UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Framework for a model of ecosystem based community development for the Bribris of Mojoncito, Costa Rica Grandy, Jake Brionn 2003

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2003-0233.pdf [ 3.71MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0090901.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0090901-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0090901-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0090901-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0090901-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0090901-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0090901-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

FRAMEWORK FOR A MODEL OF ECOSYSTEM BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BRIBRIS OF MOJONCITO, COSTA RICA By JAKE BRIONN GRANDY B.Sc, The University of British Columbia, A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Soil Science) We accept this thesis as conforming to the t$wygsL&axid£r3r THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 2003 © Jake Brionn Grandy, 2003 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada ABSTRACT The conventional model of development, which unduly emphasizes the economic component, has claimed that through modernization and trade liberalization, poverty among the world's rural poor would be alleviated. A growing body of scholarly literature suggests that this is not the case and the conventional model of development is widening the gap between rich and poor and severely damaging the ecosystem in the process. This thesis examines the development experience of a small community of Bribri indigenous farmers in Costa Rica to determine if their present path of development has increased their well-being, and if it is ecologically sustainable. It also examined the traditional ecological knowledge of the Bribris to determine if it could be used as an alternative basis of community development. The final aim of this thesis was to develop a framework of a model of ecosystem based community development for the Bribri community. Through Ecological Footprint Analysis and Participatory Research, I found that of the three systems analysed (traditional polyculture, organic banana monoculture, conventional plantain monoculture), the two farming systems typical of the conventional model of development: organic banana production, conventional (chemically-based) plantain production, had larger footprints and therefore are less sustainable than the traditional polyculture farm based on the ecological knowledge of the Bribris. Through interviews with Bribri farmers and other independent research, a foundation for an n ecosystem-based model of development was formulated which involved both farm design strategies and organizational strategies for the community. iii T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S A B S T R A C T ii LIST OF T A B L E S AND FIGURES vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S viii C H A P T E R 1: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Problem Statement 2 1.2 The First Two Questions 7 1.3 Geographical and Cultural Description 11 1.4 Methodology 14 1.5 General Significance 16 C H A P T E R 2: T H E C O N C E P T S O F E C O L O G I C A L FOOTPRINT A N D P A R T I C I P A T O R Y R E S E A R C H 21 2.1 The Concept of Ecological Footprint Analysis 21 2.1.1 Natural Capital and Constant Capital Stocks Criterion 23 2.1.2 Weak Versus Strong Sustainability 24 2.1.3 Human Carrying Capacity 25 2.1.4 Justification 27 2.2 The Concept of Participatory Research 29 2.1.1 Justification 30 C H A P T E R 3: M E T H O D S AND P R O C E D U R E S 32 3.1 Ecological Footprint Analysis 32 3.1.1 Case Selection and Description 33 3.1.2 Data Collection 35 iv 3.1.3 Data Processing 36 3.2 Participatory Research 36 3.2.1 Methodology 37 3.2.2 Data Collection 37 C H A P T E R 4: ASSUMPTIONS, MISSING D A T A , AND C A L C U L A T I O N S : E F A 39 4.1 Energy Intensity 39 4.2 Energy to Land Equivalent Conversion 46 4.3 Output Energy Produced 46 4.4 Sample Calculation for Ecological Footprint 47 C H A P T E R 5: R E S U L T S : E C O L O G I C A L FOOTPRINT AND P A R T I C I P A T O R Y R E S E A R C H 49 5.1 Results of Ecological Footprint Analysis 49 5.1.1 E F A Organic Banana Production 50 5.1.2 E F A Conventional Plantain Production 51 5.1.3 E F A Traditional Polyculture Farm 53 5.1.4 Comparison of Data 56 5.2 Results of Participatory Research 58 5.2.1 Comparison of Results 66 C H A P T E R 6: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, F R A M E W O R K F O R A M O D E L O F D E V E L O P M E N T 68 6.1 Discussion of Results and Implications of E F A 68 v 6.2 Discussion and Implications of Results of Participatory Research 75 6.3 T E K and Western Science as Knowledge Bases for a Development Model 77 6.4 Framework for a Model of Ecosystem Based Community Development 80 6.5 Conclusions 83 R E F E R E N C E S 87 APPENDICES 93 A Interview Questions and Interviewee Data 93 B Spreadsheets for Ecological Footprint Analysis 95 C Calories in the Traditional Farm 98 vi LIST O F T A B L E S AND FIGURES Table 1.1 Competing Paradigms: sustainable development vs. neo-liberalism 6 Figure 1.1 Map of Costa Rica 12 Figure 5.1 Components of Ecological Footprint of Organic Banana Production..49 Figure 5.2 Land Equivalent of Each Input for Organic Banana Production 50 Figure 5.3 Components of Ecological Footprint of Conventional Plantain Production 51 Figure 5.4 Land Equivalents of Each Input for Conventional Plantain Production 52 Figure 5.5 Components of Ecological Footprint of Traditional Polyculture Farm 53 Figure 5.6 Land Equivalents of Each Input for the Traditional Polyculture 54 Figure 5.7 Comparison of Ecological Footprints with Wada's Tomatoes 55 vii A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S I would like to thank my supervisory committee: Dr. Alejandro Rojas, Dr. Art Bomke, Dr. William Rees, and Dr. Juanita Sundberg, for all their help and support throughout the course of this research and the writing of this thesis. I would like express my gratitude to Dr. Rojas in particular who first encouraged me to begin a Masters degree at UBC, and provided excellent feedback and support at all stages of this research. I would also like to thank my wife, Vanessa, for all her support and patience, particularly while I was away conducting fieldwork in Costa Rica. Without her support and especially her tolerance of me occupying the computer day and night while completing the writing phase, this thesis would still be in the works today. I also would like to thank my parents, Shelley and John, and my brothers, Kayle and Simon for their support. I'd especially like to thank my mother whose continuous phone calls asking "Is it done yet?" never let me forget for too long what I should be doing. Finally, I would like to thank my cat, Yogi, who undoubtedly has left his mark on this thesis as he slept on the keyboard or mouse while I was trying to work. All typos, especially misplaced letters, numbers, or punctuation, are his contribution. viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This aim of this thesis is to create a framework for a model of community development which is deeply rooted in sustainable ecosystem management. The study focuses on the case of the Bribri peoples of Costa Rica, a relatively small indigenous group which resides in the south-east of the country. The region is covered in lush humid tropical rainforests with high biodiversity and has been inhabited by the Bribris for centuries. There, they have developed traditional farming practices designed to be in harmony with their surroundings. In more recent history, however, new farming practices (organic and chemically-based monocultures) have been introduced which aim at increasing the profitability of these rural farms. These new practices operate under the assumption that greater profits will create a better quality of life for the Bribris. This study begins with the hypothesis that the current dominant model of development (banana and plantain monocultures that aim to increase profitability) which the Bribris, and many other rural farmers throughout Latin America are experiencing, is failing to live up to its promises of improving quality of life. Based on this hypothesis, this study examined the three dominant farming systems: traditional polyculture, organic banana monoculture, and chemically-based plantain monoculture. Using Ecological Footprint Analysis (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996), the ecological sustainability of the three farming systems was evaluated. Participatory research, in the form of semi-structured interviews, 1 was conducted to reflect on the development experience of the Bribris, to determine what their vision of development is, and to determine if their traditional ecological knowledge could provide a basis for an alternative model of development. 1.1 Problem Statement The economic aspect of development has received an inordinate amount of emphasis over the past 50 years. In general, it has taken the form of modernization, westernization, and money lending, using measures such as Gross Domestic Product and per capita income to describe a country or region's state of development (Barrow, 1995; de la Court, 1992; Hall, 2000; Pomfret, 1992; Scholte, 2000; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Development initiatives undertaken by the Bretton Woods Institutions and the United Nations in particular have subscribed to this model, and these efforts have mainly been in the form of top-down economic development, which is linear in its approach. Economic growth as a development paradigm has proliferated to the extent that scientists (including social scientists) and technical people working in the field of development are often required to subordinate their expertise to economic imperatives and analysis (Goodland and Ledec, 1987; Hall, 2000). In recent decades, integration of local and national economies into the increasingly liberalized global market has increased in importance as a means of augmenting economic activity. The market has become more and more a single entity to the extent that people from across the world now are producing goods for a single global market. It 2 is the market that determines what is produced and what price is paid for them (de la Court, 1992). Neo-liberal economists promote this approach because they maintain that trade liberalization benefits all, through development of comparative advantage, better division of labour between countries, a broader choice of products and technologies, lower inflation, increased specialization, and better sharing of ideas (Mickelthwaite and Wooldridge, 2000). Through trade liberalization, businesses reduce costs and risks, and are better able to move to new markets (Busch, 1999). In addition, the expansion of global markets should lead to increased efficiency, more production and consumption, higher profits and greater social equity among nations. Within this model, environmental concerns are dismissed because the free market allegedly encourages resource conservation and development of substitutes through rising prices that result from resource scarcity. There is mounting evidence, however, that demonstrates that in practice neo-liberal economic theory falls significantly short of its claims. Despite all efforts to alleviate poverty, the rich continue to get richer and the poor poorer. The world's wealthiest 10%, in 1970, earned 19 times as much as the world's poorest 10%. By 1997, the ratio had increased to 27:1 (Rees, 2002; UNDP, 2001). The richest fifth of the population accounts for over 80 % of all private consumption expenditures while the poorest fifth accounts for only 1.3 % (Manno, 2000). Attempts at integration into the global economy have generally not improved the well being of those who need it most, and has often led to the disintegration of local cultures, social structures and ecosystem integrity (French , 2000; Khor, 1996; Korten, 1996). 