The Future of the Amazon: Successes of the Orfalea Center’s Major International Conference on the Environment, Indigenous Youth and Women’s Leadership, and the Impact of Chinese Finance and Partnershi

The Orfalea Center conference brought together over 50 scholars from six countries, along with 10 indigenous leaders and Latin American activists, to discuss the future of the Amazon

Between October 25th and 28th, 2023, dozens of scholars, students, researchers, activists, indigenous leaders, youth leaders and policymakers from institutions across the globe came together at the University of California Santa Barbara for a conference of historic scope. The aim of this convening was to collectively create dialogue and generate impactful solutions. Deploying our “Research for Action” model that unites enriched student and youth education, activist scholarly collaboration, and policy-changing public engagements, the gathering faced identified key challenges and opportunities shaping the social, ecological, and geopolitical landscape in the Global South, specifically the Amazon region of South America and its environs. The conference, titled “The Future of the Amazon: A New Era of Indigenous Activism, Post-Carbon Environmental Models, and Latin American Partnerships with China and the Global South,” was organized and hosted by the UCSB Orfalea Center for Global & International Studies. 

As Orfalea Director Prof. Paul Amar stated, the high stakes of current struggles for indigenous and ecological justice in the Amazon region “requires we generate a vision for engaged methodologies of both learning, teaching, and researching, where we constantly work alongside activists, social movements, transformational change makers, international NGOs, and schools across the Global South. This model is distinct, and more impactful than the research framings of the past, that centered an individual investigator and a single discipline’s approach.” 

The conference welcomed our guests from from Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, from China, Norway, the UK, and across the Western hemisphere, and presenters who had prepared an array of research findings, communications, and multimedia expressions, including academic papers, documentary films prepared for this conference, a live webinar dialogue with NGOs within China, and in-person roundtables with activists, intellectuals and others from the Amazon region debating how to address this truly global catastrophe.

The event also served as the launch of the book The Tropical Silk Road: The Future of China in South America, a collective volume generated by this research project and whose authors and editors were our featured panelists at the conference. The book is but one crucial component of the collective and multipronged approach to policy change that our conference addressed. It examines the current state and future of diplomatic relationships, infrastructure investments, megaproject partnerships, social relations, and cultural (mis)understandings between China, Brazil, and Ecuador. We would like to thank the Stanford University Press for publishing this important work. For more information on this book, including a full review, please click here. 

We would like to give special thanks to the Ford Foundation for its generous backing of this conference and for enthusiastically supporting the four-year process of research, networking, policy-shaping and public engagement that this project has realized, The effort united Chinese stakeholders in business, media, academic, financial and environmental sectors, with indigenous and community movements, NGOs and leaders, and feminist, Black and LGBTQIA+ advocates and analysts. We also want to thank the Paul Orfalea Endowment for their essential support, as well as the Carnegie Corporation and the Security in Context network for their support in the first phase of project implementation. We would also like to thank UC Santa Cruz, the Center for Emerging Worlds, and Prof. Lisa Rofel of UCSC for serving as Co-Principal Investigator with Professor Paul Amar on the project. Finally, large thanks to the University San Francisco de Quito and professors Consuelo and Maria Amelia for co-managing the project, and to Fernando Brancoli, UFRJ and ABIA in Rio for hosting the Brazil components of the project. 

We would also like to thank the tireless work of our simultaneous interpreters who ensured the voices of this conference were disseminated and heard. Investing in simultaneous translation results in more diverse and inclusive events so that linguistic exclusion is not an obstacle to dialogue between different peoples and cultures. High-level, live translation increases the sense of cultural empathy between participants. Thank you to Aline Ferreira and Viola Miglio, professors from the Department of Spanish and Portuguese at UC Santa Barbara. 

The conference embraced linguistic diversity and inclusion, with UCSB professors and translators Aline Ferreira and Viola Miglio helping make it accessible to everyone

Opening Remarks and the The Tropical Silk Road

The conference opens with a warm welcome from Lisa Rofel (top left) and Paul Amar (top middle), leaders of the Tropical Silk Road Project, followed by opening remarks from Dean Charles Hale (top right) and Vice-Chancellors Kum-Kum Bhavnani (bottom left) and Kelly Kaylor (bottom right). Claudia Melim McLeod, representing the Rainforest Foundation Norway, also participated in the panel.

Bringing all of these factors together, Lisa Rofel, Professor Emerita from UC Santa Cruz and Co-Principal Investigator of this multi-year research project, identified the importance of the collective nature of this initiative that generated its success and contributions.

Professor Charles Hale, Dean of Social Sciences at UC Santa Barbara, praised the principles and methodology of the conference as a whole. This included a centering of Black and indigenous intellectual voices, intersectional inequalities, “and the identities associated with those lived experiences to address a crucial topic that too often has been the purview of academic elites,” Dean Hale stated. The conference highlighted “Research for Action” as a fundamental principle that leads the way in the Division of Social Sciences. “Exemplified both in the session topics and the striking diversity of participant positionalities intellectuals working in academia, civil society movements, and communities, all with ethical, political engagements that you bring to the fore.” Dean Hale highlighted two major, forward-thinking themes that the conference addressed: the decentering of the United States and the re-centering of transnational indigenous and environmental issues, and the innovative analysis of the rise of “extractivism” as a fundamental feature of the political economy of the Americas in general, and particularly of the Amazon region. Dean Hale also set his attention forward, viewing the conference and book as a foundation for continued critical work. He concluded, “I have no doubt that this research endeavor – the conference, the book, all the gatherings, and the fact that it's it's a building of a continuous collective collaboration and not simply a one-time conference – will be making history through a combination of form and deep content as we engage in dialogue and debate.”

Professor Kum-Kum Bhavnani, Associate Vice Chancellor Global Engagement and Distinguished Professor at UC Santa Barbara noted that the conference also aimed at alternative futures to neoliberalism. How can we think about support and resistance in all contexts? And how do we indeed resist the authoritarian sweep across the world? “ It is this convening that will allow us to perhaps develop some collective practices that may start to lead to larger resistances against the horrors that we see around us.” Professor Kelly Kaylor, the Associate Vice-Chancellor in the Office of Research for Earth, Environmental, and Sustainability Sciences at UC Santa Barbara, further praised the collective nature of the project, expressing gratitude for the approach and noting its importance in addressing environmental challenges. Kelly also emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach to environmental issues, not just limited to academic or campus initiatives but extending to an all-society effort around environmental activism, policy, and scholarship. Kelly concluded by commenting on the title of the conference, “The Future of the Amazon,” interpreting it as a broader call for future-oriented environmental activism and policy. 

Professor Eng-Beng Lim, Associate Professor at Dartmouth College, in his opening remarks, posed numerous energizing questions to our audience. He consistently characterized The Tropical Silk Road, its themes, methodology, and questions as being “provocative,” in a good way. “This is a book that is asking new questions, one to which there may not currently be answers,” as he noted. He highlighted the singularity of China in the Global South. “How might we engage with the provocation by the editors to think with this particular emergence of cultural, social and economic dominance by one country and to understand it anew through the lens of existing vocabularies of race and sexuality that have been internalized in our discourse.” Prof. Lim continued, “how might we understand China in contemporary exoticizing or Orientalist discourse and what is China’s gender in this configuration? What continued forms of colonial racialization and gender have been picked up and repurposed for economic and infrastructure projects that are in question here? How might we understand the performance and profession of intimacies between China and its South American partners in the frame of promiscuity, and how might we understand China's use of promiscuity as a method of transnational statecraft? Reading the volume got me thinking about all these questions with no easy answers, and I think that that is part of the sign of a provocative and illuminating volume.”

