunos ejemplos? 6. ¿Qué otra cosa crees que se puede Composición abierta con hacer / qué hace la comunidad la indicaciones necesidad de mejorar el bienestar de la comunidad? ¿Cómo se llega a esa conclusión? ¿Quién establece que? ¿Cuál es el papel de los miembros de la comunidad? ¿Cuál es el papel del gobierno / su papel? 7. ¿Las necesidades de la comunidad Indefinido con indicaciones considerados? Si es así, ¿cómo se hace esto / ¿cómo se trabaja con las comunidades? 8. ¿Sabes si buen vivir se mide de Con indicaciones de alguna manera? Si es así, ¿crees composición abierta que esto es eficaz? Si es así, ¿por qué? Si no es así, lo que, en su opinión se puede hacer para entender si buen vivir se ha logrado? ¿Sabes si las propias comunidades tienen alguna forma

214

de supervisión si se logra buen vivir? ¿Qué crees que debe ser monitoreado? 9. ¿Qué significa pachamama para Composición abierta con usted? indicaciones 10. ¿Qué tan importante es el medio Composición abierta con ambiente para usted? indicaciones 11. ¿Qué papel juegan los recursos Composición abierta con naturales ? ¿Cómo se usan? ¿Hay indicaciones límites a su uso? Si es así, ¿cuáles son los límites? 12. ¿Qué está haciendo el gobierno Indefinido con indicaciones para proteger el medio ambiente? ¿Cómo contribuye esto al buen vivir? 13. ¿Qué piensa usted acerca de lo Indefinido con indicaciones que las actividades extractivas mineras, forestales y otras? Por Qué? ¿Qué significa esto para vivir buen y el bienestar? 14. ¿Cómo cree usted que los Composición abierta con miembros de la comunidad que indicaciones trabajan en conjunto puede trabajar por sí buen vivir? ¿Debería haber una cooperación con otras personas fuera de la comunidad? 15. Te ha gustado lo que el gobierno Composición abierta con está haciendo para lograr buen indicaciones vivir? 16. ¿Cuáles cree usted que son los participación abierta con desafíos para lograr Buen Vivir ? ? indicaciones Por qué 17. ¿Qué grupo de edad está en: 18- detalle personal 30, 31-45, 45-60, más del 60 18. De dónde es usted? ¿Te identificas Detalle Personal como indígenas? Mestizo? Otro?

215

Appendix 2: Themes identified by empirical research

The table below demonstrates the themes emerging from the empirical findings that helped address the gaps in the literature. The columns are broken down into first level themes. Vivir Bien exists as a first level theme but was one of the most significant findings of the empirical research.

Vivir Buen Vivir Extractivism Bien Achievement of Alternatives to extractivism Criteria Challenges90 Artisan handicrafts Awareness Knowledge Capabilities Yachay competition Local small-scale agriculture Consumerism Renewable energy projects Conviviality Technology Cooperation Tourism Decent education As a global problem Decent work As a short-term solution Communities threatened by Distribution extractivism Economic growth Dependency Economic system Economic aspects Environmental challenges And consumerism Extractivism Life cycle of products Importance of education Extractive companies Individualism And rights Infrastructure Free prior consent Mindset Consultation Modernity Social licence to operate Participation CSR Politics Violence Population Extractivism as a necessity Poverty Impacts Power Awareness of Impacts Resources Biodiversity Strengthening organisations Climate change Transformation Adaption Understanding of community reality Contamination

90 The literature discussed that there are challenges to achieving BV, but did not detail what the concrete challenges were.

216

Understanding what BV is Culture Actors Deforestation Academics Different stories Communities Economic Cooperation between actors Livelihoods Inter-communal Environmental destruction International action Food security Government Health Local government Human caused impacts Organisations Human rights Principles91 Inequality Access to education Land Culture Land appropriation Economic Legacy Decent work Poverty Local trade Quality of life Non-material wealth Resource curse Environment92 Security Pachamama Social impacts Family Urbanisation Good health Water Happiness International organisations role Human rights Need for awareness or education Leisure Need for change Participation Options Peace Policy for Self-determination Transition Personal development Power Solidarity Responsibility BV as a political slogan Types of extractive activities Impact of globalisation on BV Unsustainabiility Local management of resources Use of natural resources Needs Conservation Basic Needs Exportation Clean water Intergenerational sustainability Food Limits Shelter Management of by communities

91 This pertains to the particular principles that were only found empirically. 92 A distinction was made between environment and Pachamama.

217

Top-down imposition of needs Modernity Practices Nature-society continuum Alternatives Role of women Capacity building Using only what is needed Community

Cultural conservation

Dialogue

Education

Environmental

Family

Food

Indigenous practices

Information sharing

Leisure

Local development initiatives

Organic farming

Participation

Security

Social organisation & cohesion

Solidarity economy

Role of organisations

Role of community

Change in practices

Role of government

Bureaucracy

Corruption

Difference between policy and practice

Government policy & regulations

Guarantee rights

Inequality

Local government

Out of touch with reality

Participation

Political will

Repression of peoples

Revolution

Rights of nature

Social impacts of politics

218

Wealth redistribution

Role of technology

Role of the media

Freedom of expression

Independent media

Social media

State media

Role of Women

State of consciousness

Tensions between actors

Social movements

Transformation

Urbanism

Utopia

219

Appendix 3: Breakdown analysis of Buen Vivir principles (empirical data)

220

221

The following table is a summary of the core principles by number of total data sources. The data included 30 principles mentioned across all methods, and not all of these principles were deemed as material. There were two criteria for inclusion as a core principle: 1) the principle must have been present in at least two of the three data methods and; 2) that must include sources from the interviews.

Core Principles Documents Interview Observations Total by sources Community cohesion and solidarity 3 20 0 23 Food security 3 6 9 18 Economic 2 16 0 18 Harmony 2 16 0 18 Environment 3 10 2 15 Happiness 6 8 0 14 Good health 2 8 3 13 Reciprocity 3 10 0 13 Self-determination and participation 5 5 0 10 Family 2 6 1 9 Non-material wealth 1 8 0 9 Human rights 1 7 0 8 Respect 2 5 0 7 Culture 0 5 0 5 Education 1 3 0 4 Leisure 0 3 1 4

222

Figure 2: Coded relationships between principles: all data sources

223

Appendix 4: Coding frameworks for literature and empirical data

Literature Review Codebook Name Sources References Alternatives to development 12 22 and participation 1 1 as opposed to alternative development 5 7 Capabilities 4 6 contrary to the economic growth model of 8 20 development Degrowth 12 22 human development 7 9 human scale development 1 3 need to go beyond GDP 5 5 Buen Vivir 9 11 21st century socialism 10 13 and needs 14 36 as a driver of sustainability 6 14 as a post-development solution 11 19 biocentric as opposed to anthropocentric 7 14 Capacities 3 4 challenges as a concrete proposal 16 26 critiques of 4 4 current practice of 9 10 definitions of 14 22 Bolivian and Ecuadorian differences 6 11 political ideology of 17 25 worldview of 11 17 similarities between different indigenous 9 13 worldviews solidarity economy 14 26 endogenous development and 13 26 history of 7 10 importance of community 9 10 importance of decolonisation 8 10 indicators and measurement 7 22 indigenous cosmovision 15 28 indigenous peoples 7 9 main aspects 6 7 Community 7 8 Complementarity 11 14 concept under construction 10 12 Culture 5 6 decolonisation of knowledge and power 5 7 Dignity 2 2 equal opportunity 2 2

