Keywords

Introduction (Environmental Struggles and Globalization)

The richness of Costa Rican environmental struggles can be understood as another chapter in the civil resistance efforts against the spread of globalization in Central America. As I discuss below, the modern Costa Rican social movement began in 1970 with the campaign against Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA). This proto-environmental campaign was partly responsible for the newly created student movement. The ALCOA campaign was the result of a combination of political accountability regarding sovereignty, on the one hand, and the defense of the environment, on the other. In this way, this new social movement structured itself as a struggle against the expansionist desires of a transnational bauxite corporation; hence, it marked the inauguration of what in later decades would become struggles against globalization or neoliberalism.

Decades later, the 1990s ushered in renewed rounds of environmental struggles in Costa Rica . These conflicts were more enduring and long term. The campaigns against Stone Container in 1993–1994Footnote 1 and against strip mining (in San Carlos from 1994 to 1998 and in Miramar from 1996 to 1999) resulted in impressive mobilizations and important precedents in the history of the Costa Rican environmental movement. Behind these organized campaigns, stood an emerging social movement, which was less organized and more local, but with an unprecedented reach and depth within civil society. In a way, these new environmental struggles were an extension of the first socio/environmental campaign represented by the mobilizations against ALCOA because they were also resistance movements against transnational companies, and they were in clear opposition to international capital forms of resource extraction and expansion. However, by the 1990s activists used a more explicit environmental framing in their organizing activities than in past struggles.

The tendencies experienced in the 1990s also reached a new climax with the struggles against what came to be known as “combo ICE”Footnote 2 in March and April 2000, the most important social struggle since the fight against ALCOA (Almeida 2014) . Even though the main motivation behind “combo ICE” was not environmental but rather the rejection of the imminent privatization of this institution, there was an environmental component represented by the concerns about the negative environmental impact that would result from the privatization of electricity services. Recently, the struggles against privatization have continued with the long-term opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in the 2000s. Here, the relationship between environmentalism and resistance to neoliberalism was more transparent.

The present chapter focuses on the most recent period, that is, the post-Combo/ICE stage after 2000. I begin with the assertion that the Combo struggle inaugurated a new stage in Costa Rican social movements, and as such, it had an important impact on civic involvement in subsequent environmental issues. Briefly, it can be said that there are two main axes in Costa Rican environmental struggles. First, there is the struggle for land or natural resources, as represented by forestry and mining activities. Costa Rican environmentalism has been very zealous over modern and industrial extraction practices, especially from transnational companies, that imply soil and subsoil alterations as well as changes in forest composition and depletion. The other axis concerns the use of water, manifested in massive campaigns such as local plebiscites against dams. At the local and municipal levels, the zeal to protect and defend community sources of water has experienced remarkable growth. That is why this chapter is called Forest, water, and struggle: Environmental movements in Costa Rica . The “forest” serves as a symbol of the living and bountiful earth and “water” as an indispensable resource of life. I add “struggle” as the concept that summarizes our main interest: environmental movements in Costa Rica.

Costa Rican Environmental Movement: Structure and Action

What is a social movement? This question has no easy answer. A reductionist approach would identify movements with structures, seeing them as formal or institutionalized organizations that aim at social representation in order to make demands or claims. In comparison, there is another perspective that emphasizes collective social actions with several types of objectives. The perspective defended in this chapter attempts to combine the concepts of structure and action. On the one hand, we believe on structure signals permanence, but, on the other hand, we look to relate those structures with specific collective actions. The correlation of particular social structures with collective action is largely determined by more profound layers of social and cultural reality. Structure’s role is not just one of the focal points or catalysts for social action. That is, at times of demobilization, social structures play the role of keepers or representatives of interests (Taylor 1989) . Obviously, in such cases interplay and equilibrium are not simple since structures can be separated from the deep reality of social movements and become representations lacking support. Additionally, within a social movement, there is an ongoing struggle for its political-ideological direction, in such a way that the movement’s internal hegemonies are often shifting, which is a response to the multiple contextual signals or to the movement’s own internal processes.

Every social movement has a historical origin, a given continuity that is usually not uniform, but which rather faces ups and downs. Social movements are initiatives that grow from society’s base or from social groups. In other words, social movements exist independently of the state, and sometimes movements oppose state policies or try to influence the orientation of policies and the material or symbolic resources that could result from their application. On the other hand, there are social organizations that play an intermediate role. Even though they have been directly or indirectly promoted by the state, participants are nongovernmental employees and volunteers and they do not get payment or tax benefits for their social function. Sometimes, integration mechanisms in these types of organizations might resort to open or extended calls and appeal to civil society for support.

Following the previous outline, we now focus on contextualizing the structures of the environmental movement. We prioritize those structures that have arisen as grassroots initiatives or those not dependent on the state. Then, we identify the common collective actions used to express those structures of the environmental movement.