New Indigenous Leadership, Post Extractive Development Models, and Shifting South-South Geopolitics

Project leads and authors celebrate the launch of The Tropical Silk Road: China and the Future of South America 

The first panel of the conference set the tone for the rest of the week, serving as a launch for the new book The Tropical Silk Road: China and the Future of South America and a discussion from a large number of researchers and activists who collectively authored the book. The panel included Lisa Rofell (UC Santa Cruz), Paul Amar (UC Santa Barbara), Fernando Brancoli (Federal University of Rio de Janeiro), Maria Amelia Viteri (University of Maryland, College Park), Consuelo Fernandez-Salvador (Universidad San Francisco de Quito), Li Zhang (Amherst College), as well as discussants Eng-Beng Lim (Dartmouth College) and Juan Manuel Rubio (UC Santa Barbara). The goal of the panel was to introduce the backstory, methodology, and themes of the research that are explored in the book and generate questions to guide the rest of the conference. 

Maria Amelia Viteri informed us of the necessary models for these new futures, presented by a host of indigenous activists from Ecuador. “How can we take the tools that we have even further? When we consider building alternative futures, what kinds of alternative rationalities should we explore?” she asked, referring to expanding networks that were present on the conference floor. “How can we add hope to these networks? Our bodies impact both the ecosystem and our personal well-being. Engaging with negative emotions, which naturally arise in response to the Amazon crisis, could open up political possibilities. It is crucial to think about these imagined futures and what they mean for us both individually, and as a community. In any of our roles, we should keep in mind that persistent community work can continue to build and reimagine not only new futures but new presents, concluded Prof. Viteri. 

Prof. Lisa Rofel narrated the history behind the start of this project, which began with a strict gender focus. Rofel stated that she has been doing research on China and focusing on gender issues for the last forty years. With changes in the level of focus on women’s liberation during the Chinese Revolution to China’ growing international presence in the 80s and 90s after the market economic reforms, particularly in the Global South, Rofel was paying close attention to the American media coverage of this development, and became frustrated since most discussions portrayed China’s increasing influence in the Global South as a “threat” to US interests. Instead, she thought it was more interesting to focus on what is happening with the people in the global South who are increasingly encountering and working with Chinese investors, and how are they responding to this. Rofel reiterated that “this project has been collective from the very beginning,” yet she emphasized the level of encouragement by her colleagues to pursue these questions and receive help in the necessary grant-writing process. Critiquing the 18th century European notion of the “singular author,” the collective work began as early as the idea structuring process. Gradually the project expanded. From network-building through conferences on gender and women’s role in Chinese involvement in the Global South, it came to include colleagues from, and fieldwork conducted in Ecuador and Brazil. Finally, the team considered questions of indigeneity, race, and class, with a particular focus on the Amazon region and the impact of extractivism.

Prof. Fernando Brancoli of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro emphasized that a key component of anti-colonial collaborative research is to understand that one is not starting from scratch. This, he highlighted, was evident in his team’s research in Brazil. “We already established a long relationship with different activist groups in South America,” he said, referring to long-running discussions with local activist groups in Brazil and internationally. Journalists from Brazil and indigenous activists from Ecuador, for example, met for the first time and shared perspectives, resulting in jointly written articles. Brancoli then emphasized that The Tropical Silk Road was not merely a compilation of scholarly work but a collective enterprise where significant time was invested to create something meaningful, blending various perspectives and ideas into a cohesive volume. He summarized: “at the end of the day, we are not only trying to mix different perspectives and ideas in a whole volume but what was great was understanding that some (new) concepts were emerging in this discussion.” So this book, then, not only offers insights into the situations in Ecuador, Brazil, and China but also about how groups in these regions are developing new concepts to understand current events; it is a dynamic representation of evolving thoughts and ideas in these areas.

Consuelo Fernandez-Salvador discussed Ecuador's complex relationship with its Amazon region, providing some crucial historical context of what led to the initial exploitation of the land. “Initially, the Ecuadorian state was uninterested in the Amazon due to its perceived lack of productivity. However, the discovery of oil in the 1960s shifted national attitudes. By 1972 the Texaco Company’s development of oil infrastructure marked the start of Ecuador’s oil exports, and this became synonymous with modernity and progress, which the government worked to attach to national identity. However, this rapid development overlooked the significant impact on local indigenous communities, who were neither informed nor consulted about these operations.” Consuelo then examined the changes in Ecuador's social, environmental, and activist landscape, especially under the government of Rafael Correa over the last decades, and highlighted two key points: the role of indigenous organizations in protecting territories and resources and official discourses legitimizing resource extraction at the expense of local autonomy.

Despite threats from oil, mining, and agricultural organizations, indigenous groups have not been passive victims; they have adapted, negotiated, and become transnational actors. An example is the Pueblo Kichwa Sarayaku's successful legal challenge against an Argentine oil company in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Consuelo noted the diversity within Ecuador's indigenous movements but that academics and NGOs overlook smaller regional and community organizations, clouding the visibility of younger leaders who may see different paths of resistance than traditional indigenous leadership, but are left unable to develop ties with larger organizations and possible allies. Consuelo, commenting on the conference, stated, “I don't think we're coming to the end of the journey, but we're actually beginning a journey in developing more ties, newer ties, and different types of working relationships with new kinds of leadership.” 

Prof. Li Zhang of Amherst College built on Consuelo's insights and provided a perspective based on her upbringing in rural China. She described education as her gateway to rethink prevailing Chinese narratives, and the importance of research methods that unite activists and academics. Zhang highlighted the nuanced experiences of Chinese migrant workers in Amazonian development projects, and noted that discussions about shifting power from the US to China in Latin America often succumb to simplistic "us vs. them" frameworks and tend to generalize populations based on national narratives. To counter this, Zhang advocates for a critical examination of our digital age to deconstruct and understand these dominant narratives. 

BRICS Futures and Global-South Developmentalist Contradictions

Panelists engage in a thought-provoking discussion on the impact of BRICS and South-South solidarity

In this panel focusing on the impact of changing geopolitical alliances – like the BRICS group – and how they shape China’s relations to South America and its peoples, we were able to hear from leaders who are at the forefront of critical discussions of the framework of global South-South solidarity. These alliances have generated new economies and forms of extractive capitalism, infrastructure, banking, and finance. This panel featured Professor Ana Saggioro Garcia (PUC-Rio), Dr. Laura Trajber Waisbich (The University of Oxford), Cai Yiping (UC Irvine), and Professor Fernando Brancolli (Federal University of Rio De Janeiro). Two keywords of focus for this panel are “extractive capitalism” and “BRICS” (the BRICS acronym represents its founding members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Extractive capitalism involves removing, for export, the resources of a country through mines: a practice documented to destroy the natural resources of a forest, pollute its water supply and replace natural biomes with roads, rail and waste. 

As the panelists discussed, BRICS is a new alliance of Global South powers that, in its founding, echoed in some ways with the Bandung ethic or Non-Aligned “Third Worldism” of the 1950s and 60s, originally imagined as a force against imperialism and colonialism. But the contemporary BRICS bloc has a different set of aims and philosophies, and the list of participating countries may soon expand, with recent invitations to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Iran, Argentina, and Ethiopia. 

