Category: Chapter 10

The return of cruises to Central America

Chapter 10 / Tourism and protected areas

By Martin Mowforth

Key words: cruise industry; Covid-19; Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Following the downgrading of the coronavirus pandemic in the public eye if not in reality, cruise companies are again beginning to consider Central American countries as a suitable destination for their tours. In July [2021] Cruise Industry News reported that Costa Rica was planning to accept cruise ships at most of its ports providing cruise vessels “guarantee complete vaccination schedules against the COVID-19 virus in all crew members and 95 percent of passengers who are of age to be vaccinated.”

The aim is to reactivate the tourism industry and employment in selected coastal areas and ports. Each cruise passenger is said to spend an average of $137 (US dollars) per day which can re-energise a local economy. A number of cruise lines have included Costa Rica in their 2021 – 2022 cruise tours. In fact numerous major cruise lines have included Central American countries other than Costa Rica in their 2021 – 2022 scheduled tours.

Belize for example has begun to receive cruise tour groups. On the ground they have been received very willingly, although in August Breaking Belize News reported that the Carnival Vista cruise ship which was shortly due to call in at Belize had 26 confirmed cases of Covid-19 aboard. The infected crew members were said to be quarantined in their cabins but no reference was made to the tracing of their close contacts. The Carnival Line insisted that all its crew and almost all of its guests were vaccinated. The Centre for Disease Control (CDC) in the United States described the ship as being under investigation, but gave no further details.

Earlier, in November 2020, the CDC had advised “all people” to avoid travelling on cruise ships during the coronavirus pandemic. The risk of contracting Covid-19 is generally considered to be very high on cruise ships. Although that advice was issued some months ago at the height of the second wave of the virus and that the vaccination coverage of wealthy populations is now extremely high, there is little doubt that the pandemic remains with us.

The CDC’s current advice on cruise travel (updated on 20th August, 2021) includes the following points.

  • The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads easily between people in close quarters aboard ships, and the chance of getting COVID-19 on cruise ships is high.
  • CDC recommends that people who are not fully vaccinated avoid travel on cruise ships, including river cruises, worldwide.
  • People with an increased risk of severe illness should also avoid travel on cruise ships, including river cruises, regardless of vaccination status.
  • People who decide to go on a cruise should get tested 1–3 days before their trip and 3–5 days after their trip, regardless of vaccination status.
  • Along with testing, passengers who are not fully vaccinated should self-quarantine for 7 days after cruise travel, even if they test negative. If they do not get tested, they should self-quarantine for 10 days after cruise travel.
  • People on cruise ships should wear a mask to keep their nose and mouth covered when in shared spaces.

When the 2022 cruise season gets into full swing, it will be interesting to monitor both the virus break-outs on board ships and the take-up rate of cruise packages. Given the environmental pollution, the appalling labour rights record and the displays of extreme human inequality that are represented by the cruise industry, it is a pity that the world has not taken advantage of the pandemic by banning all future cruises. As one tourism industry commentator has said, “Let’s not revive the cruise industry.”

Sources:

  • Alejandro Zúñiga, 5 July 2021, ‘Costa Rica to welcome back cruises in September’, Tico Times.
  • Aaron Humes, 10 August 2021, ‘Carnival Vista bringing infected crew members to Belize on Wednesday’, Breaking Belize News.
  • Cruise Industry News, 10 July 2021, ‘Cruise ships with vaccinated guests to return to Costa Rica from September’, Cruise Industry News.
  • Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, United States government, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boats endangering manatees in Belize

Chapter 10 / Biodiversity loss, species loss, and coral loss

The following item is reproduced in The Violence of Development website from ENCA 83 (Newsletter of the Environmental Network for Central America).

Manatees are often referred to as sea cows and are gentle, curious and unthreatening mammals with a face like that of a walrus. In South-East Asia they are called dugongs. There are several species of manatees. The sub-species that lives in coastal inlets around Belize is the Antillean manatee, and according to the United Nations and the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the Antillean manatees are in severe danger of extinction and are therefore a protected species.

Belize has the largest population of Antillean manatees in the world due to its coastline providing large amounts of plant life, especially seagrass, on which they live. The coastline is indented with inlets and tributaries providing the manatees with very warm water, ample food and many mangrove forests.

Belize has established several wildlife sanctuaries in order to protect manatees and other marine life, including Port Honduras Marine Reserve, Swallow Caye Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern Lagoon Wildlife Sanctuary, Bacalar Chico National Park and South Water Caye Marine Reserve.

Although not a protected area, Placencia Lagoon is one of the best places to see manatees. Unfortunately, during September this year there were three reported deaths of manatees in the Placencia Lagoon area. It appeared that the three deaths were caused by boat strikes.

August to October is the most active period for manatee movement around the lagoon, but it is also a period of activity of tourist boats. The Crocodile Research Coalition (CRC) has issued a call for boat drivers to look out specifically for manatees. But the CRC added that the manatees are also threatened by pollution and loss of habitat as well as collision with boats. They also become entangled with fishing nets.

The CRC was established in 2016 and aims to preserve crocodiles and other animals and their environments in Central America in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of biodiversity in the region.

Sources:

  • Rubén Morales Iglesias, 30.09.21, ‘Crocodile Research Coalition calls for boat drivers in Placencia Lagoon to look out for manatees’, Breaking Belize News.
  • Laru Beya Resort website, ‘Belize Manatees’, https://www.larubeya.com/belize-manatees/
  • Crocodile Research Coalition website, https://crocodileresearchcoalition.org/

 

Nicaragua Leaves the Organisation of American States

Chapter 10 / Selected political developments and politicians in Central America

Nicaragua has begun the process of leaving the OAS which organisation Nicaragua accuses of undermining and subverting the process of democracy in that country and elsewhere. Certainly the OAS has been at the forefront of intense criticism of the Nicaraguan government to put it mildly. It would seem to be a significant step for any Latin American country to take, and so it is appropriate to at least record the event in this website under the heading ‘Selected political developments in Central America’. TeleSur published the letter sent by the Nicaraguan government to the OAS and we reproduce the letter here by way of outlining the reasoning behind the Nicaraguan government’s action. Clearly, the OAS would refute the claims made in the letter.

Published by TeleSur,19 November 2021

This Central American country resigned from being part of an organisation through which the United States tries to impose its hegemony and overwhelm the will of the peoples.

On Friday, Nicaragua’s Foreign Affairs Minister Denis Moncada announced his country’s decision to leave the Organisation of American States (OAS). The following is the letter sent by the Nicaraguan government to the OAS Secretary Luis Almagro:

  1. Taking into account the “Declaration of the National Assembly in the face of the repeated actions of interference of the Organisation of American States in the Internal Affairs of the State of Nicaragua”, No. 05-2021; the Declaration of the Caucus of Congressmen and Women before the Central American Parliament of the State of Nicaragua, both of 16th November, 2021; Agreement No. 126 of the Supreme Court of Justice, of 17th November, 2021; and the Agreement of Proclamation and Adhesion of the Supreme Electoral Council of November, 2021, urging the President of the Republic, in his capacity as Head of State and Head of Government, to Denounce the Charter of the Organisation of American States, in accordance to the mechanism stipulated in Art. 143, of said Instrument.
  2. Likewise, in accordance with Article 129 of the Political Constitution of Nicaragua, which provides that the Legislative, Executive, Judicial and Electoral Powers are independent from each other and harmoniously coordinated, subordinated only to the supreme interests of the Nation and to what is established within the Constitution:
  3. In my capacity as Minister of Foreign Affairs, as instructed by the Constitutional President of the Republic of Nicaragua, Commander Daniel Ortega Saavedra and in accordance with Article 67 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, I am writing to officially notify you of our unwavering decision to denounce the Charter of the Organisation of American States (OAS), in accordance with Article 143, which initiates the Definitive Withdrawal and Resignation of Nicaragua from this Organisation.
  4. Nicaragua promotes and defends respect for the principles that govern International Law; compliance with the Charter of the United Nations, its principles and purposes, aimed at respecting the sovereign equality among States, non­-interference in internal affairs, abstention from the use of force or the threat of use of force and the non-imposition of unilateral, illegal and coercive measures; principles that the OAS is obliged to comply with, but irresponsibly ignores, in violation of its own Charter.
  5. The Organisation of American States has been designed as a diplomatic political forum, born under the influence of the United States, as an instrument of interference and intervention and its actions against Nicaragua have shown that this organisation, which operates permanently in Washington, has as its mission to facilitate the hegemony of the United States with its interventionism against the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean. Which is unacceptable for Nicaragua and which we reject and condemn.
  6. Nicaragua has repeatedly expressed its condemnation and rejection of the interventionist actions of the OAS, defending its sovereignty, independence and self-determination and the Right of the Nicaraguan People to freely choose their Government and to define their sovereign policies, which is the exclusive responsibility of Nicaraguans, respecting their Internal legal system, Nicaraguan institutionality, and International Law.

