Lesson from Costa Rica

SUBHEAD: Want to avert the apocalypse? This is the country in the Western Hemisphere to look for solutions.

By Jason Hickel on 7 October 2017 for the Guardian -
(https://www.theguardian.com/working-in-development/2017/oct/07/how-to-avert-the-apocalypse-take-lessons-from-costa-rica?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other)


Image above: Shoreline of Costa Rica. Photo by Alamay. From original article.

Earlier this summer, a paper published in the journal Nature captured headlines with a rather bleak forecast. Our chances of keeping global warming below the 2C danger threshold are very, very small: only about 5%.

The reason, according to the paper’s authors, is that the cuts we’re making to greenhouse gas emissions are being cancelled out by economic growth.

In the coming decades, we’ll be able to reduce the carbon intensity of the global economy by about 1.9% per year, if we make heavy investments in clean energy and efficient technology. That’s a lot. But as long as the economy keeps growing by more than that, total emissions are still going to rise.

Right now we’re ratcheting up global GDP by 3% per year, which means we’re headed for trouble.

If we want to have any hope of averting catastrophe, we’re going to have to do something about our addiction to growth. This is tricky, because GDP growth is the main policy objective of virtually every government on the planet.

It lies at the heart of everything we’ve been told to believe about how the economy should work: that GDP growth is good, that it’s essential to progress, and that if we want to improve human wellbeing and eradicate poverty around the world, we need more of it. It’s a powerful narrative. But is it true?

Maybe not. Take Costa Rica. A beautiful Central American country known for its lush rainforests and stunning beaches, Costa Rica proves that achieving high levels of human wellbeing has very little to do with GDP and almost everything to do with something very different.

Every few years the New Economics Foundation publishes the Happy Planet Index – a measure of progress that looks at life expectancy, wellbeing and equality rather than the narrow metric of GDP, and plots these measures against ecological impact.

Costa Rica tops the list of countries every time. With a life expectancy of 79.1 years and levels of wellbeing in the top 7% of the world, Costa Rica matches many Scandinavian nations in these areas and neatly outperforms the United States. And it manages all of this with a GDP per capita of only $10,000 (£7,640), less than one fifth that of the US.

In this sense, Costa Rica is the most efficient economy on earth: it produces high standards of living with low GDP and minimal pressure on the environment.

How do they do it? Professors Martínez-Franzoni and Sánchez-Ancochea argue that it’s all down to Costa Rica’s commitment to universalism: the principle that everyone – regardless of income – should have equal access to generous, high-quality social services as a basic right.

A series of progressive governments started rolling out healthcare, education and social security in the 1940s and expanded these to the whole population from the 50s onward, after abolishing the military and freeing up more resources for social spending.

Costa Rica wasn’t alone in this effort, of course. Progressive governments elsewhere in Latin America made similar moves, but in nearly every case the US violently intervened to stop them for fear that “communist” ideas might scupper American interests in the region.

Costa Rica escaped this fate by outwardly claiming to be anti-communist and – horribly – allowing US-backed forces to use the country as a base in the contra war against Nicaragua.

The upshot is that Costa Rica is one of only a few countries in the global south that enjoys robust universalism. It’s not perfect, however.

Relatively high levels of income inequality make the economy less efficient than it otherwise might be. But the country’s achievements are still impressive. On the back of universal social policy, Costa Rica surpassed the US in life expectancy in the late 80s, when its GDP per capita was a mere tenth of America’s.

Today, Costa Rica is a thorn in the side of orthodox economics. The conventional wisdom holds that high GDP is essential for longevity: “wealthier is healthier”, as former World Bank chief economist Larry Summers put it in a famous paper.

But Costa Rica shows that we can achieve human progress without much GDP at all, and therefore without triggering ecological collapse. In fact, the part of Costa Rica where people live the longest, happiest lives – the Nicoya Peninsula – is also the poorest, in terms of GDP per capita.

Researchers have concluded that Nicoyans do so well not in spite of their “poverty”, but because of it – because their communities, environment and relationships haven’t been ploughed over by industrial expansion.

