Costa Rica is a model of conservation only because its ecology was so completely ruined in the 20th century by the presence of industrialize agriculture. Costa Rica is one of the original “Banana Republics”. The United Fruit Company is the major influence in Costa Rica, and was also indirectly responsible for CIA activity in Nicaragua and Honduras.
But this entry is not about the influence of corporate America on foreign policy. There is a cycle of exploitation by these companies that creates a “double punch” to old growth forests. Small family farms clear a small area of forest that provide just enough for the families and their living. Foreign companies clear vast areas of forest and buy the land of peasants in order to grow their product, which is usually a single agricultural product. The peasants are then forced to become landless laborers on these plantations until the land loses its production value. These laborers then set up new farms by clearing more old growth forest, usually by burning, and the cycle begins again. Cattle ranching is not usually influenced by foreign companies but the growing demand globally for beef often encourages the expansion of cattle pasture.
According to my primary source, “Breakfast of Biodiversity”, the current world economic system is the primary cause of both deforestation and the underdeveloped nature of the Global South(umbrella term for 3rd world countries which do mostly exist in the south of the globe). The WTO and IMF are both factors in the continuing conditions and often rule in favor of 1st world interests.
I’d like to hear comments and suggestions for questions and ideas I could forward to my classmates and professors by the readers of this journal.
It seems as though large, global agricultural corporations are more concerned with immediate profit than long-term successes. If they invested in more sustainable agriculture, such as with crop rotations, then do you think they would ultimately use less resources and run out of fertile land less quickly?
Certainly, but the key in your comment is “immediate profit”. Environmental impact does not appear in boardroom calculations and neither does supporting labor. This is a pillar of capitalism to maximize resource use maximize profit now. There is no consideration without regulation for environmental or social consequences as long as there is a bottom line profit. A key issue in the neotropics is that the U.S. government does not practice true capitalism. Foreign companies would have to negotiate with the resource countries and the countries here would get to pick and choose companies that balance profit with that country’s interests of protecting its environment and labor force. Current NAFTA and CAFTA(north vs central) deals force a country like Costa Rica to accept all foreign interests and companies equally, regardless of if they are known labor abusers or polluters. These companies don’t necessarily care for the long term health of foreign soil.