CHAPTER TEN
CONCLUSION
Introduction
By the time I began extended fieldwork for this dissertation in 1992, sustainable development had become the dominant development paradigm in Costa Rica. With the celebration of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development that year, sustainable development was adopted as the desired goal in the international agreement "Agenda 21" by over 170 signatory nations. Sustainable development was a paradigm that purported to reconcile efforts of economic growth with environmental protection, the interests of the State and business sectors with those of civil society, and the needs of the present with those of the future. As such, it was difficult to be against sustainable development. In Costa Rica this paradigm took hold of diverse sectors, including the State, the business sector, as well as civil society, made up of NGOs and grassroots organizations.
Despite the widespread acceptance of sustainable development as the favored goal, I found that what diverse sectors understood as sustainable development differed considerably. In Costa Rica I distinguished two major perspectives: the mainstream perspective, held mostly by the State and the business sector; and the critical perspective, promoted by a more Left-leaning group of NGOs and grassroots organizations. The mainstream perspective held economic growth to be the necessary and critical condition of sustainable development, as well as the ultimate goal. It viewed environmental protection and the participation of civil society to be among the means to achieve this goal, as well as some of the beneficial outcomes of economic growth (WCED 1987; UNCED 1992). In contrast, the critical perspective placed local community empowerment at the center of its thesis of sustainable development (COPROALDE 1993), with environmental protection and economic growth radiating out as complementary effects of community empowerment and mobilization.
Despite its conciliatory tone, I found that sustainable development was a contested terrain, both in ideological, as well as in practical terms. In this struggle, I took sides with the critical perspective, studying the efforts of a community organization, CODECE, in my home town of Escazú, Costa Rica, to implement its conception of sustainable development. During a ten year period, I was able to analyze the nature of this struggle, and identify some options that contributed to advancing a critical perspective and practice of sustainable development.
Diluting Differences
The struggle for sustainable development between mainstream and critical perspectives revealed that despite its conciliatory stance, this ideology was fraught with contradictions. In fact, it was sustainable development's fundamental concern for reconciling differences, which emerged as a major threat to the empowerment of local communities and their efforts to sustain their lifeworld.
One of the major sources of social mobilization is the construction of an identity by the affirmation of difference (Cohen 1985; Cohen and Arato 1992; Epstein 1990), most often created out of conflictual roles and positions (Escobar and Alvarez 1992a). The thesis that sustainable development brought together previously contending interests, made critical efforts of distinction that much more difficult. It was easier to counter development with conservation, as many social movements did prior to the advent of sustainable development (Escobar 1995:216), than to construct an identity of difference within a shared rubric. As a loyal, but frustrated member of CODECE once exclaimed, "If CODECE has a reason to exist, it is to protect these mountains. It should concentrate on that instead of dedicating so much time to other things!" It was those "other things" which formed part of CODECE's strategy to promote local sustainable development, that tended to dissolve its difference from mainstream sectors.
The conciliatory stance of the ideology of sustainable development also legitimized and favored a tendency among mainstream actors to appropriate critical discourse and practice as their own, in order to advance mainstream interests. This appropriation across the critical/mainstream divide also blurred the differences between them. At the same time, this diluted the critical perspective, and dissipated critical practice, when critical efforts had then to be redirected to re-appropriate the products of their labor and redefine their difference.
The search for a common middle ground, and ways to mediate differences, also made the ideology of sustainable development emphasize the importance of NGOs and other forms of organized civil society as "an efficient alternative to public agencies in the delivery of programmes and projects" (WCED 1987:328). The mediation of NGOs between the State and international cooperation agencies, on the one hand, and local communities on the other, placed this oftentimes critical sector in an ambiguous position, further compromising its critical edge. Most importantly, however, by accepting this role at the hub of sustainable development activities, and the power this offered them to promote their critical perspectives, members of this critical sector unwittingly became accomplices to diluting the differences between State/corporate structures and local communities, or what Luke (1989:220) has distinguished as "lifeworld colonizers" and "lifeworld colonized". The proliferation of NGOs, and other such instances of mediation between these sectors, threatened to dissolve the mobilization potential of local communities to determine their own means and ends of local sustainable development.
Social and Cultural Capital: Means of Empowerment
Despite these "homogenizing" tendencies of sustainable development, CODECE, nevertheless, labored to maintain its difference from a mainstream perspective, and to empower the local community to implement a critical perspective of sustainable development. In reviewing the literature that dealt with social movements, Cohen (1985) emphasized two major paradigms that explicated social mobilization: the "resource mobilization" approach, and the "identity-orientation" approach. The first stressed strategic considerations, collective action, and interest mobilization, while the second emphasized issues of consciousness, ideology, and solidarity. Some authors (Marx Ferree and Miller 1985; Buechler 1993) called for integrating these two approaches, and others (Epstein 1990) suggested drawing on an even wider range of perspectives. To this end, I focused on empowerment as a core concept which integrated both the resource mobilization approach and the identity-orientation approach to social mobilization. By empowerment, I mean obtaining the capacity to transform the world in desired ways. This capacity may derive from the rational-materialist sources of power of the resource-mobilization approach, as well as from the more "irrational"-ideological sources of the identity-orientation approach. In bringing these two approaches together, I made use of Bourdieu's (1986) concept of forms of capital, and although he did not specifically address their potential for social mobilization, he did identify them as sources of power.