Typology of Costa Rican Environmentalism

Developing a typology of environmental movements contributes to understanding their diversity and how multiple perspectives result in differentiated political-organizational discourses when dealing with environment-related initiatives or struggles. In the Costa Rican environmental literature, there are some previous efforts at defining ideological or organizational typologies. One of these efforts is by Fallas (1992) , who favors an institutional or organizational criteria combined with ideological categories. So, it can be said that we are dealing with an institutional-ideological typology. On the other hand, Fernández-González (2003) performs a typological exercise from the study of three local environmental struggles or instances of environmental management.

As for Fallas (1992), his typology encompasses four trends: (1) state conservationism, (2) reactive conservationism, (3) developmental conservationism, and (4) mature environmentalism. State conservationism evidently is the one that comes from official institutions. Reactive conservationism is organized by NGOs that have local incidence. Developmental conservationism comes from international agencies. The maturity of “environmentalisms” is expressed as an ecological trend with an ideological profile. That is, it looks to understand ecological problems by relating them to an unequal and unfair social order that makes irrational use of natural resources. The idea of a real improvement in the environment is related with a deep change in the social and political order. Fallas himself embraced this last category, becoming one of its founding members.Footnote 3

The cases studied by Fernández-González (2003) include three local processes of environmental struggle or management. The first one took the form of a battle against a powerful transnational corporation, Stone Container, which from 1993 tried to develop a megaproject for the production and commercialization of gmelina ( Gmelina sp), raw material for paper. The author defines the participants in these struggles as “eco-socialsts”. The conflict involved several local organizations labeled as communalist—local territorial organizations found in southern Costa Rica. The second case was the environmental improvement in the banana-producing Caribbean region that sprang up from several social pressure efforts during 1992–1993. It is believed that its guiding force was social Catholicism working together with the former banana workers’ union. The third conflict, the struggle to protect access to water in the Papagayo Gulf (Guanacaste province) is also an example of social Catholicism, combined in this case with the “communalist” trend.

A New Typology of Costa Rican Environmentalism

This study continues the efforts of Fallas (1992) and Fernández-González (2003) while at the same time proposes a new typology of Costa Rican environmentalism . In the proposal outlined in the following paragraphs, the state will not be taken into account as an environmental actor. Obviously, the Costa Rican state has developed several environmental initiatives, but the focus here concentrates on a social movement perspective, and the state is not a social movement. What will be considered as a major trend in Costa Rican environmentalism is the social participation structures that, coming from the state, are successful in bringing community or grassroots groups together. Hence, we are dealing with a typology of structures that will be taken up again later to develop a general mapping of collective actions that correspond to each structure. Specifically, we aim at a typology made up of five main types of organization that seem to characterize Costa Rican organized environmentalism. The main criteria for a specific ideological-political framework relates to how each party defines the relationship between nature and society and what each proposes to solve that dilemma. Obviously, from each conception stems differentiated practices both regarding environmental as well as social and political activism .

Conservationist Environmentalism

Conservationist environmentalism emphasizes the protection of nature. Environmental deterioration is attributed to demographic growth and economic expansion, but it does not outline a discourse against economic development as a criticism of capitalist expansion. In some cases, it holds some sort of apolitical or politicallyneutral stand. In its origins, this conservationist environmentalism condemned practically every human activity that made use of natural resources, but since the 1990s it has incorporated in its discourse a controlled use of natural resources by peasant and native communities (e.g., the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro). A key trait of its campaigns and proposals centers on buying land for conservation purposes.

Critical Ecology

The origins of critical ecology reside in socialism and leftist positions. Nevertheless, it would be a little farfetched to label this trend as eco-socialism since the socialist discourse has been abandoned by several social and environmental movements as a result of the crisis of “historic” socialism. Critical ecology rather favors a discourse critical of capitalism, that is, of its models of accumulation that are responsible for the destruction of ecosystems in order to increase profit (O’Connor 1997) . In some cases, critical ecology has found its inspiration in pre-Colombian indigenous societies, which strived for a harmonious relation to nature.Footnote 4 A subtrend of this type of ecology is eco-anarchism, which, while directly criticizing capitalism, considers that no state can solve ecological and social problems, and places the solution in the dissolution of the state. From this perspective adherents vindicate indigenous and rural communal living which is expressed not by large-scale historic civilizations, whether indigenous or not, but rather in small state-free communities or communities where political power is diluted. Some of the discourses defended by these critical ecology subtypes tend to overlap.

State-Originated Environmentalism

This modality takes into account civil engagement in environmental and vigilance matters originally designed and formalized by the state. This model of environmental action proved important in the national and international legitimization surrounding the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development that took place in Rio Janeiro in 1992. In Costa Rica, during the term of President José Figueres Jr. (1994–1998) some of the recommendations suggested in that conference were taken up again and resulted in the conceptual framework for the formulation of “sustainable development” in Costa Rica, which calls for civil society engagement in environmental matters. From the point of view of the practical considerations of this orientation, social environmental action is led by governmental institutions.

