I'm off to the University of Michigan for the Sustainable Energy Fellowship, and then back home to try and start a normal life!
Responsibility and Sustainability
Just sit right back and you'll read a tale, a tale of a fateful trip; that started from a tropical forest, aboard a tiny bus. Jan was a mighty forestry man, Guntra brave and sure. 12 students began another class, on a nine day tour, a nine day tour. The weather at times was rough, rivers and hills slowed down our bus. If not for the knowledge of the fearless professors, the course would be lost, the course would be lost. The bus stopped here and there within this uncharted jungle, and we studied from dawn till dusk, here on the Osa Peninsula!
I began this adventure looking through the lenses of a couple different perspectives. I wanted to tie-up my year's experiences and use the sometimes ambiguous concept of sustainability along with a simple concept that I have come to embrace more and more - responsibility - in order to frame my observations. Within this context, I analyzed different forms of tourism, agriculture, and forestry to determine if the management of these industries, within the Osa Peninsula and Southern Costa Rica, is sustainable and responsible.
Tourism
I have spent a cumulative of nearly two years being a tourist. Of course, my ego would sooner tell you that I was a "Traveler" and not a "Tourist", but the fact remains: I have visited 52 countries and have seen many different spins on the tourism industry.
My general opinion on the tourism industry is that it destroys a community's culture. I use Prague, Czech Republic as the perfect example: the entire old town is filled with tiny shops selling the exact same souvenirs. There is no difference between any individual shop, and the most common "authentic" Czech souvenir is a plastic piece of crap that was made in China anyway. Gone are the shoe repair shops, bakeries, or whatever used to exist in the old town only 20 years ago; replaced with skill-less occupations at the mercy of foreign interest. Okay, this is a major European city, but I've seen the same thing in remote, undeveloped areas as well. Local peoples get so attracted by the thought of making a buck off a foreigner that they neglect or altogether stop whatever it was they were doing with their lives in order to cater to the whims of tourists. Our first stop, at Longo Mai, seemed to support my negative perception of tourism.
Here was a tiny village of Salvadorian refugees who appeared to have embraced something so far from anything they have ever known. What’s their motivation? Someone from a western perspective might say that they are simply developing themselves by learning new skills that allow them to be successful at a particular trade, tourism, thereby providing an adequate livelihood for their community members. Although honorable, I think this is too idealistic of a perspective. I believe the translation I received was something more to the effect of: “the people of Longo Mai are just trying to live”. That is, just trying to make their way in their world today. Surely there must be a different way for them to "live" that wouldn't be so destructive to their culture.
In contrast to my views that the community depends on tourism, we learned that many of the villagers worked for "The Company" in nearby fields. "The Company" in this case was a pineapple production company. On the other hand, an example that supports my views was seen as closely as my host family. We learned that they had directly benefited from tourism – and this was not a rare story for the village. The mother had 15 children and two of her daughters were married to Austrians that had passed through their town. They now live in Austria and send back money from time to time. Their husbands made it possible for the construction of the guest rooms in which I stayed. This family now has income potential that only depends on tourist numbers.
In the Longo Mai community, we learned that there are 40 families that host around 200 to 250 tourists per year as home stays. From the appearance of the town, I can't imagine its population being larger than those 40 families, which really illuminates the impact of 250 tourists per year in their little community. The question I have is, are these folks being responsible with the resources available to them? Is there management of their resources sustainable? My answer to both questions is no.
From my western educated perspective, these people's greatest resource is their culture; a culture that is at risk. The influence of foreign ideas and expectations corrodes whatever belief system and traditions they have held for years. I'm not saying new ideas should be shunned, but they should come from within the community as a natural development process. The tourism industry that they have incorporated into their village is not sustainable because it is so dependent on the tourism market. They're trying to grow, but as they do so, they will lose the original appeal that attracted tourists to their quaint village in the first place. Perhaps it's simply the tragedy of the noble savage, but I feel these people are being irresponsible with their most valuable resource by pursuing and implementing an unsustainable livelihood.
Agriculture
Our second destination, Tesoro Verde, had a very fortunate surprise in the form of an insightful local activist, Pedro. For me, Pedro’s stories perfectly illustrated a connection between tourism and agriculture, and indeed, even forest management.