Cai Yiping  (top) and Laura Trajber Waisbich (bottom) discuss their research

Prof. Ana Saggioro Garcia addressed the role and dynamics of BRICS countries in the context of international investment and geopolitical relations. She highlighted that, while BRICS countries are increasingly involved in international arbitration systems, they mostly participate as respondents to lawsuits from multinational corporations. Garcia noted China’s recent approach: “increasingly participating as a state making claims against African and Latin American states.” Garcia also spoke to intra-BRICS relations, exploring the nature of Chinese investments in other BRICS nations: their volume, the sectors involved, and the diplomatic relations underpinning them. The narrative of South-South cooperation is a crucial aspect of these relationships, with a particular emphasis on how these investments impact regional and national development and whether they perpetuate traditional labor and resource exploitation practices within the Global South. Finally, Prof. Saggioro advocated for a nuanced view of BRICS, proposing a framework that encompasses three perspectives: the traditional geopolitical view (BRICS vs. Western powers), the horizontal perspective (examining intra-BRICS relations and asymmetries), and the vertical or bottom-up view (focusing on BRICS' relations with other Global South countries). She stressed the importance of understanding the diverse and complex nature of these relationships, and suggested that a more balanced and mutually beneficial South-South agenda is essential, rather than one predominantly led by China. 

The nature of Prof. Laura Trajber Waisbich’s work, as she described it, has been to “unpack and highlight the controversial nature of the BRICS project and look at the ways in which civil society groups have challenged government narratives around the myth of a BRICS-led South-South cooperation being always positive, always transformative, and beneficial.” Waisbich’s research focuses on the strategic and policy decisions of the New Development Bank, and in understanding how the Bank defined its funding criteria, specifically its approach to investing in 'sustainable infrastructure.’ She explored various aspects like what the bank considered sustainable, its lending practices, the presence of social and environmental safeguards, transparency policies, and how it aligned with the benchmarks set by other multilateral institutions in development finance. Waisbich observed the involvement of civil society in influencing the bank's practices, particularly from a Chinese perspective, and noted that only a small number of NGOs and civil society groups engaged with the bank, which is minimal compared to the number of groups in China monitoring global Chinese development practices. “It was a small group of very fierce organizations that were able to craft a space for themselves,” she said.

In her research, Waisbich identified four gaps: “The first one is the gap between policy documentation and implementation – what is written in terms of guidelines and policy for development and what actually happens on the ground. The second gap is a lack of communication between parties; organizations in Latin America and China acknowledge that they are not talking enough. The third gap is that the primary focus of the dialogue tends to be on environmental issues, as it is seen as a more feasible language for communication. As a result, other critical social issues, including gender, are often sidelined. These issues are deemed too risky to address within the existing framework of corporate social responsibility, leading to their marginalization in discussions. The final gap is the changing political and social landscape in China presents a level of uncertainty regarding the continuation of spaces for dialogue that were previously secure.” Waisbich also analyzes the dynamics of this engagement, identifying who occupies this space, who participates in the transnational dialogue with BRICs-based organizations, and the limitations of this approach.

Cai Yiping is a PhD candidate in Global Studies at UC Irvine, former Interim Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, and leader of the global feminist advocacy movement Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN). Yiping presented the main argument of one of her papers and reflected on new trends in China's global role. She analyzes the internationalization of Chinese NGOs, shifting gender politics within and around these NGOs in Chinese contexts and globally, focusing on how the Chinese state frames and portrays gender issues at the international level. Yiping identified and traced how these new trends demonstrate China's efforts to revamp South-South relationships and reveal paradoxes and nuances. Her presentation explored Brazil-China relations through the lens of gender and sexuality and analyzed UN conferences and legislative changes since the 1990s. The UN Summits on Environment and Development, hosted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and the fourth UN Conference on Women held in Beijing in 1995 had a tremendous national impact on both Brazil and China, Yiping argued. Through these conferences “the concepts of gender and of NGOs were introduced into the Chinese political lexicon.” Although there were still few consistent connections between Chinese and South American social movements or civil societies regarding gender or sexuality before BRICS took shape, Yiping pointed to intensified state control and surveillance at the time and a revival of cultural conservatism in China to ensure social harmony and women's traditional role in the family. “Simultaneously, there was a rapid transformation of Chinese sexual identities, norms, and practices that emerged in public discourse and social media,” she said. Social visibility of sexuality and gender issues lead to heated debates on Chinese social media platforms and mainstream media, reflecting the growing anxieties and panic over the declining fertility rate and rising divorce rate, and also the criticism of the Western ideology influence. Concluding her presentation, Yiping said that “the changing politics and legislation regarding gender, sexuality, and NGOs in China have not created a clear path towards gender equality.”

Fernando Brancoli opened his presentation with two anecdotes – the Russian Chancellor Sergei Lavrov's visit to Iran and an Egyptian ambassador's comments about military engagement with Brazil – that captured key moments in framing both BRICS narratives. Fernando shared these anecdotes to demonstrate how quickly the BRICS’ narrative and discourse were embodied by these countries. He asked, “Should we not only look to BRICS in particular and South-South cooperation in general, not only as a reform of how states try to relate to each other but also as a new imagination of South-South cooperation that can be taken up by different actors at the street level in those states?” The goal, then, is to not only look at how ministers, diplomats, and presidents are engaging with BRICS and China but also to interview a variety of local actors and ask them what they know, what they think, and how they are engaging with these forces. “What do these nonstate actors understand about BRICS and China?” In one example, Fernando discussed his interview with a local militia leader in Rio de Janeiro who had serious engagements with Chinese businessmen. This militiaman had created an imaginary where he was part of a new era of international cooperation. “I know he sounded a little bit bizarre, but at the end of the day, I'm not interested in whether what he's saying makes any sense, but how those discourses are spilling over to those actors,” said Fernando. Experiences and reception from these street-level actors do vary, of course, both positively and negatively.

Keynote Addresses

Pedro Gutiérrez Guevara (top left), David Fajardo Torres (top right), and Elizabet Durazno (bottom) deliver the keynote address together at the conference

We were honored to host a panel of experts and indigenous leaders who prepared and presented inspiring Keynote Addresses, sharing their insights on the crucial issues surrounding the Amazon's future in Ecuador. This panel included David Fajardo Torres of the Yasunidxs Collective in Ecuador, a lawyer specializing in natural rights, coordinator of the Cuenca Water Council and member of Kuska Estudio Jurídico; Elizabet Durazno from the Organización Comunitaria de Mujeres en Resistencia Sinchi Warmi Río Blanco, a defender of women's rights and nature; and Pedro Gutiérrez Guevara: a lawyer, mediator and member of Kaleidos Center for Interdisciplinary Ethnography and Co-founder of Kuska Estudio Jurídico.

Defending Ecosystems and Indigenous Rights

David Fajardo Torres spoke about the processes of water defense and the rights of nature in Ecuador in the context of oil extractivism, but more specifically in the context of mining extractivism. David is a nature rights activist and lawyer who specializes in the defense of indigenous peoples’ collective rights and the rights of nature. David alerted the audience to one key point, and that is “that in Ecuador, more than just an anti-extractive struggle, there is a struggle for the defense of ecosystems, the defense of water, for the defense of territories, for the defense of our forms and ways of life. It is to ratify the way we are existing in these territories.” He outlined his three objectives for his presentation: 1) to give an overview of what is currently happening in Ecuador; 2) to talk about the causes and effects that have led us to this situation and have caused what is happening; 3) to show you a little of what we are doing to conclude with some elements that I would like to position for debate. How does one understand events in Ecuador, or any country, for that matter? “We must take a global view, that is, understand the conflicts in a geopolitical context,” said David. His historical contextualizations were aided by Consuelo’s previous presentation. 