Environmentally Oriented Peasant and Indigenous Organizations

Environmentally oriented peasant and indigenous organizations have as their main activity socioeconomic and cultural claims by rural and native populations, but which have in recent years incorporated environmental demands, whether as conservation or as controlled access to natural resources by agricultural and indigenous sectors. Some of these organizations often advocate for both the social and the environmental issues.

Communitarian Environmentalism

This environmentalism has a communal social base . This base can be located in urban, semi-urban, rural and/or agricultural, and indigenous communities. The actions of adherents to communitarian environmentalism are motivated by local environmental problems, but their activities and discourse are relatively free from ideological considerations. Nonetheless, the type of socio-environmental actions they carry out usually involve some “ideological-environmental” justification, but these ideological rationales are not consolidated conceptual structures as is the case of the previous four types of environmentalism described. Given this typology, we want to characterize a sample of major Costa Rican environmental organizations (See Table 18.1). One of the criteria to select these organizations has been their membership in the Costa Rican Environmental Federation (known as FECON), the most recognized third-sector group regarding conservation or environmental initiatives and struggles. In fact, there is no other major federation of organizations in the Costa Rican environmental movement. The second criterion is personal acquaintance, that is, organizations I know work with the environment from previous fieldwork .

Table 18.1 Costa Rican environmental organizations by typology
Full size table

Given this typology, we are well placed to provide a general mapping of environmental events, actions, and struggles in Costa Rica.

Environmental Expressions and Struggles

Historical Framework of Costa Rican Environmental Struggles

Environmental studies that have a “grassroots participation” approach have tried to closely relate the different stages of local development with specific production methods used in the exploitation of nature. That is, a certain type of economic production has been related to a certain form of nature use. Within this view that sees nature as dependent on the economic model belong environmental processes or struggles. That is, sociopolitical expressions have resulted from each stage of economic production, whether as conservationist proposals in the field of “sustainable management,” or as denunciations and complete opposition. The studies of Fournier (1991) and Fallas (1992) have developed socioeconomic chronological frameworks, each related to specific environmental struggles or processes. In the case of Fournier (1991), his framework outlines five stages: pre-Colonial; Colonial up to 1845, 1845–1927, 1927–1957; and from 1957 up to the present (the study covers up to 1991). Concerning the environment, for Fournier, as Costa Rica historically evolved environmental conditions progressively deteriorated. The main indicator exposed by the author is the deforestation rate. In 1903, deforestation was 13.5 % of the national territory, but in 1984 it covered 67.8 % of the land, and continues to increase through the present. Fournier (1991) contends that the origins of the conservationist movement lie in indigenous communities themselves, which, he contends, lived in abundance and in a harmonious relationship with nature .

Fournier finds that the creation of environmental legislations comes early in the nation’s history. Since the beginning of the Republic some regulatory laws were approved, such as the closed season for deer hunting dating from 1845. The systematic development of laws related to the environment proved to be a constant feature in Costa Rican regulatory history that intensified in the late twentieth century (1957–1991), when the development of legislation became prolific. Likewise, importance was placed on educational institutions, which have played a significant role through several decades in reeducating new generations about natural resources and the environment, and for their sociopolitical influence in local history. Some of the educational institutions the author highlights include the Escuela Nacional de Agricultura (National Agricultural Institute) founded in 1926 and the Universidad de Costa Rica (University of Costa Rica) founded in 1940, which eventually turned the Escuela Nacional de Agricultura into its Faculty of Agronomy. The final educational institution was the creation of the General Studies School at the Universidad de Costa Rica (1957). It was an educational milestone because it became an influential place where new generations of young adults were educated on renewed humanistic values in the sociocultural field, and conservationism in the environmental field. Hence, Fournier’s chronological framework is in a way determined by these institutional advances. Specifically, the historical foundation of each of these educational institutions he observes to be fundamental in the “environmental” education of several Costa Rican generations .

It can be said that Fournier’s conception of the “Costa Rican conservation movement” is closely related to the state’s “progressiveness,” especially as reflected in its regulatory capacity. It is also closely related to the work of educational institutions, especially the Universidad de Costa Rica. The framework offers a very wide conception of the environmental movement, one that closely relates it to institutional activity. It can be said that for this author the movement expresses itself through the state. Autonomous social movements are not very visible in Fournier’s account.

