CHAPTER EIGHT
CREATING A NATIONAL MOVEMENT
Introduction
CODECE labored to transform the ideology and practices around conservation and development, or what came to be known as sustainable development, not only at the local community level, but at the national level, as well. Complementary to what CODECE did within the borders of Escazú, attempting to change the local culture by creating a collective identity for social mobilization around a sense of ownership of the Mountains of Escazú, at a national level CODECE attempted to expand its social capital by joining existing collectivities, and contributing to the creation of new collectivities, as a means of empowerment to promote a critical perspective of sustainable development both within Escazú and nationally.
I have shown throughout this study how social and cultural capital are important means of community empowerment for sustainable development. In this sense, I have brought together the ideas of such authors as Putnam (1993a, 1993b, 1995), Evans (1996), and Ritchey-Vance (1997), who point out the merits of social capital, and the ideas of other authors, such as Hirabayashi (1993) and Wikan (1995), who deal with the importance of different forms of cultural capital in social reproduction. But I have also described how these forms of capital are not the exclusive property of the popular classes. On the contrary, as Bourdieu (1973; 1986) has already pointed out, social and cultural capital are most often used by elite classes to maintain class differences in favor of their own class privileges. In this study I have revealed how this is often, though clearly not always, the case. Class interests do, indeed, clash, and there are attempts at appropriating each other's social and cultural capital as sources of power to further their respective interests. But the outcome of these struggles is never entirely predictable. In any case, what has become quite clear is the importance of these subtle forms of capital, and the need to consider them in issues of social mobilization and community development, among others.
One area of inquiry that has received little, if any, attention, are the contradictions in which diverse forms of capital may enter among themselves. In Chapter 6 I hinted at some of the contradictions that emerge between cultural and social capital, when a concentration of the former generates differences between those who have access to this capital, and those who don't, resulting in a verticalization of ties, and a loss of social capital. This occurred when CODECE became an NGO, was professionalized, and achieved an aura of authority in the community. One contradictory effect was the lack of active participation of community members in the Association's struggles, but who instead became, in effect, non-participants in the community struggle, by delegating their power to CODECE. In this chapter I deal more in depth with the contradictions that emerge between different forms of capital, namely economic capital and social capital, and how this affects community empowerment.
Social movements involved in promoting sustainable development are confronted by a mainstream perspective which values economic growth as the ultimate goal, and economic capital as the necessary requisite to launch the process of sustainable development (Durning 1989b; Meyer 1993). This focus of privileging economic capital, I contend, is one of the ways in which the mainstream perspective achieves "a co-optation of the very groups that are creating a new dance of politics," as Visvanathan (1991:384) has pointed out, and which he suggests must be resisted "by creating an explosion of imaginations." But if new social movements allow themselves to become caught up in strategizing according to an "economic calculus", as Amin (1992:524) has warned, this reduces their possibilities of transcending a system dominated by the logic of capitalism.
Both mainstream and critical thought have considered civil society to be an important terrain of democratic institution building (WCED 1987; Cohen and Arato 1992). However, in this chapter I show how a critical sector of civil society can be hampered as a social movement when mainstream actors, such as nation states and international cooperation agencies, not only appropriate the labor of critical sectors, but ironically, when they finance this labor, as well. By compelling civil society to focus on what they most often lack -economic capital- mainstream actors achieve what Visvanathan (1991:384) has aptly called a "freezing [of] the imagination" of critical sectors, who disregard the social and cultural capitals at their disposal, and enter instead into a "zero-sum" squabble over subtractable resources.([1])
In this chapter, I analyze CODECE's efforts of empowerment in taking hold of accessible social capital, first, by joining COPROALDE (Coordinadora de Organizaciones con Proyectos Alternativos de Desarrollo), an already existing network of social organizations with projects of "alternative development", and second, by helping to create CONAO (Consejo Nacional de ONGs y Organizaciones Sociales para el Desarrollo Sostenible), a national council of NGOs and grassroots organizations for sustainable development. I show, however, that despite CODECE's good intentions and arduous labor invested in these efforts, the results are contradictory. Although these collectivities of civil society harbor diverse sets of social capital, which at times are sources of empowerment and are wielded to pressure for social change, when economic financing of their projects becomes the primary focus, several forms of demobilization of these social movements occur. Ultimately, these social movements must contend with this dilemma, and are most successful, I consider, when they resist economic co-optation with an "explosion of imaginations" by reinventing power in their own terms.