3 In maintaining low prices on the global market, little attention is paid to protecting the environment. This has lead to deforestation, desertification and soil erosion (Pimentel et al., 1987; Rees, 1990; de la Court, 1992; Gliessman, 1998). The proliferation of modernization and the growth paradigm is often at the expense of the environment, and has been justified as a necessary price to pay for improved human welfare. The returns from economic development are also quite often not wisely or equitably reinvested (Barrow, 1995; Reed, 1992). Even when returns are reinvested wisely and equitably, there is a growing sense that goods of human origin cannot be substituted for natural capital (Reed, 1992; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). It is becoming increasingly clear that the environment provides unique and essential services which protect and maintain essential economic and life-support activities; the central tenet of the newly established field of ecological economics (Costanza et al, 1997; Daly, 1996; Reed, 1992). Social conditions are also often neglected in favour of economic growth. National and local culture is often seen as an obstacle to development or at best an irrelevant external factor (de la Court, 1992). Studies have shown how many development projects have failed because they did not take into account cultural context (de la Court, 1992). In terms of agriculture, there are fewer and fewer farmers in rural areas as family farms give way to agribusinesses. The resulting unemployment is accompanied by a reduction in rural services such as schools, doctors, public transportation, and childcare facilities while at the same time increasing movement to urban centres (Pretty, 2000). 4 In response to the perceived failures of the development centered on economic growth, a new concept of sustainable development has emerged (see Table 1.1). Sustainable development, based on an ecological worldview, can be considered a relatively new paradigm, contrary to the conventional model1. Sustainable development sees development as the realization of fuller and greater potential whereas conventional development is simply growth, meaning becoming larger through the accumulation of material goods (Costanza et al, 1997; Daly, 1996). The economy is regarded as a subsystem of the materially closed global ecosystem. The economy therefore cannot grow beyond certain limits without endangering global life support systems. In this context, development is progressive social betterment while remaining within the confines of our ecological carrying capacity. Many subscribers to the sustainable development paradigm believe the root of the world's environmental problems lies in flawed concepts of development and modernization (Barrow, 1995). From this viewpoint, most 'developed' countries (North America and Western Europe) are actually overdeveloped, consuming a disproportionate share of the world's resources at unsustainable rates (Barrow, 1995; Rees, 2002; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). 1 It is important to recognize here that the conventional model still considers itself to be 'sustainable development;' however, this is from what is called the 'weak sustainability' perspective (see Chapter Two). For the purposes of this thesis, the dominant model, founded on neo-liberal economic theory, is called the 'conventional model' and the emerging ecological model is called 'sustainable development.' 5 N e o - L i b e r a l i s m S u s t a i n a b l e D e v e l o p m e n t Structure of analytic models Simple, linear, deterministic Complex, dynamic, non-linear Attitude toward people and future generations Individualistic, concern for present generation, discounts in time and space Community centered, concern for present and future generations, avoids discounting View of nature Humans adapt nature to serve their own needs and wants. Nature is a source of resources and a sink for wastes Humans are dependent on nature, resources ultimately control humans. Nature has value as a resource A N D has intrinsic value. E c o n o m i c p a r a d i g m The economic system is independent of nature The economy is a subsystem of the ecosphere, dependent on nature. Essential ecological functions must be maintained regardless of economic activity Role of M a r k e t s Free markets stimulate conservation of scarce resources (through the price mechanism) and the search for technological substitutes. c Markets have limited effectiveness in stimulating conservation of non-renewable resources and are ineffective at stimulating conservation of renewable resources whose stocks are more difficult to measure. There are also no markets for many goods/services provided by the ecosphere (e.g. ozone layer) therefore are incapable of assigning value or stimulating conservation. Attitude toward economic growth Growth is essential to increase the wellbeing of the world's poor and deal with material inequities among nations. We cannot rely on growth to alleviate poverty. Political, social, institutional and economic reform is necessary to alleviate poverty and address material inequities among nations. Ecological role of growth Since natural and manufactured capital are interchangeable, depletion of natural assets is not problematic. Developed world growth creates markets and opportunity for developing nations to sell their products. Natural and manufactured capitals are not interchangeable. The global economy is already running an ecological deficit. Further growth, especially in the developed world will only accelerate ecological decline and the loss of natural assets. Attitude toward globalization Liberalization of global markets will lead to greater economic efficiency and greater social equity through an increase in Gross World Product (GWP) Under present terms of trade, liberalization of global markets will increase economic disparities and accelerate the depletion of natural resources Attitude toward agriculture Large scale, industrial agriculture is more economically efficient. Most agriculture is for export Local food systems favoured diversity of small and medium sized producers. T A B L E 1.1: Competing paradigms - sustainable development vs. neoliberalism (Adapted from Rees, 1995 and Redclift, 1987.) 6 It is clear from the literature on sustainable development, that the conventional model of development cannot alleviate the conditions faced by the rural poor throughout the world and respond to the many signs of ecological degradation. On this assumption, this research aims to answer the following questions: 1. Does the development experience to this point of the Bribri indigenous peoples of Costa Rica reflect the conventional model or the sustainable development model? 2. Has the condition of the Bribri indigenous peoples improved as a result? 3. Has the development experience of the Bribri indigenous peoples been ecologically sustainable? 4. Does local ecological knowledge provide a basis for ecosystem based community development which is less impactful than Western science? 5. What are the elements of a model of ecosystem based community development for the Bribri indigenous peoples? 1.2 The First Two Questions: 1) Does the development experience to this point of the Bribri indigenous peoples of Costa Rica reflect the conventional model or the sustainable development model? 2) Has the condition of the Bribri indigenous peoples improved as a result? Reflecting in hindsight, the answers to the first two research questions were clear to me from my initial experience with the Bribris. My experience has shown their case to be typical of the conventional model. I spent just over a year working in a small community 7 in Talamanca, Costa Rica in a region of lush tropical rainforest. I worked on a socioeconomic development project, NUR (Nucleo de la Universidad Rural) which has spent over 10 years doing participatory research with local farmers. Among the Bribris, NUR has a good reputation for doing effective, grassroots, and participatory work with local farmers. For several years, it has run an experimental farm based on the principles of the traditional polyculture, and has organized farmers' groups to share innovations and techniques in hopes of preserving the traditional farming system. From working closely with the Bribris, I learned a great deal about the difficulties faced by poor farmers in a 'developing' country. I also learned about the many failed attempts at development carried out by government agencies and NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) in the region. These failures came in many forms, from inappropriate technology (tin roofs, tractors) to agricultural techniques not suitable to the Bribri situation (new seed and animal varieties, plantation style agriculture, chemical-intensive farming systems). For example, I spoke to one farmer who had adopted a new breed of pig which was supposed to put on weight faster and be larger than the local pigs. The pig however was not suited to the local environment and needed to be kept in a carefully designed pen and fed regularly by the farmer (traditionally, Bribri pigs run free to forage on their own). Not long after accepting the new breed of pig, the pig disappeared and the pigpen was used for household waste disposal. Another farmer was offered a new type of fruit, arasa, which could be sold to the national markets to make juice. The farmer cleared a large area which he planted with arasa trees but at harvest nobody came to buy his fruit and he did not have the means to find and bring his product to market. Furthermore, the crop is essentially useless for the Bribris because in order to make good juice from it, it needs to 8 be processed with large amounts of sweetener. Bribri farmers often have a diversity of already sweet fruits, such as oranges, lemons, guavas, and papayas, with which to make juice for themselves. These examples can be seen as attempts to modernize Bribri farming so as to integrate them into regional and global markets. Many such experiences have been documented around the world where developing nation farmers are given 'inappropriate' technology and techniques to modernize them for global markets, with only limited success (Conroy et al., 1996; Lappe et al., 1998; Norberg-Hodge, 1996; Shiva, 1995) I also observed that these attempts have generally not improved the conditions of the Bribris. As mentioned above, many attempts failed utterly, wasting time and resources of already resource poor farmers. Other attempts, such as plantation style organic banana production, which has been the main development initiative among Bribri farmers, have not failed and been abandoned, but their ability to live up to the promise of improving the wellbeing of the Bribris is questionable. In the village I worked in, Mojoncito, the traditional polyculture is being replaced by organic banana plantations among younger farmers. The bananas produced on these farms are primarily destined for European markets. As a result of this new system, many families now earn and spend more, but their material conditions have generally not improved (NUR, 1999). The increased earnings from banana sales are spent in local stores to buy the basic grains and other food products required for a healthy diet which otherwise would have been provided by traditional subsistence agriculture. These community stores, called pulperias, sell their products at 40-150% mark-up compared to San Jose, Costa Rica's capital (NUR, 1999). 