Oil concessions in Ecuador are mainly located in the northern Ecuadorian Amazon and are invading large portions of indigenous territory. When oil exploitation of the Amazon began in the north during the 1960s, and as explained earlier by Consuelo, it kicked off the oil extractivist model and its consequences, including, as David said, “the invasion of 68% of the original territories and, in the worst case, has caused the disappearance of two indigenous peoples, the “Teetetes” and the “Waris,” as far as we know.” However, oil reserves are now depleting quickly, and the state has resorted to exploiting low-quality oil and into new geographic locations, penetrating territories of until then uncontacted indigenous groups. The oil decline has led to a mining model, “but the the logic of extractivism is maintained within the country,” said David. This mining has mainly been concentrated in the Amazon in the south of Ecuador, and by 2016, nearly 4 million hectares were under concession throughout the country.” In other words, we are talking about 15% of the Ecuadorian territory under a mining concession,” said David. This obviously affected the territories themselves, but also the way of life of indigenous peoples. Thus, David said, “Southern Ecuador became the new territory of eco-social sacrifice.”

The mining industry in Ecuador is undergoing significant expansion with the introduction of five strategic projects, marking the start of the mega-mining era. These are projects associated with Canadian, Swiss, and Chinese companies and capital. Following the development of these five projects, there are plans for a further expansion into what are termed second and third-generation projects, adding 17 more projects to the current lineup. This expansion reflects a significant deepening of mega-mining activities in Ecuador. This large level of extractivism has resulted in catastrophic effects, and the transformation of daily life of the native peoples, turning them into proletarians. “They are no longer ecosystemic communities - they have gone from depending on the ecological dynamics of the ecosystems they inhabited to working for the very extractivist companies that are destroying their land and way of life. This has caused a rupture in the social fabric both between communities and within families.”

David’s collective, the Yasunidos, have responded to this by focusing on social mobilization, particularly in urban areas. Through the use of judicial strategies, they have managed to halt projects such as the Rio Blanco mining initiative, one of five strategic projects previously mentioned. In Cuenca, David’s home city, they faced the threat of two such projects, and in 2021, they achieved a significant victory through a popular consultation, a form of plebiscite. This consultation asked Cuenca's citizens if they supported banning metallic mining in their water sources. The proposal was overwhelmingly supported, with 80% approval, leading to the suspension of most mining projects in the area. However, David noted the challenges in enforcing this outcome, as mining is a state-backed policy in Ecuador, often leading to attempts to override the public's decision. 

The mining industry has created a narrative that ultimately necessitates its continued existence by attaching it to the energy transition, stating that the materials needed for this transition are those very materials being mined. This is obviously a dead end, according to David, but it is something that must be discussed through a justice approach, from ecosystem justice and the rights of nature, as well as from climate justice, lest they be forced to justify extractivist projects in the Global South to fuel an energy transition that is not even taking place. When transnational companies exploit their territories for the benefit of the Global North, what remains for the Global South? Not even financial royalties are left to these countries. What does remain are eco-social impacts, destruction of social fabrics and ecosystems, and poisoning of waters. “And that is something that we simply cannot accept, and that is why we find ourselves in a very strong exercise of resistance and struggle for our lives. The struggle for the defense of nature and the rights of native peoples is a struggle for survival,” concluded David. 

Protecting Communities and Fighting for Women's Rights

Elizabeth spearheads projects for the defense of women’s rights, focusing on issues of Machismo culture in her territories. She spoke to the question of what exactly are the struggles of communities against extractivism? There is classical predatory development rhetoric at work here, namely that these initiatives are billed to the communities as a means of alleviating poverty, though no consultation or dialogue with local communities ever happens, and a clear violation of rights is on display.

These companies and extractivist initiatives have detrimental consequences, including the division of families and social units, and the destruction of the environment, and the ecosystems. “They destroy nature in general and destroy us as communities. They destroy our rights as communities,” she said. Their culture is under threat, as illustrated by Elizabeth. “They also destroy our culture, which is why I do not speak Quichua. We have lost that culture, community, and people because of the mining companies. The threats to these communities are deadly, not only through environmental and cultural destruction, but with direct violence and assassinations of her community’s defenders. “They kill our defenders, they make threatening calls to their homes. The mining companies are killing us,” she stated. They are labeled as terrorists and “stone throwers.” She described some of their strategies to fight against this violence and dispossession, such as through the use of legal aid, where they learned about the right to self-identification, which they used in a legal battle to recover territory by self-identifying as a communal territory,” she explained. 

Elizabeth also stressed the fundamental importance of maintaining direct relations between organizations like hers and with NGOs and with territories in Ecuador that also suffer along similar lines. These connections with other organizations, NGOs, and communities are crucial, not least due to the very weak relations between indigenous peoples, indigenous communities, and the state, as was explained through the literal targeting of her community by mining companies backed by the state.This complacency of the state, the unwillingness of the state to exert pressure or power on these transnationals is a an important and relevant theme that will be elaborated on in the next panel. 

Gender and Power Dynamics in Ecuador

Pedro Gutierrez Guevara discussed the fissures and disasters in the infrastructure, with a patriarchal and masculine vision that was generated with the construction of the Coca-Codo Sinclair hydroelectric plant. Even the means of funding this project were gained through a masculine rhetoric of seduction to bait Chinese investment. Pedro told us of an interview done by Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa at the time, in which President Correa made a highly gendered comment, likened banks and financial markets to girls. If one shows too much interest, she will turn away but act disinterested, and she will chase you. This shows us how the patriarchal exercise of power also has a heteronormative, homophobic structure and exists within public discourse. At this moment in time, we were facing not only a racist discourse but a direct application of a sexist, racist, xenophobic policy,” said Pedro. 

More than 100 graduate and undergraduate students from UCSB attended the Keynote Address session

We can see how infrastructures can actually have a performative aspect, embodying these patriarchal notions. Such is the case with the hydroelectric plant, Coca Sinclair, where 100% of the decision-making is done by straight white men, decisions that exploit and damage the indigenous communities, women, children, and other disenfranchised groups. This is a patriarchal and masculine viewpoint, Pedro told us. It is also anchored in different principles of hegemonic masculinity, with attitudes and actions directly linked to the virility of a man.. which is generally associated with ideas of strength, success, development, precisely where the extractivist processes are located,” Pedro said. This power dynamic often leads to violence and an anti-democratic act.  As the influence of extractive industries infiltrates communities, there is an increase in sexual violence against women and criminalization against protests. Pedro warns that the upcoming President will likely continue this anti-democratic system and extractivist agenda. 

Projects and Partnerships between China and the Amazon Region: Challenges and Opportunities

Speakers gather after the panel, “Projects and Partnerships between China and the Amazon Region: Challenges and Opportunities:”

Professor Cynthia Sanborn’s work has primarily focused on the political economy of mining and the challenges to natural resource governance, particularly in Peru and Chile. Were the Chinese companies and investors that arrived in these mining sectors different from other multinational firms, and would they align with traditional industry associations and lobbies or would they engage on different terms with the national or local governments? She stressed to the audience that each research project she had been involved in considers Chinese firms, banks, workers or their competition from the local context in which they're operating. 