Pedro said that before tourism arrived to Drake Bay in 1983, only a year after he himself had arrived, the local people had survived on subsistence hunting and farming, but now tourism is dominating as the main industry. Pedro had 25 years of experience in Tesoro Verde working within the tourism industry, and he had some very interesting things to say about it. I'll start with his comment about how a lack of tourism in recent years is "forcing" people to adopt agricultural livelihoods. Is there no other production in Costa Rica than that of food production? Pedro's use of the word 'forcing' made me think that no one wanted an agricultural livelihood, but that everyone could fall back on it as a last resort or in case of an emergency. This reluctance towards agriculture left me with the impression that these people also had a lack of respect for it. When respect is lacking, often responsibility is also lacking.
As Pedro continued, utilizing all his favorite English curse words, he told us about a grave problem in his life: a bureaucratic conflict between MINAET and IDA. He said that he "owned" a significant portion of land, but added that his ownership and stewardship of that land was at risk due to this conflict. He said that MINAET was telling him that he can't plant anything on his land so as to conserve the forest that exists there, but IDA told him that he had to plant something, or utilize the land agriculturally, or else he would lose the land forever! It was a complex and extremely confusing contradiction of Costa Rican governance that had left this poor soul in an unwinnable battle against stress. His conclusion was that if his primary income, tourism, should decline any more than it already has, that his only option would be to cut down two of his hectares of forest in order to implement something agricultural. This is Pedro's last resort. He almost sounded threatening as he told us this fact - that he would cut down the trees to spite the government and the wavering tourism industry. This strikes me as being extremely irresponsible with one's natural resources as well as falling way short of any kind of sustainability goals. Although, for the moment, this is only his attitude, it is a very real and likely possibility.
Another significant look at agriculture in the south of Costa Rica was at the oil palm plantation and processing facility of En Su Punto. The sustainability of this operation was a bit questionable. On the one hand, the Coop had survived devastating price drops in the market in the past. On the other hand, they are supporting a monoculture mentality, and with all their eggs in one basket, if upon the next price drop, the price stays down, then the entire community will lose.
The Greasy Palms, Friends of the Earth, article showed us that although business in the oil palm sector is an incredible booming market, along with the profits it creates, it also creates extreme deforestation. Brendan tried to address this unfortunate situation with the En Su Punto representative, but his response was that "one tree is just as good as any other" and since there were lots of oil palm trees planted on their 12,000 hectares, this means there is a lot of "forest" that wouldn't otherwise be there, as before there were only non-tree agricultural crops such as corn, rice and beans. This is definitely a point, though I'm not sure it's a good one. The sustainability of their land use practices is not questionable. In fact, the representative told us that scientific calculations suggested they could expect a yield of 25 tons of product per hectare per year. Through the manipulation of land, their actual yield was 35 tons of product per hectare per year. He disclosed this point as a positive thing, but I immediately saw it as a red flag.
I later asked him about the inputs required to keep the "fertile" soil more productive than is scientifically expected. His response was that this last year, each plant received one kilogram of fertilizer in two applications, each six months apart. I asked how that compared to last year, and 10 years ago. He said that each year, the amount of fertilizer changes and that they have scientists who do soil testing to determine how much fertilizer to apply every six months. I asked him to clarify how it "changed" - whether the amounts of fertilizer increased each year or whether the amounts were randomly fluctuating. He said, "It changes." Remembering his unrelenting positivity about the coop and palm oil, along with his insistence that a monoculture palm oil plantation is the best thing for the community and the environment, I used my superior judgment skills to determine that the inconsistent fertilizer inputs needed to maintain a consistent yield is most likely an indicator that this scenario is not a sustainable situation.
From these examples it would seem that agriculture is inherently pitted against forest conservation. It's easy to understand that people's livelihoods take priority over preserving the rain forest. How can you tell a starving family not to cut down trees in order to plant crops for their own subsistence? You can't. But you can provide reasonable amounts of land for both! Using some kind of superior land management practices with equitable distribution and a commitment to responsible land use, I believe that forests can be preserved for their own benefit and the benefit of eco-tourism, while communities can meet their needs through traditional, or even modern, agricultural practices.
Forestry
As I stated in my presentation, the anthropocentric concept of forestry for timber production was not a theme we visited on our trip. However, forestry, in terms of conservation, was a large part of the communities and industries we observed.