9 An economic study undertaken by a NUR (1999) found that this free market system extracts profit from Talamanca but reinvests little and that the local economy is only sustained through food subsidies provided by the traditional farming system. The hard work, which produces these agricultural products for the global market, does not translate into a better quality of life for the Bribris. Much of the earnings is captured by an economic elite that does not reinvest in the region. Although proponents of global trade liberalization will argue this is unimportant due to the efficiency gains of the whole economy through comparative advantage, the Bribris have yet to see any significant benefits. In addition, increased earnings have been accompanied by social decay evidenced by increased incidences of alcoholism, family breakdown and violence against women (Neil Whatley, personal communication, 1998 ). The three remaining research questions: 3) is the development experience of the Bribri indigenous people ecologically sustainable? 4) does local ecological knowledge provide a basis for ecosystem based development which is less impactful than Western science? 5) what are the elements of a model of ecosystem based community development for the Bribri indigenous peoples? were answered through fieldwork conducted 18 months after my initial experience with the Bribris. The fieldwork consisted of conducting Ecological Footprint Analysis of 3 farming systems found in Talamanca and by farmer participatory research. 2 Neil Whatley, project agronomist for NUR. Has 10 years experience living and working with the Bribris as NUR's consultant agronomist. 10 1.3 Geographical and Cultural Description The research was conducted in Costa Rica, located between Nicaragua, to the north and Panama, to the south (see Figure 1.1). It is a country of high geographical and ecological variation ranging from humid tropical lowlands to volcanic highlands and cloud forests. Most of the population lives in the central valley, a highland region of rich volcanic soils. The tropical lowlands on either coast are more sparsely populated and filled with mostly plantation agriculture. Costa Rica is an agriculturally based economy traditionally concentrating on two crops: bananas, and coffee. Although in the last decade, tourism has become the country's single largest industry and earner of foreign currency, tropical agricultural products remain the principal exports and primary land use of the country (Hall, 2000). FIGURE 1.1: Map of Costa Rica Courtesy ofcostaricamap.com 11 The field research site is located in the tropical region of Talamanca, within the Bribri Indigenous Reserve. The indigenous reserve lies within "La Amistad Biosphere Reserve," which has been designated a World Heritage site by the United Nations because of the region's high biological diversity. Although not completely assessed, between 30 and 40 percent of the species found in the region are not found anywhere else in the world (NUR, 1998). This area contains more than 10,000 species of flowering plants, provides refuge to 70 percent of the wildlife and bird species found in Costa Rica, and supports 75 percent of all the reptile and amphibian species known in Costa Rica (NUR, 2000). There are two distinct seasons in Talamanca. The dry season occurs from January to April, when some rainfall is received, and the wet season occurs from May to December when most of the rainfall takes place. The average annual rainfall for the region is 3.2 m, and maximum precipitation reaches 6.4 m in the inland mountains (NUR, 2000). Due to such extreme rainfall, the Talamanca valley, which acts as a drainage system for the inland mountain range, is subject to regular flooding. Agriculture is primarily practiced on this extensive flood plain or alluvial fan. The soils of the region are fertile volcanic soils classified as andosols (Jongmans et al, 1995; Nieuwenhuyse et al, 1994). Although the Bribris represent the largest indigenous group in Costa Rica, they are a relatively small group by Central American standards numbering only approximately 10,000 (Carlos Borge, personal communication, 1998 ). According to anthropologist 3 Carlos Borge, Ph.D. Anthropologist who has spent 20 years studying the Bribris, and who has worked closely with N U R since its inception. 12 Carlos Borge, a leading scholar on Bribri history and culture, the Bribris have lived in their tropical rainforest territory for centuries, arriving in a reverse migration from the Amazon (Carlos Borge, personal communication, 1998). However, if asked, elders will recount the Bribri creation story which involves Sibu, the creator, planting the first Bribris as corn seeds on their sacred mountain, Namasol. Despite Western influences, the Bribri retain their language and many still retain practices of agriculture, hunting and gathering forest products which evolved over centuries of living in harmony with the regional ecosystem. Many Bribris, especially the older generation, use medicinal plants from the rainforest to cure ailments, employing traditional ecological knowledge passed down for generations. They still use dugout canoes (though now fitted with outboard motors) to travel the river systems of their region. When Europeans first arrived, they were unable to subdue the Bribris due to their lack of centralized urban centers, and the physical remoteness of their region. When outsiders entered Bribri territory, the Bribris simply moved from the lowlands into the mountains which were difficult for the outsiders to penetrate and where the Bribri's farming expertise allowed them to subsist (NUR, 2000). In 1914, a multinational banana company, United Fruit, surveyed the area and found it suitable for banana production. They established plantations and built roads and bridges into the area. The Bribris again retreated to the mountains. Severe flooding in the 1930's significantly damaged the banana company's infrastructure and the company left the region (NUR, 1999, 2000). Slowly, the Bribris returned to the valley and some began to adopt the plantation style monoculture farming system, initially with cocoa and later with plantain after a fungal 13 disease destroyed cocoa crops (NUR, 1999, 2000). The products of the monoculture farms were transported to nearby rivers and sold to national and transnational buyers. Today, many more Bribris have returned to the valley and monocultures have proliferated, primarily of organic banana and chemically-based plantain farms. Although the Bribris have never been entirely assimilated into modern society nor, completely controlled by foreign companies, their original territory has been diminished by the creation of the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve and creation of the Bribri Indigenous Reserve. This has caused land to be scarce as population has increased and initially large farms were divided among each family's numerous offspring. Although not addressed in this thesis, the problem of land scarcity and rapid population increase create barriers to sustainable farming in the region (NUR, 2000). 1.4 Methodology The situation of the Bribris of Costa Rica can be considered a microcosm of the situation faced by rural peasant farmers throughout Latin America, and so act as a good case study for the examination of local impacts from the conventional model of development. Experts in the field of Agroecology have found that there are many cases of traditional farming systems throughout Latin America which have developed over centuries and are based on locally available resources, diverse crops and having minimal environmental impact (Altieri, 2000; Gleissman, 2000; Toledo, 1995). These farming systems are 14 disappearing in favour of more intensive, profit driven farming systems (Hall, 2000; Toledo, 1995). The Ecological Footprint Analysis was selected as the method to evaluate the ecological sustainability of the existing Bribri farming systems. Ecological Footprint Analysis is an analytical tool for analyzing the sustainability of various aspects of human activity, from different lifestyles, cities and countries to production systems, based on the land appropriated directly by the activity. In terms of lifestyles, the Ecological Footprint is an estimate of the amount of space on the earth that an individual utilizes in order to survive using existing technologies. This space includes the biologically productive land and water areas that produce the resources the individual consumes such as food, water, energy, clothing and building materials. It also can include the amount of land and water required to assimilate wastes generated by an individual. Essentially, it measures a person's demand on the biological capacity of the Earth. For a production system, the Ecological Footprint is measured in terms of land occupied by the system and land equivalents of all other inputs, based on energy intensity used to produce them. Ecological Footprint Analysis is explained in further detail in Chapter 2. In order to elicit information about alternative development models for the Bribris and the role of local ecological knowledge, I selected a participatory research method of semi-structured and unstructured farmer interviews. This method is discussed in further detail in Chapter 2. 