History and Themes in Osa So far.

The problem is not whether people are living on the land or not—we have seen and proven that yes, people and animals can live in unison, successfully, the problem is when we are so incredibly demanding, so overtly exploitative of all the land has to offer that animals and “wildlife” and humans can not coexist. We need to be looking for a future in which such reality exists – allow farmers to cultivate complex –Agroforestry and do what they do best. Which is grow a diversity of plants that are local, seasonal, and allow for us to live locally, organically, and sustainably. I don’t understand how we can be trying to get away from that especially in a country that desires to live so strongly in unison with the environment – its external forces…fucking united states… we have to look for ways to sustain local produce – we see changes not only in land use and conservation but in humans health – they will start seeing the rapid decline in health that we have in the states and that all countries with high processed goods are seeing. That is another reason I am strongly interested in plastics and packaged goods… the constant reminders that we are a part of this beautiful world are vital to the continued life of both sides…

---

---

 

History, themes and future of the Osa Peninsula

All went down hill in the 1980s – first Latin-American country to default on international debt, which forced them into being at the limbs of the international / western community

• Quit subsidies to agriculture – neoliberalism ideologies of opening up trade to international communities to source goods from the “cheapest” places

• Killed the local farmer and eradicated the port in Puerto Jimenez in which farmers could sell their goods

• This also ruined the system in which the government provided seeds and steady market prices for the produce of farmers
• This was one of the first steps in the decline of farmers and peoples in the mountains
PROJECT TO TRACK THE DECLINE OF SCHOOLS WITHIN THE REGION

Secondly, the government, potentially through pressure from international communities, began buying (or maybe other countries bought) the land for national parks and reserves. On one hand this led the forced movement of farmers off of their land – government (or others…) bought land at very cheap prices.
PROJECT TO TRACK THE ABANDONED HOUSES IN CORCOVADO PARK

• Corcovado is one of the only established national parks that is entirely owned by the “state” or at least no private land owners, unlike Piedras Blancas that is 70% private land owners. they are basically trapped inside their land – need to research what they can actually do?
In the past the land was severely threatened by loggers and gold mining, and while these still devastate the area, palma//palm oil the plantations have a much stronger presence in the lives of farmers.

• Lots of propaganda in which they truly believe the palma is great for the animals/land/environment and a win-win situation because they are making a ton of money.

• Even if the majority of people are not living within the national park borders they are more often than not within the biological/forest reserve –what are the categorical differences between the two?

• Gold mining still exists within the national park and there is a lot of gold in the rivers of the farmer’s properties.
The properties are rich in materials to extract and profit from, but the majority of the people do not know how much all of the plants are worth and do not have any interest in extracting goods from the forest. The majority is not even taking wood from the forest. They have no desire to exploit the forest, but when companies show up and want to plant teka or molina or palma it is hard to resist the incredible profits that can be made from these materials.

PROJECT IS TO TRULY INVESTIGATE THE GOLD MINING IN THE PARK

THE POSITIVE ALTERNATIVE IS TOURISM…OR INCENTIVES…

• Problems with tourism
o Roads/promotion/establishment of tourism projects – need upfront costs/need to speak English/need to have access to promote your business/it is seasonal…

• Incentives
o Positives: allows the farmers to stay on their land within a reserve area or in an ecologically sensitive area and not feel pressured to “harm the environment” through poor agriculture practices or through hunting or extracting wood, a positive source of income, pride in the biodiversity of their land, allowing humans and animals to live in harmony and respect each other

o Negatives: farmers are not getting the money, or if they are it is hardly enough to actually sustain a healthy lifestyle, subject to exorbitant amounts of processing fees and paperwork that is truly debilitating to the continuation incentives and is an inhibiting factor to other farmers that cannot pay or complete the paperwork

If the Costa Rican government continues this process of urbanizing the population and expanding the national parks systems in which the majority of their territory is not being “used” by their people, where do they think that will get them? There is in fact a growing middle class and their population is largely urbanized, but as we are seeing in the states we cannot have a population sustained on imported and processed foods. This “neoliberal” mindset that we need to consolidate might be to the advantage of Costa Rica’s conservation objectives but harmful to the mental, political, financial, and physical health of their people. Although they do have pretty good sanitation rates, literacy rates, and general hygiene, it is mentally debilitating to feel as though you do not have the right to your land. Furthermore, several farmers do not technically have land ownership, just possession and the process of acquiring such titles also involves several years of paperwork and processing fees that they often do not complete the process.