Bourdieu (1986) concentrated on highlighting the importance of other forms of capital besides economic, namely, social and cultural capital. He defined social capital as the potential benefits derived from "social connections", from forming part of a "network of relationships", or "membership in a group" (1986:243-248). His definition of cultural capital included "embodied", or individually held "long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body", such as skills or knowledge; "objectified" cultural goods, such as books, tools, or works of art; and officially sanctioned "institutionalized" cultural capital, such as academic titles or legal dispositions, which conferred authority to individuals anointed by these institutions (1986:243-248).
Bourdieu's focus on these forms of capital as "accumulated labor-time" (1986:253) was to highlight their convertibility to economic capital, demonstrating, hence, their value. However, in this study I privileged social and cultural capital, in contrast to economic capital. I did this for several reasons. First, I found that social mobilization was often achieved without recourse to economic capital, thus, empowerment for mobilization had to come from another source. I searched for this source of power in the social and cultural capital available to the people. Secondly, I hoped to contribute to a critical perspective of sustainable development by affirming a difference with the mainstream perspective that privileged economic capital as the means and end of sustainable development. Thirdly, I repeatedly encountered cases, even among critical sectors, where an undue emphasis on economic capital, in fact, contributed to disempowerment and social demobilization. Finally, I focused on social and cultural capital as sources of empowerment, because these were often the only forms of capital that the campesinos around the Mountains of Escazú did have access to.
Like other authors before me, who emphasized the importance of social capital (Coleman 1988; Putnam 1993a; Putnam 1993b; Putnam 1995; Evans 1995; Portes 1998; Sampson 1998) and cultural capital (Hirabayashi 1993; Wikan 1995) in processes of community development, in this study I confirmed their significance. CODECE generated social capital by its mere existence, providing a space of "mutual acquaintance and recognition" (Bourdieu 1986:248), whereby social mobilization for collective interests became possible. Through CODECE, the local community reforested significant areas, but also countered important threats of construction in the Mountains of Escazú. By generating cultural capital in the community, through legal and environmental education, CODECE empowered the people to denounce environmental infractions, and protect their own natural environment. By joining COPROALDE, and helping to create CONAO, both national networks of organizations, CODECE expanded the scope of its "group membership", making greater use of social capital to serve its needs of local sustainable development. By using this social capital, CODECE was able to strengthen and generate local projects of sustainable development, such as organic farming, and agro-eco community tourism. By generating cultural capital in the form of new symbols of group identity, such as the "communal forest" in the Mountains of Escazú, CODECE continued to generate group membership, and mobilize this social capital for further efforts of local sustainable development.
However, while I did confirm the importance of social and cultural capital for local community empowerment, I also found that these forms of capital were not the exclusive property of critical sectors of society, such as CODECE. Nor were social and cultural capital employed only by the elite classes to maintain their class privileges, as Bourdieu (1986:249) suggested. I did however, discover factors which conditioned the accessibility and use of social and cultural capital for local empowerment and local sustainable development. Like economic capital, social and cultural capital are not evenly distributed in the social landscape. Furthermore, like economic capital, social and cultural capital have the capacity to reproduce themselves. These two conditions contributed to a tendency for social and cultural capital to strengthen the class differences underlying their production.
When CODECE attempted to appropriate the institutionalized cultural capital of the legal system by transforming its contents and mechanisms for greater accessibility by the local community, these efforts were countered by the ruling class, whose mainstream interests of privileging economic growth over local empowerment the legal system sustained. Making use of their own social and cultural capital, this class diffused CODECE's efforts, not by opposition, but rather by appropriating CODECE's efforts of social and cultural capital production. When CODECE attempted to present a Bill of Law for the communal management of the Protection Zone of the Mountains of Escazú, the Legislative Assembly welcomed CODECE's petition, only to file it away indefinitely and not question the status quo of the contents or mechanisms of the legal system. When CODECE sought to establish a Regulation Plan for the county of Escazú, in which the interests of all the local sectors would be democratically represented, again CODECE's efforts were diffused by mainstream interests. Not by confrontation, but indeed, by requesting CODECE to participate in the design and implementation of the Regulation Plan, its efforts were appropriated by the dominant sectors to sustain mainstream interests. After ten years laboring to design and implement a democratic and representative Regulation Plan for Escazú, CODECE only contributed to legitimizing a Plan that further disempowered rural sectors, deepening existing class differences and inequities.