15 1.5 General Significance This study is significant because it represents the first attempt to empirically assess the sustainability of banana and plantain monocultures as a form of development and compare the results to the tropical polyculture in this region. It is also a first attempt at examining alternative development strategies for the Bribris. It is hoped that this research will also contribute to the theoretical work on sustainable development and ecosystem-based community development planning. (i) Traditional Polyculture - Huerto Indigena Historically the traditional farm consisted of two subsystems: a permanent polyculture farm and a rotational agricultural system (Borge, 1997). Today, the rotational system is rarely found but the permanent polyculture system persists. This system developed under specific social and territorial conditions. Until more recently being enclosed in an Indigenous Reserve, the Bribri had much greater land base to draw from. Land was not scarce, therefore, they could easily practice their rotational "slash and burn" system which complemented the polyculture with basic grains and beans. Under enclosed conditions and increasing population pressure, farm sizes have shrunk and the rotational system has almost disappeared. Social conditions have also greatly changed since the polyculture and rotational systems developed. The traditional systems were not designed to meet the needs and 16 wants of a community which traded for manufactured goods from foreigners as is the case today. The polyculture component of the traditional farm, called the Huerto Indigena (or Indigenous Garden), consists of a combination of crop and tree species along with non-cultivated trees, bushes vines and herbs. The Huerto Indigena has the capability of permanently producing the majority of the traditional social, economic, and cultural needs of the Bribri peoples (Borge, 1997). The system mimics the natural architecture of the rainforest and contains high residual biomass relative to the harvested crops, thereby creating a farm which is ecologically sustainable. There are no rows or uniform planting on the farm. Instead it appears to be randomly planted without any semblance of order; however, there is logic to their planting style. Crops are planted in a deliberate arrangement which seeks to maximize light and shade regimes, nutrient cycling and adaptation to the biophysical conditions of the site (Borge, 1997; NUR, 2000). Up to 160 species of useful plants can be found on a single farm. Farm sizes typically range from 1 to 4 hectares depending on land availability and size of the family. The Huerto Indigena generates very little, if any cash income. Organic Banana Monoculture The organic banana monoculture is favoured by younger Bribri farmers and those with little land, as it generates more cash income. This system is 17 favoured over chemically based systems because the Bribri people have strong value for their natural surroundings. Their mythology and beliefs are deeply grounded in respect for the divinity of nature. Chemically based systems, are looked down upon as being toxic and damaging to nature. In addition, many families lack the capital to buy the various pesticides and fertilizers required by the chemically based system. Spacing in the monoculture is much closer (3m x 3m) than in the traditional polyculture, leaving the plants highly vulnerable to the fungal diseases transmitted by rainwater and wind. The banana plants are all generally of the same age class and size and ground cover is minimal. This system relies heavily on manual labour to control pests, weeds and disease. The monoculture system is also intensive in the use of soil nutrients, having minimal ground cover and lacking tree and plant species which improve the soil such as Inga edulis, a leguminous tree found in the traditional polyculture. Although there is a trend towards increasing organic banana farming, most farmers still retain small parcels of land dedicated to the traditional polyculture. These parcels provide a diversity of foods for the farming families and effectively subsidize their banana production because they buy less from the pulperias (community stores), and can afford to farm bananas as a monoculture. 18 Conventional (Chemically-based) Plantain Monoculture There are few farms in the area which are chemically-based, or conventional, monocultures. Since there is no market in the area for non-organic banana, all conventional monocultures are plantain plantations. Because farm size is generally small, organic banana, which is an internationally traded crop, has become a niche market and organized collective buyers purchase organic banana from Bribri farms. Small producers can therefore compete because the market is small, whereas non-organic bananas are grown throughout the country on plantations as large as 1500 hectares. These large plantations take advantage of economies of scale and Bribri producers cannot compete by selling bananas from a 4 hectare farm. Plantain, on the other hand, is sold primarily to the national market, supplied by many small producers. The conventional plantain monoculture is similar to the organic banana monoculture in structure. Plants are spaced closely to maximize photosynthesis and all are of the same size and age class. To control pests, disease and weeds, four different chemicals are sprayed on the ground and foliage. Pesticide impregnated polyethylene bags cover the plantain bunches to protect from pests and aid in the ripening process. Premiums are paid for plantain treated with polyethylene bags. Chemically based farms are generally larger (up to 10 hectares) than either the organic banana or the 19 traditional polyculture. This may be because it is capital intensive and therefore only large landowners can afford to switch to this system. This chapter shows how the study of the three farming system of the Bribri indigenous peoples, using Ecological Footprint Analysis and farmer participatory interviews, provides a window to understand the local impacts of each type of agro-ecosystem on the ecosystem and the community. The next chapter will explain the concepts of both methods in more detail. 20 C H A P T E R 2 T H E C O N C E P T S O F E C O L O G I C A L FOOTPRINT AND P A R T I C I P A T O R Y R E S E A R C H 2.1 The Concept of Ecological Footprint Analysis Ecological Footprint Analysis (EFA) is an analytic method which begins with the premise that human beings are integral parts of, and therefore highly dependent on, the ecosystems which support them (Wackernagel and Rees 1996). Whether or not humans consume locally produced products or internationally traded products they are still dependent on an ecosystem to support them however far removed from that ecosystem they may be. In addition, no matter what technological innovations humans may develop, some ecosystem services are still required for the production and maintenance of any given technology. EFA estimates how much land and water ecosystem area is needed to support a given population at its current standard of living, regardless of the location of the land or the technologies used (Rees, 2001). The Ecological Footprint of a given population depends on four factors: the size of the population, the people's average material standard of living, the productivity of the land/water base, and the technological efficiency of resource harvesting, processing, and use (Rees, 2001). The Ecological Footprint for a specific population represents land 21 which is exclusively used by that population. The land and water area calculated for one human population is not available for other human populations to use. Ecological Footprint Analysis of technologies (including farming systems) accounts for the flows of matter and energy to and from a defined technology and converts them to land area required from the environment to support these flows. For farming systems it can show how much "embodied" land is required to produce a defined crop. The footprint of a farming system consists of the land directly occupied by the farm as well as the land equivalent of all material and energy inputs used to produce a particular crop. It provides a snapshot of the ecological efficiency of the system which can be used to assess the sustainability of present production systems and assist in future planning and decision making. It can be assumed that because we live on a planet of finite resources, the production system which appropriates less land is more sustainable. It leaves more land and resources for present and future generations as well as for essential ecosystem functions, such as waste assimilation and water purification. To better understand the concept of Ecological Footprint Analysis and how it relates to sustainability, it is useful to examine the concepts of natural capital, weak versus strong sustainability and human carrying capacity. 22 2.1.1 Natural Capital and Constant Capital Stocks Criterion Natural capital can be considered a type of productive capital, of the same status as manufactured capital (such as a factory or machinery) and social capital (such as knowledge and skills), capable of producing sustainable flows (income) indefinitely into the future (Daly and Costanza, 1992). Natural capital is any stock of natural assets which can include traded resources (e.g. lumber, fish), non-traded resources (e.g. ozone layer), and functions and services of the ecosystem (e.g. carbon dioxide absorption by forests, water purification by wetlands). More than just an inventory of natural resources, it also consists of all components and structural relationships of the ecosphere which are essential for the continuous maintenance and self-regulation of the system itself (Daly and Costanza, 1992; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). No development path can be considered sustainable, therefore, if it depends on the exhaustion of its natural capital stocks (Daly and Costanza, 1992). A society is sustainable only if it maintains undiminished per capita natural capital stocks from generation to generation (Daly and Costanza, 1992; Solow 1986). The constant capital stock criterion requires maintenance of adequate levels of natural capital to support human population, which means that if the population is increasing, natural capital stocks must also increase to maintain adequate levels (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Daly and Costanza, 1992). 23 In order to meet the constant capital stocks criterion for sustainability, it is suggested that >-humankind learn to live on the "interest" produced annually from remaining natural capital stocks (Daly and Costanza, 1992). This is known as Hicksian (or sustainable) income, defined as the level of consumption that can be maintained from one period to the next without reducing wealth (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Hicks, 1946). In this case, wealth would be the remaining natural capital stocks and interest would be equal to the net primary production of the ecosphere. 