Fallas (1992), as Fournier, locates conservationism and ecologism in indigenous cultures. But, their approaches differ. First, for Fallas, ecological disaster begins in 1492 with the Spanish conquest of America. The chronological framework of this author is also different. For Fallas, there is a first stage that begins with colonization and ends with the constitution of the Republic. This author calls this stage “indigenous ecology of environmental chaos.” The second stage is called liberal hegemony and goes from 1821 to 1930. The third stage relates to the peak of the new model and spans from 1948 to 1978. The last stage relates to the intensification of the export model (currently named the globalization stage). The passing of time and the resulting new economic production models have resulted in greater and more intense exploitation of nature. This over-exploitation of nature has developed hand in hand with over-exploitation of human labor. So, the production model is the one that determines the model for the exploitation of nature.

Fallas is unique in the placing of social movements as playing a central role in the evolution of environmental consciousness. He highlights social movement processes through the activities related to environmental development. According to Fallas’s point of view, environmental citizenship created itself. It would be from the middle and working classes that the main conservation-related sociopolitical force emerged. For this author, the year 1970, with the struggles against ALCOA,Footnote 5 initiated a period of growing social struggles (not only environmental in nature), but where a conservationist current was present in several socio-environmental activities. Furthermore, beginning in 1983, there was a new upsurge of environmental struggles toward local spaces, which resulted in the expansion and depth of the movement .

Environmental Struggles and Events During 1970–2000

It seems appropriate to locate the beginning of the modern Costa Rican environmental movement in the struggle against ALCOA in 1970. Existing literature suggests that before 1970 there were legislative and educational antecedents that already showed some concern for environmental protection. But it is the struggle against ALCOA when a widely encompassing social movement took up the environmental cause. This movement was independent of the state; rather it was against it. Participants vehemently opposed a contract that was considered damaging to the country’s sovereignty and the environment—the mining of bauxite in the region of Pérez Zeledón. There has been no systematic account of environmental struggles since 1970. For our purposes, we use secondary sources to attempt to make a list of the most significant struggles since that year. It is important to keep in mind that the data collected focuses on the most significant struggles, that is, those that have been documented, especially by the written press.

There were some local struggles that had national impact. These local expressions can be divided in two main stages of Costa Rican socio-environmental struggles. The first one is the case of ALCOA. The second comprises the struggles known as “combo ICE” (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad). The “combo ICE” took place between March and April 2000 and was a massive social struggle against a group of laws that wanted to implement the “opening up” (gradual privatization) of ICE (telecommunications and electrical power). The main concern of this struggle was to avoid the privatization of the institution, but it is clear that there were environmental concerns and demands behind it. If the law had been approved, this would have resulted in more private initiatives for electricity generation, which in turned would have resulted in a widespread interest in the construction of private dams.

Between these two major historic social struggles (both with a strong environmental component), there were other environmental disputes, still strong and massive that had a local focus but national impact. In the 1970s, there were at least five major local environmental conflicts. Perhaps, the most important conflicts were the struggles against an oil pipeline in 1974, led by ASCONA (Asociación Nacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza). Later, in 1983, there was another important episode of opposition to the pipeline. In this renewed round of environmental mobilization a committee was formed, named Comité Nacional de Lucha contra el Oleoducto (National Committee against the Pipeline).

According to Fallas (1992), starting in 1983 there was a growth in environmental social movements. This is a defining moment for these movements. As Fallas (1992, p. 87) put it: “It is not until the end of the 1980s that we can really talk about conservationist and ecological struggles as a new social movement.” In the 1990s, there were several massive local environmental struggles and new campaigns that had national relevance. This would be the beginning of wide sociopolitical coalitions that mobilized in long-term campaigns. There are several examples of such cases (Horton 2007) . At the beginning of 1990s, specifically during 1993–1994, there was the campaign against Stone Container (a project that sought to cultivate and produce 24.000 acres of gmelina in the southern part of the countryFootnote 6). In the middle of the 1990s, specifically during 1994–1998, another notable campaign took place: The struggle against strip mining . The anti-mining campaigns were an ongoing and growing struggle that covered many sociopolitical efforts against gold exploration and exploitation in the towns of Cutris and Pocosol in San Carlos, continuing through the late 2000s.Footnote 7 The problem of the potential mining exploitation resulted in another important campaign, in Bellavista de Miramar, in the province of Puntarenas. Finally, there was a campaign in defense of the forests in the Osa Peninsula.Footnote 8 In sum, the coalitional style of the campaigns, their national transcendence in public opinion beyond local media coverage,Footnote 9 the growth of coordinated organizing at the national level, and unification would be characteristics that would be observed in more recent environmental campaigns in the early twenty-first century. Figure 18.1 charts the trajectory of the environmental movement between 1970 and 2000 .

Fig. 18.1
figure 1

Trajectory of Costa Rican environmental movement 1970–2000

Full size image

In summary, between 1970 and 2000 there were two major struggles that had an environmental component, even more so in the case of ALCOA than in the combo ICE. Throughout these intervening years, there were important local struggles that had a national impact. And after the mid-1980s, there was a generalization and expansion of the environmental movement in local spaces (this has not been systematically or fully documented). Beginning in the 1990s, there have been more enduring environmental campaigns (between 2 and 4 years) where different socio-ideological coalitions came together.