7 . We do not view ourselves as a Colony of any Power, and we claim National Dignity and Decorum, in legitimate defense of our Independence, Sovereignty and Self-determination, in the face of aggressive actions, violations of the UN Charter and International Law by the Organisation of American States, the United States of North America and of other Colonialist and Neocolonialist Entities, which at this point in Life, believe that they have the power to subdue and humiliate our Worthy People and Government.

  1. The Dignified People and Government of Nicaragua resign to be a part of this captive organisation in Washington, instrumentalized in favor of North American interests, becoming an architect of interference and disagreement, to the detriment of the Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.
  2. This Note constitutes our unwavering manifesto and decision to Denounce the Charter of the Organisation of American States (OAS), so that its harmful international effects against Nicaragua may cease. Therefore, as Depositary, you must immediately communicate to the Member States, Nicaragua’s Irrevocable, Dignified and Patriotic decision of Denunciation and Resignation, in the face of interference and the unfriendly and aggressive actions of this Organisation, of subordinate Governments of the United States and of the Secretary General, against the Free and Sovereign Motherland of Sandino and Dario.
  3. I subscribe, reaffirming that Nicaragua bases its Denunciation of the OAS Charter, its Resignation and Withdrawal from this Organisation, on Article 1 of our Political Constitution, which establishes that: “Independence, sovereignty and national self-determination are inalienable rights of the people and foundations of the Nicaraguan nation. Any foreign interference in the internal affairs of Nicaragua or any attempt to undermine those rights, threatens the life of the people.

It is the duty of all Nicaraguans to preserve and defend these rights.” Likewise, it is based on the above-mentioned, Sovereign Declaration of the National Assembly; on Agreement No. 126 of the Supreme Court of Justice; on the Agreement of Proclamation and Adhesion of the Supreme Electoral Council; on the Declaration of the Caucus of Congressmen and Women before the Central American Parliament, for the State of Nicaragua; and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

As instructed by the President of the Republic Commander Daniel Ortega Saavedra, in defense of dignity.

Denis Ronaldo Moncada Colines

Minister of Foreign Affairs

Republic of Nicaragua

 

Central America at COP26

Chapter 10 / Climate change, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and carbon credits

On October 31st, international leaders convened in Glasgow, UK for the 26th Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26). For two weeks, global leaders met to “bring parties together to accelerate action towards the goals of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.” This summary of numerous reports has been prepared by Martin Mowforth for The Violence of Development website.

 

Indigenous Environmental Defenders Notably Absent from COP26 Discussions 

On November 11th, the Guatemala Human Rights Committee (GHRC) posted a report as titled above. The following paragraphs give a few extracts from the report.

Current national commitments are far less than what is necessary for the world to limit temperature rise to less than 1.5oC, and despite the achievements of the conference, this will likely remain the case.

 

Where Are the Indigenous Defenders?  

Prior to and throughout the conference, global human rights organisations and environmental defenders called out the clear absence of defenders from the conference’s discussion. Formal recognition of Indigenous knowledge has increased in recent years, with the Paris accords formally recognizing the importance of local and Indigenous knowledge in resolving the climate crisis, but Indigenous activists say that this recognition has not increased their influence in international negotiations. Eriel Deranger, the executive director of Indigenous Climate Action, noted that “Indigenous people are more visible but we’re not taken any more seriously; we’re romanticised and tokenised.” In fact, members of the Indigenous Future Collective—along with many other groups representing Indigenous peoples–could not gain full access and accreditation to participate in the COP26 process.

In contrast, 503 people with links to the fossil fuel industry were accredited for COP26. Maya K’iche’ human rights defender and journalist Andrea Ixchíu noted that Indigenous observers were not even allowed inside the rooms where the COP26 process took place. Instead, they were forced to watch the deliberations on a screen outside the room. Ixchíu called on COP26 to include Indigenous leaders “not just as observers, but as decision makers.”

Meanwhile, Indigenous defenders face deadly consequences for their work on the front lines of the fight to save the environment; defenders are not only excluded, but actively attacked. During the first week of COP26, Indigenous activists gathered to memorialize at least 1,005 environmental defenders who have been murdered since the signing of the Paris accords in 2016. Global Witness reported 227 murders of environmental defenders in 2020 alone, making it the deadliest year on record. With 13 recorded murders, Guatemala was the seventh deadliest country for land and environmental defenders in 2020 and the fourth deadliest per capita. The first draft of the Glasgow decision made no reference to the grave situation faced by environmental defenders.

Environmental defenders face threats and attacks on many levels, as seen recently in El Estor, Guatemala, where local resistance to a mining project that threatens Guatemala’s largest lake has been repeatedly met with violence and human rights violations. As resistance to the mine continues and the community faces a state of siege, the Convergence for Human Rights,  Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and GHRC, among others, have denounced excessive use of force and violence by state forces and the targeting of land defenders through raids and illegal detention.

Another example–the criminalization of Bernardo Caal–further conveys the threats faced by land defenders in Guatemala. Caal served as a leader against the OXEC hydroelectric project since 2015, which destroyed 15 hectares of forest and three sacred hills and restricted access to two sacred rivers where Q’eqchi’ people have fished and bathed for generations. Bernardo Caal was sentenced to seven years and four months in prison in 2018 on spurious charges, and remains incarcerated; his recent appeal was denied. …

 

Dangers of the Same Old Solutions    

Human rights organisations and environmental defenders have also emphasized the dangers of solutions that rely on the same mechanisms that created the climate crisis. A statement signed by over 250 international organisations denounced ‘nature-based solutions’ to climate change as a threat to the sovereignty of Indigenous peoples. While often promoted by major corporations as a means of achieving net zero emissions, these strategies, the letter warned, will lead to the privatization of natural spaces, monoculture, and the further dispossession of Indigenous peoples. …

In Guatemala, we’ve seen that investment in ‘green’ projects often has the same destructive consequences on Indigenous territory as extractive industries like mining or logging. For example, during Guatemala’s internal conflict, the Guatemalan government received funding from the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank to construct a hydroelectric dam on the Chixoy River. Over the course of the project, 444 Maya-Achí inhabitants of the region were massacred. The legacy continues, as evidenced by the case of the community of Laguna Larga where 111 families were evicted to make space for a proposed carbon credit project. Four years later, the community continues to live in deplorable conditions without access to basic human rights like health, water, and housing.

In a report released on October 27, the PRISMA Foundation warned against the reliance on large-scale investment in green development and the danger of excluding Indigenous communities. The World Resources Institute indicated the importance of protecting Indigenous land rights. Indigenous lands hold an estimated 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity, and research found that securing Indigenous and Afro-descendant land tenure in South America reduced deforestation by 30-75 percent, but the group noted that Indigenous communities receive only a small portion of the funding directed to Indigenous land management. The report concluded with a call for a bottom-up approach to climate funding.