2.1.2 Weak versus Strong Sustainability It is important to note here that neoliberal economists also recognize the constant capital stocks criterion; however, capital is interpreted differently by their definition. According to the neoliberal view, the constant capital stocks criterion means that each generation should inherit aggregate manufactured and natural capital stocks not less than the stocks inherited by the previous generation. This view is often called "weak sustainability" (Daly and Cobb, 1989; Daly and Costanza, 1992; Neumayer, 1999; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). By this definition, it is acceptable to deplete natural capital stocks so long as an equivalent amount of manufactured capital is produced in return. "Strong sustainability" is the view most ecologically oriented proponents of sustainable development subscribe to. According to this belief, natural capital stocks alone should be held constant from generation to generation (Daly and Cobb 1989; Daly and Costanza, 1992; Neumayer, 1999; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Manufactured capital and natural 24 capital are regarded as compliments rather than substitutes (e.g. more fishing boats cannot substitute for a depleted fish stock) (Costanza, 1997; Daly and Costanza, 1992). Manufactured capital also cannot substitute for essential life support services of the ecosystem such as the ozone layer, or hydrologic cycle. This study uses the strong sustainability approach because I have found that it is biophysically more valid than the weak sustainability perspective and because there is evidence that show the weak sustainability approach is failing to delivers its promises both socially and ecologically. Also, as mentioned in Chapter One, there is evidence that the dominant model of community development (which favours the weak sustainability perspective) is weakening the ecological integrity of the planet as well as failing to improve worldwide social and economic conditions. 2.1.3 Human Carrying Capacity Linked to the concept of Ecological Footprint Analysis is that of human carrying capacity. Carrying capacity is defined as "the maximum population of a given species that can be supported indefinitely in a specified habitat without permanently impairing the productivity of that habitat" (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Since humans are capable of inhabiting and dominating any ecosystem on earth, our habitat is the entire planet. 25 The neoclassical approach to carrying capacity is that there are no limits, regionally or globally. Trade is capable of alleviating any locally significant limiting factors and innovation and technological advances are able to relieve regional or global scarcities (Carton, 1980; Mickelthwaite and Wooldridge, 2000; Simon, 1994). Ecologists, however, see humans as essentially ecological beings, dependent on products and services of nature. No amount of trade or innovation will eliminate the human need for clean water or an ozone layer. Studies show that humans are already appropriating 40 percent of the net product of terrestrial photosynthesis (Vitousek et al, 1986). In addition, not only is population a concern, but increasing levels of material consumption effectively make each new person 'larger' in terms of carrying capacity (Catton, 1980). Ecological Footprint Analysis takes the concept of carrying capacity and inverts it in order to simplify it. Instead of asking how many people can live sustainably in a given area, EFA asks how much area is needed to support the defined population wherever the land on earth is located. Carrying capacity can be difficult to measure because no region (or farm) exists in isolation of the rest of the world. Food, machinery, oil are all traded globally. The fertilizers for a farm in Costa Rica can come from New Mexico. In addition, culture, level of technology, and material standard of living all affect carrying capacity making it difficult to make generalizations about a given population (Catton, 1980; Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Carrying capacity can also be temporarily exceeded by eliminating competitors for resources or using up stored (non-renewable) resources (Catton, 1980). Ecological Footprint analysis avoids these complications by working 26 from the assumption that every material and energy input to a production system requires a productive area of land regardless of where the input is used. The result is a snapshot of the load each production system bears on the earth in terms of area. 2.1.4 Justification Ecological Footprint Analysis was chosen as a method to evaluate sustainability because the method and calculations are simple and straightforward, therefore easily understandable to a wide audience. It is a simple and practical accounting tool for the complicated and multidimensional task of estimating the amount of natural capital required to maintain a production system. It has been applied to all types of situations from production systems, to households, cities, bridges and nations by many researchers in many different parts of the world. It was also chosen in order to make comparisons with Canada. Yoshihiko Wada's (1993) thesis compared the Ecological Footprints of greenhouse tomatoes with field tomatoes. Both this study and Wada's study can be considered comparisons of less intensive forms agriculture (in this case, the traditional polyculture farm, and, in Wada's, field tomato production) with more intensive forms of agriculture (in this case, the conventional banana farm, and, in Wada's, greenhouse tomato production). Conclusion may be drawn, in general, about the size of the Ecological Footprint and the intensiveness of the farming system. In both studies, the Ecological Footprints are calculated by isolating the different inputs (such as agrichemicals, machinery, and transportation energy) and measuring them 27 against output (tomatoes, bananas, plantain). Although the outputs differ, useful comparisons can be drawn based on the inputs. For instance, it may be useful to analyse the energy used in agrichemicals to determine if, in general, it can be said that dependence on agrichemicals significantly increases the Ecological Footprint of an : agricultural system, and is therefore less sustainable than a system which is not. Also, since many bananas found in Canadian supermarkets come from Costa Rica, it is useful to be able to compare the footprints of local versus imported foods by isolating the contribution of transportation energy to the Ecological Footprints of the different farms. These comparisons could not be accomplished had another methodology been selected. It is important to recognize that there is an ongoing debate over the validity of EFA as a tool to measure sustainability. Critics object to EFA, claiming it is a static measure of dynamic processes, it ignores economic measurements such as discounting and substitutability4, and it is less scientific and more a tool to influence politics (Van Kooten and Blute, 2000). Furthermore, they claim that the way EFA aggregates the data and the assumptions made (such as growth rates of forest stands and productivity of agricultural land) lead to conclusions conducive to the proponents' agenda (Van Kooten and Blute, 2000). They maintain that under different assumptions, the results can lead to the opposite conclusions. Assumptions need to be made for both EFA and the economic measures suggested by the critics of EFA. Conclusions cannot be drawn based on the evidence alone since all 4 Although these methods also come under scrutiny for assessing sustainability (Rees, 1998; Rees and Wackernagel, 1999; El Serafy, 1991; Hannon, 1991; Peskin, 1991 28 measurements involve assumptions influenced by the values of the measurer. Both sides could create lock tight arguments with abundant evidence based on the values and assumptions of their respective worldviews. I am persuaded that the values and assumptions of the EFA are valid for this study because for an ecosystem-based model of development founded on the sustainable development paradigm, ecological efficiency5 (essentially what EFA measures) as a criterion is more appropriate than measures of substitutability and discounting. In addition, I feel, as do most ecologically oriented proponents of sustainable development, that methods such as EFA are biophysically more valid than economic measures of discounting and substitutability. Such economic measures of sustainability tend to be blind to ecological processes, as described in Chapter One. 2.2 The Concept of Participatory Research Participatory research can be described as a series of steps in spiral, consisting of planning, acting, observing, and evaluating the result of the action (McTaggart, 1997). To begin the process, a general opinion that change or improvement is desired, then a group will come together and define an area of problems of mutual concern (McTaggart, 1997; Smith, 1997). The action and reflection components allow for learning from the experience and changes and modifications in plans of action. This process also allows the community to take ownership of the changes and improvements which take place. This study sees this as essential for finding alternatives to present models of development 29 and successfully implementing them. Community ownership appears to be a key ingredient missing from many attempts at development in the region. Participatory research also appears to be an excellent way to tap local knowledge bases. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by the works of agro ecological researchers in Latin America and elsewhere (Altieri, 1987; Gliessman, 2000, Toledo, 1995). NUR's work with the Bribris began with community participatory research. Interested community members expressed that a change in the way development was approached was necessary, particularly in the area of agriculture and education (Neil Whatley, personal communication). Community action and reflection on initiatives undertaken were carried out regularly. This study constitutes a part of the process started with NUR. The information gathered here will be shared with NUR and the community in order to continue the action/reflection process on the path of development. 2.1.1 Justification Participatory research was chosen for several reasons. First, the non-governmental organization with which I worked used participatory research in their search for alternative production systems using traditional ecological knowledge and appropriate modern technology. By using this process, they allowed the community to take ownership of the learning process and develop and utilize their own human resources (NUR, 2000). This allowed the Bribri walk the path of development on their own terms. 