224

Equality 2 2 food sovereignty 8 12 Freedom 2 2 Harmony 2 5 Justice 2 2 Labour 1 1 living well not living better 7 9 nature society dualism 6 6 non-linear process 9 14 Pachamama 10 14 Plurality 18 34 or cooperation of knowledges 5 9 quality of life 3 4 Reciprocity 20 34 Respect 2 2 Responsibility 1 1 sustainable use of resources 6 10 Transparency 1 1 Unity 1 1 Wellbeing 13 25 modernisation and 9 15 not returning to past 6 9 Ontology 2 2 policy and institutions 18 38 contradiction between policy and practice 14 21 redistribution of wealth 3 10 reordering production reproduction and 5 8 economy role of institutions 12 26 political ideology of 0 0 proposal as an alternative 19 37 rights of nature 15 25 rural development 1 2 use beyond indigenous context 8 8 use in different contexts 1 1 Development 3 3 and Buen Vivir 7 12 and Latin America 4 7 and needs 1 1 and sustainable development 1 1 and underdevelopment 2 3 change resistance and status quo 2 4 critiques of 15 25 dependency theory 2 2 history of 8 13 myth of progress 4 5 Poverty and 5 6

225

Extractivism 6 11 and capitalism 4 6 natural resources as commodities 13 16 and neoextractivism 13 27 challenges for Buen Vivir 8 15 challenges for sustainability 1 2 economic diversification 1 1 environmental impacts 7 10 history of in Latin America 5 6 nature subordinate to human beings 1 3 paradox of plenty 1 1 post-extractivism 3 4 social impacts 3 3 Participation 3 9 and decentralised development policy 5 13 endogenous development and 3 3 in the Latin American context 0 0 participatory development 2 5 the importance of in Buen Vivir 12 18 Post-development 4 4 biocentrism as opposed to anthropocentrism 1 4 critiques of 2 4 failure of neoliberal development 12 15 history of 1 1 how to achieve 2 5 justification for 3 3 limits of nature or development 6 8 post-structuralism 2 2 role of academia 2 2 the importance of knowledge 1 1 vs neoliberalism 1 1 what is 2 3 Sustainable development 6 9 and Buen Vivir 1 1 definition of 0 0 green economy 2 2 critiques of 8 11 history of 4 4 satisfaction of needs 1 1 what does it mean 3 4 why we need an alternative to 8 12

226

Empirical Data Codebook

Name Sources References Buen Vivir 14 14 Achievement of 19 65 Challenges 9 13 Awareness 3 6 Capabilities 3 3 Competition 2 5 Consumerism 13 32 Conviviality 4 4 Cooperation 3 4 Decent education 2 2 Decent work 1 1 Distribution 4 4 Economic growth 3 6 Economic system 7 14 Environmental challenges 4 6 Extractivism 6 8 Importance of education 13 26 Individualism 3 5 Infrastructure 1 3 Mindset 4 6 Modernity 1 1 Participation 5 16 Politics 5 11 Population 1 1 Poverty 2 2 Power 2 3 Resources 6 8 Strengthening organisations 5 7 Transformation 1 1 Understanding of community reality 1 1 Understanding what BV is 11 22 Actors 1 1 Academics 7 8 Communities 13 24 Cooperation between actors 30 81 Inter-communal 5 5 International action 18 29 Government 10 11 Local government 12 26 Organisations 27 64 As an alternative to development 8 14 As sumak kawsay 22 71 Aspects 2 3 Access to education 4 4 Community 15 29 Culture 5 6 Economic 7 10 Decent work 10 14 Local trade 1 3 Non-material wealth 4 7 Environment 12 21 Pachamama 5 9 Water quality 3 4 Equality 4 7 Family 9 13

227

Food security 18 27 Good health 13 20 Happiness 15 39 Harmony 21 36 Human rights 4 7 Leisure 4 4 Most important aspect 9 10 Politics 1 1 Quality of life 3 5 Reciprocity 13 17 Respect 7 12 Self-determination and participation 9 12 Personal development 3 3 Solidarity 8 15 Spirituality 6 9 Wellbeing 5 8 BV as a political slogan 24 48 Description or definition 19 42 Concept under construction 5 8 Academic and political contribution 2 7 Contested definitions 27 53 Endogenous development 4 7 Grassroots change 6 6 Ideology 6 13 Impacts of globalisation on BV 6 10 Importance of others knowledge 2 3 Importance of the environment 19 30 Pachamama or naturaleza 23 57 Indigenous origins 15 45 Local management of resources 2 2 Measurement 24 79 Needs 20 73 Basic Needs 15 23 Clean water 4 4 Food 1 1 Shelter 2 2 Top-down imposition of needs 7 8 Practices 4 4 Alternatives 18 28 Capacity building 15 17 Community 16 29 Cultural conservation 32 34 Dialogue 8 10 Education 15 18 Environmental 53 93 Family 2 4 Food 4 12 Indigenous practices 33 40 Information sharing 24 30 Leisure 3 7 Local development initiatives 19 23 Organic farming 23 34 Participation 26 65 Security 1 2 Social organisation & cohesion 6 14 Solidarity economy 53 71 Return to the past 3 3 Role of organisations 14 25

228

Role of community 23 64 Change in practices 9 17 Meaning of community 4 5 Role of government 37 106 Bureaucracy 2 2 Corruption 1 1 Difference between policy and practice 21 43 Government policy and regulations 26 51 Guarantee rights 10 14 Inequality 2 4 Local government 47 130 Out of touch with reality 3 4 Participation 20 74 Political will 1 1 Repression of peoples 13 39 Revolution 3 4 Rights of nature 14 18 Social impacts of politics 1 1 Wealth redistribution 5 6 Role of technology 4 4 Role of the media 6 8 Freedom of expression 3 3 Independent media 2 2 Social media 0 0 State media 2 2 Role of Women 9 13 State of consciousness 2 3 Tensions between actors 37 112 Social movements 23 53 Transformation 6 7 Urbanism 3 5 Utopia 10 29 Wellbeing 12 30 Environmental wellbeing 8 8 Social wellbeing 10 14 Conversation 20 45 Development 8 25 Alternatives to development 12 20 Climate change 19 27 Consequences of development 11 18 Degrowth 2 4 Dualism 1 1 Ecofeminism 1 1 Environmental Impacts 2 2 Globalisation 3 3 Growth 3 6 Human Development 3 3 Impacts from colonisation 3 3 International Law 6 8 Local development 1 1 Not working 13 21 Poverty 9 12 Sustainable development 12 18 Ecuador 8 8 Cotacachi County 16 48 Extractivism 8 9 Alternatives to extractivism 22 35 Artisan handicrafts 14 14