The idea of forestry conservation has great implications on the responsibility and sustainability of the forest. The concept generates many positive thoughts as far as the future of these forests goes, as well as the potential that lies beyond the sector of forestry. A healthy and responsibly managed forest system is the foundation for the massive eco-tourism industry in Costa Rica, which is one of its main industries. It would make sense then, if its management was a high priority. Unfortunately, from my perception, that's not what we encountered.
My most profound perception of forestry issues came to me when Marzia, from Neotropica, led us on a hike into Corcovado. The hike was wonderful and beautiful. Any nature lover would have been impressed at the species diversity we encountered and the apparent health of the forest. But when we returned from our hike to the MINAET park ranger station for a debriefing, we got a completely different picture of the park. It was a societal/bureaucratic picture that was the complete opposite of the natural beauty we experienced.
We were all appalled to hear that the problems of illegal hunting and illegal logging were actually significant problems. The hunting seemed to be minimally for food, and mostly for sport and spite. I say spite because of the stories the rangers told of finding dead animals with notes attached to their bodies insulting MINAET.
They gave a quote that only 10% of the perpetrators were local, but they were all from Costa Rica. It was a disgusting insight into three things: a lack of respect for governmental regulations that exist to protect nature; a lack of governmental capacity for controlling this situation; and blatant irresponsibility towards one's country and its natural resources, which destroys any chances of sustainability when talking about forestry conservation.
There were only seven guys that monitor and control this park. They spoke of armed conflicts and shoot-outs with illegal hunters, but my better judgment says that for the wages they earn, they probably more often lay low when they encounter perpetrators, if they even encounter them at all. They also spoke of drug runners from Colombia and Panama increasing the danger of the job, but also increasing the hopes of a "find" after one drug runner has made a drop and before the next one comes in for the "pick up". They told a story of 300 kilograms of cocaine being found on the beach, waiting for pickup. Finds like that create a much better retirement plan than whatever MINAET is offering.
In another park, La Amistad, there are only 13 park rangers who have the task of monitoring and protecting an area that is 4% of Costa Rica's total land area! How can only 13 people be given this responsibility? How can success be expected in this situation? It's simply impossible. Governmental priorities are elsewhere.
As far as forestry conservation goes, I find nearly complete disregard on the part of the government, which I interpret as being insanely irresponsible. I also find that sustainability is possible if enforcement and respect of regulations could ever be achieved. But as they are not, sustainability is currently a failure.
This dire conclusion shows signs of light, though. In the community of Coopa Buena, where Brendan's project, the Finca Project, exists, hope is being created one tree at a time. I spoke with 20 community members and gathered a perspective of positivity. Brendan's NGO is playing a crucial role in reforestation and education in a small community, which is something this country desperately needs.
The community perspective that I gathered from 20 people, showed that people have a genuine concern over deforestation and pollution of the forest. They were extremely grateful for a project in their community that aimed at reforesting the land while educating people as to why that particular goal is important and why the forest should be respected.
If we've seen that some people don't care about nature, and some people do, where do we go and what do we do? My guess is that majority of people don't care one way or another about the health of the forest as long as they have a home and a couple meals a day, but the question remains: What can be done to increase responsibility and sustainability?
The Judkins Recommendation
What could possibly tie tourism, agriculture, and forestry all together while bringing sustainability and responsibility to the forefront of each of their management priorities? I would like to propose an idea that may not seem consistent with the ideals of the University for Peace. I would like to propose the reinstatement of the Costa Rican military.
From my perspective, two of Costa Rica's largest problems are its apathetic population and its corrupt and lethargic government. The combination of these two components produces results like those discussed with MINAET in Corcovado: regulations not being respected which led to wildlife and forest destruction. This is one example. How can both of these contributing factors be mitigated? Easy, a new military! However, the definition of military is slightly altered in my proposal.