5 the measure of ecological resources used per unit output 30 Since the community was already comfortable and accustomed to this approach it seemed appropriate that this study continue with that methodology. Secondly, already having a relationship with many of the participants, I felt that a more conversational tone would be more effective for eliciting the type of information I needed. This is easily achieved under the participatory research methodology and could be difficult under other methodologies which require more rigid, structured interviews. Thirdly, I believe that in order to find alternative models of development, the community has to take ownership of the process and it must be designed for and based in the local knowledge of the community itself. 31 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND PROCEDURES 3.1 Ecological Footprint Analysis For the Ecological Footprint Analysis, three farms were chosen: an organic banana monoculture, a conventional (chemically-based) plantain monoculture, and a traditional Bribri polyculture. To be consistent, the boundaries for all footprints were drawn around the land and materials used to produce each crop for inputs and the crop itself for outputs. For the banana and plantain farms this meant that only land and materials dedicated to production of banana or plantain, as well as the crops themselves, were used to calculate the footprints. For the traditional polyculture this meant that to the extent possible, only the land and materials dedicated to producing the diverse fruit and vegetable crops of the farm were used to calculate the footprints. The materials used for livestock production, wild game hunting, or production of non-food crops and the energy of the non-food crops or meat produced from any livestock or wild game were not counted as part of the footprints. These boundaries were drawn for consistency and convenience due to the difficulties in applying analytical tools to complex systems such as the traditional polyculture. The traditional polyculture is a highly diverse and complex system characterized by intricate interactions among multiple components. Analytical tools by nature are concerned with breaking down such systems into component parts and therefore are incapable of 32 capturing the complete system. Although Ecological Footprint Analysis is much more capable of capturing the complexities of diverse systems than many other tools, it still simplifies the total reality of the system. By placing the boundaries around food crop production I attempted to present as complete a picture possible of the traditional polyculture while minimizing any bias in favour of the traditional system that could have resulted if medicinals, construction material, livestock and wild game were included as part of the system. These are all outputs of the traditional farm which if included would favourable affect its footprints. Two different footprints were produced based on different measures: footprint per 1000 tonnes (t) of product, and footprint per person year of energy (measured in MJ). 3.1.1 Case Selection and Description The farms were selected according to the following criteria: • Each case can be considered a typical example of its particular production system • The owner gives full support and cooperation to the study • For each farm, data for each production system can be isolated from other systems or crops managed by the same farmer • The farm is reasonably accessible from my base of operations (NUR facilities in Mojoncito) • The three farms be of similar size • All farms must be in the same eco-region 33 Traditional Polyculture The Bribri traditional polyculture farm I selected belongs to a farmer I worked with previously while with the NUR agronomist in 1998/1999. The farm is approximately 4 ha, and contains over 160 species of food, medicinals, fuel wood, fibre and lumber crops. It is located about 2 km south of the NUR facilities in the hills outside Mojoncito. It is run by a family of 8 (3 adults) on about 16 person-hours/week. Food is primarily consumed locally, with very small amounts of banana and plantain being sold to national and international markets. Conventional Plantain The conventional plantain farm was recommended to me for study by Jacinto Dominguez, an assistant to the NUR agronomist during my previous work in Mojoncito, a traditional farmer, son of a medicine man and a repository of extensive traditional knowledge. The farm is 10 ha and consists solely of . plantain of similar size and age class. Weeds and any other ground cover are kept under strict control by machetes and herbicides. It is located about 1 km west of the NUR facilities in Mojoncito. Plantain is sold primarily to national markets in San Jose. 34 (iii) Organic Banana Because in Mojoncito it was not possible to find data which could be isolated from other crops and production systems, or that could be legitimately called 'organic' in terms of certification, a case in the same region, but outside the Bribri reserve was selected. The organic banana farm was recommended to me by Christian Thommen a Swiss ex-patriot who is the president of ACAPRO, an organic banana buyer. According to Thommen, the farm is typical of his organic producers in the area in terms of size and production. The farm is approximately 5.5 ha and consists solely of banana plants of similar size and age class. Weeds are controlled by machete and there is very little ground level vegetation. It is located just outside the town of Puerto Viejo, approximately 50 km from Mojoncito. Organic bananas from this area are sold primarily to Germany. 3.1.2 Data Collection In all farms there are relatively few inputs, mostly consisting of hand tools, fertilizers and pesticides. In order to conduct the EFA, I required data from the farmer on material type, mass, life span, transportation distance. In some cases mass had to be calculated from volume and density because either it was not possible to separate different material types 35 or a sufficiently accurate scale was not available. Energy intensity for all inputs was calculated upon my return to UBC using various energy handbooks. The information was primarily obtained from farmer interviews. Only in the organic banana case was production data available in the form of written receipts for banana sales. Direct measurement of farm productivity was not possible due to time and budget constraints. The lack of independent verification of farmer data may weaken some of the conclusions arrived at in this study. This is an important limitation of the study and a direction of future research by those interested in independent verification. 3.1.3 Data Processing The Ecological Footprints of all three farms was calculated using Microsoft Excel XP spreadsheets. In order to be consistent with and make comparisons to Yoshihiko Wada's (1993) thesis on Ecological Footprints for greenhouse and field tomato production, I used similar format and calculations for the EFA as much as possible. 3.2 Participatory Research The aim of this research was to answer the last research question: does local ecological knowledge provide a basis for ecosystem-based community development which is less 36 impactful than Western Science? It was also useful in reflecting on the effectiveness of development projects previously undertaken in the community and in determining how the Bribris felt their development experience should be. 3.2.1 Methodology Participants were selected on an interest basis. Although this facilitated deep and fruitful interviews, it also introduces some biases (e.g. the self-selected group consisted of individuals who value participation). The views of those not interviewed are an important component of the community, however, due to various limitations (time constraints, interviewer was an 'outsider') it was not possible to interview all members of the community, nor was a completely random sample appropriate because it difficult to arrange participation if the people chosen at random have no interest in the study. Of a community of approximately 300 adults, 30 participants were selected of all age groups above 19 years, 10 of whom were women and 20 were men. Attempts were made to have equal numbers of men and women; however cultural factors made it difficult to achieve. 3.2.2 Data Collection Participatory research was conducted using semi-structured and unstructured interviews with Bribri farmers (See Appendix A for list of questions). This method is often used in 37 participatory research when exploring a topic in depth and any new topics that arise as well as exploring undefined topics (Schensul et al, 1999). This allowed for a more conversational tone with participants with whom I already had worked. It also allowed for brainstorming and exploring "tangents" in searching for values, traditional knowledge and alternatives to the present system. Interviews were conducted with the help of a guide/interpreter who helped find interested participants and translated from the Bribri language to Spanish when necessary. Interviews were recorded on paper and later summarized. The following chapter examines the assumptions and data used to calculate the Ecological Footprints of the three farming systems. A sample calculation is also provided. The results of the two experimental methods used for this study are presented in Chapter 5. 38 C H A P T E R 4 ASSUMPTIONS, MISSING D A T A , AND C A L C U L A T I O N S : E F A 4.1 Energy Intensity Energy intensity of the different materials found in each farming system is measured in Mega joules (MJ) per kilogram (kg). Data from various sources were compared and averaged. Full information on contributions of each material to the Ecological Footprint can be found in Appendix B. (i) Steel Steel is found in various tools used in the three farming systems: machete blades, files, wheelbarrows, axes, picks, rakes, shovels, and deleafers. Steel was assumed to have an energy intensity of 30 MJ/kg. A range of 27.7 MJ/kg to 31.1 MJ/kg was found in the literature (Brown et al., 1985; Cole and Rousseau, 1992; Wada, 1993). 