PROJECT LAND INSECURITY AND OWNERSHIP IS A HUGE PROBLEM NOT ONLY FOR THE FARMERS BUT ALSO THE COSTA RICAN GOVERNMENT

–PARRALLES IN HOW THE COSTA RICAN GOVERNMENT IS DEFAULTING ON DEBT AND THEIR TREATMENT OF SMALL FARMERS — Farm as collateral to banks – primary forest as collateral to international community

PROJECT CHANGE IN LAND USE AND AGRICULTURE OVER TIME –land ownerships changes over time//crop changes//deforestation rates//places of high risk

PROJECT ELEVATION PROFILES OF NEW PROPOSED TRAILES IN CORCOVADO – where can we create new trails within Corcovado to feasibly expand tourism throughout?
PROJECT MAP OF WATERSHEDS AND SUBTERRANIAN WATERSHEDS—areas of high sensitivity

PROJECT MAP OF BIOMES AND THE EFFECT CHANGE IN CLIMATE WILL HAVE – projections of rain change patterns that will devastate sensitive areas

PROJECT MAPS OF PHYTOGRAPHY – SATELLITE IMAGERY

Questions within Corcovado National Park:
o Gold Mining: previous materials? Current process? Officials approach to this practice? Bribery?
o Locals have done this for 100s of years, then kicked off land but still feel attachment so continue to extract gold
o Visitation Rates? Duration of Stay? Country of Origin? Requirements for guides?
o Rates of Deforestation at park borders?
o Amount of facilities on the property? Abandoned houses included…
o Who owns Corcovado…other parks?
o Human – wildlife interactions…?
NEED TO STUDY THE LEVELS OF RESERVED LAND CLASSIFICATIONS & THE DISTRIBUTION OF SUCH PROPERTIES AND THE INHABITANT RATES…

Ultimately, people want to conserve, people are proud of their land, yet they need to sustain their own lives. International companies easily persuade people especially when campesinos have no other source of income.

It is dangerous to keep isolating humans and nature – if the end result is vast amounts of land without people living on them that means we are potentially not thinking about how to make the land we do inhabit environmentally friendly

Historia, las temas, y el futuro de la península de Osa

 

En los ochentas, Costa Rica fue la primera país en Latinoamérica “to default on international debt”, entonces “forced” a hacer que quieren las personas internacionales y “western”

 

• Se acabó los subsidios de agricultura – los ideólogos “neoliberal” como abrir el mercado internacional para recibir los precios más bajos de todos

 

• Se murió la vida campesino y el mercado local en Puerto Jiménez donde les “pueden” vender los cultivos

 

• Además, el sistema donde el gobierno vende pare? y no más era precios fijado a los campesinos

• Este proceso fue una de los primeros “steps” de el disminución/descenso de gente o campesinos en las montañas

 

UN PROYECTO LOCALIZA LAS ESCUELAS A MENOS DE ESTE REGION

Segundo, el gobierno, posiblemente con PRESSURE de las comunidades internacionales, empezó a comprar (o posiblemente las otras países compraron) la tierra para hacer parques nacionales y reservas. A un mano “forced” los campesinos no “pueden” vivir más de la tierra y el gobierno (o otras personas) se compró la tierra con bajos precios.

UN PROYECTO LOCALIZA LAS CASAS ABANDONADOS ENTRE EL PARQUE

• Corcovado es uno de los parques que “estaba establecido” con propiedad solamente del estado o al menos no hay dueños privados, “unlike” Piedres Blancas que tiene 70% dueños privados. La gente están atrapando por la tierra – necesito buscar las reglas de las categorías y que queden hacer los campesinos
En el pasado, “threatened” con la gente que quieren extraer madera o oro – todavía estos son problemas pero la palma está creciendo a un problema más grande de todos

• Hay mucho propaganda y resulta en un conocimiento que la palma es bueno para el medioambiente, especialmente para los animales, poco gente sabe que es malo para el suelo Y los campesinos también ganan mucha plata

• Ni siquiera la mayoría de la gente no están viviendo entre la parque nacional todavía están viviendo entre un reserva forestal o biológico—cual son los niveles?
• “La extrae de oro” todavía existe en el parque nacional y hay mucho oro en los ríos de las propiedades de los campesinos.
Además la tierra tiene muchas cosas muy valerosa; a los campesinos solamente son bonitas y genial pero no saben el precio de las cosas no-maderas. Entonces el MINAE quiere saber que tiene los campesinos! Los campesinos no quieren extraer plantas o aun madera o “exploit” la tierra. Pero cuando llegue las empresas de molina o teka o palma, es muy difícil a resistir los precios altos de la madera.