All of this turns the usual growth narrative on its head. Henry Wallich, a former member of the US Federal Reserve Board, once pointed out that “growth is a substitute for redistribution”. And it’s true: most politicians would rather try to rev up the GDP and hope it trickles down than raise taxes on the rich and redistribute income into social goods.

But a new generation of thinkers is ready to flip Wallich’s quip around: if growth is a substitute for redistribution, then redistribution can be a substitute for growth.


Costa Rica provides a hopeful model for any country that wants to chart its way out of poverty. But it also holds an important lesson for rich countries. Scientists tell us that if we want to avert dangerous climate change, high-consuming nations – like Britain and the US – are going to have to scale down their bloated economies to get back in sync with the planet’s ecology, and fast.

A widely-cited paper by scientists at the University of Manchester estimates it’s going to require downscaling of 4-6% per year.

This is what ecologists call “de-growth”. This calls for redistributing existing resources and investing in social goods in order to render growth unnecessary.

Decommoditizing and universalizing healthcare, education and even housing would be a step in the right direction. Another would be a universal basic income – perhaps funded by taxes on carbon, land, resource extraction and financial transactions.

The opposite of growth isn’t austerity, or depression, or voluntary poverty. It is sharing what we already have, so we won’t need to plunder the earth for more.

Costa Rica proves that rich countries could theoretically ease their consumption by half or more while maintaining or even increasing their human development indicators. Of course, getting there would require that we devise a new economic system that doesn’t require endless growth just to stay afloat. That’s a challenge, to be sure, but it’s possible.

After all, once we have excellent healthcare, education, and affordable housing, what will endlessly more income growth gain us?

Maybe bigger TVs, flashier cars, and expensive holidays. But not more happiness, or stronger communities, or more time with our families and friends. Not more peace or more stability, fresher air or cleaner rivers.

Past a certain point, GDP gains us nothing when it comes to what really matters. In an age of climate change, where the pursuit of ever more GDP is actively dangerous, we need a different approach.

.

Volatility on Steroids

SUBHEAD: Regeneration, in this context, is about getting better, stronger, more resilient over time.

By Dr Nelson Lebo III on 17 OCtober 2017 in Automatic Earth -
(https://www.theautomaticearth.com/2017/10/volatility-on-steroids/)


Image above: Still frame of life in Las Vegas in 1982 fro the film  "Koyaanisqatsi". A film about our modern life out of balance. From (http://www.londoncitynights.com/2012/12/philip-glass-at-75-koyaanisqatsi-at.html).

Volatility is the new normal – that’s the message I gave a local Rotary Club when I spoke to members four or five years ago. I had been told beforehand the group was “worldly” and specifically instructed in the invitation to challenge them with my presentation.

As a weekly columnist in the city’s paper – the Wanganui Chronicle – I was widely known for my positions on wealth inequality, climate change, and debt, as well as a wide range of practical approaches to address these issues.

Around that time it was clear that a post-GFC new normal was functioning worldwide and many writers were using the term.

By then The Spirit Level (Pickett & Wilkinson, 2009) had been widely read and widely praised for its documentation of the relationship between wealth and income inequality and social problems.

Additionally, peer reviewed research based on decades worth of data had shown there was a quantitatively measurable increase in extreme weather events: more big storms and more big droughts.

I thought my audience would be well on board.

Judging from the response that day, however, the brief I had been given was misguided and most club members were neither expecting nor wanting a presentation that challenged the dominant paradigm of infinite growth without consequences no matter how factual.

As a mid-week midday meeting with New Zealand ‘fush ‘n chups’ on the menu the message that the-world-as-you-know-it-has-changed-forever was a bit heavy for people on their lunch break.

The response that day was, of course, perfectly ‘normal’. Almost no adult human seeks out new and different worldviews. On the contrary, we are far more inclined to cling to outdated ones, à la “Make America Great Again” than to acknowledge changing realities.

Social media allows us to reverberate in echo chambers of our own beliefs where we know we’re right because the echo told us so. Social science researchers have told us this for decades. The Internet just makes it worse and more obvious.

