New Thinking About Development in Central America

A Conversation with Bud Kenworthy

From the Environmental Review Newsletter Volume Two Number Ten, October 1995

Introduction:

In the first issue of this newsletter - January 1994 - we spoke with Carl Leopold about a reforestation project in Costa Rica called the Tropical Forestry Initiative. Outside of the national parks and biological preserves, most land in Costa Rica has been cleared for pasture or planted in non-native trees such as pine or teak for saw timber. A plantation of teak or pine is the functional equivalent of a corn field and does not support the great variety of organisms - birds, monkeys, insects, amphibians, plants - that a diverse tropical forest does. In addition, the thin soils of the tropics cannot sustain intensive agriculture, so many crop and pasture lands in Costa Rica have been exhausted and soil erosion is a major problem. TFI is one of several groups working to develop more appropriate models of tropical forestry. Its starting point is the same that Aldo Leopold used to reclaim an abandoned wheat farm in Wisconsin in the 1940s: to replant worn out land with species of trees that were originally there and allow the land to rebuild its soil and fertility and the woods to regain biological diversity of plants and animals . TFI is replanting a 300 acre parcel of worn out pasture to a mix of trees native to the area to restore a biologically diverse forest that will again support a wide variety of plants and animals as well as a modest - sustainable - amount of human use.

Economic development projects in Central America have also met many problems. In this issue of the newsletter we talk with another member of the TFI, Eldon Kenworthy, about how TFI intends to learn from the mistakes of previous development projects. The so-called new thinking in development involves primarily, greater economic realism as a component of local empowerment.

ER: Professor Kenworthy, what is your training and your current position?

EK: Currently I chair the politics department at Whitman College, having moved to Whitman four years ago from the government department at Cornell University. I have a Ph.D. in political science and for some twenty-five years have been teaching and writing about Latin America. That has involved me in looking at the domestic politics of South America and, more recently, at U.S. relations toward Central America. The more involved I became with Central America the more I understood how much environmental issues are part of politics and vice versa.

ER: What is the Tropical Forestry Initiative?

EK: TFI was formed by eight North Americans in 1992, all at that time living in central New York. Our immediate purpose was to buy some degraded pasture in Costa Rica to see if we could restore some of the biodiversity that land originally had through a process of afforestation.

Few had attempted to reforest using native species the difficulty being that the seeds of most neotropical trees are recalcitrant; that is, they cannot be stored any length of time. So to reforest using native species means collecting the seeds as they fall and quickly planting them in nurseries where they must be watered until they turn into seedlings. Legally, TFI is a not-for-profit corporation committed to biodiversity. Our 501[c]3 status permits us to receive tax-exempt contributions.

ER: Where is the site in Costa Rica and how big is it?

EK: The TFI owns 300 acres located one ridge inland from the Pacific Ocean near the small community of Dominical. This is on the Pacific side of the southern portion of Costa Rica, accessed by traveling through San Isidro de El General. Originally the forests were wet tropical forest - not rain forest technically because there is a dry season. Starting in the thirties but accentuated in the fifties, many forests here were cut down to extend cattle pasture in response to a boom in meat exports. The pattern now is degraded pasture mixed with plots where food crops are grown and with patches of old growth and secondary forest.

ER: What is the purpose of replanting with native trees instead of pines or eucalyptus?

EK: The partners of TFI share a basic concern for biological diversity - particularly in Costa Rica which has many endemic species. [Endemic species occur nowhere else. ed.] Maintaining diversity in that country is important for global biodiversity. Forest destruction in Central America, for example, means fewer migratory song birds in the U.S.A.

Forests that support a multitude of species cannot consist of just one plant - particularly one introduced plant. So we were drawn to how we could enlarge the pockets of mixed native forest that remain.

When you start to think about that however, you quickly realize that there has to be some kind of an economic incentive. Those forests were destroyed because people sought income from cattle. In order for afforestation to be successful, it has to make economic sense to the people who live there. Where TFI operates the campesinos own small plots of land which contain patches of forest. For them to maintain those patches, much less enlarge them, they would have to see that it makes economic sense.

ER: Why did they replant a mixed forest with monocultures of pine or eucalyptus?

EK: Government policies favoring reforestation, policies which include subsidies, sparked many large plantations in which, for reasons of efficiency, stands of only marketable, fast-growing trees were planted. That might be pine, it might be teak. The process is driven by corporate profits and bureaucratic policies. Little thought has been given to biodiversity outside Costa Rica's well-known parks and preserves.

ER: So the basic use for monoculture tree stands was for saw timber?