 

PROYECTO A INVESTIGAR “LA EXTRAE DE ORO” EN EL PARQUE
LOS ALTERNATIVOS POSITIVOS – TURISMO/INCENTIVOS

•Calles malos/como “promote”/ como hacer un proyecto turístico – los primeros costosos/es necesario a hablar ingles

 

 

 

 

• Positivos de incentivos →los campesinos pueden permanecer de la tierra entre una reserva o un lugar sensitivo de ecología y no están “harming” el medioambiente con mal practica de la agricultura o casería o de extraer madera – un fuente de ingresos a los campesinos, tienen orgullos de la biodiversidad, pueden vivir “in harmony” con los animales salvajes con respecto a todos

 

Negativos: Los campesinos no están recibiendo el dinero, y si están es precios bajos y no pueden vivir con buen salud

• “subject to” mucho tramite que es muy costoso y muchas personas no pueden completar el proceso (no pueden leer o no tienen la plata, etc)

 

–Si el gobierno sigue con esta proceso de urbanización de el populo y de “expanding” el sistema de parques nacionales “in which/donde?” no hace nada con la mayoría de la propiedad, a donde va?? Es la verdad que hay un “middle class” y mucha gente vive en la ciudad, pero como ocurre en los estados unidos no puede vivir de comida importada y procesada. (¿?) El consumiente “neoliberal” que necesitamos “consolidate” está ayudando con los objetivos de la conservación del bosque pero está malo a la salud de mental, político, financia, y físicamente. Aunque ellos tienen higiénico bueno, es “mentally debilitating” a sentir si no tiene las derachas de la tierra. Además, muchos de los campesinos no tienen el titulo/ la escritura de la propiedad, solamente posesión y el proceso para obtener la escritura es muy difícil con mucho tramite y es muy costoso. Entonces mucha gente no realiza el proceso.

 

UN PROYECTO DE LA INSEGURIDAD DE LA TIERRA Y “OWNERSHIP” NO SOLO ES UN PROBLEMA A LOS CAMPESINOS PERO EL GOBIERNO DE COSTA RICAN TAMBIEN.

 

 

 

 

–PARALLELES EN COMO EL GOBIERNO DE COSTA RICA “IS DEFAULTING ON DEBT” Y “THE TREATMENT” DE LOS FINCEROS PEQUEÑOS – la finca “es colateral” a los bancos – y el bosque primaria es colateral a la comunidad internacional

 

UN PROYECTO DEL CAMBIO DEL USO DE LA TIERRA Y AGRICULTURA “OVER” TIEMPO – los cambios en dueños y cultivos//rato de deforestación/lugares de “risk” alto

 

UN PROYECTO DE MODELES DE ELEVACION DE SENDEROS NUEVES EN CORCOVADO –donde puede construir senderos nuevos entre corcovado para “feasibly expand” el turismo “beyond the current places”
PROYECTOS DE LAS CUENCAS Y SUB CUENCAS – áreas con “high sensitivity”

 

PROYECTO DE CAMBIO DE BIOMES CON EL CAMBIO DEL CLIMA – proyección de cambios en lluvia que va a afectar áreas con “high sensitivity”
PROYECTO DE UN MODEL DE PHYTOGRAPHY – desde los imágenes de satélite

 

Preguntas sobre el parque nacional de corcovado:
• La extrae de oro: los materiales de empresas pasadas? “current” proceso? Que piensen los oficiales ya ahora? “bribery”? chorizo…
• La gente local ha extrayendo por más de cien años, “kicked off land” pero todavía tiene un conexión a la tierra y todavía quiere extraer el oro
• Cuantos personas va al parque? Por cuanto tiempo? De donde son? Los requerimientos de los guías?
• Rato de deforestación a la frontera del parque?
• Cuantos facilidades hay en el parque? Casa abandonados también…
• Quien adueñado el parque? Los otros?
• Interacción entre la gente y los animales salvajes?
NECESSITO INVESTIGAR MÁS DE LOS NIVELES DE LAS IDENITIFICACIONES DE LAS RESERVAS//PARQUES Y LA DISTRIBUCION DE ESTES TIPOS DE PROPIERDADES Y CUANTO PERSONAS VIVEN POR ALLÁ?
“ultimately” la gente quiere conservar, son orgullos, aun necesitan sostener la vida…Las empresas internacionales “persuade” la gente, especialmente cuando no hay otro fuente de ingresos…
Es peligroso a separar la gente y el medioambiente…si quiere muchas montas de tierra sin gente resulta, posiblemente, en un conocimiento sin pensando en como hacemos una vida de la ciudad en conexión del medioambiente…

 

“but..veganism will save the world..”