I’ve been writing about Trump, doubling-down and the post-truth world for two years now, and if anything I am more certain of the point I’ve been trying to make: most people are irrational. Seems there’s now a Nobel Laureate who has been arguing the same for decades.

Behavioral economist Richard Thaler was recently awarded a Nobel for his study of the psychology of economics, which seeks to understand how we are irrational and the impact on traditional economic theories that have failed time and again (think 2008 Global Financial Crisis) because they don’t sufficiently incorporate human factors. (Remember Greenspan’s admission?)

In no way do I intend to single out the Wanganui Rotarians, but rather use this example as illustrative for what my community, nation, and the entire world face: volatility made worse by inertia. In other words, the longer we choose to ignore inconvenient truths the greater will be their negative impacts.
This situation usually manifests in the form of tipping points .

 Malcolm Gladwell defined a tipping point in his debut book of the same name as “the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point.” Everything looks fine with the economy and the climate…until it’s not. And by ‘not fine’ we are talking really NOT FINE à la Greece, Puerto Rico, Houston, etc.

Tipping points is volatility on steroids. Brace yourselves.

Well-informed leaders from President Obama to Pope Francis agree the greatest threats facing humanity are climate change and wealth inequality. I’ve written extensively about both for many years yet neither appears to get much traction locally or globally.

Our ‘leaders’ ignore these issues at all of our peril because the result of each is increasing volatility in many forms: social, economic, financial, political, and an increasing incidence of extreme weather events.

Volatility is not good for social order, and where I live is a perfect example of the canary in the coalmine: a coastal, river city with high levels of inequality. It’s a tipping point waiting to happen.

Some readers may remember the 1982 film by Godfrey Reggio called Koyaanisqatsi, named using a Hopi term meaning “chaotic life” or “life out of balance.”

The film is unnerving, as is much of what comes via news media these days: hurricanes, mass shootings, hurricanes, opioid epidemics, hurricanes, people sleeping in cars, hurricanes, rising suicide rates, hurricanes, and children dying from cold damp homes.

And then there’s Myanmar: When Buddhists become the aggressors, you know the world is well and truly out of balance.

Okay, so the world is out of balance. What can be done about it?

Our solution to imbalance, as any regular reader of our blog knows, is called “Eco-Thrifty.” This approach to design and to life is about living better on less. Seems we have good company along these lines in the form of Costa Rica, the small Central American nation that regularly tops the Happy Planet Index published by the New Economics Foundation.

Despite per capita income one quarter that of New Zealand (ranked 38th of 140) and one fifth that of the US (108th of 140) Costa Rica matches many Scandinavian countries in terms of equality, wellbeing, life expectancy and ecological impact.

As Jason Hickel of the Guardian recently put it, “Costa Rica proves that rich countries could theoretically ease their consumption by half or more while maintaining or even increasing their human development indicators.”

“The opposite of growth isn’t austerity, or depression, or voluntary poverty. It is sharing what we already have, so we won’t need to plunder the earth for more.”

Sharing is at the heart of the permaculture ethics, where it is joined by caring for the environment and caring for people. Although we practice permaculture on our farm and in our community, we’re not dogmatic about it. What drives the eco-thrifty bus is resilience accompanied by regeneration.

Resilience, in this context, is the ability to withstand a pulse. It does not happen by accident. It can be designed, built and managed. Resilience only matters 0.0001% of the time, but when it matters it really matters.

Resilient homes stand up to earthquakes and hurricanes. Resilient farms stand up to major rain events and extended droughts. Resilient communities withstand economic downturns and ‘natural disasters’.

Regeneration, in this context, is about getting better, stronger, more resilient over time.

Regenerative farms grow food while building soil fertility, reducing erosion, storing carbon, managing storm water, and increasing biological diversity.

Regenerative communities reduce crime, domestic violence, drug abuse, and suicide rates while keeping wealth and resources circulating locally. They improve quality of life while shrinking energy use, pollution and wealth inequality.

From these perspectives Costa Rica is a good, albeit imperfect, case study. It is, however, about the best example we can find and has the data to show long-term consistently high quality of life.