39 In cases where the mass of steel had to be calculated using volume and density, density data was obtained from the Material Properties Database (www.matweb.com). Polyethylene Polyethylene (PE) bags are in used many conventional plantain farms. These bags are placed over the banana fruits when they are still green. The bags are impregnated with a pesticide and serve to protect the fruit from pests and to aid in the ripening process. An energy intensity of 189 MJ/kg was used for polyethylene bags. This figure was obtained from Boustead and Hancock (1981) for PE film from crude oil. The energy intensity of the pesticide in the bags was calculated separately. Polypropylene Polypropylene is the type of plastic found in the machete handles used in all three farming systems analysed. An energy intensity of 114 MJ/kg was used for the polypropylene handles of farm hand tools. This figure was obtained from Boustead and Hancock (1981) for high density PP from crude oil. 40 In cases where the mass of the PP was calculated using volume and density, density data was obtained from the Material Properties Database (www.matweb.com). Fertilizers Fertilizers are used on the organic banana farm and the conventional plantain farm. The K-Mag and rock phosphate used on the organic banana farm are considered to be organic fertilizers. Urea, Formula Completa, and Nutran, were used on the conventional plantain farm. The following energy intensities were found in the literature: a) Urea (46-0-0): 36.6 MJ/kg (Mudahar and Hignett, 1982) b) Rock Phosphate: 4.27 MJ/kg (Helsel, 1987) The following energy intensities could not be found and were therefore calculated using energy intensities of each individual component found in Helsel (1987): c) Formula Completa (18N-5P205-15K20-6MgO-2S): 15.8 MJ/kg d) Nutran (33.5N-0P2O5-0K2O): 26.2 MJ/kg 41 e) K-Mag (0N-0P2O5-22K2O-18MgO-22S): 3.77 MJ/kg H e r b i c i d e s a n d N e m a t i c i d e s Herbicides and nematicides are used on the conventional plantain farm to control various weeds and pests common to the area. Energy intensities for the following herbicides could not be found in the literature. The average of all herbicides listed in Helsel (1987) was used: a) Dithane: 264 MJ/kg b) Evigrass 264 MJ/kg The energy intensity of the following nematicide could not be found in the literature. The average of all insecticides listed in Helsel (1987) was used. c) Vidate: 197 MJ/kg Agricultural oil is used as a carrier and an adhesive for foliar spray of some chemicals used on the plantain farm. According to Helsel (1987) the energy intensity of the oil relative to the chemical being sprayed is insignificant, therefore was not calculated in the EFA. 42 Wood Wood is used on all three farms as handles for the following tools: axe, shovel, deleafer, pick and rake. Wood, as a renewable resource, was treated differently than other inputs. Wood was converted directly to land area necessary to grow the mass of wood used in each farm. One hectare of mature forest humid tropical forest produces 23,000 kg/ha/yr (Kimmins, 1987). Labour Labour was calculated in terms of energy used. Average daily caloric use for a male aged 19-50 is approximately 12.6 MJ (Bureau of Nutritional Sciences, 1983; Health and Welfare Canada, 1990). Energy use by males of this age was selected because, although the entire family works on the farm, most of the farmers interviewed were men and did the majority of the field work. Work hours were obtained from each farmer, calculated in terms of calories, and then converted to Mega Joules for the EFA. 43 ) Transportation Transportation was calculated for both bringing inputs to the farm as well as delivering the products to market. Three transportation methods were calculated: truck, rail and ship. Railway transport was calculated as 1 MJ/tonne/km which is consistent with Wada's thesis and Stout (1984). For truck transport 3 MJ/tonne/km was used which is consistent with Wada's thesis, Boustead et al. (1981), and Stout (1984). For ship transportation, the energy requirements vary greatly probably due to the variation in ship size and type (Wada, 1993). Stout (1984) reports a value of 1.20 MJ/tonne/km, and Boustead et al report a value of 0.079 MJ/tonne/km. To remain consistent with Wada's thesis, this study uses his value of 0.065 MJ/tonne/km which was calculated based on an average of the above mentioned values and a value obtained from Mathis Wackernagel6. Farm tools (machetes, rakes, axes, deleafers, files, shovels, picks, knives, and wheelbarrows) as well as most of agrichemicals (herbicides, nematicides, dithane) and some fertilizers (urea, nutran, some components of formula completa) were assumed to be regionally produced (i.e. within Central America). This calculates to an average transportation distance of approximately 650 km. All transportation is assumed to be by truck. 44 The rock phosphate was assumed to come from Florida and the K component of the formula completa were assumed to come from Saskatchewan (the geographically nearest significant stocks of each). For the K component of formula completa, this calculates to 1300 km from Saskatchewan to Vancouver, 7000km from a port in Vancouver to Puerto Limon and 50 km from Puerto Limon to the farm. For the rock phosphate, this calculates to 1800 km from Florida to Puerto Limon, Costa Rica, and 50 km from Puerto Limon to the farm location. The K-Mag fertilizer was determined to be sourced in New Mexico (Jose Espinoza, personal communication7). This calculates to be approximately 2100 km from New Mexico to a port in Florida, 1800 km by ship from Florida to Puerto Limon, Costa Rica, and 50 km from Puerto Limon to the farm location. To be consistent with Wada's thesis, North American transportation was assumed to be 29% by truck and 71% by rail except for the Saskatchewan - Vancouver distance which was assumed to be 100% by rail. All Central American transportation was assumed to be by truck. Polyethylene bags are manufactured in Columbia. This calculates to be approximately 700 km by ship and 50 km by truck to reach the farm site. 6 Mathis Wackernagel, Ph.D. Co-author of Our Ecological Footprint. 7 Jose Espinoza, Ph.D. Regional Director of the Potash and Phosphate Institute, Northern Latin America Program. 45 For transportation to market, plantain is transported an average distance of 350 km by truck to national markets. Organic banana is transported 50 km by truck to Puerto Limon and approximately 9600 km by ship to Germany. All distances were calculated from the Hammond World Atlas (1999). 4.2 Energy to Land Equivalent Conversion For conversion from energy to land equivalent a figure of 80 GJ/hectare/year was employed. One hectare of land is assumed to accumulate an average of 80 GJ of energy in the form of biomass8 (Wada, 1993). This figure is consistent with Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). According to Wada, this figure is an optimistic estimate. 4.3 Output Energy Produced For calculating the footprints in terms of person years of energy of the three systems analysed for this study as well as for Wada's greenhouse and field tomato footprints, it was necessary to find the energy values of each crop. Energy values were obtained from the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory website: www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl. Raw tomatoes were found to have an energy value of 880 MJ/tonne, bananas were found to have a value of 3850 MJ/tonne, and plantain was found to have a value of 5100 46 MJ/tonne. For the traditional polyculture, which produces a diversity of crops, values for each crop were calculated, totalled and divided by total mass (in tonnes) of crops produced. The total energy value calculated for the crops of the traditional polyculture was found to be 2400 MJ/tonne. Data for all crops was not available; therefore some were estimated as similar crops for which data was available. Some crops were not included in the calculations because energy data could not be found nor could energy data be found for any suitable similar crops. Complete data and calculations for the traditional polyculture can be found in Appendix C. 4.4 Sample Calculation for Ecological Footprint Below is a sample calculation for Ecological Footprints. As an example, I used the herbicide used on the chemically-based plantain farm and followed it through to footprint per Growing Area, and footprint per lOOOt of output (in this case, plantain). As mentioned above, complete footprint calculations for all three farming systems can be found in Appendix B. Herbicide: Mass Used: 20 kg Energy Intensity: 264 MJ/kg Embodied Energy: 264 MJ/kg x20 kg 5280 MJ Processed to ethanol. 47 Life Span Multiplier: 1 (this indicates that the mass used the amount used annually and does not last more than 1 year. If an input lasted 2 years, the multiplier would be .5 to indicate that only half the total embodied energy of the input was used each year). Embodied Energy (annually): 5280 MJ Transportation Energy (see transportation section above): 39 MJ annually Land Equivalent (see land equivalent section above): 5280 MJ + 39 MJ = 0.066 hectares 80000 MJ/ha. Tonnes produced annually: 120 Footprint per lOOOt: 0.066 ha. = 0.554 ha. 0.12 kilotonnes Footprint per person year was calculated based on the total footprint per lOOOt. Conventional Plantain Farm Footprint per lOOOt: 203 ha Energy Value of Plantain: 5100 MJ/tonne Energy required for 1 person for 1 year (see labour section above): 4600 MJ Footprint per person year: 203 ha/lOOOt x 4600 MJ/yr = 0.18 ha. 5100MJ/t 48 C H A P T E R 5 RESULTS: E C O L O G I C A L FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS AND P A R T I C I P A T O R Y R E S E A R C H 5.1 Results of Ecological Footprint Analysis The results of the Ecological Footprint Analysis are presented below. Graphs are used here to illustrate three things: 1) The contributions of each component to the total Footprint of each system in land equivalence. 2) The contributions of each category to the total Footprint of each system in percentages. 3) A comparison of the three Footprints calculated for this study with Wada's footprints for greenhouse and field tomato production. First, a few terms need to be defined: Growing Area: The area of the farm occupied by crops. Land Occupied: The total land occupied by the farm including the Growing Area, and any areas used for packaging, storage, or other service areas. The three farms analyzed for this study consisted almost entirely of growing area as there was no machinery to be stored, nor areas for packaging or servicing, therefore Land Occupied for this case is considered to be the same as Growing Area. Output: The mass of crops produced on each farm. 49 5.1.1 EFA Organic Banana Production The organic banana farm was shown to have an Ecological Footprint of 1.09 hectares per hectare of growing area. When compared to output, the organic farm was shown to have an Ecological Footprint of 415 hectares per 1000 tonnes of banana. F i g u r e 5.1 C o m p o n e n t s o f E c o l o g i c a l F o o t p r i n t o f O r g a n i c B a n a n a P r o d u c t i o n 93 Figure 5.1 illustrates how land is by far the largest contributor to the footprint of organic banana production. Tools and labour did not significantly contribute to the footprint and fertilizers contributed a very small percentage. 50 Figure 5.2 L a n d Equ iva l en t s o f E a c h Input for O r g a n i c B a n a n a P r o d u c t i o n Figure 5.2 illustrates the contribution of each individual input makes to the footprint per lOOOt produced. As with Figure 5.3, it shows how the land occupied contributes by far the largest proportion to the footprint, with transportation energy being the second largest contributor to the footprint, followed by each of the fertilizers. 5.1.2 E F A Conventional Plantain Production Conventional plantain was calculated to have an Ecological Footprint of 2.00 hectares per hectare of growing area. The conventional plantain farm had a Footprint of 203 hectares per 1000 tonnes of plantain. 