For many years I have taken issue when people simply say, “but if everyone was vegan we could save the world” or really any variation of that statement. Yes, veganism is a diet and if all people were vegan the world would look a lot different. But, veganism, just the diet alone comes with a wide range of problems as well; when people say to me it will save the world and are ignorant of the host of other perspectives, ethical or spiritual for example,  I feel as though they are ignorant to the reason we got to this stage of agricultural and truly worldwide crisis.

A few examples : coke and fries are vegan. pasta with prego sauce is vegan. the mass production of soy is creating many negative environmental and human health problems — so too is the rise in palm oil production that can be found in many vegan alternatives.

vegan DOES NOT mean healthy.

I believe that most vegans, ideally, see themselves of living in moderation, as a representative that they have control over what they purchase and put into their body. That by having economic and physical control over what you invest in and ingest you are interacting with and thinking of this planet in greater ways than to purely serve your desires. That those who are not vegan, or those people who are not thinking of where their dollar is going,  do not care about (or want to think about) the terrible practices underlying our agricultural and food systems and therefore do not have the underlying (I would say essential) ideologies and connections to this planet that “vegans” would. Those who embrace this dietary choice are doing so, ideally, because they have this spiritual (or more broadly ethical) connection with the land.

It is possible to NOT BE VEGAN and still have morals and practices that allow you to treat the other life on this planet with the respect it deserves.

However, from interacting with different people and different vegans, everyone has their own (often negative) connotations of veganism. I have many ways I academically justify my veganism in connection to western societies that distinguishes it from the spiritual connection to the world that I also hold.

I always shy away from speaking of the spiritual or moral relationships I have to food and society because that often makes people uncomfortable. More often than not people, including vegans, have not thought of their own spiritual relationships (separate from, or apart of, any religion) and its manifestations in the cultural and societal contexts. Therefore when explaining my dietary choices it is easier to connect by simply saying “I just like to feel okay with where my money is going, and that has led to a vegan lifestyle” vs saying “I have this spiritual and ethical obligation and connection with this planet that does not allow me to interact with this society in a non-vegan way.”

In sum, over the years I have broken down “veganism” and separated it from the dietary choice and the underlying ideologies – depending on the level of comfort and intellectual curiosity others have strongly dictates the conversations following the statement, “I am vegan.”

Sustainable Development in Costa Rica and Nicaragua

 Sustainable Tourism in Costa Rica and Nicaragua

The environmental impact of tourism in Costa Rica and Nicaragua is representative of global challenges in ecological and economic sustainability. For both countries, protecting the environment is not just an end in itself, but a way of protecting one of their largest national industries. Both countries, therefore, desire an ecologically sustainable future, but wish to balance this with the growth of their tourism industries. This creates unique challenges to both the current ecosystem and for planning related to economic expansion.

On a recent trip to Costa Rica and Nicaragua, I had the opportunity to witness these challenges first hand and speak with some of the key figures involved in tourism sustainability planning on a governmental and local level. In this paper, I will use the research from my trip, as well as recent academic research, to highlight some of the major tourism-related challenges to sustainability and each country’s approach to creating a healthy environmental future. Before I discuss the specific challenges, however, I will provide some context about how each country approaches their implementation of sustainable tourism.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua have varying approaches to sustainable tourism. Costa Rica, for the most part, approaches sustainable tourism through government oversight of how businesses are impacting the environment. This government oversight has been possible because of Costa Rica’s history of political stability, which (unlike Nicaragua’s more tenuous political situation) has allowed for an organized approach to how businesses, both large and small, impact the ecosystem. On my trip, I received a lecture from the director of the Sustainable Tourism sector of the Costa Rican government, Mr. Alberto Lopez-Chaves, who heads a seven-person department devoted solely to this cause. Though the department has no regulatory power, it offers different levels of certification for tourism-related businesses dependent on their sustainability practices. The highest level of certification, if attained, results in a governmental award of a $10,000 worldwide marketing grant. In this way, the Costa Rican government hopes to urge businesses toward sustainable practices using positive reinforcement, rather than punitive measures.

At the moment, though they hope to expand to aquatic activities and restaurants, certification only applies to hotels, theme parks, and rent-a-car services. Mr. Lopez-Chavez described the four ways that businesses are certified bi-annually. The department evaluates: 1) the biological and physical impact of the businesses, 2) the infrastructure provided in policies for the tourist, 3) the active involvement and participation of the tourist in sustainable practices, and 4) the socio-economic impact of the establishment. At these bi-annual evaluations, businesses can also have their certifications downgraded. After all areas are examined, the establishment receives a certificate based on the lowest score in any given category. This guarantees that businesses excel in all areas, not just specific ones. These services demonstrate the government’s commitment to sustainable tourism practices.