229

Knowledge 6 8 Yachay 5 8 Local small-scale agriculture 27 31 Renewable energy projects 15 31 Technology 2 2 Tourism 36 56 As a global problem 2 4 As a short-term solution 3 4 Communities threatened by extractivism 18 30 Dependency 8 18 Economic aspects 7 12 And consumerism 4 6 Life cycle of products 2 3 Extractive companies 3 5 And rights 1 1 Free prior consent 4 4 Consultation 4 4 Social licence to operate 9 11 CSR 3 3 Violence 4 6 Extractivism as a necessity 17 20 History of 2 2 Impacts 23 35 Awareness of Impacts 0 0 Biodiversity 4 4 Climate change 1 1 Adaption 0 0 Contamination 4 6 Culture 1 1 Deforestation 2 2 Different stories 1 1 Economic 4 4 Livelihoods 1 1 Environmental destruction 9 11 Food security 3 4 Health 6 6 Human caused impacts 1 1 Human rights 3 4 Inequality 1 1 Land 3 3 Land appropriation 4 5 Legacy 3 3 Poverty 1 2 Quality of life 2 5 Resource curse 0 0 Security 1 1 Social impacts 11 20 Urbanisation 0 0 Water 11 19 Incompatibility with Buen Vivir 14 23 International organisations 4 4 Neo-extractivism 16 26 Opposition to 44 108 Post-extractivism 4 5 Contradictions in policy 3 4 Need for awareness or education 1 2 Need for change 11 25 Options 2 3

230

Policy for 4 4 Transition 1 1 Power 14 35 Responsibility 10 24 Role of government 19 35 Education 1 1 Exploration permits 3 7 Local government 5 8 Productive matrix 3 3 Regulations 8 8 Taxes 1 2 Types of extractive activities 24 36 Unsustainability 9 9 Use of natural resources 8 8 Commercialisation of 7 7 Conservation 1 1 Exportation 5 8 Intergenerational sustainability 4 6 Limits 16 39 Management of by communities 3 4 Modernity 1 1 Nature-society continuum 3 8 Needed to achieve BV 4 7 Role of women 1 1 Using only what is needed 10 25 Gold dust 14 28 Interview quotes 22 168 New Findings 14 33 Vignettes 23 47 Vivir Bien 21 68 Criteria 1 1

231

Appendix 5: Example of Coding

*Identifiers have been removed.

232

Appendix 6: Ethics approval statement

233

Appendix 7: Ecuadorian government principles for Buen Vivir The Correa government outlined its principles in the PNBV 2009-2013 to help support its policy93. These include: • Unity in diversity • Human beings who seek to live in society • Equality, integration and social cohesion • Complying with universal rights and promoting human capabilities • Harmonious relations with nature • Fraternal, cooperative and solidarity-based coexistence • Liberating work and free time • Rebuilding the public sphere • Representative, participative and deliberative democracy • A democratic, plural and secular state.

Ecuador’s new government led under President Lenin Moreno has outlined the following further principles for BV policy 2017-2021: • Social and economic justice • Participatory democracy • Intergenerational justice • Transnational justice • Social equality and equity • A society of full capabilities, emancipation and autonomy • A co-responsible and proactive society • A society in harmony with nature • The primacy of superior goods • A society of excellence • A plural, participative and self-determined society • Sovereignty and integration of peoples • A Democratic, plurinational and secular state • The strengthening of society

93 These principles were part of the analysis of the literature as discussed in chapter Two.

234

References

Acosta A. (2010) Toward the universal declaration of rights of nature. Thoughts for action. AFESE Journal 24: 1-17. Acosta A. (2012) The buen vivir: An opportunity to imagine another world. accessed at http://www.br.boell.org/downloads/Democracy_Inside_A_Champion.pdf#page=194. Acosta A. (2013) Extractivism and neoextractivism: Two sides of the same coin. Beyond development: Alternative visions from latin america (Fundacion Rosa Lumxemburg, Quito, Ecuador). Agostino A. and Dübgen F. (2012) Buen vivir and beyond. address to the Degrowth Conference, Real Utopias. From Solidarity Economy to the 'Buen Vivir’ Venice, Italy 2012. Alcalde de cotacachi dice estar en desacuerdo con el gobierno. (2015). La Hora Nacional. Altieri M.A. and Masera O. (1993) Sustainable rural development in latin america - building from the bottom up. Ecological Economics 7: 93-121. Álvarez S. (2013) Sumak kawsay o buen vivir como alternativa al desarrollo en ecuador. Aplicación y resultados en el gobierno de rafael correa (2007-2011). Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Álvarez S.G. (2013) Qué es el sumak kawsay o buen vivir. In Álvarez S.G. (Ed.). Economia y buen vivir (Eumed, Malaga). Arsel M. and Angel N.A. (2012) "Stating" nature's role in ecuadorian development: Civil society and the yasuni-itt initiative. Journal of Developing Societies 28: 203-27. Assembly U.G. (1948) Universal declaration of human rights. UN General Assembly. Atkinson G., et al. (2007) Handbook of sustainable development(Edward Elgar, Cheltenham). Australian Unity. (2016) Australian wellbeing index accessed at https://www.australianunity.com.au/media-centre/news-and-media/australian-unity-wellbeing- index-2016. Avci D. (2012) Politics of resistence against mining: A comparative study of conflicts in intag, ecuador and ida, turkey(International Institute of Social Sciences, The Netherlands). Bebbington A. and Bebbington D.H. (2009) Actores y ambientalismos: Conflictos socio-ambientales en perú1. ÍCONOS 35: 117-28. Bebbington A. and Bury J. (2013) New geographies of extractive industries in latin america. In Bebbington A. and Bury J. (Eds.). Subterranean struggles : New dynamics of mining, oil, and gas in latin america (Austin : University of Texas Press, 2013.). Benedetta C. and Margherita G. (2013) Indigenous voices: Enriching contaminations between buen vivir, ubuntu and the western world. address to the The 25th EAEPE annual Conference Paris 2013. Bolaños V. (2012) Organizaciones sociales: Actores del cambio más allá del gobierno. Corriente Alterna (Fundación Terranueva, Quito). Bold V. (2007) Cotacachi actualiza su plan cantonal de turismo. Periódico Intag (Cotacachi, Ecuador). Boulding C. and Wampler B. (2010) Voice, votes, and resources: Evaluating the effect of participatory democracy on well-being. World development 38: 125-35. Bowell T. Feminist standpoint theory, University of Tennessee, (15 August 2018). Braun V. and Clarke V. (2013) Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners (Sage. Bullard N. (2011) It's too late for sustainability. What we need is system change. Development 54: 141-2. Cabannes Y. (2004) Participatory budgeting: A significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environment and Urbanization 16: 27-46. Camfield L. (2014) Qualitative indicators of development. In Michalos A.C. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht). Caria S. and Domínguez R. (2016) Ecuador’s buen vivir a new ideology for development. Latin American Perspectives 43: 18-33. Carson R. (1962) Silent spring (Fawcett Publications, Greenwich, Conn.). Carvalho G.O. (2001) Sustainable development: Is it achievable within the existing international political economy context? Sustainable Development 9: 61-73. Casas T. (2014). American Behavioural Scientist 58: 30. Caseli I. (2013) Ecuador: Stability but at what price? BBC News (BBC, Quito). Cerdán P. (2013) Post-development and buen vivir: An approach to development from latin-america. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences 10: 15-24.