EK: Correct: saw timber and wood pulp. Costa Rica housed many sawmills. But the country is running out of commercial logs. Costa Rica, even if it had the timber, cannot compete with construction lumber and pulp being produced by Chileans, Canadians or Russians. So the Costa Rican lumber market is undergoing a transformation. The good news is that there will be a niche for specialty hardwoods used in cabinets, windows and furniture. That is good news because it permits campesinos who selectively harvest hardwoods to get decent prices in the local market.

ER: What is the practical value of preserving biodiversity instead of planting a monoculture of saw timber. Why bother?

EK: Why does one want to plant mixed species to create a forest rich in biodiversity? The answer to that comes from a priority on biodiversity. That is, you have to evaluate reforestation programs by a measure different from or at least in addition to short-term economic profit. Until recently, few people did that. They looked at forestry as if growing trees was the same as growing corn or sorghum.

Well, we now know that forests are more than the trees; they are complex systems of which trees are only one part along with the fungi, animals, birds, fish, insects and plants and microorganisms. If our aim is to preserve a multitude of species in their complex interactions, we have to make that a priority.

That does not preclude harvesting trees for their economic value. The challenge is to find ways of harvesting that are consistent with biodiversity.

We must come up with new mechanisms of forest management, new technologies of harvesting, even new forms of social organization.

ER: What is TFI doing to involve their neighbors in reforestation?

EK: TFI realized that if its strategy of reforestation using local species was to become a reality, the campesinos who live in the area would have to buy into the idea, presumably by seeing in it some economic payoff for them. That payoff does not need to be only the marketing of lumber. Campesinos use trees for a variety of things, including fence posts, fuel wood, and construction. There is a market in seedlings alone, and some campesinos are aware of the herbal and medicinal values of forest species. We need to understand the campesinos' perceptions of the value of forests in order to create a model of selective harvesting that will work for them. That model will include appropriate technologies; for example, a portable saw which can be carried or wheeled to where a tree is felled so that boards can be taken out by horse. New technologies inevitably require training and capital.

So with that in mind, TFI and its neighbors are now forming a forestry association in which the directors are campesinos. We will see if we can pool knowledge and share costs. The purpose of the association, then, is to create a mutually beneficial way in which TFI on its lands and the campesinos on theirs can move toward selective harvesting in a way that makes forest preservation economically profitable for them.

ER: TFI is trying to demonstrate the financial viability of a biologically diverse forest?

EK: Yes. Yes. Whatever money TFI earns from sales of lumber from its lands, it will use to enlarge the nursery, raise more seedlings, and plant more trees - all of which permits more selective tree harvesting in the future. That is the virtuous cycle we hope our neighbors will observe and imitate

ER: Could you explain what you mean by the "new thinking" about development?

EK: There are many organizations trying to promote ecologically-sustainable economic development in places like Central America. Among their projects there probably are more failures than successes. The failures have many reasons, one being the tendency of outside agencies to take on all the risks and start-up costs. As a consequence they are perceived by the locals as donors rather than collaborators. That approach does not work for the same reasons that handouts do not get people off welfare in the United States. A buy-in from the recipient is needed. They need to make a commitment that is real in terms of their time, their money, or their land.

So as TFI becomes more involved with its neighbors - I mentioned the forestry association - we need to be sure that it is done in a spirit of collaboration among equals where nobody is a free rider. Everybody involved must share the risks and costs no less that the benefits.

ER: What do you need to do to make TFI succeed where others have failed?

EK: Well, one thing that has worked is to be a demonstration. Our lands are crossed by trails which our neighbors use, so that generates interaction and observation. We now have neighbors who are not only buying seedlings from us at cost, but who are creating their own nurseries. Campesinos are beginning to raise seedlings from seeds they collect.

The second step, which is still too early to judge, is the forestry cooperative. If that becomes an organization in which TFI is just another member, that should further our goal of creating a form of development which empowers local people, which keeps with them the responsibility for decisions that affect them.

ER: If I were a campesino I would suspect this is just another gringo development scheme and it will be something else ten years from now.

EK: You might. In Costa Rica there are many cooperatives. Where TFI is, the campesinos once had a cooperative marketing beef. So it is not as if all this is new. We hope our neighbors will draw on their past experience and be skeptical where that experience tells them. They ought to be.

ER: New forestry has to be integrated with what campesinos are doing to survive; it cannot replace those activities.

EK: Right. Most peasants are fairly conservative economically: usually they are trying to avoid loss rather than make a killing. And you protect yourself against loss by growing many crops and having several different little pieces of land if you can.