 

Indigenous Communities As ‘Living Solutions’ to the Climate Crisis 

In an open letter, international human rights groups called on COP26 and the UK government to address the climate emergency in partnership with environmental human rights defenders. According to Susi Bascon, Director of Peace Brigades International UK, “The knowledge, perception, and invaluable experience of environmental human rights defenders can no longer be ignored by any State that wishes to fully implement the Paris Agreement and avoid climate breakdown, ecological collapse, and escalating social inequality. Partnering with them is a must.”

Ending the criminalization of defenders and securing the access of Indigenous communities to their ancestral lands is an indispensable step towards fighting the climate crisis and preserving natural resources. According to Andrea Ixchíu, Indigenous communities are ‘living solutions’ to climate change and the only way to address the crisis is to “see what Indigenous communities have been doing for thousands of years.”

 

Central American Countries Seek Aid To Fight Climate Change 

Published 3 November 2021 

The following report relating to the position of Central American countries on the Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP26) was published in the Telesur Newsletter on 3rd November this year. Their terms and conditions allow us to reproduce the article here, for which we are grateful to Telesur. The piece was written at the beginning of COP26 and uses the future tense regarding the conference. We have left the article as it was written including its use of the future tense.

The countries of the Central American Integration System (SICA) will present a ‘unified position’ at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP26) in order to raise more strongly their requests for international assistance.

In its capacity as temporary president of the Central American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD), Guatemala will propose that COP26 declare Central America as one of the regions most vulnerable to climate change.

Although the Central American nations only generate 0.35 per cent of CO2 emissions, they have been severely affected by hurricanes, floods and other extreme weather events, Guatemala’s Environment Minister Mario Rojas said. …

The people most vulnerable to natural disasters reside precisely in rural areas, where ecological deterioration further aggravates the impacts of global climate change. In Central America, high levels of deforestation make extreme weather events more easily turn into disasters, which greatly affects the levels of poverty and malnutrition, said Piedad Martin, the regional director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Since the beginning of the 21st century, Guatemala has lost almost 25 percent of its forests and over 25 percent of its watersheds have been polluted. While up to 80,000 hectares of native forests are lost in Honduras every year, only 3 percent of Salvadoran forests are still intact. …

Currently, SICA comprises Belize, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama. These countries will also demand urgent international financing mechanisms to combat the effects of climate change in their territories.

 

Belize’s delegation to COP26

The Government of Belize (GOB) sent a 30 person delegation to the recent COP26 conference in Glasgow.

The Public Service Union (PSU) of Belize questioned why so many people were included in the delegation given that the watchwords of the government have included ‘austerity’, ‘sacrifice’ and ‘management of financial resources’. They further questioned why it had not been possible for some of the delegation to attend remotely in order to save costs.

In response, the Prime Minister John Briceño pointed out that the conference directly involved several ministries including the Ministries of Sustainable Development, the Blue Economy, the Attorney General, Finance and Foreign Affairs. He also noted that funding for the delegation’s visit to Glasgow would come from the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre which has its headquarters in Belize as well as from the conference itself.

The PSU, however, is clearly suspicious of the funding and said that it “expects FULL transparency from the GOB with the publication of the total cost incurred by the GOB, inclusive of airfare, hotel accommodations and daily costs. This would offer ALL Belizeans a better picture of what taxpayer dollars are being allocated to.”

The PSU also mentioned the decision to cut salaries by 10 per cent and reminded the GOB that the spending should go towards the betterment of the country. Moreover, the GOB’s promises of austerity, accountability and transparency should be kept.

 

Marine Reserves Pooled at COP26

Along with Ecuador and Colombia, the Central American countries of Panama and Costa Rica agreed at COP26 to join their marine reserves to form one interconnected area that will serve as one of the world’s richest pockets of ocean biodiversity. It will be a fishing-free corridor covering more than 500,000 square km, in one of the world’s most important migratory routes for many species.

“It will be a living laboratory to carry out scientific research,” said Guillermo Lasso  (President of Ecuador) at a COP26 press conference. “We are currently reviewing proposals to fund the new MPA in Galapagos with a debt-for-nature swap. It will be the biggest one ever. But we’ll be careful on how we carry it out to maximise the environmental benefits for the marine reserve.”

Source: https://dialogochino.net/en/climate-energy/48038-cop26-latin-america-unveils-new-climate-commitments/

 

Panama’s youthful COP26 delegation

On 10 November 2021, Ciara Nugent of Time Magazine wrote an article entitled ‘The Youngest Negotiating Team at COP26 has a Message for Other Countries’. A few brief extracts are included here.

When Juan Carlos Monterrey Gómez went to his first round of U.N. climate negotiations as part of Panama’s delegation in 2015, his colleagues told him not to talk about his age, in case it made other countries’ representatives take him less seriously. At the time, he was just 22. Now, aged 29 and the lead negotiator for Panama at COP26 in Glasgow, he won’t shut up about it. … “I want it to make the other negotiators uncomfortable. They need to remember that it’s our generation and younger generations that will be most impacted [by their decisions.]”

Panama claims that its negotiating team at COP26, comprising some 15 people with an average age of 29, is the youngest ever to represent a country at a U.N. climate summit. …

In a series of protests around the COP26 site over the last week, youth climate activists have warned that politicians at the summit are too focused on emissions targets that are decades away, and not enough on taking action to cut them in the next few months and years. “The voices of future generations are drowning in their greenwash and empty words and promises,” 18-year-old Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, told a crowd gathered at George Square in central Glasgow on Friday.

… The key to accelerating action in the U.N. climate process, Monterrey Gómez says, is to give more space in the talks to young people, who are going to experience worse climate change impacts for longer than older people. “If other countries gave young people the mic like Panama is doing,” Monterrey Gómez says, “we’d solve this in a few minutes.”

 

Migrant caravans continue: Recent migration flows through Central America

Chapter 10 / Migration and Remittances

In 2018, 2019 and early 2020, before the pandemic hit us all, migration flows and rates from the Northern Triangle of Central America to the United States border with Mexico were the subject of relatively frequent attention in mainstream European newspapers as well as in the mainstream US media. The fact that such reports are now less frequent does not mean that the phenomenon has disappeared. For a short time the migrant caravans that were the principal attraction to the ephemeral interests of the western media waned as the lockdowns spread around the globe. But if anything the new conditions of life under the pandemic became worse for a majority of people and the factors driving the local populations of the Northern Triangle countries (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) to strike out for ‘new ground’ were as strong as they ever had been. Those driving factors included particularly the violence of life in this region where gang and police violence and the threats thereof made daily life intolerable and where trying to ignore such violence by ‘keeping your head down’ had for many become a poor coping strategy. It should come as no surprise therefore that the previous few weeks and months have produced a crop of reports of new caravans making their way to the US-Mexico border. A major difference now (towards the end of 2021), however, is that large numbers of Haitians and African people are now joining the many Central Americans who form the caravans.

A few of the more recent reports are summarised below by Martin Mowforth for The Violence of Development website.

In October [2021] numerous reports of massive migrant crossings through the Darien jungle of Panama were made, most notably by UNICEF. On 8th October the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported that “More than 91,000 migrants have crossed Darien Gap on way to North America this year”.

A UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) press release from 11th October reported on the “highest ever number of migrant children crossing the Darien jungle towards the US” in 2021.  “Almost 19,000 migrant children have journeyed through the Darien Gap so far this year, nearly three times more than the number registered over the five previous years combined. More than 1 in 5 migrants crossing the border between Colombia and Panama are children.” Horrifyingly, “Half of them are below the age of five.”

“Each child crossing the Darien Gap on foot is a survivor,” said Jean Gough, UNICEF Regional Director for Latin America and the Caribbean. “Deep in the jungle, robbery, rape and human trafficking are as dangerous as wild animals, insects and the absolute lack of safe drinking water. Week after week, more children are dying, losing their parents, or getting separated from their relatives while on this perilous journey. It’s appalling that criminal groups are taking advantage of these children when they are at their most vulnerable.”