235

Cianchi J.P. (2013) I talked to my tree and my tree talked back. University of Tasmania University of Tasmania Clayton S.D. (2012) The oxford handbook of environmental and conservation psychology (Oxford University Press. Cobey R. (2012) Living the good life? An analysis of ecuador's "plan nacional para el buen vivir" development model as an alternative to a neoliberal global framework. M.A. East Carolina University Ann Arbor, East Carolina University. Coffrey G. (2014) Enemy of the state: The battle over sustainable development in intag, ecuador, Upside Down World, accessed at http://upsidedownworld.org/main/news-briefs-archives- 68/4644-enemy-of-the-state-the-battle-over-sustainable-development-in-intag-ecuador (10 January 2015 2015). Connelly S. (2007) Mapping sustainable development as a contested concept. Local Environment 12: 259-78. Constitución de la república del ecuador (2008). In Constituyente A.N. (Ed.)(Quito). Consulta 2018: Resultados a nivel nacional. (2018). El Universo (Quito, Ecuador). Cooksey R.W. and McDonald G.M. (2011) Surviving and thriving in postgraduate research (Tilde Univ Press, Prahran, Vic.). Cordaid (2012) Buen vivir, the good life (imagining sustainability - 6), CIDSE, accessed at http://www.cidse.org/articles/rethinking-development/growth-and-sustainability/buen-vivir-the- good-life-imagining-sustainability-6.html (11 December 2013). Cotacachi M.d. (2016) Actualizacion pdyot cotacachi 2015-2035. Creswell J.W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry & research design : Choosing among five approaches. 3rd edn. (SAGE Publications, Los Angeles). Crotty M. (1998) The foundations of social research : Meaning and perspective in the research process (Allen & Unwin, St Leonards, NSW). Cruz I., et al. (2009) Towards a systemic development approach: Building on the human-scale development paradigm. Ecological Economics 68: 2021-30. ¿cuáles son las siete preguntas de la consulta popular y el referéndum en ecuador? (2017). El Universo (Quito, Ecuador). Cubillo-Guevara A.P., et al. (2016) El buen vivir como alternativa al desarrollo para américa latina. Iberoamerican Journal of Development Studies 5: 30-57. Cubillo A.P., et al. (2014) El pensamiento sobre el buen vivir. Entre el indigenismo, el socialismo y el postdesarrollismo. Revista Del CLAD Reforma Y Democracia 60: 27-58. Cummins R. (2000) Personal income and subjective well-being: A review. Journal of Happiness Studies 1: 133-58. D’Amico L. (2011) ‘El agua es vida/water is life’: Community watershed reserves in intag, ecuador, and emerging ecological identities. In Johnston B.R., et al. (Eds.). Water, Cultural Diversity, and Global Environmental Change (Springer, Dordrecht). Dafermos G., et al. (2015) Transforming the energy matrix: Transition policies for the development of the distributed energy model. Journal of Peer Production. Dale A., et al. (2010) Community vitality: The role of community-level resilience adaptation and innovation in sustainable development. Sustainability 2: 215-31. Delgado F., et al. (2010) El desarrollo endógeno sustentable como interfaz para implementar el vivir bien en la gestión pública boliviana (Plural, La Paz). Deneulin S. (2012) Justice and deliberation about the good life: The contribution of latin american buen vivir social movements to the idea of justice. International Development and Well-being (CDS-University of Bath, Bath, UK). Denscombe M. (2007) The good research guide : For small-scale social research projects. 3rd edn. (Open University Press,, Maidenhead, England ; New York). Diener E., et al. (1999) Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological bulletin 125: 276. Dryzek J.S. (1997) The politics of the earth: Environmental discourses (Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York). Dworkin D.M. (1974) Environment and development : Collected papers, summary reports, and recommendations (SCOPE miscellaneous publication, Indianapolis). Ecuador presenta su propuesta para medición del índice de pobreza multidimensional (2015), Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo, accessed at http://www.planificacion.gob.ec/ecuador-presenta-su-propuesta-para-medicion-del-indice-de- pobreza-multidimensional/. Ely M. (1991) Doing qualitative research : Circles within circles (Falmer Press, London).

236

Enlace ciudadano 440, desde quito. (2015). El Comercio (El Comercio). Entre el orgullo y el olvido. (2001). Periódico Intag (Cotacachi, Ecuador). Erlandson D.A. (1993) Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods (Sage. Escobar A. (1992) Reflections on ‘development’: Grassroots approaches and alternative politics in the third world. Futures 24: 411-36. Escobar A. (1995) Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world (new in paper) (Princeton University Press, New Jersey). Escobar A. (2000) Beyond the search for a paradigm? Post-development and beyond. Development 43: 11-4. Escobar A. (2006) Difference and conflict in the struggle over natural resources: A political ecology framework. Development 49: 6-13. Escobar A. (2010) Latin america at a crossroads. Cultural Studies 24: 1-65. Escobar A. (2011) Sustainability: Design for the pluriverse. Development 54: 137-40. Escobar A. (2012) Más allá del desarrollo: Postdesarrollo y transiciones hacia el pluriverso. Revista de Antropología Social 21. Escobar A. and Ciobanu C. (2012) Latin america in a post-development era: An interview with arturo escobar. OpenDemocracy (London). Esteva G. (2010) Development. In Sachs W. (Ed.). The Development Dictionary (Zed Books, Limited Macmillan [Distributor], London, Gordonsville). Esteva G. and Prakash Suri M. (1997) From global thinking to local thinking In Rahnema M. and Bawtree V. (Eds.). The post-development reader (Zed Books, London). Eversole R. (2014) Knowledge partnering for community development (Routledge. Expertos de la onu condenan medidas represivas contra organizaciones de dd hh (2016), UN Office for the High Commissioner on Human Rights, accessed at http://www.ohchr.org/SP/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=21065&LangID=S (28 November 2017). FAO. (2001) The state of food insecurity in the world 2001. accessed. Fatheuer T. (2011) Buen vivir: A brief introduction to latin america's new concepts for the good life and the rights of nature (Heinrich Böll Foundation. Felipe G.O. (2014) Utopías en la era de la supervivencia. Una interpretación del buen vivir(México, ITACA, Disponible en: http://filosofiadelbuenvivir. com/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/Utop% C3% ADas_en_la_era_de_la_supervivencia-1-1. pdf). Freddy ehlers y carolina cestari buscan la felicidad para ecuador y venezuela. (2015). El Comercio (El Comercio). Freddy ehlers: El buen vivir es sinónimo de felicidad. (2015). El Universo (El Universo). Fukuda-Parr S. (2003) The human development paradigm: Operationalizing sen's ideas on capabilities. Feminist economics 9: 301-17. Galeano E. (1997) To be like them. In Rahnema M. and Bawtree V. (Eds.). The post-development reader (Zed Books, London). Garcia Alvarez S. (2013) Sumak kawsay or wellbeing: Perspective and results in ecuador 2007-12. Annual EAEPE Conference (EAEPE, Paris). Garcia E. (2012) Degrowth and buen vivir (living well): A critical comparison. address to the Third International Conference on Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity Venice, Italy 19-23 September 2012 2012. Gardbaum S. (2008) Human rights as international constitutional rights. European Journal of International Law 19: 749-68. Gardner K. and Lewis D. (1996) Anthropology, development and the post-modern challenge (Pluto Press. Gerring J. (2012) Social science methodology : A unified framework / john gerring (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2012. Ghodsee K. (2016) From notes to narrative (University of Chicago Press. Giovanni M. (2013) Social enterprise for buen vivir in chiapas: An alternative to development. In UNRISD (Ed.)(UNRISD, Geneva, Switzerland). Giovannini M. (2012) Social enterprises for development as buen vivir. Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy 6: 284-99. Giovannini M. (2014) Indigenous community enterprises in chiapas: A vehicle for buen vivir? Community Development Journal Advanced access: 1-17. Giovannini M. (2014) Indigenous peoples and self-determined development: The case of community enterprises in chiapas. University of Trento, University of Trento.