CODECE Joins COPROALDE
At a brainstorming session in June of 1992, which included the Directive Junta, staff, members, collaborators, and volunteers to discuss CODECE's global strategy, after much discussion, Romano summarized the four major points that emerged. The last of these was the need to coordinate with other groups in order to confront problems which transcended the local site.
"We must have a policy of coordinating with environmentalist groups who share our vision, because environmental problems often extend beyond the local site. We must begin by creating alliances with environmental groups who hold the community and the human element as central to their work perspective. We have evolved in this way, from being solely conservationist. Today we see it is necessary to combine production and protection. We can form alliances with, say, COPROALDE, which is a network of organizations which deal in matters of sustainable production, and who have had much success. What is needed is a national network of environmentalist groups with a vision of community empowerment." (Field notes, June 13, 1992).
During my initial exploratory fieldwork in 1989 I had attended COPROALDE's earliest public activity ([1]), the "First National Symposium on Appropriate Technology and Biological Agriculture for an Alternative Rural Development", where over 50 presentations were offered during the three days of the event, ranging in topics from the microbiology of soils, to experiences of community development with women's organizations, to the generation of solar energy and biogas. (Field notes, July 26, 1989). In the program they handed out to the participants, COPROALDE expressed what they considered an alternative model of development should do and be.
"...orient research projects and social action towards the consolidation of what may be termed development with scarce resources, that is to say, a form of development understood in the following terms: that the goals are not imposed, that the practices do not lead towards increasing the external debt, that we may carry them out with our own means, that the grassroots sectors of society understand their position, and that they can become the agents of transformation of their own development." (COPROALDE 1989:1-2).
When CODECE joined COPROALDE in July of 1992, it was the affinity in perspective which attracted it. The expectation CODECE had was "to participate actively in a space of discussion in search of sustainable productive alternatives for the local communities" (CODECE, Minutes of the Directive Junta, July 7, 1992). By the time CODECE joined COPROALDE, the network was a made up of five other organizations.([1]) Some of these had organized a series of meetings in 1988 in order to develop and present a proposal to Bread for the World, a German cooperation agency that financed issues regarding the environment and development, and which in its 1988-1994 work plan had emphasized the need for creating networks among like minded organizations. In May of 1988, these organizations decided to create a social and conceptual "space" in which to discuss, exchange experiences and develop practices of alternative rural development. This space, or network, was baptized the Coordinator of non-governmental Organizations with Projects of Alternative Development, or COPROALDE.
Years later, when I became intimately involved in COPROALDE as its general coordinator, members of COPROALDE nostalgically recalled this time as the network's "first period" when it was mostly a forum for political discussion, for the exchange and sharing of experiences, and for learning. At one of COPROALDE's assemblies, Anita Calderón, one of the old-time members recalled the early years.
"During this period nobody, and surely not the government, was talking about the things we talked about: organic farming, community participation, self determination, food security. Basically we were the only ones. And everyone considered us crazy." (Field notes, November 18, 1995).
But this space dedicated to the exchange of ideas eventually matured when the members sought to become more proactive. After an initial process characterized by the exchange of ideas and discussion, the possibility of accessing economic resources became a prime focus, as a means of putting their ideas to work and carrying out coordinated activities. When CODECE joined the network, COPROALDE was in the process of developing a two year project to be financed by Bread for the World. This project included seminars on homemade tools, organic fertilizers, cover crops and green manures, the publication of textbooks on environmental education, a video on tools, and courses on gardening and agroforestry. Each member organization within COPROALDE managed its own projects which were included separately in the project funded by Bread for the World. While there was still no need for someone to coordinate a "collective project" of COPROALDE, it still being fundamentally a space for discussion, the network hired an executive secretary to carry out the administrative and accounting issues needed for the project, including the periodic progress reports required by the cooperation agency.
The executive secretary was Paulina Chaverri, who complemented her half time with CODECE in Escazú, with a half time position in COPROALDE. As hired staff, Paulina did not represent CODECE, but at the assemblies had a voice, although no vote. It was Javier Sánchez, who in CODECE had already begun to organize a project of organic production among local farmers, who became CODECE's delegate at COPROALDE's monthly assemblies. It was also Javier who later would recommend me for the position of general coordinator of the network, where I was able to continue as participant observer of CODECE's efforts of sustainable development at a national level. CODECE's expectations of joining COPROALDE, as expressed by Javier at an assembly of the network (which, by that time, I coordinated), stressed the political importance of gathering together the social and cultural capital of the diverse organizations to employ them in a collective effort of social transformation.