Image above: "Pura Vida" is Spanish for "Pure Life". One alternative to the Ponzi scheme our debt based "economy" enshrines. From (https://www.goabroad.com/articles/study-abroad/10-reasons-to-study-abroad-in-costa-rica).


Pura Vida trumps Koyaanisqatsi.

.

Land resources of indigenous wanted

SUBHEAD: International labor organization helps legalize land grabs on indigenous people's territories.

By Renata Bessi &Santiago Navarro on 24 July 1027 for Truth Out -
(http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/41328-international-labor-organization-s-convention-169-helps-legalize-land-grabs-on-indigenous-territories)


Image above: Garifuna community in Honduras, threatened by tourism projects and oil palm monoculture. Photo by Aldo Santiago. From original article.

[IB Publisher's note: This humble homestead looks a bit like rural Hawaii or other pealsant subtropical locations where there are still indigenous people living lightly on the land in preservation with nature. That's not to say that the indigenous do not weigh on nature, but compare their living environment with a goldmine, hydroelectric dam or mono culture palm oil megafarm.]

Indigenous peoples' territories are some of the few places where natural resources are preserved throughout the world. In fact, they protect about 80 percent of the planet's biodiversity but are legal owners of less than 11 percent of these lands, according to the World Bank.

Because of this -- and the fact that so many companies hope to get a piece of these resources -- Indigenous peoples are often in a vulnerable position, and in a permanent kind of war with businesses and governments.

The International Labor Organization's (ILO) Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples' Rights, together with the United Nations 2007 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, have been the main international legal tools to defend territorial rights.

In theory, Convention 169 guarantees Indigenous people residing in the signatory countries the right to their land. To this end, it establishes that for any project that a company or government plans in their territories, they must be guaranteed a free, prior and informed consultation.

Because Convention 169 commits the signatory states to guarantee the integrity of Indigenous peoples, it's been frequently invoked by Indigenous communities and peoples, especially in Latin America, when defending their territories in court. But the Convention has clear limitations that actually jeopardize its intent.

Indeed, the Convention is unprecedented in that it establishes that "all peoples have the right to self-determination."

But in several official yet not-so-public statements, the ILO makes clear how far it sees Indigenous rights as going: "One of the concerns expressed in both political and business circles has to do with a misinterpretation of the Convention where the outcome of the consultations could be the vetoing of projects.

Said consultations don't imply the right of veto and it's imperative that an agreement or consent be obtained," as stated in the document entitled "ILO Convention 169: Indigenous Peoples and Social Inclusion."

While in many parts of Latin America, Indigenous peoples are defending their struggle for self-determination through consultations, for high-level ILO officials, the mechanism's use is clear.

"It's not a 'plebiscite' to obtain a 'yes or no' vote, nor to obtain a 'veto' around decisions with general benefit.

It's a dialogue in good faith to enhance the benefits for Indigenous people regardless of the decision (the state) makes," said Carmen Moreno, director of ILO's Latin America regional office during the forum "Situation of the Right to Consultation in Convention 169," which was held in conjunction with the World Bank in Guatemala in April.

In fact, according to the international organization, it's governments that have the last word on Indigenous territories. "The power of the Convention is that it's an instrument through which the peoples concerned can participate freely in a dialogue with the State.

But the State, ultimately, is the one who must make a decision," the ILO Convention 169: Indigenous Peoples and Social Inclusion reads. Regarding the most serious cases where peoples must be relocated from their territories, "even in these situations the people have no decision-making power," said Moreno.

In addition, Convention 169 establishes that the rights of Indigenous peoples in relation to natural resources must be protected, but it does not grant them exclusive rights over those resources.

Latin America: Principal Signatory
The Convention was signed in 1989 and went into effect in 1991. To date, 15 of the 22 countries that have ratified it are in Latin America: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela. (In addition to Denmark, Spain, Fiji, Nepal, Norway, the Netherlands and the Central African Republic.)

The significant number of Latin American adherents to the Convention is not a coincidence. It's an attempt to appease the high-intensity conflicts generated by the massive growth of development projects throughout the region.