237

Giovannini, M 2016, 'Alternatives to development: The contribution of indigenous community enterprises in chiapas', Journal of International Development, 28: 1138– 1154. Glesne C. and Peshkin A. (1992) Becoming qualitative researchers : An introduction (Longman, White Plains, N.Y.). Global vision for a social solidarity economy: Convergences and differences in concepts, definitions and frameworks (2015). accessed at http://www.ripess.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/RIPESS_Vision-Global_EN.pdf. Gobo G. (2008) Doing ethnography (Sage, Los Angeles, Calif. ; London). Gorelik G. and Shackelford T.K. (2017) What is transcendence, how did it evolve, and is it beneficial? Religion, Brain & Behavior 7: 361-5. Granoff I., et al. (2016) Beyond coal: Scaling up clean energy to fight global poverty. accessed. Gualinga C.V. (2002) Visión indígena del desarrollo en la amazonía. Polis. Revista Latinoamericana 3. Guardian T. (2015) Over-population, over-consumption in pictures, The Guardian, accessed at http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals- network/gallery/2015/apr/01/over-population-over-consumption-in-pictures?CMP=soc_567 (6 April 2015). Guardiola J. and García-Quero F. (2014) Buen vivir (living well) in ecuador: Community and environmental satisfaction without household material prosperity? Ecological Economics 107: 177-84. Gudynas E. (2009) Diez tesis urgentes sobre el nuevo extractivismo. Extractivismo, política y sociedad 187-225. Gudynas E. (2010) Si eres tan progresista ¿por qué destruyes la naturaleza?: Neoextractivismo, izquierda y alternativas. Ecuador Debate (CAAP-Quito, Quito, Ecuador). Gudynas E. (2011a) Buen vivir: Germinando alternativas al desarrollo. América Latina en movimiento 462: 1-20. Gudynas E. (2011b) Buen vivir: Today's tomorrow. Development 54: 441-7. Gudynas E. (2013) Debates on development and its alternatives in latin america: A brief heterodox guide. In Lang M and Mokrani D (Eds.). Beyond development (Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.). Gudynas E. (2013) Transitions to post-extractivism: Directions, options and areas of action. In M L. and D M. (Eds.). Beyond development: : Alternative visions from latin america (Fundacion Rosa Luxemburg, Quito, Ecuador). Gudynas E. and Acosta A. (2011) La renovación de la crítica al desarrollo y el buen vivir como alternativa. Utopia y Praxis Latinoamericana: Revista Internacional de Filosofia Iberoamericana y teoria Social 16: 71-83. Guillen-Royo M. (2015) Sustainability and wellbeing: Human-scale development in practice (Routledge, London). Gupta J. and Vegelin C. (2016) Sustainable development goals and inclusive development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 1-16. Hammarskjöld Foundation. (1975) What now – the 1975 dag hammarskjöld report on development and international cooperation. Development Dialogue 2. Handwerker P.W. (2001) Quick ethnography: A guide to rapid multi-method research (Rowman Altamira. Harcourt W. (2013) The future of capitalism: A consideration of alternatives. Cambridge Journal of Economics 38: 1307-28. Harding S. (1991) Whose science? Whose knowledge? Milton keynes(Open University Press). Harding S.G. (2004) The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies (Psychology Press. Harris J.M. (2000) Basic principles of sustainable development. Dimensions of Sustainable Development; Seidler, R., Bawa, KS, Eds 21-41. Haslam P.A., et al. (2012) Introduction to international development : Approaches, actors, and issues(Oxford University Press, Don Mills, Ont.). Hesse-Biber S.N. and Leavy P. (2011) The practice of qualitative research. 2nd edn. (Sage, Los Angeles). Hickel J. (2015) Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries. The Guardian. Hickel J. (2015) The problem with saving the world. The un’s new sustainable development goals aim to save the world without transforming it. Jacobin Magazine. Hidalgo Flor F. (2013) Posneoliberalismo y proceso político en el ecuador. Utopía y Praxis Latinoamericana 18.