What Has Happened After the Combo?

The main objective of this chapter is to offer an updated view of the Costa Rican environmental movement, taking as a starting point the struggle against the privatization of ICE. This social struggle has had a larger impact and that lasted longer than any other protest campaign in the last three decades until the campaign against the CAFTA in 2007 (Almeida 2014). Footnote 10 The ICE campaign is especially relevant because, as mentioned above, it also incorporated environmental demands. To offer this updated information, we took the organizational typology that was presented in Table 18.1. For each type of organization, we identified at least two key respondents to interview. In Appendix 1 (Table 18.2), a list of the subjects’ names and roles is provided. In this case, the main objective of the interview was to get detailed accounts of the most significant environmental events, actions, and movements taking place between 2000 and 2005 that form the perspective of leading environmental activists. What follows are the results of these interviews. In the case of respondents who identify themselves as conservationists, the first mentioned long-term campaign involves the defense of the forests on the Osa Peninsula. This campaign can be put side to side with the other three from the 1990s mentioned before ( Stone Container and the two cases against strip mining in San Carlos). Thus, there were four long-term campaigns within a decade. In the case of ARBOFILIA, participants mentioned an alternative forestry policy, a proposal designed to regenerate the soil. In the case of Centro Científico Tropical (CCT), the respondents mentioned a lobbying process in favor of environmental rights being incorporated into the country’s Constitution.

FECON’s respondent, Isaac Rojas, preferred to give his account based on five main struggles:

  • Social movement continuity: The women’s

  • Struggle for water

  • Struggles dealing with tourism management

  • Struggle in favor of the forests

  • Struggle against CAFTA

Concerning electricity/energy, Rojas first mentions the struggles against policies, dams, and electric cogeneration projects. In more general terms, this environmental leader questioned the energy-producing model (interview January 20, 2006).

One of the most documented and well-known cases is the Pacuare River dam conflict, in the province of Cartago (southeast of Costa Rican’s central mountainous area). Durán and Guido (2002) report that aside from the flooding of lands it would cause “lack of communication and isolation of indigenous communities that depend on selling and exchanging their agricultural products for their survival.” Nevertheless, the potential construction of that dam was ruled out by the plebiscite that took place in Turrialba, on August 28, 2005. The plebiscite was organized by the local municipality and it ruled out the possibility of other hydroelectric projects on the Pacuare River. The plebiscite resulted in 96 % of support against the construction of the dam. Their slogan referred to the preservation of the river as a natural sanctuary.

The use of plebiscites has been a constant pressure mechanism to deal with environmental issues, especially against the construction of dams. A United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) study reports that during 1998–2001 there were four plebiscites, two of them dealing with environmental issues. In the case of the one in Guácimo, which took place on October 28, 2001, the result supported the municipality in prohibiting lucrative activities in exploiting the aquifer areas. Civil involvement in the referendum was 27 % of registered voters; a total of 17,288. 97.3 % voted against granting permissions for private company activities around the aquifer (2.3 % agreed to it and 0.4 % annulled their votes” (PNUD 2002). The local oppositional organizational structure was very broad. The participants organizing the referendum included the organization “Agua” from Guácimo, the Jiménez community, Foro Emaús, Consejo Nacional de Trabajadores Bananeros (CONATRAB) and the municipality of Pococí. There was no single leadership, but it was rather a decentralized “participatory process.”Footnote 11

Another plebiscite occurred on September 24, 2000 in Sarapiquí. In this case, the electorate was made up of 17,432 local citizens and 13 % showed up to vote. This plebiscite aimed to protect the basin of the Sarapiquí River and declare it Natural Historical Patrimony (Salas 2000) . This initiative grew out of the community and different organizations as a response to the damage caused to the Sarapiquí basin by hydroelectric “use” (Salas 2000).

The case presented by the Asociación de Ecología Social (AES) has been classified here as critical ecology . The most important issue during this period was oil exploitation that developed as a campaign between 2000 and 2003. This was the fifth environmental campaign in the decade. As was the case with many previous campaigns, this one resulted in an important sociopolitical grouping of communities, business owners (especially those in tourism), ecological organizations, local community organizations, municipalities, and the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MINAE). At the end of 1999, indigenous community leaders in Talamanca called a local meeting to form a network to oppose the government’s decision to approve oil exploitation in the Costa Rican Caribbean. This meeting was attended by 37 community and national organizations and local representatives of several public institutions (PNUD 2002, p. 248). This public gathering resulted in the creation of the Coordinadora Antipetrolera de Talamanca (ADELA). In September 2000, the Constitutional Court declared the first concession null and void based on the lack of prior consultation with local indigenous communities. The Technical Commission of SETENA, in a decision from the end of 2001, recommended the approval of an environmental impact analysis (EIA). At the beginning of 2002 ADELA strived to look for further technical criteria to refute the decision. In February 2002, SETENA’s Full Board unanimously refuted the EIA for the oil exploitation project. In April, the Municipality of Talamanca declared a moratorium on oil in this town. MINAE began the administrative process to cancel the contract since no new EIA was submitted (PNUD 2005).