When I say military, I really mean, “some form of a forceful hand of the government focused as much on civil service as on the defense of the country's resources”. I’m suggesting the reinstatement of the military, as my assumptions tell me that the once-existing military infrastructure would make an ideal means for the formation of this non-military, civil service division of the government. Imagine the possibilities that could come from an obligatory country service program. For example, when youth graduate high school, before they move on to a university program or a job, they would be required to serve one year in the New Costa Rican Non-Conventional Military for Civil Service Projects (NCRNCMCSP), or maybe it could be called Tico Corps. Young adults would learn skills while simultaneously providing essential services to ailing communities. Proper modern roads could be constructed in addition to other forms of basic infrastructure to support the country's development and allow for the tourism industry to blossom while being kept under control for sustainability. Agricultural lands could be properly monitored for erosion control, integrated species/crop diversity, pesticide reductions through invasive/problem species control and elimination. Illegal forest dumpsites could be cleaned; even a branch of a more conventional militaristic civil service could have the numbers, resources, and potential to bring real defense to national parks and protected forests, including the animals at risk of illegal hunting, as well as the trees at risk of illegal logging.
Not only would a civil service program provide a force to protect forests and deter drug running; to provide labor for agricultural efficiency and sustainability; to assist in one of Costa Rica's biggest industries, tourism, with basic infrastructure and guest services; it would also provide Costa Rica's youth with invaluable life skills, as well as insights and perspectives on the value of their land and the risks that threaten it. Personal development of the youth participants would be ensured through the vast diversity of possible niches that a program like this would incorporate.
The problem still remaining, a corrupt government, could be mitigated through the creation of many high level positions within the NCRNCMCSP program that would provide oversight, checks and balances, and an encouragement of transparency by having more eyes seeing government actions and more voices impacting responsible governance. It is precisely the reduction in corruption that would be necessary to finance such a program in the first place. It would be nice if the amount of money being skimmed off the top at all different levels would be able to fund such a massive program, but there is the possibility of increased taxation to fill in the gaps.
Conclusion
Osa: The final frontier. This was the voyage of our Natural Resource Management Field Trip. Our nine day mission was to explore a strange new peninsula; to seek out new life and new civilizations; to boldly go where no UPeace student had gone before.
We had a very unique opportunity to see firsthand the problems, challenges and successes of local peoples, as well as governmental employees in different degrees of tourism, agriculture, and forestry. Although there were some success stories, like that of the Finca Project and its community, I feel Costa Rica has a long way to go in bringing responsibility and sustainability to the forefront of management practices.
I also feel that the best way to go about accomplishing this would be a civil service obligation to conquer the population's "Pura Vida" apathy problem by getting everyone involved in meaningful, productive projects for the betterment of the country and each community within. I realize how unrealistic any kind of implementation of the NCRNCMCSP as described by the Judkins Recommendation may be, as it is quite extreme, but I do feel it is within the realms of possibility that a less extreme, similar program that focused on getting citizens engaged in the development of themselves and their communities is the answer to some of Costa Rica's woes. Equitable, individual responsibility will inevitably produce sustainability in the sectors of tourism, agriculture, forestry and beyond.
5 comments:
Here's the problem. Everything you've described is a chicken-and-egg situation. The poor don't act sustainably because sustainability and environmentalism mean little when you're struggling to scratch out a meager living. But they can't maintain a living without the resources they're using. Or culture attracts tourists, but any culture engaging with tourists suddenly gets branded as "inauthentic." Or people are apathetic because of government corruption, but your proposed solution requires the people to be activist and clean up the corruption.
Without sounding dogmatic - this is just my first impression - isn't substantial economic development and improvement - even "non-environmentally friendly" development and improvement - the solution to cutting through the chicken-egg problems? By almost every measure, developed countries consistently dominate top of the environmental protection list. They have cleaner air, better water, better protections for forests, stronger species protection, more enforcement resources, etc. Yet many of these same countries went through horrible dirty development phases. It seems at least plausible, then, that revving up your economic development can lead to enough wealth to care about the "rich man's" concerns of environmentalism. The path of "sustainable development," meanwhile, though alluring, must at least be admitted to be virtually unproven. The developed world started dirty and then cleaned up its act once it got rich. I'm not saying that is the optimal strategy - maybe "sustainable" development would work even better - but it is the only strategy with a positive track record that I'm aware of.
Actually, Costa Rica itself provides interesting fodder for this theory. Costa Rica, as you noted, bases huge chunks of its economy on eco-tourism. Costa Rica actually, therefore, is one of the cleanest non-developed countries, because it has made relatively pristine environment part of its "competitive advantage" economic strategy. But eco-tourism doesn't work without tourists. And tourists don't come without money. So Costa Rica's "clean" strategy is itself largely dependent on the developed world's already-accumulated prosperity.