We know that China is not necessarily the major foreign direct investor in Latin America – Chinese investments are dwarfed by those from the United States and the Global North – but they have gone after projects that Western firms and Brazilian firms have backed out of, and China is indeed ahead in terms of acquisition of lithium, copper and other critical minerals for its own energy transition. There do exist numerous initiatives globally and in Latin America and China to establish standards and limitations on these investments, particularly in extractive initiatives related to transparency and accountability, prior consultation of indigenous communities, and other environmental and social safeguards. None of these efforts are effective, however, without enforcement. As Professor David Pellow (UC Santa Barbara) stated at the end of this talk, “These initiatives are toothless unless we have domestic governments, the local governments and NGOs, non-governmental organizations exerting power.” It has been observed that Chinese investors are generally not the ones insisting on these concessions, and have been able to avoid such measures while securing their investments. There is a notable willingness among our host governments to reduce these standards unnecessarily, a practice that is met with considerable criticism.

Students, scholars and community activists, working together, can play a crucial role in addressing global challenges by generating knowledge, shaping policy proposals, and facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues. Sanborn emphasized the importance of fostering collaboration across Latin America, a task often beyond the capabilities of governments but achievable by universities. “Notably, despite a focus on Asia, most knowledge centers on China and Asian studies are situated in the Global North,” she said. “These centers often align with the geopolitical dynamics between the Global North and China. Therefore, there is an urgent need to cultivate expertise on contemporary China within Latin America, focusing on unbiased research, diverse perspectives, and avoiding the biases of great power politics.”

Professor Carol Wise (University of Southern California) highlighted the need to view China beyond the binary perspectives of friend or foe. She noted that China's rise has challenged the Western-led neoliberal order and called for a more nuanced understanding of China's role in global politics and economics. Wise argued against the othering of China and advocated for treating it as a significant and integrated global player. She criticized the destructive US discourse towards China, especially under the Trump administration, and its impact on Latin America. She emphasized that China's increasing engagement with Latin America, including diplomatic policies and initiatives, has been generally positive for the region. She also discussed the need to reframe the debate around China, and move away from Cold War narratives and war-mongering rhetoric to a more realistic and informed understanding of China's modernities and its global interactions. David Pellow, UCSB Professor of Environmental Studies, and discussant on the panel, added that other countries have made their stance on China clear: “We're going to work with China if you won't.” He argued that the US sinophobia “really functions to divert attention from the US's own horrible track record of human rights and environmental and labor abuse, much of which is perpetrated by US investors and firms in China itself.” 

If the path forward involves greater nuance and certainly a greater understanding of Chinese political economy, then surely communicating with Chinese investors is key. This is no different than speaking to a local political representative regarding policy and, of course, understanding the limits of such approaches. Claudia Melim-McLeod represents the Rainforest Foundation Norway, an organization working to support the UN Sustainable Development Goals 12, responsible consumption and production, and 15, life on land. She works as a sustainable finance advisor in China, and encourages investors to change their practices in Latin America, considering their harm to Indigenous peoples. “We are trying to basically change the practices of the financial sector in ways that go against the very principles of capitalism. My work is not easy,” said Melim-McLeod. 

How does one pressure companies to alter their practices? Bringing up an interaction she had with a Chinese official at the COP 15, focusing on biodiversity, Melim-McLeod recalled how surprised she was to see the official was open to her input. However, “they had to be translated both in terms of language and content in a way that was acceptable.” A lot of time is spent talking about the commitments that the Chinese government has made at the COP 15 and also reminding companies and investors in China about the Global Biodiversity Framework Target 15, which is about disclosure of business practices. “Expectation Documents” are part of this whole equation: documents where investors state their expectations for company behavior. Melim-McLeod employs a specific language for best results. “I don't talk about human rights, I talk about best practices and social standards. I don't talk about rainforests, I talk about biodiversity and ecosystem services. In this, I am helped by a methodology that was developed at Cambridge University, which seeks to quantify nature-related financial loss.” This methodology for speaking to private sector actors is even available online. Melim-McLeod concluded, “My job is basically to translate the demands and the circumstances that we see in rainforest countries into words that are investor-friendly and acceptable in China. When you start to look at the things that companies need to do in order to operate and continue to make money, then you have the investor attention because they understand that if they continue to operate in ways that are going to impact the ecosystem's ability to provide services in ten years, their shares are not going to be worth very much.” 

Professor Gustavo Oliveira discussed his research journey, starting with his return to Brazil to research social movements like the Landless Rural Workers Movement. He explored the nature of Chinese investment in Brazil, particularly in the context of South-South cooperation and allegations of neo-colonialism. His ethnographic work investigates the political and ecological implications of Chinese investments in Brazilian agribusiness and infrastructure. Oliveira emphasized that while Chinese investments are significant, they are often overshadowed by investments from North America and Western Europe. He cautioned against oversimplifying the narrative of Chinese capital as neocolonialist, which risks obscuring the dominant pattern of capital flow from the Global North. Gustavo then introduced the idea of “refraction” when Chinese capital is not necessarily perceived as Chinese, as it travels through Brazilian agencies and corporate structures once the money “hits the ground,” lending credence to his analysis. “It's not so productive to use tropes of debt trap diplomacy. That might be true in Ecuador. It's not true in Brazil. We have to understand the relationships between Chinese corporations and our local states, our local corporations, and our particular political, and economic conjunctures,” said Oliveira. 

He critiqued various political narratives around China, including the far-right's Sinophobic views and the left's neo-Keynesian and neo-Stalinist positions. He critiqued modern Cold War rhetoric, noting a level of economic engagement between the US and China that did not exist between the US and the Soviet Union. He advocated for a more nuanced understanding of China's role and ended with a quote from his writing. “The task at hand is to reformulate public and political debates around class struggle, rather than geopolitical competition between countries, or cultural contestation between the conservatives and the religious and the progressives. The challenge for the Brazilian left, and for the Latin American Left is the same for socialists in China and the United States, which is how to regain the initiative from the neo-fascists in the struggle against neoliberal elites. The new Cold War, much like the previous one, is not a battle that leftists can win by accommodating capitalist elites for national development or redwashing state capitalism; it requires a critical approach that subjects geopolitics to class struggle and not the other way around.”

These concluding remarks about subjecting geopolitical to class struggle bring up another conversation about making actionable differences. Jia-Ching Chen, professor of Global Studies at UC Santa Barbara, asked, “How do we think about what meaningful venues, not just for scholarship, but for advancing solidarity and actual challenges to global structural inequalities that are brought up and seen in different aspects of all of the panelists’ work? How do we think about forms of engagement that can actually make a difference?” He drew comparisons to a protest march in opposition to the current genocide in Gaza, highlighting the passion of the march but the unfortunate and shocking inadequacy of of chants. “How do we think about these challenges before us that are from our own subject positions, what else can we do, what might be meaningful?” he concluded.

Answering these questions, Gustavo Oliveria emphasized the need for a paradigm shift in advancing solidarity, particularly in Ecuador and Brazil. He argues that true solidarity goes beyond superficial improvements in practices like soybean exports or mining regulations. Oliveira critiqued both the reliance on large-scale agribusiness and the rejection of modernization (hyper-localism), proposing alternative, transformative approaches, such as technology transfer inspired by China’s small-scale agricultural technology. This inspiration could foster a deeper, class-based solidarity across borders rather than a mere nation-state collaboration. 