“Never before have our teams on the ground seen so many young children crossing the Darien Gap – often unaccompanied. Such a fast-growing influx of children heading north from South America should urgently be treated as a serious humanitarian crisis by the entire region, beyond Panama,” Gough said.

In Panama, UNICEF and its partners are providing psychosocial support and health services to migrant children, especially those who have been separated from their parents. Together with the Panama government, the UN organisation is distributing water every day to 1,000 people and hygiene kits to migrant adolescent girls and women at the three migrant reception centres in Bajo Chiquito, Lajas Blancas and San Vicente.

The numbers of migrants headed for the US have been bolstered by Haitians and those from African countries, and caravans from the northern triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras continue to form and move northwards to the Mexico / US border.

https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/2021-records-highest-ever-number-migrant-children-crossing-darien-jungle-towards-us

 

On 29th October, Telesur headlined ‘Hundreds of Haitian Migrants Reported Passing Through Honduras’.

The increase of migrants present in the country is evident, and the groups of Hondurans fleeing the country have been joined by Haitians and Africans. The migration situation in Honduras has become more complicated in recent days with the passage of hundreds of migrants from Haiti and numerous African countries, who seek to reach US territory, human rights defenders reported.

The teleSUR correspondent in Honduras, Gilda Silvestrucci, indicated that in the bus terminals the increase of migrants is evident, and the groups of Hondurans fleeing the country have been joined by Haitians and Africans.

In an interview, the migrant Claude Pierre acknowledged that the road to the United States (US) is “dangerous.” “One suffers a lot, goes hungry, but (one migrates) to see if one can find a better life,” he said.

Data show that in the last weeks Honduras has received more than 3,000 Haitians, a number that will increase and complicate the situation in the border areas. The Honduran defender of migrants’ rights, Itsmania Platero, said that these 3,000 Haitians “are part of a first contingent that left from Panama and there could be up to 80,000 migrants entering this country.”

Marcela Cruz, representative of the CLAMOR network, explained that the shelters provide attention to the migrants, as well as to the thousands of Honduran returnees to whom the Government does not provide any assistance.

Analysts have pointed out that violence and poverty are the main reasons why young people, women and men decide to make the exodus to the United States.

Gilda Silvestrucci noted that although the calls for caravans have ceased, many leave in small groups to meet in Guatemala or in Mexico, where an international caravan of migrants is heading to Mexico City, in search of a response to their requests for refuge.

 

Also on 29th October 2021, La Prensa Gráfica reported that on the 10th of that month several bodies of migrants were discovered.

Medardo Tejada Portillo (the father), Jenmy (mother) and son Joshua along with Jenmy’s sister-in-law Francisca Dominguez were the victims. The two assassins are believed to have been ‘coyotes’ who had been hired to take them to the United States. It is believed that the victims had paid almost $10,000 for the journey. They had all been shot.

The victims had planned their journey for three months and the money to pay the ‘coyotes’ had been paid by Jenmy’s mother who lives in the United States.

 

On 5th November, Telesur reported that a ‘Central American migrant caravan overwhelmed the Mexican National Guard’.

(Published 5 November 2021 by Telesur)

On Thursday, a Central American migrant caravan traveling on foot overwhelmed the Mexican National Guard trying to contain its advance and resumed its march toward Mexico City.

The migrants and guard members clashed on the highway linking the towns of Pijijiapán and Tonalá in Chiapas state, leaving at least two guard members injured and many people arrested.

Upon reaching the highway, federal agents got out of their vehicles with shields in their hands and created a barrier to prevent migrants from moving forward. The anti-riot groups initially managed to intimidate the asylum seekers, who ran away. A short time later, however, the situation changed.

At the scene, some 50 migrants counter-attacked the National Guard with sticks and stones. This strong reaction occurred amid the memory of the death of a Cuban migrant who was shot to death by the National Guard over the weekend. After about 10 minutes, the officers rushed into their vehicles to get away as quickly as possible from the site. The caravan then continued moving down the road.

After the altercation, the caravan, composed of some 4,000 migrants, mostly from Central America and Haiti, departed from Pijijiapán on its trek north toward Tuxtla Gutiérrez City in the Chiapas state.

The Central American region is seeing an unprecedented exodus this year. Between January and August, Mexico had reported the entry of more than 147,000 undocumented migrants, tripling the number in 2020, according to figures from the Mexican government.

 

On 19th November 2021, a new migrant caravan attempted to cross Mexico en route to the Unites States

(By Rubén Morales Iglesias) 

A new 2,000 strong migrant caravan, headed to the United States (US), moved out of Tapachula in southern Mexico on Thursday. Tapachula is a city in the state of Chiapas, which borders with Guatemala.

The migrants, Central Americans and Haitians, are attempting to join the first caravan which left Tapachula on October 23 with about 4,000 migrants. That caravan has since whittled down to 700 to 800 according to different reports.

The caravan set out of Tapachula as Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador was in Washington meeting with the US and Canadian leaders talking about migration.

While their objective is to reach the US border, the migrants said they intend to pass through Mexico City where they plan on meeting with López Obrador to ask for humanitarian visas and permanent resident cards in Mexico City to move freely in the country while trying to get to the US.

 

On 21st November 2021, Mexican authorities found more than 400 migrants in trailers.

(By Aaron Humes: Associated Press)

More than 400 migrants transiting Mexico were found in the back of two trailers, not far from where two separate migrant caravans were located heading north toward the United States.

The group, according to the Veracruz state’s Human Rights Commission’s representative Tonatiuh Hernández Sarmiento, were very dirty, covered in mud, in overcrowded, hot and wet conditions, and included children, pregnant women and ill people. The migrants were held by authorities in a fenced yard until federal immigration agents could retrieve them.

In recent meetings the leaders of Mexico, the United States and Canada discussed immigration, agreeing to increase the paths for legal migration, for example with more visas for temporary workers. They also pledged to expand access to protective status for migrants and to address the causes that lead them to migrate, but did not offer hard numbers or timelines for implementation.

But the clandestine flow of migrants who pay smugglers for direct trips to the US border continues, and those active on the issue say the agreement provides few advances and depends on conditions on the ground, where authorities continue to violate the rights of migrants, deny them access to protection, and allow crimes and human rights abuses to occur with impunity.

The migrant caravan currently in Veracruz is the first to advance so far in the past two years, because since 2019, security forces have stopped and dissolved the caravans. This time, the Mexican government used the offer of humanitarian visas to diminish the caravan’s numbers as it slowly moved north, but some have remained suspicious and continued walking. Some migrants who received the documents have reported being swept up by authorities in the north and returned to Tapachula near the Guatemala border.

At least one migrant told the Associated Press he was prepared to find work in Mexico and enter the US legally when he could – but that he could not risk going back to his home country, in this case Haiti.

 

Such headlines and reports make it clear that the Central American crisis of violence, economic disadvantage, corruption and population displacement has not disappeared, despite the fact that it now rarely appears in our mainstream media.

On this theme, we recommend our readers to another item in this month’s additions to The Violence of Development website, namely the CounterPunch article by W.T Whitney. In the last few paragraphs Whitney gives some context behind these escalating migration rates.

‘US Intervention and Capitalism Have Created a Monster in Honduras’ by W.T. Whitney in CounterPunch.

 

 

Indigenous groups rebut the statements of Carlos Alvarado at COP-26

Chapter 10 / Climate change, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and carbon credits / Chapter 8 / Conservation and indigenous peoples

Further to our round-up of Central America COP-26 related news and issues – see previous article uploaded in November 2021 – on 5th November the Costa Rican weekly newspaper Semanario Universidad included an article by Vinicio Chacón on the difference between Costa Rican President Carlos Alvarado’s speech at the COP-26 conference and the reality experienced by Indigenous peoples in that country. We are grateful to Vinicio for his permission to include the article and its translation in The Violence of Development website.