Unlike Costa Rica, Nicaragua does not have a Sustainable Tourism department in their government, or ways of rewarding sustainable ecological practices. Rather, the tourism bureau of each municipality attempts to persuade businesses, both local and national, to follow these practices, which have been grouped together as a plan that began in 2012 and will continue until 2020. The plan emphasizes how the tourism industry will impact the well being of their people and the general infrastructure of the country. Its goals are to construct new laws and regulations for sustainability that work in tandem with the agendas of the municipal governments, to improve the business climate at large, and to increase the number of technical applications on sites, such as recycling and various forms of green energy sources. Nicaragua, unlike Costa Rica, does not have a highly developed infrastructure to implement sustainable tourism, but hopes to see this grow over the next decade.

Despite their differing approaches to sustainable tourism, each country faces similar challenges to this achieving this goal. These challenges result from the tourism itself, and thus require a careful balance between ecological impact and economic growth. The challenges, in the main, are: 1) alternative tourism projects, 2) foreign investment, 3) existing mass tourism destinations, and 4) the need for increased involvement of tourists in local communities.

The popularity of alternative tourism projects in Costa Rica and Nicaragua has created major obstacles to their own environmental viability. Ecotourism, the main form of alternative tourism practiced in these countries, provides “travel to natural areas to understand the cultural and natural history of the environment, taking care not to alter the integrity of the ecosystem” (Weaver, 2006, pg. 192). Ecological threats of ecotourism include environmental degradation from an increase in traffic, noise pollution that could detour wildlife from inhabiting the area, and a concentration of wealth in one area of the country, which could inhibit economic growth in the country as a whole.

Costa Rica and Nicaragua, both popular ecotourism destinations, face different challenges due to their different stages of general development. Costa Rica is working to sustain financial profits for long-term projects, while also ensuring the projects don’t compromise the biodiversity of the habitats. A good example of a low-impact and financially sound private ecotourism project operated by native Costa Ricans is Sensoria. This establishment takes extensive measures to inform its guests of how to be respectful of their surroundings, for example speaking low and offering limited daily tours. In contrast, Lapaz Water Falls Garden, which is owned by foreigners, is the #1 most visited ecological attraction and is continuing to expand their project, under a model more closely resembling a theme park. Although they have a well-run wildlife rescue program, there were seemingly no plans to limit the access throughout their property. Nonetheless, you cannot sustain an ecotourism project, or national parks system at large, if you are not generating enough income. Unfortunately, “the Costa Rican Government has not properly funded the parks and protected areas. They have had to rely a large extent of foreign donations and volunteer activity for their maintenance and management” (Weaver and Shluter, 2001). These two locations highlight the issues Costa Rica faces as they work to maintain economic sustainability within the projects while balancing the preservation of the habitats.

As previously mentioned, Nicaragua is at a slightly different stage within their development of alternative tourism projects. The alternative tourism industry of Nicaragua is working to establish ecotourism projects with long-term sustainability. This work is described in the sustainability plan mentioned earlier, which took effect in 2012. Though there is not a shortage of ecotourism destinations within the country, the future aim is to regulate access to some of these destinations and develop the general infrastructure of the parks. This would curtail problems of over usage, as well as create areas that can handle more of a human footprint. Specifically, the plan designates that the mayor of each municipality would be in charge of developing more tightly defined park areas, which can then be connected through corridors. The lack of infrastructure can be seen in the absence of guardrails at some of the volcano craters. This demonstrates the amount of work necessary to fully support the Nicaraguan tourism industry. Fortunately, they are doing it under a well thought out plan that, if executed properly, will allow for healthy expansion throughout the country.

A second issue within the tourism industry of Costa Rica and Nicaragua is not environmental but economic. Foreign investment threatens the country’s ability to directly profit from tourism projects. The foreigners own most of these larger companies, which does not allow for full reinvestment of the money back into the country. According to a USAID study, “in Costa Rica, which by the early 1990s was the number one overseas ecotourism destination for the United States travelers, half of every tourist dollar never left the United States, and only 20 cents actually went into the local economy” (Honey, 1999, p. 89). Another issue posed by foreign investment is the inability for natives to have upward mobility within the establishments. Both countries incentivize local businesses, but implementation will be a challenge. Lastly, it is typical for there to be a stronger disconnect of foreign owners with the ecological needs of the property and the community surrounding the property. This problem extends beyond just the tourism industry, and, as foreign investment increases in both Costa Rica and Nicaragua, it is vital that regulation helps distribute wealth to the countries’ natives.