Feminism, Queer Sovereignty, and “Rights of Nature” Activism in Amazonia

Pedro Gutiérrez Guevara (3rd from right) speaking on the Feminism, Queer Sovereignty, and Rights of Nature Panel

This panel put scholars and activists in conversation about the unique vulnerabilities women and gender minorities face in the Amazonian environmental crises and their different modes of protests. This panel featured Professor Sylvia Cifuentes, Pedro Gutiérrez Guevara, Professor Carlos Rojas, and Professor Sigrid Vasconez.

Sylvia Cifuentes, Assistant Professor at Mount Holyoke College who received her PhD in Global Studies at UCSB, discussed how Indigenous Amazonian lands are key sites for climate change resistance and that climate politics and planning cannot be separated from struggles on the ground or from concerns about food, gender-based violence, or access to livelihood. Livelihoods are all part of territorial defense and climate justice. Cifuentes titled her presentation Body Territory Knowledge Indigenous Women's Territorial Defense and Climate Planning in Amazonia and emphasized that globally, and in Amazonia, indigenous women are one of the most vulnerable populations subjected to environmental degradation, and impacts women in specific ways, as “they are often in charge of agriculture, food production, or water procurement,” said Cifuentes. Extractivist projects, therefore, in addition to their environmental impact, deepen gender and intergenerational inequalities, often fostering greater degrees of violence towards women’s and gender diverse bodies. “However, it is these women and gender-diverse people who are leading many of the movements to resist and fight extractivism,” she said. Even as we recognize the potential of indigenous agro-knowledges to confront climate change, women leaders who understand the relationship with, as Sylvia put it, “more than human beings” to be an effective one in the climate fight are often excluded from climate strategies, even those led by indigenous organizations. Addressing these exclusions is fundamental to just and culturally appropriate planning in Amazonia. 

Sylvia Cifuentes (top left), Sigrid Vasconez (middle), and Carlos Rojas (top right) explore the intersections of Feminism, Queer Sovereignty, and “Rights of Nature” activism, with discussants UCSB professors Jenn Tyburczy (bottom left) and Tristan Partridge (middle), along with Thaddeus Blanchette (bottom right) from the National Museum of Brazil

Many of the various strands of research on these issues are “rarely in conversation,” said Cifuentes. Outside of climate scholarship, colonial-feminist geographers proposed cuerpo territorio as a concept and method that refers to an inseparable ontological relationship between body and territory in indigenous and grassroots feminist struggles. What is experienced by the body can be seen as simultaneously experienced by territory in a codependent relationship. Cifuentes’ research asks how are indigenous women leaders in Amazonia and their organizations thinking about climate futures and, more specifically, how does gender mediate the ways in which knowledge and ontology shape indigenous climate planning? Drawing on her extensive fieldwork, she discussed the OPIAC school’s model of women’s role in territorial defense. She argued that female COICA leaders (Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin) and their OPIAC school both build on gender-specific knowledge and relationships with more than human beings as well as an idea of complementary gender roles to differentiate their struggle for territorial defense and climate action. She explained how climate action in Amazonia can be understood as indigenous territorial defense and that climate justice and territorial defense are inseparable. 

Pedro Gutiérrez Guevara, a researcher at Kuska Estudio Jurídico in Ecuador, related how mining sites are highly masculinized spaces. As these have become a survival economy for Indigenous women, there are reports of sexual exploitation at these sites which garnered little attention. Guevara also cited the Coca Codo Sinclair Dam, which is funded by the Chinese government and infamous for its environmental cost. Calling out the colonial capitalist system as a heteropatriarchal nexus, Guevara pointed out how misogyny is pervasive across the ideological spectrum. He/they shared how through the radio program he hosts, they try to center LGBTQ voices in environmental discourses. 

Shifting away from earlier discussions on gender issues and violence, Guevara presented another facet of their work, particularly his experiences supporting the struggles of nature's rights defenders and community leaders. Pedro discussed his role as a journalist and his radio program "Sin etiquetas" based in the province of Azuay, challenging the conventional approach of commercial media, which often overlooks crucial topics such as feminism, diversity, sex, gender, human rights, and the rights of nature. Their program is an opinion space dedicated to amplifying the voices of those actively involved in social movements and community-based struggles.

The panel consistently focused on intersectional themes, especially in the context of extractivism. Guevara’s program counters strong lobbying narratives that seek to paint a favorable image of responsible mining and social commitment. Understanding the limitations of traditional media, they have also embraced various forms of communication and are complemented by our presence on social networks. This multi-channel approach helps us engage with a diverse audience, including the LGBT community. They have also created “fanzines,” such as “Cuenca Queer,” which blend different struggles – LGBT issues, sexual and reproductive rights, and environmental concerns – in an accessible and engaging format. “In conclusion, our efforts are geared towards redefining communication from a commodity to a right, aligned not with power but with the people. By creating empathy through our pedagogical tools and challenging the dominant narratives, we strive to make a tangible social and political impact.” Guevara closed by saying: “our approach is rooted in progressive ideals, aiming to unify various agendas for a collaborative, impactful cause.”

Carlos Rojas invoked ‘wilderness’ from Jack Halberstam on how indigenous peoples and LGBTQ people are seen through the prism of wilderness. Rojas asked: how can we connect the two identities together against environmental onslaught: this process of racialization and colonial sex/gender regimes blurred the boundaries between human and animal. He stressed the need to recover wilderness as a cognitive framework to reinvigorate the environmental justice movement from a queer perspective. Carlos encouraged attendees to use the concept of “wilderness” or “the wild” to bridge “these three obviously interrelated but also functionally separate discourses of indigeneity, environmentalism, and gender sexuality studies,” he concluded.

Sigrid Vasconez shed light on the value of accurate information. She spoke to the collapse of the largest waterfall in Ecuador, and showcased deliberately vague and unclear media coverage of this incident. Vasconez pointed out that the advantages of South-South dialogue are only visible with clear transparency. In this era of environmental crises, including unexpected droughts in the Amazon, she emphasized the importance of journalism that aligns with scientific research to transparently convey environmental information.

Indigenous Youth Activism in Latin America Since 2019: Lessons Learned and Challenges of Today

The panel featured young indigenous activists from Ecuador who discussed environmental challenges and shared their experiences

One of the most dynamic panels of our conference, this panel invited young indigenous activists from Ecuador to critically interrogate the challenges of environmental activism, and reflect on their personal experiences. Our panel featured the following activists: Jefferson Pullaguari Acacho (Indigenous Leader of the Federación Shuar de Zamora Chinchipe); anthropology student at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito David Menacho Tugumbango, who grew up with his grandparents in the Kichwa community of Colimbuela, where ex-Wasipungueros worked and lived in a peonage system known as haciendas; Israel Arvelio Chumapi Ayui (Comunidad Shuar Yamaram Nunka) who received a BA in international relations from Universidad San Francisco de Quito and collaborates in the development of the Shuar nationality; Rina Pakari Marcillo Perugachi (Pueblo Kichwa Otavalo) who is a Kichwa-Otavalo student of cultural anthropology at the Universidad San Francisco de Quito and an active member of the YACHANA project, which is devoted to working with Indigenous young people from different communities, and a member of the Federation of Indigenous Peasants of Imbabura (FICI). This section will mainly focus on those indigenous activists who spoke for the first time in this panel. 