The Latin American Mining Conflict Observatory (OCMAL) points out that over the last decade, Latin America has become one of the epicenters of mining expansion.

"Guaranteeing indigenous people's rights in Latin America: Progress in the past decade and remaining challenges," a report put out by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), registered more than 200 conflicts in Latin American Indigenous territories linked to extraction of hydrocarbons and mining from 2010 and 2013.


Image above: Baudillo Salles Sánchez, member of the Briri tribe with his family in Costa Rica. Photo by Renata Bessi. From original article.

Térraba: Marked Cards
Carmen Moreno claims that development is the main objective. "The consultations established in Convention 169 are an instrument of good governance to contribute to the development and growth of countries," she said.

However, not everyone the Convention supposedly protects feels included. "They just forgot to ask if our definition of development is the same as their plan for our territories," says Broran tribe member Pablo Sivar, from the Térraba-Boruca Indigenous territory in Costa Rica, who is a part of the Council of Elders. "I definitely don't believe in their type of development."

Sivar and his community are aware of impending threats to their lands and water. "In Térraba, there used to be a lot of water, but not anymore. And they wanna finish off the main river we have, the Térraba River, also known as river Diquís, which in the Boruca language means 'big water'."

He went on to explain that the El Diquís Hydroelectric Project would be the largest hydroelectric plant in Central America, despite official statistics that show that about 99 percent of the country already has electricity. "Who will the Diquís Project favor? Who it will develop? Is it the Térraba Indigenous people? Is it the Indigenous people of the south? Or is it just a few people?"

Work on the Diquís Project began in 2006. After much resistance by the local community, the project was halted in 2011.

Without any additional information, the company simply announced -- on the same day the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples James Anaya visited -- that it would withdraw its machinery and infrastructure from Térraba territory.

Approximately three years later, the government arrived to begin developing a consultation protocol for Indigenous peoples, with the financial cooperation of international organizations, such as the ILO and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

This was announced at one of the government meetings in Térraba, where Truthout was. "We know why they're here. We know what they want," Pablo Sivar stated.

In the same meeting, the locals wanted to know if the process was linked to the Diquís Project. Immediately, government officials denied any link and tried to change the subject. "This process has nothing to do with the project. We're here to develop a consultation protocol for Indigenous peoples," said Ana Gabriel, Costa Rica's vice minister for political affairs and citizen dialogue.

Government officials aren't transparent about the link between projects and the protocol in these public forums, and make contradictory statements to the media. The plan to build the dam in Broran territory continues.

The Indigenous consultation would be the last stage before handing in all necessary documentation to obtain environmental viability and move forward with the project. Feasibility studies and designs are already in place. The construction is scheduled to start in 2018, and operation in 2025.

The attempt to obscure the relationship between the protocol and the project is not in vain. The Indigenous resistance of the hydroelectric dam is longstanding.

"We know that everything is ready for them to resume the work," Cindy Broran of the Broran Indigenous Movement, founded by Térraba tribe members to resist the hydroelectric Project, told Truthout.

"Consultation is the way to legitimize the company's presence in the territory and with it they'll be able to secure financing from international bodies, such as the World Bank. We know that everything's in place."

Project Halted Due to Lack of Consultation
According to Ana Gabriel, who's responsible for developing the consultation protocol in Costa Rica, the country owes a historic debt to its Indigenous peoples and the current government plans on making up for it.

"It's no small matter that the president himself has issued a directive and given a mandate to develop this consultation protocol," she told Truthout.

Despite the politically correct rhetoric of healing and historical debts to Indigenous peoples, the truth is that development projects, funded by international institutions, are unviable because of the lack of consultation.

The vice minister of Costa Rica himself admitted it: "There have been projects that have had to be stopped in Indigenous territories due to lack of consultation."


Image above: Gold mine in a Honduran indigenous community. Photo by Renata Bessi. From original article.Diquís Project: A Bitter Experience

In 2006, the Diquís Project began in Broran territory with a permit issued by the Development Association, a government entity responsible for land management. "Before we knew it, trucks, cars and people were entering the community," said Broran.