In contrast, when CODECE embarked on creating a communal forest in the Mountains of Escazú, many people identified with this objective, joining the ranks of the Association. Its numerous studies in the mountains, and ability to attract members of the local community to its cause, also ignited the interest of mainstream sectors, who attempted to appropriate this capital for their own interests. The van Wilpes sought to appropriate the cultural, or informational capital CODECE had generated with its diverse studies of the Mountains of Escazú, as well as the social capital the Association had created around the concept of a communal forest, to serve their own private real estate interests in the mountains. The Riva Foundation, also sought to appropriate CODECE's social and cultural capital by establishing "agreements of collaboration" between the two organizations, in order to use CODECE's "reputation" to obtain international financing for the Riva Foundation's private forest reserve and eco-tourism projects.
These attempts at appropriation of CODECE's social and cultural capital by mainstream interests, however, were not successful, contrasting significantly with the previous examples. In the cases where CODECE fell victim to mainstream appropriation of its labor, the Association's efforts were directed at modifying social and cultural capital sustained by mainstream interests. Here, CODECE's efforts were easily incorporated to help maintain and even strengthen the status quo, along with its class differences. But where CODECE generated its own social and cultural capital, as with the communal forest project, it was better able to halt mainstream appropriation of its labor. In fact, as Rosaldo (1989:217) pointed out, when he emphasized the importance of "borrowing and lending" across boundaries, CODECE was, indeed, able to "borrow" for its own critical interests, the information and "connections" supplied by mainstream sectors during mainstream attempts at appropriation.
These different cases point to an important condition of social and cultural capital, indeed of any capital, that impinges on their capacity to empower, or conversely, to disempower. Where a particular form of capital is generated explains much about its use as a source of local empowerment. When capital is externally generated, it is less accessible, less appropriable, and less useful as a source of local empowerment. On the other hand, locally generated capital is already in local hands to be exercised as a means of empowerment. This, however, was not the only factor which conditioned the empowering capacity of social and cultural capital.
The Contradictions of Economic Capital
An area which has received little analysis, despite important calls to study the negative aspects of social capital, especially, (Putnam 1993:42; Woolcock 1998:59; Portes 1998:15), are the contradictions that may emerge between different forms of capital. In this study I paid particular attention to the contradictions that emerged between economic capital and social capital. I did this first, to unmask the fallacies of the "economic calculus" (Amin 1992) of the mainstream perspective, which viewed economic growth as fundamental for sustainable development, and the financing of projects, as instrumental (WCED 1987; UNCED 1992). Second, I hoped to expose an area where I suspected the "co-optation of the very groups that [were] creating a new dance of politics" (Visvanathan 1991:384) was occurring, namely in financing critical sectors of civil society to execute projects for sustainable development. Finally, with this, I hoped to highlight important differences that exist between the mainstream and critical perspectives of sustainable development.
I encountered various instances where economic capital came into contradiction with social capital, resulting in the disempowering and demobilization of critical sectors. Once CODECE obtained international financing, and was able to rent its own office and hire paid staff, it joined the ranks of NGOs, moving away from its previous identity as community organization, even though it continually reaffirmed is communal nature. Social scientists (Putnam 1993a) have already recognized that "trust" and "horizontal ties" are important aspects of social capital in its capacity to promote community development. When CODECE became an NGO, that is, when it received external financing, subtle instances of "verticalization" of the social ties in the Association began to occur. Some members of CODECE were now paid, while others volunteered their work. Paid staff dedicated considerably more time to the Association, unwittingly becoming centers of the social networks that crisscrossed CODECE, and thus, becoming privy to more information. This concentration of social and cultural capital further accentuated the verticalization of ties. This became evident in the Assemblies where the general membership of the Association continually had to defer to the "office staff" for "informed" opinions and ultimately for decision-making. The result was a weakening of membership participation.
In addition to contributing to the verticalization of social relations within CODECE, international financing also brought about a verticalization of ties between the Association and the rest of the community. While economic capital did enable CODECE to harness more information and legal expertise, raising its profile and authority within the community, it also raised the Association above the horizontal social ties it previously had as a community organization. With CODECE's new found expertise and aura of authority, members of the community delegated responsibility for local environmental issues to the Association. Both with the internal verticalization of social ties, as with the external ones, a final outcome was the disempowerment of the wider community.