A video message from Jefferson kicked off our roundtable session. Jefferson spoke about the challenges faced by grassroots communities and organizations in their struggle against extractivist projects in the Shuar sector, with mining projects obviously lacking any consultation with local indigenous communities. He stated that despite the significant economic power of the mining companies, young people and Shuar leaders have stood firm against large-scale mining and the destruction of their environment and territories. However, their fight has been largely solitary, with limited success in forming alliances with environmental NGOs due to the influence of the mining companies, and the complacency of the Ecuadorian State. Furthermore, Jefferson described the internal challenges within the Shuar Federation, where the current leadership's agreements with mining companies hinder the fight against extractivism. He emphasized the need for developing alternatives for environmental care and strengthening Shuar culture, and the importance of political power in this struggle. His future plans include putting forward a candidate who prioritizes environmental protection and does not succumb to mining interests, as well as forming alliances with educational and environmental organizations.

Israel Arvelio Chumapi Ayui, from the Shuar Yamaram Nunka Community addressed the first question for the roundtable regarding the role of indigenous organizations in Ecuador in the fight for the rights of indigenous peoples. He broke down indigenous organizations in Ecuador into five sections, along cantonal, provincial, regional, national and international levels. The objective of these indigenous organizations is to protect the interests of the communities and to make a political impact beyond the capabilities of a specific individual or community. By managing a large amount of information and a large number of people, indigenous organizations can interact with institutions, the state, and international organizations, impacting public policies and reaching agreements and solutions that benefit indigenous communities. While this is an ideal scenario, rights in Ecuador “are not asked for; rights are demanded, and rights are demanded in the face of deceit, violence, persecution, and death that communities suffer,” he concluded. 

Israel Arvelio Chumapi Ayui (middle) highlights the critical role of indigenous organizations in Ecuador's fight for rights, emphasizing collective action and political impact

The second question pertained to the role of young activists. Rina Perugachi stressed the importance of knowing where you come from: “it's a big part of finding who you are and who you want to be. As a Kichwa Warmi, that is, as an indigenous woman of the Otavalo people who cross Intersectionalities, I position myself in the first place with my community and my people, walking from different spaces. I have learned to raise my voice and speak out, always remembering the historical processes of the struggle of my parents and grandparents, their demands, and values. This is also how I seek to integrate new perspectives for a broader dialogue in the different political agendas.” For Perugachi, her role is to disseminate news relevant to women in her community, and address the unequal access to sexual and reproductive health, and community empowerment. She stressed the importance of female leadership, and that knowledge learned within the academy must be integrated with community knowledge and amplify community voices that too often go unheard.

Rina Perugachi (middle) emphasizes the importance of connecting with one's roots and amplifying community voices, especially regarding women's issues and access to health

David Tugumbango stated that his role as a young professional activist is rooted in both theoretical analysis and practical application. Observing the challenges in his community, which lacked basic amenities and housing structural issues, he and his friends formed a foundation to improve these conditions through construction. “I also engage with the elderly in the community, visiting senior centers to play music, bringing joy and connection. This work extends to an anthropological aspect, where I strive to understand and preserve the traditions, legends, and oral histories of the elders, passing them on to future generations as part of our educational mission,” he concluded. Israel added in the importance of gaining access to spaces where indigenous folks can have political representation as well as in their own indigenous organization. David Fajardo stated the importance of mobilization of people in the urban sectors for environmental defense, and the obligation to build networks between worker and indigenous organizations within Ecuador.

David Tugumbango (middle) emphasizes the importance of combining activism with community engagement, focusing on both infrastructure improvement and cultural preservation  

The final questions focused on well-being and development. Elizabeth Durazno (Women in Resistance Sinchi Warmi Río Blanco) criticized the extractivist logic of capitalism and targeted the concept of development, as she stated, “There is no such thing as development. My community has said that development is destruction; it is misfortune. Development is a loss of ecosystems.” She criticized the rationale for this development, deceitful claims of poverty alleviation. “They supposedly talk about getting us out of poverty, but they involve us in poverty and leave us in poverty,” she said. Discussing alternatives, Durazno mentioned community tourism as well as cultural preservation activities, but stressed the need for more financial and organizational support. 

Elizabeth Durazno (left) advocates for community-driven alternatives like cultural preservation and community-based tourism

Dean Charlie Hale commented, first briefly summarizing the key points made in the panel: the social function of education, organizational renewal, the defense of nature, the limits and benefits of “rights” and the relations between autonomy and an economic base. Hale stressed the need for organizational renewal, stating that organizations, even those with great historical achievements must give weight to young voices, citing organization structural issues like hierarchical leadership and machismo. Hale also spoke to the importance of creating networks and linking ourselves to the defense of nature. “It is an issue of study, it is an issue of solidarity, but more than anything else it is an issue that involves us all,” he stated. Prof. Giovanni Batz (Chicano Studies) highlighted the importance of having this discussion here in Santa Barbara, inside the Empire, where environmental conceptual reflections often operate through a disembodied perspective.

Charles Hale, Dean of Social Sciences at UCSB (second from left), speaks during the Indigenous Youth Activism Panel

Voices from China: How NGOs are Working with Environmental Groups

Peng Ren (left), Boya Jiang (above), and Xin Yu (below) explore the role of NGOs in strengthening environmental cooperation between China and the Global South

This panel was opened by Claudia Melim-McLeod, who, speaking as the representative of the Rainforest Foundation Norway, stated that their engagement with China is recent, and it is a joy to see “many like minded organizations in China who share our goals, who are doing very important work.” One of the major themes of this conference was recognizing China as a global player in these environmental issues, acknowledging and critiquing many of the country’s approaches, while avoiding a reductive, Sino-phobic Chinese “boogeyman” narrative. Additionally, many speakers were clear that we must work with Chinese partners and stakeholders on these issues, and incorporate them into our conversations. Following the methodology of this conference, we included a webinar session with Chinese NGOs working on these environmental issues. We were joined by Xin Yu from WWF China, Priority Project Coordinator; Peng Ren from the Global Environmental Institute (GEI), program director of overseas Investment, trade and environment; and finally Boya Jiang from ClientEarth, a nature and climate lawyer. 

Xin Yu I from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) focused on sustainable commodity supply chains, particularly emphasizing the meat sector in China. She outlined WWF's integrated approach, which aligns with its global approach, encompassing a range of tactics, including consumer advocacy and research, aimed at supporting environmental objectives. Claudia highlights the critical role of China in global food systems and WWF's efforts to mitigate environmental impacts associated with key commodities like soy, meat, and palm oil. A notable achievement is the collaboration with the China Meat Association, resulting in the 2017 Chinese Sustainable Meat Declaration, which introduces eight principles for sustainable practices in the meat sector.

Boya from Clientearth, an environmental law charity, discussed the organization's work and strategies, particularly in China. ClientEarth was established in 2007, and has offices worldwide, with the China office being the most recent. Clientearth's primary focus is promoting the environmental rule of law, typically engaging in litigation against governments and companies to address environmental issues. However, in China, due to restrictions on legal actions by international NGOs, Clientearth adopts a different approach, involving close cooperation with Chinese government agencies, such as the Ministry of Ecology and Environment, and judiciaries. Boya stated that in China, prosecutors and judges are part of the judiciary, and so a significant aspect of ClientEarth's work in China includes training thousands of prosecutors and judges in order to enhance their capacity for environmental rulings and connecting them with international counterparts. Although they do not engage in litigation or directly work with companies in China, their work includes supporting information disclosure and public participation. 