On the other hand, respondents from “state-based environmentalism” mentioned other types of activities different from struggles and campaigns. A respondent from FUPROVIRENA, Guillermo Esquivel, mentioned two local environmental management cases. First, the increasing interest municipalities showed to protect their local basins. Second, there was a case when farmers became more concerned with environmental improvement issues. These farmers were located around the Braulio Carrillo National Park between the provinces of San José and Limón. Regarding municipal environmental commissions, María Elena Saborío highlighted the celebration of the environment day and week. The municipality organized a painting contest for children to raise awareness in the community of environmental issues (Municipalidad de Vazquez de Coronado, located10 km northwest from San José downtown.

Agricultural and indigenous organizations that work in environmental issues engage in lobbying regarding policies and resource management to consulting organizations created under the current environmental legislation. Concerning the Asociación Coordinadora Indígena y Campesina de Agroforestería Comunitaria Centroamericana (ACICAFOC), its director, Alberto Chinchilla, learned about the negotiation process for the organic agriculture legislation and how to favor indigenous communities by obtaining payment for environmental services in implementing sustainable farming practives. Mesa Campesina participated in organizations such as Fondo Nacional de Financiamiento Forestal (FONAFIFO) and Comisión Nacional de Gestión de la Biodiversidad. According to Hilda Mora, president of this organization, their representation on those organizations allowed them to take part in policies and assisted the Mesa Campesina in accessing economic resources, such as payment for environmental services.

As for communitarian environmentalism, the representative of Confraternidad Guanacasteca mentioned an event that has had national significance: the struggle for the access to water in the coastal communities surrounding Golfo de Papagayo, where big resorts that have golf courses need large quantities of water and are a threat to local communities and their subsistence water supplies (such as the case of the community of Sardinal in 2008). Another example is the struggle to retain public access to beaches. This right has been threatened by large-scale tourism complexes and resorts that forbid entrance of local people to the beach around their properties. Concerning access to beaches, in 2004 there was a new controversy when several social and environmental organizations challenged authorities from the Costa Rican Institute of Tourism (ICT) when it prohibited camping on beaches. Then two organizations (Asociación Confraternidad Guanacasteca and the Federación Costarricense para la Conservación del Ambiente) publicly declared that ICT “was discriminating against local Costa Rican tourists, those who camp and do not pay for lodging, and those who do not buy things, who do not pay” (La Prensa 2004) .

In more recent years, 2006–2014, three large environmental struggles stand out that have engaged in conflicts with relatively successful outcomes against megaprojects promoted by the state and neoliberal economic elites. Each struggle had particular organizing strategies and dynamics. Nevertheless, these projects may return in another form in the future as for now, these are short-term victories. These newer environmental conflicts include the struggle for the defense of water in the community of Sardinal, the collective battle against open pit mining in Crucitas in the north of the country, and the struggle against the hydroelectric dam project in Diquís.

The struggle of the small community in Sardinal, Guanacaste took place between 2008 and 2010. A consortium of tourism investors in the nearby popular resort region of Playas del Coco intended to pipe water away from the working-class community of Sardinal to the resort a short 8 km down the road. The Sardinal community resisted the incursion and received the support from public sector labor unions (la Asociación Nacional de Empleados Públicos (ANEP)), student groups, and environmentalists. In May of 2010, the Constitutional Court ordered the end of infrastructure construction to siphon off the community’s ground water supply. The people of Sardinal celebrated the ruling as a major triumph (Cordero 2010, p. 177) .

Another major environmental struggle erupted over open-pit mining in an area called Crucitas in Cutris, San Carlos province. The movement was largely composed of environmental and student organizations. The battle took place between 2008 and 2013. In 2011, the Costa Rican legislature and the constitutional branch of the Supreme Court reformed mining laws banning open-pit mining . The Canadian company investing in the mine (Industrias Infinito) continues to seek legal indemnization of $ 1.2 billion lost in gold mining profits. The movement perceived the state actions against the Crucitas gold mine as a major environmental victory (Chacón 2013) .

The movement against Diquís the Hydroelectric Dam Project is one of the longest-sustained campaigns in Costa Rica in recent years, from 2003 to the present. The movement is led by the Térraba indigenous community in the canton of Buenas Aires in the province of Puntarenas. This megaproject was set at an estimated $ 2 billion (with $ 250 million already invested) and managed since 2005 by ICE. A campaign led by the Térraba native peoples in coalition with environmentalists and students reached the United Nations’ special rapporteur on indigenous peoples where enough pressure was placed on the Costa Rican state to suspend the project’s operations since 2011. Even though heavy machinery has been removed by the ICE in attempts to dam the Terraba River, the struggle is not completely over. A future government may attempt to reinitiate the construction of the hydroelectric plant (for a detailed study of this case, see Cordero 2013).