Mass tourism locations are another major source of environmental impact, and thus endanger the long-term viability of tourism. Theme parks or resorts, the major types of mass tourism locations, vividly illuminate the extent at which the sites can have negative environmental and socio-economic impacts. Major problems created by these locations include the environmental footprint of building facilities, the sources and cultural ramifications of the food offered, and the isolation of the establishment from the rest of the community. For example, buildings at these sites often have outdated air conditioning units that cannot be switched off and therefore run without necessity all day. Nor do these companies support the local economies through their purchasing procedures, such as buying furniture that is constructed by locals. Buffets are often used to feed guests at hotel resorts, which invites guests to consume foods with little emphasis on conservation or portion management, and typically do not highlight local foods. Eating local foods would not only benefit local agriculture operations, but also lead to deeper cultural consciousness. Lastly, most mass tourism locations are geographically isolated from the rest of the community, and the plethora of onsite activities discourages guests from leaving the property. As a result, the mass tourism attractions perpetuate a lack of understanding of what the host country can truly offer. In an ideal scenario, the profit generated at the large attractions would infiltrate the local economies. Guests would also be given more encouragement to explore the local culture. At the moment, however, the popularity of mass tourism destinations makes it difficult for the governments or local agencies to promote this kind of sustainability.

Lastly, as mentioned briefly above, there is a need for increased involvement of tourists in local communities. The advantages of this involvement cannot be understated. Authentic engagement between tourists and the community can provide a genuine, non-exploitative relationship between the two. This will result in a greater sense of gratitude to the land and the inhabitants, as the tourist becomes informed on the history, traditions, and experiences the community can offer. There are many ways through which this can be done: museums or lodging that promote community engagement are two easy ways that I witnessed in both Nicaragua and Costa Rica.

However, there are many challenges to the development of a community-involved tourism industry in both countries. First, there is the need to build the infrastructure to support an influx in tourists. To host tourists in your area, there has to be accessibility, housing accommodations, and ways for the tourist to be involved. While Nicaragua has heavily invested in the improvement of their roads, Costa Rica still has many roads that are not well paved and result in longer, and more uncomfortable, transport times that can deter the average tourist. Secondly, for less developed area to support tourists, there has to be some form of accommodations. Whether through traditional housing or not, this can be a barrier for residents who want to bring tourists to their area without the aid of larger investors. Lastly, there are few activities available for tourists in more remote locations, which decreases the popularity of travelling there. In recent years, however, there has been a slight increase in the popularity of volunteering and agriculture-based tourism. Despite small gains in these areas, authentic tourist involvement in communities remains a significant challenge for tourism in these countries.

On my trip to these areas, I did witnesses strong examples of community-based tourism in action. This type of tourism is a more sustainable way to develop the industry because it builds on the existing lifestyles and practices while providing an extra income for the locals. The major challenge, as mentioned above, is the initial investment to develop the tourism component. I will briefly discuss three examples of community-tourism that demonstrate its environmental and socioeconomic benefits.

Leon Viejo, a community outside the city of Leon, Nicaragua, recently received recognition and funding from UNESCO (United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization). This funding was to excavate the first Spanish settlement in Nicaragua. The World Heritage site now employs locals to dig out and discover all of the original buildings and to develop a museum on the property with the objects they find. This small attraction provides a wealth of historical and cultural knowledge offered to both the tourist and native of Nicaragua.

In Costa Rica I traveled to two forms of alternative tourism that were locally owned and operated. In Upala, Costa Rica, La Finca Anita is a thriving permaculture farm that has expanded to host guests. At La Finca Anita, you are offered a comprehensive tour of the farm and a cooking class that uses ingredients grown on the farm; they also encouraged tourists to go into the nearby community for dinners or other daily activities. One of these was a traditional cooking class offered in the home of one of the neighbors. Through these cooking classes, tourists learn how to make corn and flour tortillas, cheese, and other classic Costa Rican dishes. The woman is able to support herself and her family though these classes.

A third example came from Alajuela, Costa Rica. Here a dairy farm gives tours that explain how to milk cows and make cheese. This gives tourists an exposure to the lifestyle of a typical Costa Rican, educates them on the agricultural practices, and directly allows the community to profit. These three examples exemplify how tourist can have an authentic experience of the community and learn about their culture and heritage in a financially sustainable and ecologically friendly way.