"CODECE joined COPROALDE with the idea of developing a proposal of alternative rural development. This was a crazy notion then. Nobody except the organizations in COPROALDE were speaking about this yet. The first three or four years of COPROALDE were dedicated to this. This was when CODECE became a member. We were interested in COPROALDE as a space to unite forces to make changes in the social economic structures of the rural zones of this country." (Field notes, November 18, 1995).
COPROALDE as a forum for discussion, however, gave way around the time CODECE joined, to a more active network of organizations involved in the execution of projects with financing. The capacity to implement transformative ideas in the lived context, as well as the desire to reduce the network's dependence on a single cooperation agency, lead COPROALDE to search for diverse funding sources.
The BASD and the Creation of CONAO
During this time Paulina discovered that the Dutch Embassy had resources to finance projects on issues such as those dealt with by COPROALDE, especially on sustainable forms of production. So the network contacted the Embassy, and finding a receptive attitude, endeavored to write up an ambitious project on organic farming. Paulina and members of COPROALDE dedicated much time and effort to this task, coming up eventually with a 1.5 million dollar proposal for a ten year period.
But this proposal had to wait. The Dutch Embassy informed COPROALDE that the Netherlands and Costa Rica were involved in important negotiations to write up an agreement to fund projects of sustainable development, and it was via this bilateral agreement that COPROALDE's project could be financed. The year was 1992 and the upcoming Earth Summit had already made "sustainable development" a household word at a global level. Moreover, the "crazy" discourse that COPROALDE had been promulgating for four years, seemed to be gaining official recognition. At the Earth Summit, besides signing "Agenda 21" and other documents of international consensus, the Costa Rican government also signed a letter of intent with the government of Holland to establish a Bilateral Agreement for Sustainable Development (BASD).
In January 1993, CECADE, a well established NGO, summoned a national meeting of NGOs to discuss the need for civil society to participate in the government's Structural Adjustment Agreements. Billy Reuben, the founder of CECADE, and a professor at the University of Costa Rica, introduced the meeting.
"The purpose of this meeting is to achieve an impact on the definition of State policies, and to counteract the tendency for policies and agreements to change with every change of government every four years. NGOs, in representation of civil society, have to take an active role in defining national policies." (Field notes, January 15, 1993).
For this, Reuben proposed the full participation of civil society via the inclusion of NGOs in bilateral or multilateral agreements for development. It then became clear to most of the participants, that the meeting was a direct response of CECADE to the imminent Bilateral Agreement for Sustainable Development between Holland and Costa Rica, and that CECADE was possibly seeking to assume a leadership role among NGOs in the BASD.
During lunch, Reuben "leaked" important information, commenting that the Minister of the Environment Mario Boza and several others were already strongly pushing for the bilateral agreement with Holland not to be limited to the governmental spheres, since they soon would be replaced by the incumbent party, as almost always occurred every four years in Costa Rica.
"By seeking the active participation of NGOs in this process," Reuben suggested, "Boza with his curriculum as Environmental Minister, and others like him, could create their own NGOs and at least for the next ten years be guaranteed an interesting activity, as well as an income." (Field notes, January 15, 1993).
After lunch, Reuben explained in greater detail the importance of the BASD. This was a promising agreement for two main reasons: first, it moved away from conventional development projects, and instead, was designed specifically to fund "sustainable development" with ten million dollars a year for a period of ten years; and second, the agreement was proposed as being not only between two States, but between two societies, where a condition for its ratification was the participation of civil society. It was here that CECADE explained that the State had recently created the National Commission, a new structure bringing together different sectors of society, to manage the BASD. The government had already named CECADE to represent the NGO sector in this National Commission. So, to carry out its responsibility, CECADE was opening the process to the wider population of NGOs. Already CECADE had proposed three thematic areas for discussion in the National Commission: forest conservation and its sustainable use, land use planning, and aquatic resources.
Among the participant NGOs, many had already heard about the BASD, but were not aware of the details. The financial information generated a stir of approval among those present. Needless to say, however, most were not satisfied with their representative being assigned arbitrarily by the State. Romano and Paulina, who knew Billy Reuben from his militant days in the Socialist Party, commented to me their concern over the possible temptation of CECADE to repeat patterns practiced by some of the Leftist parties of centralizing power. At the final plenary discussion, Paulina voiced her concern.
"A structure of representation has to be created in order for the NGOs to be legitimately represented. Moreover, participation is not simply a matter of being informed, but to have a say in the decision-making process." (Field notes, January 15, 1993).
