The Construction of the Hydroelectric Project El Diquis - Term Paper Example

The Struggle of Terraba’s Indigenous Peoples: A Case Study on the Hydroelectrical Project El Diquis (PHED) Introduction This paper discusses the hydroelectrical project in southern Costa Rica, the Hydroelectrical Project El Diquis, as one of the most important development issues in Costa Rica today due to the involvement of an indigenous community. The primary question to be answered here is how do the different central actors perceive the hydroelectrical project in terms of the developmental needs and potentials of Costa Rica? The objective is to analyze the anthropologist’s understanding both on a similar and different plane as the explanations and understanding of the major players. The construction of the Hydroelectrical Project El Diquis (PHED) in southern Costa Rica has an effect on the native population of Terraba. The core players are anthropologists and sociologists who are hired by the development plan to deal with the involved indigenous community. The PHED’s anthropologists and sociologists face the issue of how to negotiated between the project’s management and militant factions in Terraba (Haffar & Carls 2010). A group of native protesters in Terraba downright opposes the building of the dam. They thoroughly analyze the ideas and agendas of its executives, claiming in its place the freedom to take in their own notions of an independent local development. Country Profile Brief Facts Name: Republic of Costa Rica Population: 4.64 million (2010) Capital: San Jose Other major cities: Puntarenas, Limon, Liberia Area: 51, 060 sq. km. Currency: Colon GNI per capita: $6,580 (2010) Main exports: Coffee, banana, electronic components, textiles Language: Spanish Religion: Roman Catholic (70.5%), Protestant (13.8%) Life Expectancy: 82 years (women), 77 years (men) *facts obtained from the World Bank (2011): http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/COSTARICAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20232979~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:295413,00.html As shown in the above figures, the Costa Rican people enjoy high life expectancies. Customarily reliant on beef, banana, and coffee exports, the country has undergone economic diversification. The launching of a major computer component factory in the 1990s was a boost to the economy, though its wealth has been at the mercy of the rising and falling global demand for computer parts. The primary source of foreign trade in the country is tourism (BBC News 2011). Its rainforests boast a great diversity of bionetwork. According to BBC News (2011), Costa Rica has also been a global advocate of environment concerns, guaranteeing that economic development is not attained to the detriment of its abundant natural resources, and effectively maximizing connections between poverty alleviation and environmental conservation. Costa Rica is successful in terms of economic development. Classified as an upper middle-income nation, Costa Rica was successful in lowering the rate of poverty from 23% in 2004 to 17.7% in 2008 (World Bank 2011, para 7). Nevertheless, inequality is widening as development has mostly promoted skilled work, and education is left behind, particularly among the country’s lower class. Costa Rica has encountered stable economic development over the recent decades, mainly because of an adoption of an export-driven, outward-led development strategy, steady liberalization of trade, and acceptance of foreign investment (World Bank 2011, para 7-8). The economy progressed at a yearly average rate of 5% during the 1990s. The growth rate of GDP was 8.8% in 2006 and sustained an encouraging rate in 2007, yet as an outcome of the worldwide economic recession the economy of Costa Rica improved 2.6% in 2008 and experienced a drop of 1.3% in 2009 (World Bank 2011, para 8). The government boosted its spending in labor-rigorous and social infrastructure in response to the economic decline, aiding the economy recover to an approximated 4.2% increase in 2010. According to the World Bank, current estimates are 4% increase in 2011 and a sustained increase of roughly 4%, brought about by vigorous domestic investment and private spending (World Bank 2011, para 8-9). But will a large-scale dam project help the Costa Rican economy to fully recover from the economic crisis and achieve the projected growth rate for the foreseeable future? Analysis Generally, the claims in the policy reports of the PHED project try to persuade influential players like non-governmental organizations, militant environmental organizations, investors, international organizations, multinational enterprises, and legislators. They point out the importance of the project in satisfying the country’s growing need for energy, and endorse the advantages of the project for the weak economy of the region, opportunities for infrastructure, employment, and domestic tourism (Cruz 2005). Simultaneously, they act in response to disparaging arguments from conservationist groups by putting forward strategies to mitigate environmental damages and consequences. To secure the communication with the indigenous community in the project area, the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) keeps a special agency, the Department of Social Investigation (Campregher 2010). According to Campregher (2010), the claims of the project’s policy report are barely helpful to persuade the affected community of its advantages as they commonly argue on behalf of a somewhat vague macro-economic benefits and national value. It is the duty of the project’s anthropologists and sociologists to transform these agendas into actual and tangible accounts and to find answers to the issues raised by determined community heads and anxious farmers. Among the peoples in