Indigenous Concerns and Their Relationship with Conservation

The existing data on the size of the indigenous population in Costa Rica are not homogeneous. Mesa Indígena, a national-level indigenous organization, registers eight different indigenous towns in Costa Rica, for a total of 39,264 people (Mesa Indígena 2000). On the other hand, Tenorio (2002) counts an indigenous population of 63,876, which would mean 1.7 % of the total population. In some provinces, the percentage is higher. The highest is Limón (7.4 %), followed by Puntarenas (7.3 %; Tenorio 2002, p. 9).

Indigenous local tribes include bruncas, teribes, malekus, huetares, chorotegas, guaymies, bribris, and cabécares. Each one, in turn, is divided into local territories, geographical places where indigenous communities live, as well as their farms and mountains. Some of these territories are legally recognized by special legislation, while others are not legally recognized, but they are considered indigenous territories since indigenous populations have historically concentrated there. The extension of indigenous territories comprises almost 325,000 acres, a percentage relatively high if we consider that it would mean around 8.3 acres per person and some 41.4 acres per family and an average family has five members. Nevertheless, in reality, the territories are far from controlled by these populations. Some territories are only symbolically occupied by indigenous people. This is the case of Guatuso, Qitirrrisí and Zapatón (with only a quarter of the territory actually managed by indigenous peoples). Boruca, Rey Curré, Térraba, and Ujarrás own only a third of their respective territories. For Conte Burica, Coto Brus, Guaymí de Osa, Abrojo de Montezuma, Talamanca Bribri, Kekoldi, Talamanca Cabécar, Nairi Awari, ownership is close to two thirds, which seems to be the most common proportion under indigenous control .

The largest problem the indigenous population faces is land ownership. Land is the basis for native people’s material survival, and it also serves as the source of their cultural identity. Despite all of the laws and official decrees that define indigenous reservations that cannot be legally sold or transferred to nonindigenous people, this ownership is not an accurate representation of the distribution of the native populations’ territory. White or mestizo agricultural workers sell their land because they are poor. They later migrate into indigenous territories. In the tourist areas surrounding indigenous communities, farmers who are near the coast sell their land and soon find themselves with no land and no money, so they have to migrate into indigenous communities or natural reservations. Development projects in the area of native lands have also resulted in social conflicts. In Talamanca, indigenous communities took part in the struggle against oil exploitation (ADELA) that was organized during 2000–2003 to reject oil exploration and exploitation discussed above.Footnote 12

On the other hand, given the growing participation of indigenous communities in the national market, there has been a social differentiation process inside the communities themselves. Profitable or relatively profitable productive activities make some indigenous workers adopt foreign production techniques in order to increase productivity. When such activities are successful, they accumulate some money that is then invested in buying land from less fortunate members of the community. In those cases, the operation is legal because commerce between indigenous people is allowed. This process results in the concentration of land within the community itself. Concerning the cases of the Talamanca Valley, Borge and Castillo (1997, p. 204) define land ownership as a serious problem. In a more recent study, Berger (2000) gives a detailed account of this process of land selling for each indigenous territory.

Indigenous land is very important for the conservation of biodiversity. Despite its relative exploitation (in some cases) by modern productive systems, there also remain more traditional productive and cultural activities that place more emphasis on the preservation of ecosystems. As I mentioned elsewhere, in Salamanca there is a relationship between indigenous women and biodiversity: “There are productive systems in Talamanca that somehow represent a balance between market and culture. Among them, there is what we have called here ‘talamanqueña farms.’ Of course, the greater the market demands the greater the risk that these farms will focus on one or more profitable products, as has been the case in other communities” (Cordero 2002, p. 363) . Environmental issues for indigenous communities relate to their right to preserve their own territories, and to recover lost ones. On the other hand, some indigenous communities, because of their cultural practices, want to exploit forest products in protected areas, which cause problems between environmental authorities and the communities.

Conclusion

When offering a general overview of the development of the Costa Rican environmental movement, the economic and political context is fundamental in understanding the movement’s evolution. The context here is defined by the expansion of globalization . Even though this expansion of globalization is causing social conflicts and struggles in many countries, there is no sign of a reverse in this growth. There are resistance efforts that influence some tendencies in the expansion of globalization, but economic expansion continues. The process of the international circulation of goods continues to spread under a system of capitalist transnationalization (Robinson 2014) , where even natural resources are organized and commercialized. CAFTA is the most recent example of this international liberalization trend. Understanding the political economic context is important in order to evaluate the situation and the perspectives for the Costa Rican environmental movement since some of the more relevant and recent social struggles that had an environmental component are struggles against globalizing processes. The two most important social conflicts that had an environmental undertone, ALCOA in 1970 and the so-called combo ICE in 2000, centered on economic transnationalization processes. In the first one, the attempt to exploit bauxite in the General Valley by an aluminum transnational company and in the second one, the privatization process of electricity services meant, environmentally speaking, loosening of environmental controls under private models of electricity generation.