In conclusion, Costa Rica and Nicaragua are working to support the rapid increase in the tourism industry. Their tropical geographic location demands a higher awareness to the ecological impact and sustainability in their development. Through government incentives in Costa Rica and strict goals in Nicaragua, they are working to promote active community engagement and mindfulness in their expansion. The challenges are the environmental impacts from alternative and mass tourism, threats to profitability from foreign investments, and the infrastructure for community involvement. Costa Rica and Nicaragua, while not comparable in many aspects, are both aiming towards a sustainable future for their countries that coexists with their tourism industries.

Sources

• Buchsbaum, Bernardo. “Ecotourism and Sustainable Development in Costa Rica.” Majoy Paper Sumbitted to Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 3 May 2004.

• Cordero, J. & Paus, E. “Foreign Investment and Economic Development in Costa Rica: The Unrealized Potential.” Working Group on Development and Environment in the Americas. April 2008. Web. 23 January 2014.

• Honey, M. “Ecotourism and Sustainable Development. Who owns Paradise?” Island Press, Washington D.C. 1999.

• Kiss, Agness. “Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds?” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Volume 5 No. 4 (2006): 232-237. Print. Lapaz Water Falls & Peace Lodge. 2014. Web. 20 January 2014. <http://www.waterfallgardens.com/la_paz_waterfall_gardens.php&gt;

• Mollison, B. Permaculture: A Designer’s Manual. Tyalgum: Tagari Publications, 1988. Cab Direct. Web. 23 January 2014.

• Priester, Martijn. “Totoco Eco Lodge.” Totoco. 20 January 2014. <http://totoco.com.ni/&gt;

• Slaper, T. & Hall, Tanya. “The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work?” Indiana Business Review. Indiana Business Research Center, 2011. Web. 24 January 2014. <http://www.ibrc.indiana.edu/ibr/2011/spring/article2.html&gt;

• Weaver, D. B. and R. Schluter. “Latin America and the Caribbean.” In David B. Weaver (Ed), Encyclopedia of Ecotourism. (173-188). New York: CABI Publishing. 2001.

and then I found out this exists

and then I found out this exists and you might also want to

read this and

watch this

and for more background (quicker read)

REWILDING

but our eyes so small

how to make humans believe that this world is not just for us. that we can not continue to synthetically reconstruct the world around us, that after a while there will be no more sand to move, that we will be making these islands for none other than ourselves. that what does it matter if we find a way to take the carbon out of the atmosphere and it is just for us. everything is not just for us. that we need to recognize the world is shared. that yes, if we find a way to keep populating the planet without such pollution it means nothing if we have taken over and pushed out every single other living organism. but who cares. but why care. but what does it mean if there are no other animals?

what in any way does our daily lives depend on or value the wellbeing of any other animal other than those that exist to serve us? In America, we really only want the horse, dog, and cat to stay alive as pets, save a few other animals, and all others we raise to kill, test on, or use for entertainment in rodeos.  i’m sure most people would be happy if all rodents were gone, or snakes, or primates, or anything else for that matter. Little value,is assigned to the lives of animals in the wild in places that humans should not be able to access.  But humans are curious. Humans want to see all. want to conquer all.

we exist in a world that depends on keeping every other living organism far far away. we want to live in an isolated world. we fear bugs, and rodents, and wildlife. they interfere with us, they are impediments to our cleanliness.  So why would we really care about the quality of life for other organisms in the tropics when that is so much land we can cultivate for food, we can live in there, we can conquer.

I believe that most people would want to save the animals, but to zoom out don’t see how their actions effect something greater than themselves.  Don’t see the implications of their purchases, or lifestyles. we are so incredibly isolated. It is incredibly difficult to live outside of the monetary value we assign these habitats, i.e. palm oil production, cattle ranching, dams, etc. So yes, most people, ideally, see the immorality in their actions, but are driven by the market.

I guess my point is that, yes, people don’t want to cut down the rainforest, or disrupt fragile ecosystems, but don’t see an alternative. That we (believe we) are on a path to better the quality of human lives and, other organisms just naturally suffer. I believe this doesn’t have to be the case. I believe that is what conservation at its core is fundamentally about: recognizing that we can in fact coexist. But with the advent of modern technologies we have lived by opposite standards and now we must work to conserve what is left.