238

HidroIntag. (2009) Sustainable hydroelectric generation system in the intag basin. accessed. Hidronangulvi. (2016). accessed at http://www.cotacachi.gob.ec/index.php/component/phocadownload/category/59. Houtart F. (2011) Los indígenas y los nuevos paradigmas del desarrollo humano. In Farah I. and Vasapollo L. (Eds.). Vivir bien:¿ paradigma no capitalista? (CIDES-UMSA, La Paz). Howard J. and Wheeler J. (2015) What community development and citizen participation should contribute to the new global framework for sustainable development. Community Development Journal 50: 552-70. Howarth R.B. (2012) Sustainability, well-being, and economic growth. Journal Center for Humans & Nature 5: 32-9. Huanacuni F. (2010) Buen vivir/vivir bien (Coordinadora Andina de Organizaciones Indígenas, Lima, Peru). Hujo K., et al. (2016) Policy innovations for transformative change: Implementing the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. accessed. Human development index (HDI), accessed at http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development- index-hdi (21 March 2018). IDEA Ecuador, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, accessed at http://www.idea.int/americas/ecuador/ (13 February 2015). IFAD (2014) Profile: Ecuador country programme evaluation, IFAD, (13 February 2015). IFRC. (2010) Climate change facts and figures. accessed at http://www.climatecentre.org/downloads/files/conferences/COP- 16/Fact%20and%20Figures.pdf. Illich I. (1997) Development as planned poverty. In Rahnema M. and Bawtree V. (Eds.). The post- development reader. ILO Decent work, International Labour Organization, accessed at http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/decent-work/lang--en/index.htm (2 June 2016). Inclusive green growth: For the future we want. (2012). In OECD (Ed.)(Paris, France). IPCC. (2015) Climate change 2014 synthesis report. accessed at https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_All_Topics.pdf. Ivonne Cruz. (2011) Human needs frameworks and their contribution as analytical instruments in sustainable development policymaking. In Rauschmayer F., et al. (Eds.). Sustainable development, capabilities, needs and well-being (Routledge, New York). Jackson D. (2015) The role of local governments in the effective implementation of the sustainable development goals(UNCDF). Jackson T. (2011) Prosperity without growth : Economics for a finite planet. Pbk. edn. (Earthscan, London ; Washington, DC). Jackson T., et al. (2008) Beyond insatiability: Needs theory, consumption and sustainability (Elgar Reference Collection, Cheltenham, U.K.). Játiva E. (2004) Organizaciones ambientalistas y communidades luchan juntas contra el problema minero en pacto. Periódico Intag (Cotacachi). Jermier J.M. (1998) Introduction: Critical perspective on organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly 43: 235-56. José Gutiérrez Pérez M.T.P.L. (2006) Using qualitative indicators of sustainability in iberoamerican environmental research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 7. Kauffman C.M. and Martin P.L. (2014) Scaling up buen vivir: Globalizing local environmental governance from ecuador. Global Environmental Politics 14: 40-58. Kawano E. (2013) Social solidarity economy: Toward convergence across continental divides, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, accessed at http://www.unrisd.org/unrisd/website/newsview.nsf/(httpNews)/F1E9214CF8EA21A8C1257B1 E003B4F65?OpenDocument (26 July 2016). Kesebir S. (2016) When economic growth doesn’t make countries happier. Harvard Business Review (Boston, U.S.). Kiely R. (1999) The last refuge of the noble savage? A critical assessment of post‐development theory. The European Journal of Development Research 11: 30-55. King N. and Horrocks C. (2010) Interviews in qualitative research (Sage. Klein N. (2015) This changes everything: Capitalism vs. The climate (Simon and Schuster. Knoblauch H. (2005) Focused ethnography. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung 6: 11p.

239

Kocian M., et al. (2011) An ecological study of ecuador’s intag region: The environmental impacts and potential rewards of mining. accessed at http://www.eartheconomics.org/FileLibrary/file/Reports/Final%20Intag%20Report_lo_res.pdf. Kothari A., et al. (2014) Buen vivir, degrowth and ecological swaraj: Alternatives to sustainable development and the green economy. Development 362-75. Lang M. (2013) Beyond development (Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Quito, Ecuador). Latouche S. (2009) Farewell to growth (Polity Press, Cambridge). Latouche S. (2012) Can the left escape economism? Capitalism Nature Socialism 23: 74-8. Laville E. (2014) Vers une consommation heureuse (Allary Éditions, Paris). Levy-Carciente S., et al. (2014) From progress to happiness: Measurements for latin america. Social Change Review 12. Ley orgánica de tierras rurales y territorios ancestrales república del ecuador national assembly (2016). SAN-2016- 0398 (El Telegrafo, Ecuador). Lincoln Y.S. and Guba E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry (Sage. Lukes S. and Runciman W.G. (1974) Relativism: Cognitive and moral. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes 48: 165-208. Mander J. and Goldsmith E. (2014) The case against the global economy. [electronic resource] : And for a turn towards localization(Hoboken : Taylor and Francis, 2014. Marti I Puig S., et al. (2013) Introducción: El debate del desarrollo. In Marti I Puig S., et al. (Eds.). Entre el desarrollo y el buen vivir: Recursos naturales y conflictos en los territorios indigenas (Catarata, Madrid). Maslow A. and Lewis K.J. (1987) Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Salenger Incorporated 14: 987. Mason J. (2002) Qualitative researching. 2nd edn. (Sage Publications,, London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif.). Max-Neef M.A., et al. (1991) Human scale development: Conception, application and further reflections (The Apex Press. Max-Neef M.A., et al. (1994) Desarrollo a escala humana: Conceptos, aplicaciones y algunas reflexiones (Icaria Editorial. Maxwell S. (1996) Food security: A post-modern perspective. Food Policy 21: 155-70. Meadows D.H. and Club of Rome. (1972) The limits to growth : A report for the club of rome's project on the predicament of mankind (Universe Books, New York). Merino R. (2016) An alternative to ‘alternative development’?: Buen vivir and human development in andean countries. Oxford Development Studies 44: 1-16. Millen D.R. (2000) Rapid ethnography: Time deepening strategies for hci field research. Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques (ACM). Mische P. (1993) Ecological security in an interdependent world. Update on L. Related Educ. 17: 52. Monni S. and Pallottino M. (2015) Beyond growth and development: Buen vivir as an alternative to current paradigms. International Journal of Environmental Policy and Decision Making 1: 184- 204. Morse S. (2008) Post‐sustainable development. Sustainable Development 16: 341-52. Municipio de C. (2015) Plan de desarrollo y de ordenamiento territorial. Municipio de C. (2016) Hidronangulvi. Nachmias C. and Nachmias D. (2008) Research methods in the social sciences (New York : Worth Publishers, 2008. A new global partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development, 2013, High-Level Panel (HLP) of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda United Nations, New York. NHMRC. (2007) Australian code for the responsible conduct of research. In Council N.H.a.M.R. (Ed.)(Australian Government, Canberra, Australia). NHMRC. (2007) National statement on ethical conduct in human research. accessed at https://login.ezproxy.utas.edu.au/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru e&db=cat02831a&AN=UTas.b1492809&site=eds-live. Nussbaum M.C. (2009) Creating capabilities: The human development approach and its implementation. Hypatia 24: 211-5. O'Reilly K. (2009) Key concepts in ethnography (SAGE Publications Ltd, London). OECD. (2013) Education indicators in focus. accessed at https://www.oecd.org/education/skills- beyond-school/EDIF%202013--N%C2%B010%20(eng)--v9%20FINAL%20bis.pdf OECD. (2013) How's life? 2013 OECD Publishing.