By Vinicio Chacón   Vinicio.chacon@ucr.ac.cr | 5 November 2021,  Semanario Universidad, San José, Costa Rica

(English translation by Martin Mowforth)

 

Aggressions remembered, many assassinations and failures to implement land rights – after the leader’s speech at the global summit.

“The President says that he recognises that we look after the forests; there should be no killings of those who defend their land …”, said one activist identified as Lesner, a Bribri land recoverer of the Tuádiwak clan in the Salitre territory.

His striking words were repeated by the Coordinating Organisation of the South-South Struggle (CLSS by its Spanish initials) in a communication countering and examining the actual actions of President Carlos Alvarado against his words in Glasgow, Scotland, at the global summit on climate change, COP-26.

During one forum titled ‘Forests and Use of Soils’, Alvarado claimed that “the best guardians of the forests and the earth are the Indigenous Peoples”, at the same time he was projecting the Programme of Payment for Environmental Services (PSA by its Spanish initials) as a mechanism for forest conservation.

In this regard, the Indigenous and campesino organisations which make up the CLSS noted a mismatch between what Alvarado said, in the first place because the State “has not been able and has not had the political will to guarantee the life and personal integrity of the First Peoples” as witness “the 18th March 2019 assassination for political motives of Sergio Rojas Ortiz, a Uniwak of the Bribri People of Salitre and the 24th February 2020 assassination of Jerhy Rivera Rivera of the Brörán People of Térraba.” In effect, these were two assassinations in less than one year of “brothers who were assassinated for defending their lands and Peoples.”

At the same time, the CLSS published a report on the attacks against and violations of the human rights of the First Peoples in the Southern Zone of Costa Rica which denounced that during 2020 there were 14 death threats made against activists and human rights defenders of the First Peoples of the Southern Zone.

That is only one small element of the 86 incidents documented in the report and which remain in impunity.

 

Pending Debt

The CLSS emphasised that in the Indigenous territories of the Southern Zone an illegal occupation is maintained with 40 per cent of their territories held by non-Indigenous peoples, and in some cases this reaches 75 per cent.

With respect to the issue of land delineation, the CLSS noted that the Recovery Plan for Indigenous Territories (PRTI by its Spanish initials) initiated by the government in 2017 has not materialised with “not one single defined land area”, with the exception of two fincas [small farms] in Salitre which had already been recovered by the appropriate Indigenous Peoples but which “against the will of the People” were delivered to the Association of Indigenous Development.

It’s worth recalling that these development associations are organisations which were imposed on Indigenous Peoples by the State, but they do not correspond to their cultural or historic traditions, while the recognised organisation in Bribri territory is the Ditsö Itiria Ajkönuk Wakpa.

The CLSS also denounced that the State has been incapable of devolving the lands prioritized by the Original Peoples’ own organisations, specifically eight territories in Salitre, 13 in Cabagra and 17 in Térraba. Moreover, during 2020 and 2021 three judicial decisions ordered the eviction of Cabécar people from China Kichá and one decision relating to the eviction of the Brörán people of Térraba who appealed in time, but three of them are still under “the danger and threat of judicial eviction”.

The CLSS referred to the PSA and emphasised Alvarado’s omission that these payments are managed and administered by the above-mentioned Indigenous Development Associations, which as already mentioned are not considered as their own organisations but rather are seen as being imposed by the State on these communities. “Neither did Alvarado make note of the many denunciations and judicial procedures against the irregular management of funds from the PSA and the little real participation of the communities and owners of these forests in the decisions and economic benefits,” said the CLSS communication.

One unidentified woman, a land recoverer in the area of Crun Shurin in the Térraba territory of the Brörán People, observed that to be “a protector of the forests”, as Alvarado called them, “has cost us two assassinated First Peoples rights defenders, and many more of us cannot even sleep at peace at night along with our families because of the land owners’ threats. We are the forest protectors, but we face the powers of the State against our rights.”

Thus she asserted that “the world should not be listening to these lies by President Carlos Alvarado because our struggles are very unequal and as Indigenous women we suffer all manner of abuses for continuing to conserve our Mother Earth from the ravages of the transnational companies with their extractive projects.”

“Our struggle will continue to defend our lands which belong to all of us; Forests, Water, Air, Spirituality, Culture, and Autonomy; despite the threats we receive and despite the fact that President Alvarado lies in international summits,” she added.

For his part, Lesner also accused the President and said: “We are not protectors of our lands; we are part of the earth and we look after it in an intuitive and natural way. She looks after us and we look after her; for us the forest is a living being as are the other elements which make up the earth.”

He added that: “we don’t need money to look after our forests and our lands, because when we are offered money to look after the forest and the land, the sense of living in equilibrium is lost and we start looking after only money. Our cosmovision tells us how we must live with our forest and lands. Paying for it distorts this manner of living with it.”

Indígenas salen al paso de declaraciones de Carlos Alvarado en la COP-26

Chapter 10 / Climate change, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and carbon credits / Chapter 8 / Conservation and indigenous peoples

Con referencia a nuestro resumen de las noticias y los temas pertinentes a COP-26 – véase el artículo previo cargado en noviembre 2021 – el 5 de noviembre el periódico costarricense Semanario Universidad incluyó un artículo por Vinicio Chacón sobre las diferencias entre el discurso del Presidente Costaricense Carlos Alvarado a la conferencia COP-26 y la realidad experimentado por los Pueblos Indígenos en ese país. Estamos muy agradecido a Vinicio por su autorización de incluir el artículo y su traducción en nuestro sitio web La Violencia del Desarrollo.

 Por Vinicio Chacón | vinicio.chacon@ucr.ac.cr

 5 noviembre, 2021   Semanario Universidad, San José, Costa Rica 

Recordaron agresiones sufridas, los asesinatos y muchos de los incumplimientos a sus derechos territoriales, tras discurso del mandatario en cumbre mundial.

“El Presidente dice que reconoce que cuidamos los bosques; no deberían haber muertos por defender la tierra, ni siquiera deberíamos estar en esta lucha”, dijo un activista identificado como Lesner, recuperador Bribri del clan Tuádiwak, en el territorio de Salitre.

Sus fuertes palabras fueron divulgadas por la Coordinadora de Lucha Sur Sur (CLSS) en un comunicado con el que salió al paso de las manifestaciones hechas por el presidente Carlos Alvarado en Glasgow, Escocia, en el marco de la cumbre mundial de cambio climático COP-26.

Durante la realización de un foro denominado “Bosques y Uso del Suelo” que se realizó el pasado lunes, Alvarado manifestó que “los mayores guardianes del bosque y la tierra son los Pueblos Indígenas”, al tiempo que resaltó el Programa de Pago por Servicios Ambientales (PSA) como un mecanismo para la conservación de bosques.

Al respecto, las organizaciones indígenas y campesinas que integran la CLSS expresaron un inconformidad con lo dicho por Alvarado, en primer lugar porque el Estado “no ha sido capaz, ni ha tenido la voluntad política para garantizar la vida e integridad personal de los Pueblos Originarios” y al respecto recordó “los asesinatos por razones políticas de Sergio Rojas Ortiz, Uniwak del Pueblo Bribri de Salitre el 18 de marzo de 2019 y de Jerhy Rivera Rivera del Pueblo Brörán de Térraba el 24 de febrero de 2020”.

En efecto, dos asesinatos en menos de un año de “hermanos que fueron asesinados defendiendo sus territorios y Pueblos”.

Al mismo tiempo, la organización recordó que el Informe de agresiones y violaciones a los Derechos Humanos contra los pueblos originarios en la Zona Sur de Costa Rica, publicado por la misma CLSS, denunció que durante 2020 se dieron 14 amenazas de muerte contra activistas de los Pueblos Originarios de la Zona Sur del país, así como dos defensores de los derechos humanos de estos Pueblos.

Ello es sólo una pequeña pero significativa parte de los 86 incidentes documentados en ese Informe y que se mantienen en la impunidad.

 

Deuda pendiente

Con gravedad, la CLSS subrayó que en los territorios indígenas de la zona Sur se mantiene una ocupación ilegal según detalla de un 40% de esos territorios por parte de personas no indígenas, que en algunos casos alcanza el un 75%.