We lastly heard from Peng Ren from the Global Environmental Institute, a small Chinese NGO based in Beijing, with a focus on China's international presence and the country's "going global" strategy. GEI conducts research and policy analysis, producing publications on Chinese environmental protection policy and the social and environmental challenges of global expansion. GEI actively implements programs in areas like energy, climate change, ecosystem conservation, communication, overseas investment and trade, and marine conservation, with projects in over ten countries and throughout China. Their goals here are to promote sustainable development of Chinese outward investment and trade, balancing economic, social, and environmental impacts. Regarding their focus on policy recommendations to regulate Chinese overseas footprint, notable recent projects include an attempt to enhance the traceability of the China-Brazil beef supply chain, focusing on establishing a traceability system and fostering market access and knowledge in China.

In closing the panel, Claudia brought home some of the anti-sinophobia themes stressed throughout the conference. “There are many people who are aware of the social and environmental impacts of Chinese investments overseas, but not everybody is aware of the great work that Chinese organizations are doing, often under difficult circumstances,” she concluded. 

Visual Medias: Activist Film-making

As was noted in the introduction, this conference included a wide range of presentation mediums, including visuals such as videos and documentaries. These were not added as an afterthought but are integral, necessary, and brilliant examples of collective, activist-minded work. Two of the documentaries presented were Stepping Softly on the Earth, directed by Marcos Colon, and Terra Vista, directed by Noa Cykman, a Ph.D. student in the Sociology department at UC Santa Barbara and a researcher member of the Orfalea Center’s Environmental Justice & Climate Justice Studies research cluster. 

Terra Vista

Orfalea Center fellow, Noa Cykman (right), shares insights on her documentary Terra Vista, supported by the Orfalea Center

The documentary Terra Vista follows a settlement of Brazil’s Landless Peasants Movement (MST) on their journey to recover a degraded territory and establish autonomous and agroecological cacao production. The film is directed by Noa Cykman and Pedro Stropasolas and was a production of the Orfalea Center (UCSB) and Brasil de Fato. This summary and quotes are drawn from a written piece by Noa Cykman. Terra Vista chronicles the journey of a community established by the Landless Peasants Movement (MST) in Brazil in 1992. This community, formed in southern Bahia, represents a pivotal shift in challenging and transforming the traditional cacao production system, historically dominated by white landowners' oligarchic control and poor labor conditions. The film presents interviews with residents of Terra Vista, including some of the original settlers, illustrating the ongoing transition to agroecological practices. This documentary sheds light on the community's efforts to blend social justice, food sovereignty, and ecological restoration. The residents of Terra Vista articulate that agroecology transcends mere techniques; it embodies a lifestyle deeply entrenched in the principles of land care, social justice, and community cooperation. These principles, emphasizing collectivity, reciprocity, and solidarity among humans and nature, are vividly present in the daily life of the settlement and are vividly captured in the film. “With the documentary Terra Vista, we hope to create dialogues with other organizations and social movements around the world that are building agroecology as an alternative to agribusiness. We also hope to reach educators and policy-makers. The MST, and Terra Vista in particular, is an important reference for the advancement of equitable and just food systems,” writes Noa in her article on the film.

Stepping Softly on the Earth

Noa Cykaman (left), Marcos Colon (middle), and Jeffrey Hoelle (right) discuss the documentary Stepping Softly on the Earth 

Our final event for the second night was a screening of the documentary, Stepping Softly on the Earth, featuring an in-person Q&A session with director Marcos Colon.This film screening was hosted by the Orfalea Center and the UC Santa Barbara Multicultural Center. Even late into the night, and after a full day of panels, the theater was filled with those eager to learn more about this injustice. The documentary, filmed in Peru, Colombia and Brazil, featured the accounts of three indigenous leaders and depicted the capitalist invasion of the Amazon. This film narrates the struggle to keep alive ways of being in the world without destroying it.

Indigenous leaders from Ecuador recognized the struggles portrayed in Marcos Colon's documentary  Stepping Softly on the Earth 

Elizabeth Durazno the indigenous activist from whom we had learned so much in our conference, wrote a reflection after her viewing of the film:

“For my comrades Ailton, Katia, and Pepe, I wish to deliver a very important message having now seen this documentary. I was so impressed; it seemed like I was living that very moment, as if I were in the territory with them. I feel in my heart that I was transported there at that moment and, at the same time, my uncle came into my thoughts, he was murdered in his territory, to live that experience and the documentary with me. We lived that together and I felt very bad for a moment, but then I gathered myself and said: my uncle is with me. The message is to continue and that you do not feel alone, we can connect in such a profound way, not necessarily physically, but from the heart. We connect because our planet is tied to the same base, the same fight of the people who resist in the territories. A very, very special greeting and a big hug from a distance. May we always be connected, we can connect through our minds, through our hearts, in the same way, thinking the same things that you think. The same things we do in our territory, you also do. We connect in this way, allowing us to move forward with more people. There is the same focus, the same path to protect our planet.”

Biophilic Eco-Structural Futurism

Eng-Beng Lim closes out the conference with a talk on Biophilic Eco-Structural Futurism

In this final presentation, Eng-Beng Lim discussed developmentalism, infrastructure, and cultural dynamics, primarily focusing on Singapore and its place in the Global South, critiquing developmental approaches in Ecuador and Brazil, characterized by populist narratives, indigenous dispossession, and ecocidal indifference​​. He then shifted to China's geopolitical influence and its partnership with South America, challenging the simplistic and reductive "us vs. them" binary that has featured so prominently in this conference. Eng-Beng introduced the concept of 'Biophilic eco-structural Futurism', combining ecological and infrastructure projects with a futuristic design, as exemplified by Singapore, a city-state with limited natural resources, yet recognized for its greenery and biophilic architecture. Eng-Beng described this architecture as an “urban forest.” This is in stark contrast to, say, urban development in the Middle-East, where a city like Beirut or Cairo would be called a “concrete jungle.” He discussed Singapore's infrastructural development in terms of megastructures and their role in global performance and culture – they are seen as symbols of modernity and reflect Singapore's ascendance as a global powerhouse. Eng-Beng then addressed the socio-political implications of such megastructures, and stated that they are seen as both aspirational and oppressive, existing within a system of unequal power and wealth. He also explored the aesthetic and cultural dimensions of these megastructures, considering their impact on various social and cultural spheres, including climate change, Asian migrancy, and neoliberal globalization. To conclude, Eng-Beng touched on the human aspect of development, and discussed the labor conditions hidden behind these developments, particularly the role of South Asian workers in maintaining this perfect facade Singapore has created.

Concluding Remarks and Takeaways

During the Grant Writing Workshop, Lisa Rofel (top left) shares insights on the opportunities and challenges of grant management. Project participants Cai Yiping (bottom left) and Li Zhang (bottom right) take part in the brainstorming session that concludes the conference

Our conference concluded with a panel discussing grant opportunities for the type of collective activist- minded research behind the creation of The Tropical Silk Road. In the same way that this conference was not simply another academic gathering aimed at an elite academic audience, the funding for these types of projects is also not purely academic in nature. Hearing from the field researchers who worked so diligently to create the project behind the book speak about the grant process contextualized the previous days in a hopeful way. 

Echoing Maria Amelia Viteri’s comments on how we instill hope into our existing network and expand them, this panel did just that, by offering assistance for those that want to take on similar projects. There are organizations that want to see these projects succeed, and they don’t need to be convinced of the usefulness of the nature of this type of work. This panel helped us discuss how to improve their access to resources while stretching this new network established in this space. This workshop and conference as a whole instilled hope in that it functioned as a large-scale workshop, showcasing the types of conversations, questions, views, and strategies needed for a project of this type.