DRAFT: Comparison between texts

I have been in New Orleans where my paternal families deep southern traditions of crab and crawfish boiling are not put on hold when the “weird family vegan” comes into town. I tried to immerse myself in the process in order to have a deeper understanding of where the emotional ties to this ritual stem from. I followed closely behind my uncle as we went to several sea food markets around town, finally selecting our 72 live crabs from an open air market where about a dozen other families make their living selling “the biggest”, “the nicest”, “the juiciest” live crabs, crawfish, lobster, etc. We (well he) immediately put the crabs in a large cooler covering them with ice to force the crabs into a hibernation-like state so they would technically be alive the next day when we were going to boil them. Needless to say, this process further solidified my desire to be vegan.

When asking why my family members enjoyed this so much, the answer was always the same: the process, the atmosphere, the camaraderie involved when racing to get the biggest crab on your plate, and eating as many as possible before the are all gone. “You can’t have this kind of fun being vegan, can ya?”

I have found that it is better to allow people to make assumptions as to why you are abstaining from eating meat, opposed to trying to explain yourself. I don’t believe that what I’d want to say would be truly understood, or not taken as a personal attack, by most individuals, but what I believe is best said by author and activist Mark Gold, “I refuse to eat animals because I cannot nourish myself by the sufferings and by the death of other creatures. I refuse to do so, because I suffered so painfully myself that I can feel the pains of others by recalling my own sufferings” (Gold 1995, 25–230).

Before my family wakes up, my mornings have been spent reading Andrew Linzey’s “Why Animal Suffering Matters” and various excerpts from a collective of essays regarding animal humanities.   In the second chapter of “Why Animal Suffering Matters” Linzey asserts, “in order to kill or abuse, [humans] need to create an artificial distance from the one who is to be killed or abused” which I will compare to David Sztybel’s claim that “the Nazis viewed their human prisoners all too much like objects, thus seeking to eliminate any conceivability of identifying with them” in his essay “Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?” (Linzey, 44 / Sztybel, 104). Using these two authors and the philosophers they cite, this blog post will focus on how humans alienate themselves from animals, or other humans, in order to feel different or superior, allowing us to justify our actions.

To explain why animal suffering has seemingly been overlooked for so long, Linzey points to four primary arguments, the power of misdescription, misrepresentation, misdirection, and misperception.  My purpose in comparing these arguments to the Holocaust, as is Sztybel’s, is not to equalize animal and human slaughter, but to point to the overlapping similarities in mankind’s character when engaging in brutal violence and the neglect towards others’ suffering.

Misdescription is best described by Denys Turner who argues that to justify negative treatment to animals, or supporting those who do, you must make the object foreign in an unidentifiable way “so that [it] no longer belongs to us” (Linzey, 44). Most nomenclature surrounding animals that we eat, hunt, wear, sport, etc. is used to separate ourselves from the oppressed so as to denigrate them and not feel any remorse.   Similarly, “Goldhagen theorizes that [d]ehumanizing each person [of the Holocaust] by robbing him of is individuality, by rendering each, to the German eye, but another body in an undifferentiated mass, was but the first step towards fashioning their ‘subhumans’” (Sztybel, 113).

Secondly, the power in misrepresenting animals’ needs or feelings further reinforces the willed ignorance to not acknowledge they feel pain or suffer. Arguments such as “animals cannot feel pain because they do not have the mental wherewithal to do so” or “animals are unthinking organisms that operate by instinct”, most likely stemming from Cartesianism, give us a theoretical basis to disregard animals’ feelings (Linzey 45-46).  In addition, the “International Association for the Study of Pain still maintains a definition of pain that makes the possession of language a necessary pre-condition” (Linzey, 47). To that, I look towards Hippocrates: “the soul is the same in every living creature, although the body of each is different.”

Thirdly, misdirection

• skepticism “we can’t really know” fact–we are all animals, can we truly be wired that different so as on species does not feel pain? (Linzey, 49)
• we need scientific proof, we don’t have enough–reference chimps article and the fading out of use…
• danger of anthropomorphism (52)
• “the fact that an animal has limbs should give it the right to use them… (52)
• Humans interests are inherently better//more important
• Peter Carruthers (53)

Lastly, misperception

• referring to willed ignorance
• our culture prevents us from questioning or really seeing what they are engaging in when it comes to the food industry (56)
• we must see animals beyond just food

 

“zoos are full, prisons are overflowing; oh my, how the world still loves the cage”    –Maude of Harold and Maude

References:

Gold, Mark. (1995.) Animal RIghts: Extending the Circle of Compassion. Oxford: Jon Carpenter.

Sztybel, David. (2006.) Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to The Holocaust? Ethics & the Environment 11, 97-132.

Linzey, Andrew. (2009.)   Why Animal Suffering Matters : Philosophy, Theology, and Practical Ethics. Oxford University Press.