Precisamente respecto al tema de saneamiento territorial, la CLSS resalta que el Plan de Recuperación de Territorios Indígenas (PRTI) que inició el gobierno en 2017, no se ha materializado en la devolución efectiva de “ni un solo terreno”, a excepción de dos fincas de Salitre que ya habían sido recuperados por los propios indígenas pero que “contrario a lo que este Pueblo solicitaba”, fueron entregados a la Asociación de Desarrollo Indígena.

Cabe recordar que estas asociaciones de desarrollo son instancias impuestas a los pueblos indígenas por el Estado, pero no se corresponden con sus tradiciones culturales o históricas, mientras que la organización de autogobierno que reconocen en el caso de ese territorio Bribri es el Concejo Ditsö Iriria Ajkönuk Wakpa.

La CLSS también denunció que el Estado ha sido incapaz de devolver los terrenos priorizados por las organizaciones propias de varios Pueblos Originarios, específicamente ocho en Salitre, 13 en Cabagra y 17 en Térraba. Además, durante 2020 y 2021 se han dado tres resoluciones judiciales que ordenan el desalojo de personas del pueblo Cabécar de China Kichá y una del pueblo Brörán de Térraba, que apeladas oportunamente, pero que tres de ellas aún representan “un peligro y una amenaza de desalojo judicial”.

Con gravedad, la CLSS se refirió al PSA y destacó la omisión de Alvarado de que esos pagos son gestionados y administrados por las mencionadas asociaciones de desarrollo indígena, que como se dijo, no se consideran organizaciones propias, sino más bien impuestas por el Estado en estas comunidades.

“Tampoco señala Alvarado los muchos casos en los que se encuentra denunciadas y en procesos judiciales, algunas de estas ADI, no todas, por el manejo irregular de los fondos provenientes de PSA y la poca participación real de las comunidades y propietarios de estos bosques, en las decisiones y beneficios económicos”, apunta el comunicado.

Una mujer recuperadora en la localidad de Crun Shurin, en el territorio Térraba del pueblo Brörán, no identificada en el documento divulgado, observó que ser “guardianes de los bosques”, como dijo Alvarado, “nos ha costado dos asesinatos de defensores de nuestros derechos como Pueblos Originarios, muchas personas más no podemos ni siquiera dormir tranquilas con nuestras familias por las amenazas de los terratenientes; somos guardianes pero tenemos a los poderes del Estado en contra de nuestros derechos”.

Por ello, asevero que “no se vale que el mundo escuche estas mentiras del presidente Carlos Alvarado, ya que nuestras luchas son muy desiguales y nosotras como mujeres indígenas sufrimos toda clase de atropellos por seguir acompañando y conservando a nuestra madre tierra para evitar que las empresas transnacionales con sus proyectos extractivos la sigan matando”.

“Nuestra lucha continuará por defender nuestras tierras que son un todo: Bosques, Agua, Aire, Espiritualidad, Cultura y Autonomía; aunque nos tengan amenazadas y aunque el Presidente Alvarado mienta en los foros internacionales”, añadió.

Por su parte, Lesner también plantó cara al Presidente y dijo “no somos guardianes de nuestras tierras, nosotros somos parte de la tierra y la cuidamos de forma innata, natural. Ella nos cuida y nosotros la cuidamos, para nosotros el bosque es un ser vivo como cualquier otro elemento que compone esta tierra”.

Añadió que “no necesitamos dinero para cuidar nuestros bosques y tierras, porque a la hora de que se ofrece dinero por cuidar nuestros bosques y tierra, se pierde el sentido de vivir en equilibrio y se cuida solo por dinero. Nuestra cosmogonía dice como debemos vivir con nuestro bosque y tierra, el hacerlo pagado distorsiona esa forma de hacerlo.”

 

Changes in migration flows into and immigration policies in the United States

Chapter 10 / Migration and Remittances

Since Central Americans began to form caravans as a means of migrating to the US border and thence into the United States of America, behaviour at the border has been a major media issue of concern. The article below by Peter Costantini refers more to the most recent group of migrants – Haitians and Africans – rather than Central Americans; but it documents the changing policies practised by the US border agents which affect all those seeking asylum at the US border, a large proportion of whom come from the Northern Triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras).

We are grateful to CounterPunch – an online journal which in its own words, “covers politics in a manner its editors describe as ‘muckraking with a radical attitude’” – for permission to reproduce the article. The CounterPunch website is at: https://www.counterpunch.org  We are also grateful to Peter Costantini for writing the article which is a summary of a much longer report, a link to which is given at the end of this summary.

 

Downstream From Del Rio

By Peter Costantini, CounterPunch

12 January 2022

A large encampment of mainly Haitian migrants appeared abruptly in September at a border crossing in the town of Del Rio, Texas. The reactions to it of United States immigration authorities created a media storm that shone a harsh light on racist brutality by the Border Patrol and contradictory responses to asylum seekers by the Joseph Biden administration.

Del Rio, which is across the Rio Grande from Ciudad Acuña, Mexico, hosts a smaller border crossing than those 350 miles downriver in the lower Rio Grande valley and those 400 miles upriver around El Paso. In early September, thousands of Haitian and other Latin American migrants began arriving and crossing the shallows of the river to set up an improvised camp under a bridge. By mid-month, the camp had grown to a maximum of some 15,000 people, without adequate water and sanitation. The migrants were blocked from entering the town to buy food and supplies, which forced them to cross the river to buy them in Ciudad Acuña. Conditions in the encampment were called “deplorable” by the United Nations.

On September 19, Border Patrol officers on horseback tried to physically block families with children crossing the river to bring supplies back to the camp, which had previously been allowed. Videos of the aggressive use of force against peaceful migrants went viral and provoked widespread condemnation as an echo of historical racist aggression against Black people. The Biden administration disavowed the enforcement operation and initiated an investigation, which is ongoing as of early January.

As the political controversy grew, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas quickly mobilized large-scale federal and state resources to dismantle the camp and resolve the migrants’ immigration status. On September 24, Mayorkas announced at a White House press conference that the camp had been completely dismantled and all of the migrants there had been moved to other locations. A large majority had been processed by immigration authorities and either flown to Haiti or accepted into the asylum process.

Ultimately, Mayorkas’s statements and subsequent media coverage revealed that some 8,700 Haitian migrants were eventually expelled back to Haiti; 13,000 were accepted into the asylum process, of whom 10,000 were released to family members or sponsors around the country and 3,000 were still in immigration detention as their asylum cases proceeded; 8,000 had “voluntarily” returned to Mexico and avoided the U.S. immigration system; and another 4,000 were still being processed as of Mayorkas’s speech.

Most of the 8,700 Haitians expelled back to Haiti had left their home country after a devastating 2010 earthquake to migrate to South America. In the past year, the already impoverished country had been wracked by another earthquake that killed over 2,000, a hurricane, the assassination of the president and dissolution of the legislature and much of the police force, and the takeover of large areas of the capital by warring gangs who kidnapped at will and brought the battered economy to its knees. The United Nations and human-rights organisations forcefully criticized the expulsions. Two veteran U.S. diplomats resigned in outrage that the government would send asylum seekers back to a place so mortally dangerous, given that the purpose of asylum is to protect people against having to return to places they left because of persecution. Debates over the handling of the Del Rio migrants revealed acute disputes over immigration policy within the Biden administration and Congressional Democrats.

Nevertheless, the acceptance of 13,000 migrants into the asylum process, nearly 50 percent more than those sent back to Haiti, suggested that advocates of respect for asylum laws still exerted some influence within the administration.

Under Biden, border enforcement has continued to operate under a controversial statute known as Title 42. The Donald Trump administration had launched this public-health emergency provision early in 2020, using it to summarily expel nearly all border-crossers back to Mexico without the possibility of a hearing, effectively shutting down most immigration and denying any chance to request asylum. Public health and human rights authorities inside and outside of the government protested that protecting against the pandemic did not necessitate shutting down immigration and asylum.