In short, one can either view environmentalism as a good to be purchased, or as a wealth generator. It is comforting to assume that the latter is true, because if so, it eliminates thorny trade-off problems. Thus O the Prophet endlessly talks up "clean energy" as leading to economic renewal. But as Spain's example has showed, it simply is not true. Making energy more expensive probably DOES help the environment - but it also hurts the economy. The only countries signing up for (and even after signing up, abiding by) various global warming protocols are countries that have the luxury of cash (or are so poor they have no emissions anyway). It is wishful thinking to simply assume that because something is good, it is good for everything and everyone. Generally it isn't. If global experience shows anything, it supports the "environmentalism must be purchased" model.
If true, then Costa Rica's disengaged citizenry and corrupt government also make more sense, particularly in light of your argument re: tourism. The government mandates enviro regulations to preserve tourism. But if tourism is self-contradictory and culture-sapping as you say, then no wonder the people despise themselves, their government, and their tourist guests. The people are essentially buying a clean environment by expenditure of government resources, solely for the "privilege" of serving it up to tourists. Meanwhile, the centralization required to maintain such enviro controls, in the absence of general societal consensus and excess wealth, offers a concentration of power, and power inevitably corrupts.
That, in essence, is why I am not certain about your proposed solution. It assumes that environmentalism pays for itself and more (history seems to indicate that it often doesn't - it usually follows wealth instead of creating wealth). It assumes that the solution has to come from a government that has already shown a propensity for corruption. And it assumes that further curtailing the freedom of Costa Ricans by mandatory service will lead to increased respect.
I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. I'm well aware that the "tragedy of the commons" almost always requires some level of government protection to preserve the environment. I know that historical patterns of dirty --> clean do not prove that such a pattern is the best or only way to get a clean environment. It seems to me that what your invocation of a "new military" is trying to do is to create an orderly civil society and civic culture from the top down. I think that goal is correct, though I may disagree with the methods.
At the risk of being seen as a sentimental classic liberal, it seems to me that fostering the orderly rule of law while maximizing individual freedom is the best hope to solve all the listed problems. Such a government tends to encourage growth, engagement, wealth, respect, and eventually reach a consensus to protect the environment on which everything ultimately depends.
I think it's a good idea. NJR, I think your respsonse might boil down to "No, that wouldn't solve everything." That's hardly a valid goal...
Many other countries have mandatory national service. It seems like a good fit to increase moral, national identity, and the sense of ownership, as well as building infrastructure. I would suggest that someone who has completed a term of national service would be less likely to tolerate corruption in his government or poor environmental practices.
No, it wouldn't immediately solve Costa Rica's economic problems or government corruption, but it might improve the foundation on which those both stand.
Barry, I don't think my critique was that it wouldn't solve everything. My intended critique was that, due to pre-existing problems, I wasn't sure it would solve anything, or maybe make things worse. After all, a forced service program is not inherently a good thing. It can have many effects, good and bad, intended and unintended. I'm not saying for sure it's a bad idea here, but I'm not quite convinced it's a good one either. Many countries have required military service; it seems to work pretty well for most. But the U.S. got rid of that, and overall it's hard to argue with the military efficacy of the U.S. (whether or not one agrees with how it's deployed). Youth organizations can run the gamut from the Komsomol to the Americorps. They aren't all necessarily benign, and while correlation/association isn't causation, I would wager that most all of the "non-benign" ones were mandatory.
From my own personal perspective, my high school had a "mandatory volunteering" requirement to graduate. In my experience and the experience of many (or most) people I knew, it did not do much to foster a closer connection to community, but rather tended to inculcate cynicism. Of course, there were some exceptions even in that experience.
The point is, when a country suffers from corrupt government, poor economic performance, and citizen cynicism, I'm not sure it solves any of those problems to have the government co-opt several productive years from the citizenry by mandating national service on the government's preferred projects. It seems to me at least plausible that that could misfire and worsen government corruption (think Warden Norton's "work program" in Shawshank Redemption), economic under-performance, and citizen apathy.
I'm not saying it couldn't work as intended, nor that it's unworthy of consideration and maybe even trial on a limited scale. But I'm just not totally convinced that it gets to the heart of the problem, whether it works or not. And it's possible that a government program might actually make things worse if it turns out that the biggest problems are caused by incompetent, inconstant, and/or dishonest government.
Post a Comment