Another participant added that the thematic areas CECADE had announced were not sufficient, leaving many NGOs out of the discussions. Reuben acknowledged that these observations were important, and that in fact, CECADE's aim was precisely to open the space for greater NGO participation in the National Commission. Nevertheless, to finalize this meeting, which was later remembered as the First National Assembly of NGOs, CECADE set an agenda to discuss these thematic areas on a break-neck schedule out of expediency, to generate results that the National Commission was already asking for. Those present signed up for the meetings that followed to discuss these areas. Romano and I signed up CODECE for all three, and Paulina, who participated as representative of COPROALDE, placed the network's name in the three spaces, as well.
The following weeks became an interminable series of meetings, as one lead to the next to discuss new issues that inevitably emerged. This pace, however, favored the participation of larger, more powerful and richer NGOs with resources to participate in the process, hurting the smaller ones with fewer resources. NGOs that were highly financed were able to generate book-length documents for the different thematic commissions proposed. Whereas others, like CODECE, could only put forth a four page list of suggestions, and this because as a financed volunteer for CODECE, at least I was able to participate in the process in CODECE's name, attending day-long meetings often every day of the week. Many NGOs were unable or unwilling to invest so much energy in this process, despite the faint possibility of imprinting their own discourse or agenda onto the BASD.
Soon, another process of NGO collaboration emerged, spearheaded by organizations who rejected CECADE's leadership role in the BASD. These organized a second Forum in March with support from the Dutch Embassy to discuss the terms of sustainable development and to search for a more participatory process and methodology in the BASD. In this Forum three brief documents were given to each participant: a copy of the letter of intent between Holland and Costa Rica, a summary of "Agenda 21", and the following definition of sustainable development to be discussed by the participants:
"Sustainable development implies empowering local action in the creative and productive expression of what is one's own at a personal, communal, regional and national level, respecting and supporting all forms of diversity at the genetic, ecological, productive, organizational, ethno-cultural and ideological level, where these actions are economically feasible, socially just, and environmentally viable through time." (Field notes, March 15, 1993).
Now, however, there were two parallel processes in which NGOs had to participate in order not to be left out of the decision-making processes of the BASD. At the end of the Forum there was a consensus that both processes should fuse into one in a single coordination of efforts. One participant summed up the prevailing sentiment.
"Never has there been in Costa Rica such an important opportunity for so many NGOs to get together to discuss such transcendent matters. This is an opportunity that must not be lost!" (Field notes, March 15, 1993).
Thus, the two parallel efforts were fused into one, creating a national NGO commission, and electing four provisional representatives from different NGOs, one of which was Paulina Chaverri representing COPROALDE. The mandate of the commission was to open spaces for the NGOs to participate in the Bilateral Agreement.
The time and energy that NGOs dedicated to the process that followed revealed a purpose that went beyond a mere desire to share ideas on issues of sustainable development. Access to economic resources was an important incentive, but the potential political power this collectivity represented, seemed to me at the time to be equally, if not more important. We continued to hold weekly meetings, which gathered numerous NGOs, to discuss thematic and methodological issues of the BASD. Decisions had to be taken quickly as the Dutch commission was to arrive in town shortly.
Again, the pace of these NGO meetings restricted the participation of organizations with fewer resources, and organizations located in the provinces outside of San José. At an NGO meeting in April, where some 17 organizations participated ([1]), the issue we discussed stopped being how to achieve a greater representation within government structures, such as the National Commission where CECADE still remained, and instead centered on issues of participation and representation within the collectivity of NGOs. According to Jorge Polimeni of AECO, the Costa Rican Ecological Association, the small number of participants at these meetings was preoccupying.
"This collectivity does not have the authority to emit proposals that are representative. We must amend our own process."
To this I added, "we must take steps to widen participation."
Wilberth Jiménez of CEDECO, a member organization of COPROALDE, suggested that we organize a National Encounter. Jaime Bustamante, another member of AECO, agreed.
"For now, it is OK that a few speak for us, but in a National Assembly we can elect our representatives." (Field notes, April 16, 1993).
Finally, we all concluded that a National Assembly should be organized in order to bring in the participation of all the NGOs of the country. On the 26th of June the event was held with the participation of 220 people from 170 organizations. After a long day of often heated discussion, we reached a consensus on the structure and function of a representative national council of NGOs and grassroots organizations. The accord was "to organize the participation of NGOs and grassroots organizations by regions, guaranteeing the creation of regional spaces of coordination, and to create an organ of national representation to be integrated by three representatives of each region." (Field notes, June 26, 1993). This national structure of NGOs and grassroots organizations brought together to participate in the BASD became known as the National Council of NGOs and Grassroots Organizations for Sustainable Devel