The Biden government had already exempted children from Title 42 expulsions, and some families as well – in part because Mexico did not accept the return of families in some border areas. Biden had reduced the use of Title 42 to about 50 percent of cases by mid-2021, while Trump had expelled nearly 90 percent under it in late 2020. For the Del Rio migrants, 40 percent of those processed were expelled, while 60 percent were allowed to enter the normal, pre-pandemic asylum process.

The full report, Downstream from Del Rio, fleshes out the details and context of what happened at Del Rio and analyses the controversies unleashed and their outcomes so far. It finishes by exploring potential policies and strategies to end the violations of immigrants’ human rights at the border, and reform the asylum system to meet the realities of the 21st Century.

Peter Costantini is a Seattle-based analyst who has covered Latin America for the past three decades.

 

Centroamérica avanza en combate al plástico pero necesita más legislación

Chapter 10 / Plastics and other pollution incidents

Por EFE  –  El Economista

23 de Febrero de 2022

Palabras claves: Centroamérica; plásticos; contaminación por plásticos

 

Los países de Centroamérica han sido “de los primeros” en tomar decisiones para combatir la contaminación por plásticos, aseguró el ambientalista de MarViva, una organización creada en el 2002 y con sedes operativas en Panamá, Costa Rica y Colombia.

Centroamérica ha sido de las primeras regiones en adoptar decisiones para combatir la contaminación por plásticos pero, al igual que al resto del mundo, le hace falta más leyes y coordinación para enfrentar este problema global, afirmó a Efe un experto de la Fundación MarViva.

El coordinador regional de contaminación marina de MarViva, Alberto Quesada, indicó que Centroamérica tiene la “particularidad” de ser de las pocas regiones del mundo cuya mayoría de países tiene dos costas (Atlántico y Pacífico), lo que redunda en que “el impacto” de la contaminación por plásticos “llega de ambos lados”.

“Nuestra huella de plástico, aunque es considerable, no se compara” con la del mundo desarrollado, “pero nuestra afectación por mares contaminados por plásticos sí es tremenda. Hoy en cualquier estudio en Centroamérica de costas, de desechos en las playas, de productos pesqueros, vamos a encontrar contaminación por plásticos”, aseguró.

Un reciente informe del Fondo Mundial para la Naturaleza (WWF, por sus siglas en inglés) alertó que la contaminación por plásticos ha llegado “a todos los rincones de los océanos”, y que el 88 % de las especies marinas están afectadas por esta, incluidas las consumidas por el ser humano.

 

Las acciones

Los países de Centroamérica han sido “de los primeros” en tomar decisiones para combatir la contaminación por plásticos, aseguró el ambientalista de MarViva, una organización creada en el 2002 y con sedes operativas en Panamá, Costa Rica y Colombia.

Puso como ejemplo a Panamá, que cuenta con “un par de leyes bastante modernas, en especial la más recientemente aprobada que obliga a la sustitución gradual de plásticos de un solo uso por alternativas más sostenibles”.

En el caso de Costa Rica, dijo Quesada, también se han aprobado algunas leyes, mientras que los otros países centroamericanos cuentan con al menos políticas y ordenanzas municipales que han permitido atender el problema.

“Lo hemos hecho bien, pero en términos generales necesitamos más normativas y más coordinación. Doy fe de que los países de la región están avanzando en ambas cosas”, dijo Quesada.

Así, Centroamérica está bien encaminada en materia de coordinación con el Plan de Acción sobre Basura Marina para el Pacífico Nordeste, que incluye también a México y Colombia.

“Es un plan a 5 años que cuenta con acciones para ir combatiendo la basura marina, donde el tema del desecho plástico es uno de los prioritarios,” afirmó el experto de MarViva, organización que ha contribuido en la coordinación de esta iniciativa.

En materia de leyes, Centroamérica necesita de “normativas de mejor calidad” y con un “enfoque integral, de ciclo de vida,” porque el “problema de la contaminación por plástico no comienza cuando tenemos el residuo en las manos sino desde que producimos, distribuimos, desde que consumimos.”

“Eso nos lleva a una discusión mucho más grande, y que está muy vigente, como la urgencia de un nuevo tratado internacional sobre contaminación por plásticos,” afirmó.

El manejo de los desechos plásticos será uno de los grandes temas en la reunión de la quinta sesión de la Asamblea Medioambiental de la ONU (UNEA 5) que comenzará el próximo 28 de febrero en Nairobi.

La expectativa de la Fundación MarViva es que en la UNEA 5 los países “emitan una resolución amparada en la propuesta impulsada por Perú y Ruanda, que llaman a la formación de un Comité Intergubernamental de Negociación que va a tener como mandato negociar durante dos años un tratado internacional nuevo sobre contaminación por plásticos (…) si va a ser vinculante o voluntario, eso está en discusión”, dijo Quesada.

Fundación MarViva: https://www.amigosofcostarica.org/affiliates/fundacion-marviva

Central America moves forward in the fight against plastic but more legislation is needed

Chapter 10 / Plastics and other pollution incidents

Sourced from El Economista

23 February 2022

Translated by Pamela Machado for The Violence of Development website. Pamela Machado is a Brazilian journalist working in Brazil, Portugal and the UK.

Keywords: Central America; plastics; plastic contamination

 

Central American countries have been among “the first ones” to make decisions to fight plastic pollution, said an environmentalist from MarViva, an organisation created in 2002 operating in Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia.

Central America has been among the first regions to adopt measures to combat plastic contamination but, much like the rest of the world, more legislation and coordination is needed to face this global problem, an expert from Fundación MarViva told Efe, the Spanish international news agency.

MarViva’s regional coordinator for sea pollution, Alberto Quesada, said Central America has the “particularity” of being one of the few regions in the world where most countries have two coasts (Atlantic and Pacific), which means that “the impact” of plastic pollution “hits both sides”.

“Our plastic footprint, even though it is considerable, does not compare” to the one from the developed world, “but the contamination impact on our coasts is tremendous. In any current study about Central American coasts, about waste on the beach, about fisheries, we will find plastic pollution,” he said.

A recent report from the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) warned that plastic pollution has reached “all corners of the oceans”, and that 88% of marine species have been affected by it, including those consumed by humans.

 

The actions

Central American countries have been among “the first ones” to make decisions to fight plastic pollution, said the environmentalist from MarViva, an organisation created in 2002 operating in Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia.

He gives the example of Panama, which has “a couple of very modern laws, especially the most recently approved which mandates the gradual replacement of single-use plastic for more sustainable alternatives”.

In the case of Costa Rica, Quesada said, some laws have also been approved, while other Central American countries have fewer policies and municipal ordinances that allow the problem to be addressed.

“We have been doing well, but in general, we need more regulation and more coordination. I can attest that there have been advancements in both ways in the region,” said Quesada.

Thus, Central America is in line with the action plan on sea waste for the Northeast Pacific, which also includes Mexico and Colombia.

“This is a 5-year plan that counts with actions to combat sea waste, and where the theme of plastic waste is one of the priorities,” said the MarViva expert, organisation that contributed to coordinating the initiative.

In terms of laws, Central America needs “better quality regulation” and “an integral, life-cycle approach”, because the “problem of plastic pollution does not start when we have the residues in our hands but instead it is embedded within what we produce, distribute, and consume.”

“This brings us to a much larger discussion, and one that is much more current, that is the urgency of a new international treaty on plastic pollution,” he said.

The handling of plastic waste will be one of the main themes in the general meeting of the fifth session of the UN Environmental Assembly (UNEA 5) which will start on 28 February in Nairobi.

MarViva’s expectation is that in the UNEA 5, countries “issue a resolution supported by the proposal promoted by Peru and Rwanda, which calls for the formation of an Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee that will have a mandate to negotiate during two years a new international treaty on pollution by plastics (…) whether it is going to be a voluntary or a binding agreement, and this is under discussion,” says Quesada.