the project area, the Terraba’s native population is one of the toughest (Rodriguez 2008). According to Rodriguez (2008), the particular issues that emerged for the dam project in Terraba are mainly because of the indigenous uniqueness of the community and the special constitutional nature of its known lands. There are different established organizations in Terraba which vie among themselves. All of these organizations claim to speak for the native community or portions of it, and at the same time challenges the legality of other organizations. The Association of Integral Development (ADI), as stated in the Costa Rican Indigenous Law, is the constitutionally acknowledged agency that represents the area. Terraba’s indigenous population is under a particular jurisdiction, instituted by the Costa Rican Indigenous Law and international organizations like the International Labor Organization (ILO) (Blake 2009). For instance, within the constitutionally recognized territory, ownership and trading of land is exclusively given to indigenous people. However, in the past the official rules were not effectively put into practice, and hence it happens, that at present merely roughly 10% of Terraba’s territory is in fact owned by native peoples (Blake 2009). According to Vinding (2005), most of the lands are owned by non-native settlers, even though they cannot demand any legal ownership for it. This state of affairs has resulted in a string of enduring conflicts and difficulties. Other current organizations in the community make up the political left wing of ADI. They assert that the ADI is an agency enforced by the state and, hence, rebuff it. Rather they assert the right to build their own associations on their own and to endorse their ideas of development independent of the state (Campregher 2010). These activist organizations usually cite ILO Convention 169, approved in 1992 by Costa Rica, which establishes special indigenous peoples’ rights. Most of their heads rebuffed the PHED at one time. The ICE, in 2005, had to accomplish geological investigations at Terraba River’s western part within the indigenous area. The affected territory is owned by a non-native colonist (Campregher 2010). At first, according to Zeppel (2006), the ICE acquired approval from the ADI which constitutionally represents the population and its lands, and from the individual property-owner. Nevertheless, immediately after the ICE started to conduct the investigations, a group of adversaries from these autonomous indigenous organizations condemned the exploits of ICE at the Supreme Court of Costa Rica. Primarily, they claim that the quarries and investigations which the ICE embarked on detrimentally impinge on Terraba River’s water quality (Vinding 2005). Moreover, as stated in the ILO Convention, the state should discuss with the native peoples if they are to carry out any administrative or legislative measure that influences them or their lands. Any discussion should involve the entire population or at least spokespersons from every group in Terraba. Hence, they claim the ICE has not yet consulted the indigenous population (Blake 2009). Consequently, the investigations would go against their basic rights. Accordingly, the ICE has postponed the investigations until the grievance should be decided. The ‘Front against the PHED’ is a coalition of Terraba’s native leaders (Campregher 2010, 783). Backed up by different NGOs, it arranges episodic conferences, symposiums, and other activities to express their disgruntlement with the plan. In their public talks and meetings they condemn how the ICE deals with the indigenous peoples, the project, and their core idea of development. Their assertions stress the detrimental impacts of the project on the ecology of the area, and the disagreements that may emerge as an outcome of the existence of even bigger populations of non-native migrant laborers (Institute for Central American Studies 2006). A large number of the older peoples of Terraba remember their mostly unpleasant experiences when the initial flow of non-native migrants arrived in the 1960s, during the building of the Inter-American Highway (Institute for Central American Studies 2006). The incompatible relationship between these two cultural populations and the still minor status of native populations in Costa Rica are the roots of the latter’s suspicious outlook toward the development plan of the state. In contrast to this plan, their representatives uphold a vision of an independent native development that takes into consideration economic, environmental, and cultural aspects. They claim the right to use valuable resources which other social groups or areas have, like assets or land. Rather than taking advantage of natural wealth, they recommend safeguarding them to gain from them in due course. Organic agriculture, support for studies on current natural diversity, and eco-tourism are regarded options that may be economically feasible and environmentally friendly at the same time (Haffar & Carls 2010). The leaders of indigenous communities argue that endorsers of the PHED persuade according to technological development and economic progress. Yet, they consequently experienced the mechanism of modernization as one of societal integration as the most inferior and disenfranchised peoples (Haffar & Carls 2010). The advantages guaranteed by the project do not satisfy their needs since these advantages would not initiate any transformation in their relationship with the state and the larger society. Endorsed mostly by NGOs, different organizations in Terraba take part in the conservation of their rainforests and exert efforts in practicing their agricultural processes in an environmentally sustainable manner. In their judgment, the building of a dam would invalidate numerous of their accomplishments. As