240

OECD. (2016) Wgi’s working group on “indicators” CET Highlights from Discussion. Olivera R. (2010) Coffee in the clouds. New Internationalist (New Internationalist, Oxford, UK). Ondrik R.S. (n.d.) Participatory approaches to national development planning. accessed at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEASTASIAPACIFIC/Resources/226262- 1143156545724/Brief_ADB.pdf. Opello W.C. and Rosow S.J. (1999) The nation-state and global order: A historical introduction to contemporary politics (Lynne Rienner Boulder^ eCO CO. Our common future. (1987) (Oxford University Press, London). The paris agreement - status of ratification (2016), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, accessed at http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9444.php (13 September 2016). Patricio moncayo: 'Hablan de matriz productiva, pero recuerdan la devaluación'. (2015). Patterson J., et al. (2015) How can we prevent the UN’s sustainable development goals from failing? The Conversation (Melbourne, Australia). Payne G. and Payne J. (2004) Ethnography. Key concepts in social research. Key concepts in social research. Sage publications, ltd (SAGE Publications, Ltd, London, England). Pennings P., et al. (2006) The comparative approach: Theory and method. Doing research in political science 2 edn. (SAGE Publications Ltd, London). Pepper A. (2017) Beyond anthropocentrism: Cosmopolitanism and nonhuman animals. Global Justice: Theory Practice Rhetoric 9. Perdomo J., et al. (2014) From progress to happiness: Measurements for latin america. Social Change Review 73-112. Phélan C. (2011) Revisión de índices e indicadores de desarrollo: Aportes para la medición del buen vivir (sumak kawsay). OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 6: 69-95. Picken F. (2009) Ethnography. In Walter M. (Ed.). Social research methods (Oxford University Press, Melbourne). Pieterse J.N. (2000) After post-development. Third World Quarterly 21: 175-91. Pink S. and Morgan J. (2013) Short-term ethnography: Intense routes to knowing. Symbolic Interaction 36: 351-61. Plan de desarrollo y de ordenamiento territorial, 2015, Municipio de Cotacachi, Cotacachi, Ecuador. Plan de manejo reserva cotacachi cayapas 2007, 2007, Ministerio del Ambiente, Quito, Ecuador. Prada R. (2011) La revolución mundial del vivir bien. Aportes Andinos 28: 1-3. Prebisch R. (1987) Capitalismo periférico: Crisis y transformación. Sección de Obras de Economía. Preston C.J. (2003) Grounding knowledge(University of Georgia Press, Athens). Psicosocial C.d.I.y.A. (2015) Íntag: Una sociedad que la violencia no puede minar. Informe psicosocial de las afectaciones en íntag provocadas por las empresas mineras y el estado en el proyecto llurimagua. accessed. Radcliffe S.A. (2012) Development for a postneoliberal era? Sumak kawsay, living well and the limits to decolonisation in ecuador. Geoforum 43: 240-9. Rafael correa reforzó el discurso minero en zamora. (2015). El Comercio (El Comercio). Rahnema M. (1997) Towards post-development: Searching for signposts, a new language and new paradigms. Rahnema M. (2010) Poverty. In Sachs W. (Ed.). The development dictionary 2nd ,New Edition edn. (Zed Books, Limited Macmillan [Distributor], London, Gordonsville). Rahnema M. and Bawtree V. (1997) The post-development reader(Zed Books, London, UK). Redclift M. (2002) Sustainable development: Exploring the contradictions (Routledge. Reeves S., et al. (2008) Qualitative research methodologies: Ethnography. Bmj 337. Riera C.M.C. (2008) Valoración jurídico-política de la constitución del 2008. Desafíos constitucionales: la Constitución ecuatoriana del 2008 en perspectiva. Rivera J. (2007) Foro promueve creación de más bosques protectores Periodico Intag (Apuela, Ecuador). Rockström J., et al. (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461: 472. Rogers P.P., et al. (2008) An introduction to sustainable development (Earthscan, London). Rogge M. and Moreno E. (2008) Under rich earth(Rye Cinema, Toronto, Ontario). Royal Government of Bhutan. (2012) Defining a new economic paradigm: The report of the high level meeting on wellbeing and happiness. accessed. Rubio G. (2016) Movemiento ally kawsay. Facebook. Ruttenberg T. (2013) Wellbeing economics and buen vivir: Development alternatives for inclusive human security. Fletcher Journal of Human Security XXVIII: 68-93.

241

Sachs I. (1974) Alternative patterns of development. In Dworkin D.M. (Ed.). Environment and development: Collected papers, summary reports, and recommendations (SCOPE miscellaneous publication, Indianapolis). Sachs J. (2005) The end of poverty: How we can make it happen in our lifetime (Penguin, London). Sachs W. (2009) The development dictionary. 2nd ,New Edition edn. (Zed Books, Limited Macmillan [Distributor], London, Gordonsville). Saltos T. (2008) The participatory budgeting experience cotacachi - ecuador. accessed at http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/244362- 1170428243464/3408356-1194298468208/4357878- 1206561986056/TatyanaSaltosPaperSession3Day2.pdf. Samaniego J. (2012) La sostenibilidad del desarrollo a 20 años de la cumbre para la tierra: Avances, brechas y lineamientos estratégicos para américa latina y el caribe. Samba Sylla N. (2014) Fairtrade is an unjust movement that serves the rich. The Guardian (London). Scarlato M. (2013) Social enterprise, capabilities and development paradigms: Lessons from ecuador. Journal of Development Studies 49: 1270-83. Seamon D. and Harneet G. (2014) Qualitative approaches to environment-behavior research: Understanding environmental and place experiences, meanings, and actio. In Gifford R. (Ed.). Research methods in environment- behavior research (Wiley/Blackwell, New York). Sen A. (2001) Development as freedom (Oxford Paperbacks. Sen A. (2005) Human rights and capabilities. Journal of human development 6: 151-66. SENPLADES. (2009) Plan nacional para el buen vivir 2009-2013 : Construyendo un estado plurinacional e intercultural. In Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo (Ed.)(Quito, Ecuador). SENPLADES. (2009) Plan nacional para el buen vivir 2009-2013 : Construyendo un estado plurinacional e intercultural : Versión resumida. In Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo (Ed.)(Quito, Ecuador). SENPLADES. (2010) 1 agenda zonal para el buen vivir: Propuestas de desarrollo y lineamientos para el ordenamiento territoiral(Quito). SENPLADES. (2013) Plan nacional para el buen vivir 2013-2017 In Secretaría Nacional de Planificación y Desarrollo (Ed.)(Quito, Ecuador). Shiva V. (1988) Staying alive: Women, ecology and development, london: Zedbooks ltd and delhi: Kali for women. Shivastaying alive: Women. Ecology and Development1988. Silverman D. (2010) Doing qualitative research : A practical handbook. 3rd edn. (Sage, London). Smyth L. (2011) Anthropological critiques of sustainable development. Cross-sections 7: 78-85. Sneddon C., et al. (2006) Sustainable development in a post-brundtland world. Ecological Economics 57: 253-68. Stahler-Sholk R., et al. (2008) Latin american social movements in the twenty-first century: Resistance, power, and democracy (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Stevenson A. (2010) Oxford dictionary of english (Oxford University Press), USA. Stewart F. (2013) Capabilities and human development: Beyond the individual-the critical role of social institutions and social competencies. Browser Download This Paper. Stiftung B. (2014) Bti 2014: Ecuador country report, Bertelsmann Stiftung. Sumner A. and Tribe M.A. (2008) International development studies: Theories and methods in research and practice (Sage. Sustainable development challenges. (2013). accessed at http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/wess/wess_current/wess2013/WESS2013.pdf. Svampa M. (2013) Resource extractivism and alternatives: Latin american perspectives on development. In Lang M and Mokrani D (Eds.). Beyond development (Rosa Luxemburg Foundation, Berlin). Swanton C. (1985) On the" essential contestedness" of political concepts. Ethics 95: 811-27. Tesoriero F. and Ife J.W. (2010) Community development : Community-based alternatives in an age of globalisation. 4th edn. (Pearson Australia, Frenchs Forest, N.S.W.). Thomson B. (2011) Pachakuti: Indigenous perspectives, buen vivir, sumaq kawsay and degrowth. Development 54: 448-54. Tituaña A. (2004) Carta del alcalde de cotacachi, auki tituaña, manifestando su rechazo frontal contra actividades mineras en zona de intag, canton de cotacachi. In Chris Werner J.G., Integrantes de la Directiva Ascendant Exploration Ascendant Holdings Ltda. (Ed.)(Mining Watch Canada). Tomlinson K. (2012) The anxieties of engaging in multi-sited phd research: Reflections on researching indigenous rights processes in venezuela. In Coleman S. and von Hellermann P.