MarViva Foundation: https://www.amigosofcostarica.org/affiliates/fundacion-marviva

The Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Chapter 10 / Climate change, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and carbon credits

By Martin Mowforth

May 2022

This month (May 2022) The Violence of Development website includes an article about the transition to an urban green economy in San José, Costa Rica. The set of projects involved in this transition is funded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) which has undoubtedly supported many valuable development projects in the past. But its development credentials are not beyond criticism as shown by the following amended extract from Mowforth and Munt (2016).

 

The 1992 Rio Summit offered the First World the ideal mechanism to achieve the globalisation of the control, management and ownership of biological diversity: the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF was set up in November 1990 by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to assist the so-called developing world in funding projects which either protect biodiversity against destructive development or promote development which does not destroy biodiversity. The GEF, however, is not a development agency, as Pearce and Moran (1994) explain:

It operates via many development projects, but it modifies them so that the technologies used are cleaner than they otherwise would have been. Its purpose is not development as such, but the capture of global environmental value – the value that comes from reducing the ‘global bads’ of climate change, biodiversity loss and ozone layer depletion.

The 1992 Rio Summit allocated to the GEF the role of financial administrator for the Biodiversity and Climate Change Conventions which arose out of the conference. The post development critic Vandana Shiva (1993) is highly critical of this role and of the World Bank’s part in it:

The erosion of biodiversity is another area in which control has been shifted from the South to the North through its identification as a global problem … by treating biodiversity as a global resource, the World Bank emerges as its protector through GEF … and the North demands free access to the South’s biodiversity through the proposed Biodiversity Convention. But biodiversity is a resource over which local communities and nations have sovereign rights. Globalisation becomes a political means to erode these sovereign rights, and means to shift control over and access to biological resources from the gene-rich South to the gene-poor North. The ‘global environment’ thus emerges as the principal weapon to facilitate the North’s worldwide access to natural resources and raw materials on the one hand, and on the other, to enforce a worldwide sharing of the environmental costs it has generated, while retaining a monopoly of benefits reaped from the destruction it has wreaked on biological resources. The North’s slogan at UNCED [the 1992 Rio Summit] and the other global negotiation fora seems to be: ‘What’s yours is mine. What’s mine is mine.’

In 1992 Oliver Tickell articulated the suspicion of much of the socio-environmental movement, that control of the funds by the World Bank could only lead to the imposition of a First World agenda on the allocation of those funds. He also pointed out the contradiction in the GEF’s approach:

The main qualification for receiving a GEF grant for preserving biodiversity is apparently to be running a World Bank project that threatens or destroys that biodiversity, like a giant dam, or a plan to develop logging in untouched forests. Marcus Colchester of the World Rainforest Movement estimates that 70 per cent of GEF funds are tied to mainstream Bank projects, and are actually subsidising social and environmental destruction.

Despite the misgivings of much of the socio-environmental movement and others, Fernandes claims that ‘Already the leading northern NGOs appear to have developed strong coordinating GEF links with the World Bank, UNDP and UNEP (1994: 24); and Chatterjee and Finger claimed that the WWF is now the most consulted NGO on GEF projects (1994: 155). Fernandes’ analysis of the GEF suggests that a large number of integrated sustainable tourism projects received funding under phase I of the GEF. He quotes Soares of the Brazilian Institute for Economic and Social Analysis, who concludes that many GEF programmes, which are often linked to significant ecotourism and sustainable tourism components, represent ‘mainstays for a (development) model that unceasingly reproduces conditions for the planet’s deforestation, even while preaching its conservation’ (Soares, 1992: 48).

Fernandes also cites other fundamental flaws in the GEF mechanisms such as the stimulation of destructive competition between organisations working in the field of biodiversity, a failure to involve local communities, an over-dependence on international consultancies, and the creation of a number of ‘paper parks’ – a reference to the designation of parks by national governments which have few resources to provide management and protection systems on the ground. Moreover, the link between the World Bank and INGOs such as WWF, IUCN and Conservation International leads to these organisations adopting an approach more characteristic of the World Bank and advocating corporate schemes for a range of environmental programmes and projects which give ‘total management control’ to the ‘private or NGO sector’. As a result they fail to even ‘recognise the existence of village conservation movements opposing development projects’ (Lohmann, 1991: 98–9, cited in Fernandes, 1994: 26).

Sources

Fernandes, D. (1994) ‘The shaky ground of sustainable tourism’, TEI Quarterly Environment Journal 2(4): 26.

Mowforth and Munt (2016, 4th edition) Tourism and Sustainability: Development, globalisation and new tourism in the Third World, Routledge.

Pearce, D.W. and Moran, D. (1994) The Economic Value of Biodiversity, London: Earthscan, p.132.

Shiva, V. (1993) ‘The greening of the global reach’, in W. Sachs (ed.) Global Ecology, London, Zed Books, p.152.

Soares, M. (1992) Debt Swaps, Development and Environment, Rio de Janeiro, Brazilian Institute for Economic and Social Amalysis.

Tickell, O. (1992) ‘After the Summit’, Green Line, July 98: 3.

Global Environment Facility (GEF) supports Costa Rica’s transition to an urban green economy

Chapter 10 / Climate change, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and carbon credits

By Martin Mowforth

Key words: Global Environment Facility (GEF); Costa Rica; Greater Metropolitan Area; greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; decarbonisation; reforestation; urban green economy; electric train network; bicycle lanes; walkways.

 

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) was set up in 1990 by the World Bank, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The 1992 Rio Earth Summit offered the GEF as a mechanism to address the planet’s most pressing environmental problems. Through its Small Grants Programme, the GEF has provided support to more than 26,000 civil society and community initiatives in 135 countries.

Although this article reports on a Costa Rican project which would find few detractors, it is noteworthy that the GEF is not without its critics who point out that it is a means by which the global north can profit from the supposedly global problems experienced in the global south. These criticisms are summarised by Martin Mowforth in the article which follows this one in the list of this month’s additions to The Violence of Development website (May 2022).

In March 2022 the GEF took the decision to invest in the project ‘Transitioning to an urban green economy and delivering global environmental benefits’, led by the Costa Rican Ministry of Environment and Energy and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in partnership with the Organisation for Tropical Studies, an international organisation with a base in Costa Rica.

The project aims at decarbonising the Greater Metropolitan Area of Costa Rica’s capital city, San José, by providing $10.3 million (US dollars) to invest in the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated by the city. The investment will go towards the improvement of public transport, the greening of approximately 2,000 hectares of land and the implementation of an integrated urban planning strategy.

Expanding the electric train network was one of former President Alvarado’s stated aims and although he has now been replaced by Rodrigo Chaves (April 2022 election) it is likely that some of the GEF funds will be used to continue the work which had already been started on this programme.

Other transport improvements stemming from the initiative will include the construction of 8 km of bicycle lanes, 3 km of shared paths and pedestrian walkways and 20 km of green sidewalks with improved access.

Visitors to and residents of Costa Rican cities will be aware of the urgent need to improve the transport systems in the country’s cities most of which are known for their poor roads and traffic congestion.

An important part of the GEF-funded programme relates to reforestation which is expected to result in the planting of 1,000 trees per hectare and the capture of 24,000 tons of carbon dioxide. This part of the initiative will include the restoration of damaged ecosystems and the renovation of various landscapes.

Costa Rica has a National Decarbonisation Plan one of whose major aims is to eliminate the use of fossil fuels by the year 2050.

 

Sources: 

GEF, 24.03.22, ‘News from the GEF: Costa Rica aims to transition towards an urban green economy with GEF support’, https://www.thegef.org

El Economista, 24.03.22, ‘Costa Rica recibirá del GEF $10.3 millones para descarbonización’.

Ileana Fernández, 26.03.22, ‘Costa Rica will receive $10.3 million to decarbonize the Greater Metropolitan Area’, The Tico Times, San José.