an outcome of these concerns, they discard the project and its integral notion of development. The native activists are opposed to the project’s idea of development for it takes into consideration only economic gains (Blake 20009). The project works on the rationale of enormous investment in technological and infrastructure development for the mining of value without regard for ecological wellbeing and in the shape of a top-down intercession through an outside entity (Campregher 2010). This notion of development implies economic progress, modernization, and rebuilding a marginal, rural area. In contrast, the indigenous heads create a distinct idea of development that takes into account economic, social, and cultural aspects. It is founded on fair access to capital, education, and land for native peoples, associations, and small groups. And it should be carried out in the form of independently government projects that would be free from outside organizations and the control of more influential players (Campregher 2010). Development in this perspective is an independent, self-governing process that is hampered by several hindrances, but can be eradicated if minority groups or territories are given fair rights and access to valuable resources. The indigenous critics of the dam project challenge the disputes and the principle of the ICE and the fundamental idea of development. Policy Implications The PHED not merely incites resistance, but also draws the interest of outside scholars and policymakers. For a scholarly research, a European intellectual uses the point of view of the involved, but neutral ethnographer. His objective is to investigate the connection between the indigenous peoples and PHED, to explain it as neutrally and directly as needed, and to describe the actor’s stances or ideas in a sociological language in connection with theories and models (Campregher 2010). This enables him to explain the current concession from a different point of view than both the development critics and advocates. The ADI is, as previously discussed, Terraba’s legal representation. Its primary agency is chosen by its constituents, but has remained the same for four successive periods. Even though merely a fairly small percentage of the adult population of Terraba belongs to this group, its heads claim to speak for the entire community. Aside from ADI, there are roughly ten additional organizations, which refer to themselves ‘civil groups’ (Campregher 2010). They represent themselves officially as organizations and mostly sign up their followers among relatives. Most of their representatives are the patriarch of core family units of these extended kin. Alongside outside groups and support projects they arrange educational seminars, environmental programs, the making of handiwork, and other public initiatives. They are militants in indigenous groups, and take part in global or local activities, assemblies, and meetings (Blake 2009). Although the ADI at times attempted to collaborate with the PHED, even if when they want to do so might reinforce their own stances or produce gains in return, most of the civil organizations reject the PHED. The connection between these civil organizations is inherently beset by competitions and pressures. Even though mostly they condemn both the PHED and the ADI in support of more revolutionary indigenous political affairs which insist respect for indigenous self-determination and rights according to the ILO Convention 169, they barely made it in becoming members of established associations or in selecting either a collective representative or a consolidated alliance (Rodriguez 2008). Instead, they choose to protect their independent organizations where in they operate along kin networks in independent initiatives with similar objectives. Only in a few instances do they take part in planned unions for or against certain issues (Haffar & Carls 2010). The discussion between Terraba and the PHED manifests these shaky mechanisms and involves a large number of opponents, individuals, and groups. This complicated political scenario is the result of a historical mechanism. As stated by Henri Pittier, who took a trip in the 19th century to the area of present-day Buenos Aires, Terraba during that period was a small community of peoples from various cultural groups, who were initially relocated to this site by Franciscan clerics. In this mishmash of various cultures, Terraba, which at first occupied Panama’s north-west seaboard, were the largest population, which consequently christened the location its name (Campregher 2010). The effect of the Catholic Church and its missionaries, who resided among the indigenous peoples of Terraba, and of settlers from Panama, had the outcome that this new native population did not form any strong political association that could bring together the entire community to work jointly against colonizers (Campregher 2010). Thus, in the 1970s, the indigenous people of Terraba quickly implemented the legal organization of ADI which was launched by the state, pursued by disagreements about its membership and headship where in non-native and native populations competed with each other. However, this organization was barely sufficient and futile for the protection of the interests and rights of the indigenous peoples before the non-native inhabitants and the state (Cruz 2005). As an outcome of the mounting recognition of the rights of indigenous communities in international human rights deliberations and emergent opportunities through development collaboration, a number of indigenous heads in Terraba started to oppose the ADI and form their own native groups. Initially formed as a crucial prelude to joining in collaboration with external NGOs, these groups nowadays embody the most general type of political association. Even though