But economic capital had disempowering effects not only through the verticalization of social ties. When CODECE joined COPROALDE, a network of organizations with projects of "alternative" development, and shared in the substantial external financing the network received, another manifestation of economic capital's capacity to disempower became evident. Once COPROALDE obtained external financing for a project of sustainable development, it was bound to execute the activities laid out in the project within an allotted time. Despite internal or contextual changes that might occur, requiring changes in COPROALDE's focus or strategy, the execution of the contracted activities took precedence. Only by assiduously carrying out what had been agreed upon by COPROALDE and the cooperation agency, could the network continue to receive financing for its economic sustainability. Thus COPROALDE embarked on a frenzied effort to execute its project, to the point of forgoing more strategically important and pressing activities. This "credit peonage" COPROALDE fell into, forced its members, including CODECE, into an unreflective and rigid "activism" which "burned them out" and, at least temporarily, demobilized them.
The undue importance given to economic capital contributed to a more permanent demobilization of a critical sector of civil society in the case of CONAO, the National Council of NGOs and grassroots organizations. After hundreds of hours of labor-time dedicated by CODECE and many others, to create a national council of organizations with a critical perspective of sustainable development, CONAO succumbed to an over emphasis on economic capital and the debilitating effects this had. Created to access international financing provided by the Bilateral Agreement for Sustainable Development between Costa Rica and the Netherlands, but also to serve as a representative body for social mobilization, CONAO dangled the "carrot" of international financing in front of national NGOs and grassroots organizations, in order to attract them into its fold. When financing arrived, the numerous organizations of CONAO had to compete against each other over the finite pie. The zero-sum game these organizations fell into resulted in animosity among previously friendly organizations. Unable to forego the lure of economic capital, and fully value the social and cultural capital it had generated, instead of employing these for mobilization and social transformation, CONAO continued to focus on international financing as its main source of power. Ultimately, when the pie of international cooperation aid diminished, competition over a shrinking pie further engendered enmity among the organizations, resulting finally in the demobilization of the most progressive sector of Costa Rican civil society.
NGOs and the Community
Fals Borda (1992:315) presents Third World scholars and social movements "a practical and theoretical challenge" to "continue to reinvent power in our own terms... if the independent social and political movements of today are not to waste away... but are, instead, to continue their vigorous, fruitful existence as leading actors in historical developments." In this study, I took up this challenge. I found that locally generated, as opposed to externally derived, forms of capital, better served the goal of reinventing power "in our own terms". When CODECE focused on highlighting the importance of local knowledge and local organization as sources of empowerment, this had measurable effects on the life quality of the communities around the Mountains of Escazú. By reviving traditional agricultural practices that formed part of today's organic farming, CODECE opened the possibility for local farmers to sustain their lifeworld without having to endure the scourge of pesticide intoxication. It also opened the possibility for farmers to improve their economic situation by accessing a growing market for organic products. Most importantly, it ignited an interest among some young farmers, to sustain their campesino lifeworld into the next generation. When CODECE stressed the importance of local knowledge and traditions, such as mask-making, local cooking, sugar making, ox-cart driving, music playing, knowledge of the local geography and local flora and fauna, these were appropriated by the local community, and further generated as economic enterprises, in the context of a growing tourism industry. Instead of becoming bellboys and maids in foreign owned hotels, they sustained the campesino value of being owners of their own labor and production.
By placing local empowerment at the center of its thesis, the critical perspective of sustainable development pursues the means by which local communities can express their local values, can take hold and make use of their local knowledge, can determine what of their lifeworld they seek to sustain, and can decide by what means they wish to sustain it. The thesis of local empowerment, ultimately acknowledges the importance of local values, local definitions, and local practices in determining the scope and direction of local sustainable development. In the town of San Antonio de Escazú local campesino values included an attachment to the land, a love of farming, an integrated family unit, a view of community as a "chain" of mutual help, pride in being independent of a consumer society "where even food has to be bought", satisfaction in not being subject to the overseers and time constraints of salaried employment, a relative unattachment to economic capital accumulation ("it's a matter of turning money around and continue eating"), and a keen interest in continuing to be "at peace". These were the local values that not only sustained campesinos in their lifeworld, but were values of their lifeworld they wished to sustain. These were the elements that comprised a local definition of sustainable development.
An emphasis on local empowerment ultimately places the measures and means of sustainable development in the hands of the local community. This, then, raises the question as to the role of critical NGOs in promoting local sustainable development. The importance of NGOs in this process has been widely accepted by both mainstream, as well as critical perspectives. The economistic mainstream argument views NGOs as an efficient means of bypassing a cumbersome and costly State apparatus for the delivery of programs and projects to the local communities. The critical perspective, often coming from the NGOs themselves, considers their proximity with the grassroots as the best bet in achieving local community empowerment. In this study, I found that despite their oftentimes communal nature, NGOs must take care to be continually on guard against temptations to "represent" the community, or to mediate between the community and State/corporate structures, or to hope to bring sustainable development to the community through projects. Sustainable development is not something done to communities through projects, but rather is a process generated and lived by the communities, th