In between those two social movements, there were some processes that also relate to the international circulation of natural resources and goods. Some of the most relevant struggles are:

  • Against Stone Container (1993–1994)

  • Against opencut gold exploitation in San Carlos (1994–1998)

  • Against opencut gold exploitation in Miramar (1996–1999)

  • Against oil exploitation in Talamanca-Caribbean (2000–2003)

Hence, in between and after the two major defensive movements there were several others that seem to be aftershocks of those two. In the two major battles of ALCOA and el Combo/ICE, the generalized participation of the people was impressive; it even had political repercussions. For the campaigns mentioned above, participation was more localized and specific, but this has been compensated by their duration and strategic flexibility; so, they have been labeled “long-term campaigns.” In both the largest struggles and the long-term campaigns, the social movements have been the winners. ALCOA did not begin its exploitation, Stone interrupted its project, one of the strip-mining projects did not prosper (San Carlos), the liberalization of ICE was not approved, and the oil exploitations did not take place.Footnote 13 But, as stated by environmental leader Isaac Rojas, the achievements are not definite or long term. Interests seem to have a cyclic behavior, which forces social movements to start working together. It is likely then, if we take into account the economic liberalization efforts and previous experiences, that in future years there will be more conflicts and struggles and ongoing unstable and contradicting situations. Once CAFTA is fully implemented in Costa Rica, it is very likely that the projects successfully halted up to the present by environmental movements will be taken up again in the near future.

Another issue that has been present since the period 1970–2000, but which has become more relevant starting in 2000, involves the struggles and activities against the construction of hydroelectric dams. Local participation has been extensive and massive and has resulted in plebiscites that favored opposing sectors. This reflects the tendency of local populations desire to widely control the natural resources in their territories. As part of this phenomenon, the struggle for the protection and control of local water supplies also stands out. The so-called local empowering might sometimes oppose national policies, as is the case of hydroelectric planning. More communities have shown interest in controlling their own water supply sources. Figure 18.2 illustrates the environmental movement within the shifting political-economic context from 1970 to 2005 .

Fig. 18.2
figure 2

General overview of the Costa Rican environmental movement

Full size image

In a broader sense, local participation has moved towards vigilance, as is the case of COVIRENA.

Other groups have moved toward environmental management and regeneration and innovative ways to protect ecosystems. Other fields being explored by environmental organizations are organic agriculture, forest regeneration (using indigenous techniques such as sustainable forestry), environmental education, or multifaceted struggles against pollution . It could be said that these efforts of civic participation are the wider basis for the environmental movement. Also, the indigenous movement, because of its struggle for land and its traditions, coincides with environmental movements . But in their cases, access to natural resources such as forests implies protection. Also, the participation of indigenous communities has been important in campaigns against several dams and oil exploration initiatives. Pollution has been less relevant in environmental struggles, but there were some local struggles against river pollution . Garbage has also been apposite in struggles during the last decades, especially in the case of the Rio Azul landfill. In terms of pesticides, those affected by Nemagon have founded CONATRAB, and they have become a strong movement that has condemned agricultural practices of transnational banana producers. They have also requested compensation and indemnity for those affected.

From what we have seen so far, it is evident that there is indeed a Costa Rican environmental movement. There are different environmental ideologies and an integrated typology can be constructed corresponding to five different types of ecological organizations. Also, using the theoretical framework of this study, it can be said that there have been significant environmental struggles and activities. Nevertheless, the environmental movement lacks one unifying project; if there is one, it is fragmented—in other words, it does not have a shared vision. The movement lacks the strength to make proposals at the macro-social and macro-political levels. Also, it is necessary to describe the characteristics of this movement. It is not a permanent movement; it is rather discontinuous. There are few national campaigns because of the relative fragmentation of the movement. However, it cannot be denied that there have been several local campaigns that achieved national relevance. Participation has been mostly in campaigns that resulted in ephemeral alliances, some brought together different classes and ideologies. Given its functioning, achievements, and participants, it could be said that the environmental movement acts as a new social movement (as conceptualized by Touraine (1999)) . That is, a movement that is essentially cultural. On the other hand, some of its demands and achievements are against the current form of capitalist development: neoliberal globalization. Participation is mostly by the common people, and without this component, the environmental campaigns would not have been as effective. To define the environmental movement as having a strong social foundation and to make it possible for this foundation to appropriate the struggle seems to offer the key challenges faced by the current phase of ecological struggle in Costa Rica.