242

(Eds.). Multi-Sited Ethnography: Problems and Possibilities in the Translocation of Research Methods (Taylor and Francis, Hoboken). Tortosa J.M. (2011) Vivir bien, buen vivir: Caminar con los dos pies. OBETS. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 6: 13-7. Transition Culture (2012) Alternatives to development: An interview with arturo escobar, Transition Culture, accessed at http://transitionculture.org/2012/09/28/alternatives-to-development-an- interview-with-arturo-escobar/ (13 December 2013). Tripathy D.P. and Patnaik N.K. (1994) Noise pollution in opencast mines - its impact on human environment (AA Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands). U.N. (1992) Agenda 21 (United Nations Dept. of Public Information,, [New York]). Una oportunidad insólita de cambiar el mundo. (2010). Periodico Intag. Unceta Satrustegui K. (2013) Decrecimiento y buen vivir ¿paradigmas convergentes ? Debates sobre el postdesarrollo en europa y américa latina. Revista de Economía Mundial 35. UNDP (2014) Post-2015 development agenda, United Nations Development Programme, accessed at http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/mdg_goals/post-2015- development-agenda/ (1 April 2015). UNEP (n.d.) What is the green economy?, United Nations Environment Programme, accessed at http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/AboutGEI/WhatisGEI/tabid/29784/Default.aspx (1 April 2015). UNFCCC. (1997) Kyoto protocol. accessed. UNGA. (1992) Rio declaration on environment and development. accessed. UNGA. (2015) Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development. In Assembly U.N.G. (Ed.). A/Res/70/1 (United Nations, New York). UNICEF (n.d.) Millennium development goals 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, accessed at http://www.unicef.org/mdg/poverty.html (5 April 2015). Urbina I. (2015) “el extractivismo es autoritario, contaminador, destructor de la naturaleza”. Rebelion. Utting P. (2015) Social and solidarity economy: Beyond the fringe (Zed Books, London). Utting P., et al. (2014) Social and solidarity economy: Is there a new economy in the making? accessed. Van den Bergh J.C. (2011) Environment versus growth—a criticism of “degrowth” and a plea for “a- growth”. Ecological Economics 70: 881-90. Vanhulst J. and Beling A.E. (2013) Buen vivir: La irrupción de américa latina en el campo gravitacional del desarrollo sostenible. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica 21: 1- 14. Vanhulst J. and Beling A.E. (2014) Buen vivir: Emergent discourse within or beyond sustainable development? Ecological Economics 101: 54-63. Vanhulst J. and Beling A.E. (2014) Buen vivir: New wine in old wineskins? In Beling A.E., et al. (Eds.). Alternautus (Re)Searching Development: The Abya Yala Chapter (Alternautus, London, UK). Victor D.G. (2006) Recovering sustainable development. Foreign Affairs 85: 91-103. Villacís M.A., et al. (2015) Alternatives for development or alternatives to development? In Voice S. (Ed.). Southern Voice on post-MDG international development goals (Centre for Policy Dialogue, Dakah Bangladesh). Villalba-Eguiluz C.U. and Etxano I. (2017) Buen vivir vs development (ii): The limits of (neo- )extractivism. Ecological Economics 138: 1-11. Villalba U. (2013) Buen vivir vs development: A paradigm shift in the andes? Third World Quarterly 34: 1427-42. Waldmüller J. (2015) Analysing the spill-over matrix of extractivism: Para-legality, separation and violence to integral health in the ecuadorian íntag. Alternautus (Alternautus, London, UK). Walsh C. (2010) Development as buen vivir: Institutional arrangements and (de)colonial entanglements. Development 53: 15-21. WCED. (1990) Our common future. Australian / edn. (Oxford University Press, Melbourne). Weber H. (2017) Politics of ‘leaving no one behind’: Contesting the 2030 sustainable development goals agenda. Globalizations 14: 399-414. Whitehead M. (2013) Editorial: Degrowth or regrowth? Environmental Values 22: 141-5. Williamson K. (2006) Research in constructivist frameworks using ethnographic techniques. Library trends 55: 83-101. Wiseman J. and Brasher K. (2008) Community wellbeing in an unwell world: Trends, challenges, and possibilities. Journal of Public Health Policy 29: 353-66. Wolcott H.F. (2010) Ethnography lessons : A primer (Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, Calif.).

243

World Bank (2003) Indigenous and afro-ecuadorian peoples development project, World Bank, accessed at http://www.worldbank.org/projects/P040086/indigenous-afro-ecuadorian-peoples- development-project?lang=en&tab=overview (10 August 2015). Worster D. (1992) Under western skies: Nature and history in the american west (Oxford University Press). WWF 2010, The living planet: Biodiversity, biocapacity and development, World Wildlife Fund, Gland, Switzerland. Yates J.S. and Bakker K. (2013) Debating the 'post-neoliberal turn' in latin america. Progress in Human Geography 38: 62-90. Yeboah J.Y. (2008) Environmental and health impact of mining on surrounding communities: A case study of anglogold ashanti in obuasi. Department of Geography and Rural Development, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Department of Geography and Rural Development, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. Yonglong L., et al. (2015) Policy: Five priorities for the un sustainable development goals. Nature (London) 520: 432-3. Ziai A. (2007) Exploring post-development: Theory and practice, problems and perspectives (Routledge. Ziai A. (2013) The discourse of “development” and why the concept should be abandoned. Development in Practice 23: 123-36. Zimmerer K.S. (2012) The indigenous andean concept of kawsay, the politics of knowledge and development, and the borderlands of environmental sustainability in latin america. PMLA 127: 600-6. Zorrilla C. (2010) Defensa y conservacion ecologica de intag, DECOIN, accessed at www.decoin.org/accomplishments/ (02 September 2016). Zorrilla C. (2015) Ecuador: Widespread protests from left and indigenous sectors demand progressive changes. Upside Down World.

244