they are recognized officially as civil organizations, in most instances their members enlist from the kin networks of these pioneers (Haffar & Carls 2010). Hence, they can be seen as a new form of association that is at the same time the outcome of mechanisms of both oppositions, as they became against the political affairs of the state, and adjustment to emerging relationships with international civil groups. Due to the few opportunities for economic ventures in Terraba, the formation of a native group can be viewed as a capable option for native families that enables them to draw project collaborations, financial support, or contributions while preserving an important stance when faced with the state’s agencies. Consequently, all these family groups play economic and political roles for their constituents as well as for the society. Likewise, a number of complaints of indigenous leaders against PHED can be interpreted as component of a method of adjustment to the appearance of other forms of intercession, for instance, to human rights or environmental NGOs, whose objectives are more similar with those of the native communities (Haffar & Carls 2010). The leadership of ADI is similar to this. These legislators adjusted to the likelihoods and institutional setting of the state system and hence oppose any political program that may make a difference in this institutional structure. According to Campregher (2010), this is the reason they greatly criticize and disparage any other native organizations or constitutional actions and amendments that would reform the current arrangement. The author of this paper observes that the process of political discussion between the native peoples and PHED as an area where in different players with conflicting tactics and objectives face each other. Derived from the above discussion the author thinks that the view of development projects by involved communities is influenced by history, current disagreements, domestic needs, and visualized alternatives to this projects. Players in a development field adjust their methods and arguments so as to persuade intercessions by influential, outside collaborators. At the same time, they contradict and rebuff intercessions that might defy their objectives or negatively affect affiliations and alliances. Conclusions Players in a development field which seem to have distinct cultural perspectives, such as outside scholars, indigenous community legislators, and development advocates, do not essentially work along the lines of diverse cultural principles. They are not entities of independent ‘life domains’ or ‘worldview’. Instead we can demonstrate how these unique groups and individuals relate to each other and how they communally characterize each other’s uniqueness. Anthropological theories, especially those related to the development, not merely prevent the institution of obviously independent cultural domains; they emphasize the mechanisms where in players interpret and change distinct and conflicting interests so as to reconcile them. In Terraba, the various groups of the indigenous community challenge the legality or authority of their political representatives and in so doing prevent the formation of a consolidated political representative entity. Social, economical, and political resources are activated so as to develop established types of political representation. Ultimately, the author of this paper hope to have demonstrated that a systematic study of representation which identifies how ideas and their limits are created and transformed by various communities or populations and, simultaneously, by ourselves, is a vital stride toward a more analytical development study. It broadens our current image of the world by involving the scholar, development critics and advocates, and policymakers. For the thesis of this paper, this implies that, primarily, development projects do not essentially occur without the dynamic opposition of several of the affected people; and, subsequently, that in reality rhetoric is not supreme and all-encompassing as a number of postmodernist scholars would claim, but constantly challenged. Lastly, it does not require a social scientist to expose the development rhetoric. The author of this paper urges social scientists to search for the ‘true’ adversaries of these development projects and put into writing and study their own perspectives systematically, rather than representing them by putting words in their mouth. Works Cited n.a. “Costa Rica Brief” World Bank (2011): http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/LACEXT/COSTARICAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:20232979~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:295413,00.html n.a. “Costa Rica Country Profile” BBC News (2011): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1166587.stm Blake, Beatrice. The New Key to Costa Rica. Berkeley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2009. Campregher, Christoph. “Shifting Perspectives on Development: An Actor-Network Study of a Dam in Costa Rica” Anthropological Quarterly 83.4 (2010): 783+ Cruz, Consuelo. Political Culture and Institutional Development in Costa Rica and Nicaragua: World Making in the Tropics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Haffar, Warren & Jurgen Carls. Conflict Resolution of the Boruca Hydro-Energy Project: Renewable Energy Production in Costa Rica. New York: Continuum, 2010. Institute for Central American Studies. Mesoamerica, Vol. 25. Institute for Central American Studies 25. (2006): 1+ Rodriguez, Mauricio Herrera. Sustainable Development in Costa Rica: A Moral Geography. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest LLC, 2008. Vinding, Diana. The Indigenous World 2005. New Jersey: IWGIA, 2005. Zeppel, H.D. Indigenous Ecotourism. UK: CABI, 2006. Read More