"We went to request information and they told us that they had moved forward with it because they had 76 signatures of people affiliated with the Development Association. The association gave the go-ahead for the company to come in and build the dam."

"When the company moved in, it became chaotic," Broran said. "They messed up the whole river, killing many species. Many shops sprang up to sell food, but mostly canteens and bars for workers from outside.

The association gave permission for these businesses, without considering that Indigenous law prohibits the sale of alcohol within its territory. The illegal sale of land increased. Health centers and schools ran out of supplies."

Additionally, ancestral patrimony of the Broran people was looted. Between 2006 and 2010, archaeologists contracted by the company did intense work, recounts Broran. They dug three tunnels that still exist.

"We learned from folks who worked there that they found many archeological sites, including our ancestors' cemeteries. They took everything they found. They took everything and we don't know where it is."

With Sights on Energy
Since the 1970s, the Costa Rican government has conducted studies to implement a hydroelectric project in the region. "Before, it was called Boruca Hydroelectric Project, which was about 15 km downstream from where the Diquís Project is today, but because of the resistance by the Boruca people, the project was cancelled.

So, they moved it higher, in our lands, but it's the same project. It will affect the same river only now on Broran ancestral lands," Cindy Broran said.

According to a study by the World Rainforest Movement, geologists from the company Alcoa (where former US Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was the CEO between 1987 and 1999) found deposits of bauxite in the General River Valley's subsoil. Bauxite is the prime material used to make aluminum.

In 1970, Costa Rica's Legislative Assembly passed a law (No. 4562) saying Alcoa -- one of the three largest aluminum companies in the world and considered a defense company since one of its main clients is the United States armed forces -- could exploit up to 120 million tons of bauxite over 25 years and with a possible 15 years of extension, in exchange for building an aluminum refining plant in the same area.

Aluminum foundries require a great quantity of low-cost electric energy. The project is feasible provided a hydroelectric dam were to be built on the Rio Grande de Térraba, the study said.

The dam project triggered major resistance because many people considered it a violation and dangerous. Large demonstrations and protests took place, forcing Alcoa to give up its project.

Energy for the US
The Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) in charge of the Diquís Project has shifted its objectives.

According to the document "National and Transnational Pressures on Energy in Costa Rica," produced by the Association of Popular Initiatives Ditsö, the main reason for resuming construction of the hydroelectric project is the possibility of selling energy abroad, mainly to Mexico and the United States.

The dam is part of the Mesoamerica Project, initially called Puebla-Panama Plan (PPP) and funded by the United States government.

It's an initiative which, among other things, includes an extensive network of infrastructure projects from Mexico to Panama "necessary to export -- or better yet, to plunder -- many of our natural resources, whose common destination is the U.S. and Mexico," the document states.

Diquís: Clean Energy?
To date, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) has financed feasibility, environmental and social impact studies around the Diquís project.

They explained their investment as "contributing to increased energy supply in Costa Rica and Central America, promoting sustainability, efficiency and competitiveness of the region's energy sector, in order to address the impact of CAFTA (a "free trade" agreement between the United States, Central America and the Dominican Republic) in the region, through the implementation of a large-scale clean and renewable energy project."

The Process Is Finalized
The process of developing a consultation protocol was designed by the government to occur in four phases and began in March 2016. Of the 24 Indigenous territories of Costa Rica, 20 agreed to everything up until the last phase, including the people of Térraba. Now, the president must issue an order legitimizing the consultation protocol for Costa Rica.

"We debated a long time over whether or not to participate in this process. We're aware that the government always has political gains in mind," said Broran.

"We also know that they manipulate the term 'consultation,' that they're trying to show good faith for public relations. But we want to be there, and say what we think, in front of all Costa Rica."

The Bribri people of Talamanca, a territory in southern Costa Rica, refused to participate in the development of the consultation protocol. "This whole process is a performance," Bribri tribe member Baudillo Salles Sánchez told Truthout.

"Protocols and consultations are tools to justify entering and exploiting the territory. They do the consultation as they wish, and then they can say that they're exploiting our resources with our consent."




.