We have never advocated that campesinos afforest all of their land. We are simply suggesting to them that they can manage existing patches of primary and secondary forests for both economic gain and biodiversity. We hope they will gain an income stream which they will want to plow back into maintaining and perhaps expanding those patches of forest. In doing this they will be making better use of land on which they cannot easily grow crops. This is rugged terrain, and forests that remain have not been cleared for good reason.

ER: Is the purpose of this project to restore the forest, or is it social engineering?

EK: Well, a moment ago we were talking about new thinking in development theory. A part of the new thinking which I just described, is that those whose land it is must take ownership of the experiment, ownership in the sense of accepting responsibility for the risks and costs.

The other part of the new thinking in development is that if we want to promote environmental values, we have to integrate those values with the priorities that local people already hold. Social forestry, or community forestry is a gamble that when local people gain control over their forests, they will be more responsible stewards than the timber corporations or the national government.

Campesinos already have a strong commitment to patrimony; that is, to passing their way of life on to their children. So as families and as communities, they see that their forests provide benefits, including an income stream, they should want to manage them so that their children and grandchildren can continue to enjoy all aspects of the forests. In that way economics and the biodiversity finally come together. That is the hope, that is the gamble.

That does not sound to me like social engineering. It is closer to the Taoist approach of working with the existing landscape and the existing culture in contrast to the expert's or engineer's approach of coming in and telling people what to do.

ER: What lessons are there to learn from failed development projects in other Central American countries?

EK: The El Salvador reforestation project of the 1980's holds many lessons, one of which was that the reforestation works best where the communities feel they have ownership of the project. In some cases, the communities wanted to grow fruit trees which was not in the plan. Where local desires were overridden, local people often walked away from the project entirely.

Michael Chernea, who works for the World Bank, makes the point that we need to look at local communities' decision-making capabilities as a form of capital. We need to encourage communities to accumulate that precious ability to take charge of their destinies and to know their own best interests.

Through no credit of its own, TFI has avoided some of the problems of reforestation elsewhere in Central America simply because TFI is small and private. When we came into our area, we did not come as extension agents from the national government, but as neighbors and fellow landowners. We face the same problems our neighbors face, such as eroded roads; we swap stories the way rural neighbors do. There is an advantage in being another small, private landowner, even though we possess resources our campesino neighbors lack.

One problem with many development initiatives is that they start with international organizations feeding money into national governments who then divide it among their bureaucracies. When the initiative finally trickles down to local areas it may be through extension agents who may not want to be there.

ER: You mentioned that you were willing to work on the roads and sit and talk with the neighbors. How important is that to the success of TFI?

EK: Very important. Even though we are only eight individuals, we have been fortunate in that those who have spent the most time at the site have been skillful in human interactions.

Part of what makes the next stage a challenge is that we have to be clearer ourselves about what is informal and friendship-based and what is organizational. The forestry association could fail as an organization - as many have in Latin America - if people confuse friendship with business.

ER: You are moving to a more formal relationship with your neighbors?

EK: That's right. The process will involve training a few campesinos so they can competently exercise aspects of business management which are not native to their culture; such as, how to balance books and prepare annual reports. Those skills are essential if they are going to direct a cooperative business successfully.

ER: You are the third or fourth wave of foreigners to come in with a development scheme. What other difficulties or traps do you anticipate?

EK: I see two dangers: The one I was addressing is not yet evident in our area of Costa Rica among those campesinos with whom we deal, but it has shown up in other areas. There have been situations in which campesinos have burned down the forest because they are angry at the way the extension agents and development experts told them what to do. That has happened in Honduras while in Oaxaca, Mexico, many forest-dwelling people have left and gone to the United States. We have to recognize that whenever foreigners come in and start promoting what they consider to be good values, there is great potential for unintended consequences. Disrespect of a local people's culture and intelligence in many cases will provoke them to sabotage well-intended projects.

Fortunately where TFI operates, campesinos manage their own lands and they are by and large, confident, resourceful people. As they move into thinking about marketing lumber however, they encounter a new experience. If they eventually move from marketing boards to say, creating furniture, that would be even more novelty. Part of our role is to show them who they can learn the skills they need if they wish to enter these markets. If campesinos are going to interact with the wider world on their own terms, they need to know how that world operates.

ER: You are exposing these people to a whole new world of risk as well.

EK: Exactly. And the only honest way to do that is at every step of the way to make sure they understand what is involved. That kind of disclosure or transparency is a key part of empowerment, for it keeps in their hands decisions that affect their lives.