51 Figure 5.3 Components of Ecological Footprint of Conventional Plantain Production Figure 5.3 shows how land occupied and fertilizers contribute the most to the footprint of the conventional plantain farm. Agrichemicals and transportation energy both contribute less to the footprint and, as with organic banana production, tools and labour did not contribute significantly to the footprint. 52 Figure 5.4 Land Equivalents of Each Input for Conventional Plantain Product ion Figure 5.4 illustrates the contribution of each individual input makes to the footprint per 1 OOOt produced. Land occupied makes the largest individual contribution to the footprint, followed by the fertilizers, transportation energy and agrichemicals. 5.1.3 EFA Traditional Polyculture Farm Traditional polyculture was found to have an Ecological Footprint of 1.04 hectares per hectare of growing area. When compared to output, the traditional polyculture was found to have an Ecological Footprint of 23 hectares per 1000 tonnes of banana per year. 53 Figure 5.5 Components Ecological Footprint of Traditional Polyculture Farm Land Occupied Tools Labour Transportation Figure 5.5 illustrates how land occupied is the major contributor to the footprint of the traditional polyculture. Tools made only a minor contribution and as with the other footprints, labour did not contribute significantly to the footprint. 54 Figure 5.6 Land Equivalents of Each Input for theTraditional Polyculture Figure 5.6 illustrates the contribution of each individual input makes to the footprint per lOOOt produced. As with Figure 5.5, this chart shows that the land occupied is by far the largest contributor to the footprint per lOOOt produced on the traditional polyculture farm. 55 5.1.4 Comparison of Data In comparison, the Ecological Footprint of the traditional polyculture farm is about 14 percent of the size of the conventional plantain farm and six percent of the size of the organic banana farm. Figure 5.7 C o m p a r i s o n of E c o l o g i c a l Footpr ints with W a d a ' s (1993) T o m a t o e s Relative to tomato production analysed in Wada's (1993) thesis9, the Ecological Footprint of the traditional polyculture farm was about half the size of field tomato production, and only 3% of the size of greenhouse tomato production. The 9 In Wada's thesis two greenhouse tomato production systems and two field tomato systems were analysed. For the comparison with the three farming systems analysed for this study, the footprints of the two greenhouse production systems were averaged, as were the footprints of the two field tomato production systems. 56 Ecological Footprint of the organic banana farm was half of that of greenhouse tomato production and over eight times larger than field tomato production in BC. The Ecological Footprint of the conventional plantain farm was one fifth the size of greenhouse tomato production and three times larger than field tomato production. Figure 5.8 C o m p a r i s o n of E c o l o g i c a l Footpr in ts with W a d a ' s (1993) T o m a t o e s 4.5 4 3.5 f 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.05 4.4 0.77 0.24 \3 V \ V \ % \ V V \ \ % \ \ V When comparing the five different farming systems by energy produced (measured in MJ consumed by 1 person per year) rather than by mass, the results are slightly different. The footprint of the traditional farm is one fifth the size of field tomato production and one percent of the size of greenhouse tomato production. The footprint of the organic banana farm is three times the size of field tomato production and one tenth the size of greenhouse tomato production. The footprint of the conventional plantain farm was almost the same size as field tomato production and five percent of the size of greenhouse tomato production. 57 Results of Participatory Research From analysis of the interviews and informal discussions with farmers, three groups of farmers emerged: traditionalists, farmers in transition, and conventionalists. ) Traditionalists Traditionalists are composed of mostly older Bribris, (50+) who retain detailed knowledge of traditional farming practices and Bribri culture. This was also the largest group interviewed. Approximately half of the traditionalists interviewed were women. They are in favour of a polycultural system with high species diversity. The earth is seen as something which needs to be cared for and nurtured, something sacred. They believe the old system would work if not for population growth and a shrinking land base. They oppose the monocultures of banana and plantain which are becoming more common due to economic pressures from outside. "Now with the demand and force from outside, more and more [monoculture] is coming in," expressed one community elder. These farmers believe that monocultures are weak on many levels: they don't maintain soil fertility, they are prone to disease, they don't provide a varied diet and if prices fall or a crop fails they are left with nothing. 58 Traditionalists are against the use of chemicals. They see them as being unhealthy, bad for the soil, bad for beneficial insects, and contaminate the i food. Chemicals are also a big investment which they believe will not pay off because they work for a while but eventually become ineffective. Replanting is difficult after chemicals have exhausted a farm. Traditionalists are of an age which can still remember times when there was no trade with outsiders. They see trade as a means to get things a Bribri is unable to produce such as machetes, salt, batteries, flashlights etc. For them, traditional bartering was a good system, now they see that with no money there is no way to buy food. They prefer to get what they need from the farm, but buy food which is out of season in their region. "The purpose of Bribri farming is to have everything one needs in the home. The store is only for the things a Bribri can't make," explained one farmer. They also buy basic grains if they do not have enough land to grow it themselves. Food from the farm is preferred over store bought food because it is more healthy and natural. Traditionalists feel that they have no control in the market system. They feel that prices of banana, plantain and cocoa are dictated by outsiders and farmers have no control over what price they get or if they will be able to sell their products at all. "We have little control with the intermediaries. They come and tell us the price and if you don't sell to them then you don't sell at all." 59 "Sometimes one cuts banana and plantain and the intermediary says 'I'm not buying any more.' In Bribri [a nearby town, just outside the reserve], one can get a better price but it's difficult to get it there." The good life to the traditionalists is having everything you need from the farm, being content with what you have and being at peace with friends and neighbours. They also value co-operation, generosity, and conserving their culture. Leisure time is also important. Traditionalists take knowledge from development projects and try to adapt them to the traditional system. Their strategy is to accept the projects and their development packages in silence and let them run to completion but only at a superficial level. When the project has finished and development packages (superficially) accepted, traditionalists then judge its compatibility with traditional knowledge. Some projects have disappointed them because they brought new crops but didn't create markets for them. Several introduced seeds and crops have been ineffective, such as the arasa fruit mentioned in Chapter One. They also feel that a development should work closely with the community and not simply deliver development packages. "I think... a project must be based on consultation. When it is managed from outside it doesn't do anything," described one farmer. 60 Traditionalists believe Western Science has value but that it shouldn't be valued over traditional knowledge. The two knowledge systems can mix as long as culture is preserved. "You have to unite the two to find options," said one farmer. They believe both systems come from the Creator. To them development means having organic and traditional farms where money is not as important as culture and spirituality. They don't think they should need many 'things', they should be self-sufficient. They also think they should have training and their children should be taught why monocultures are bad. More specifically, they felt that development should bring universities, health care, electricity, better roads, direct access to markets, and would accomplish this without damaging their culture. Farmers in Transition Farmers in transition consist mostly of the middle generation (aged 30-50, a few under 30). This was the second largest group and the vast majority of them were men. They have a moderate amount of knowledge of the traditional system. They appreciate and respect it and think that it worked well in its time when there was no trade with outsiders, but it doesn't provide enough revenue to be of any use today. 61 In principle they are against monocultures for the same reasons as the traditionalists but they see them as being economically beneficial. "Now it's easier to sell products to the outside; before it was difficult. I see that it is good. I haven't seen another thing which can let one earn money. For now it is good," said one young farmer. They plant in this style because they need money to buy things they can't grow or make. To these farmers, chemicals are bad because they contaminate the soil, and kill beneficial insects. Most importantly, however, chemicals are bad because they are a bad investment. "It is against the pocket. That is, it is too expensive," stated one farmer. They believe chemicals are expensive and provide questionable results. This generation doesn't remember a time when nothing was traded outside the community. They remember the time when cacao was the primary crop and bananas/plantains were for the pigs. In this time people used to hunt more and eat from the farm but cacao markets existed and most farmers were involved in this. Farmers in transition, like traditionalists, do not feel they have much control in the market system: "The most we can control is to bring the banana to the intermediary." They feel that for more control of the market system, they should bring their products closer to the markets and not sell to intermediaries. 62 Their food comes from both the farm and the store. They prefer farm food because it is cheaper and also healthier. Their ideal is to be able to get food from both sources. Farmers in transition see the good life as being content with what you have, having a bit of everything and helping your neighbours. They also value education, training and a good work ethic. Development projects were good as long as they weren't imposed on the community. The projects had many good ideas which didn't work out. "We used to have a good system of planting which worked. Now an agronomist brought a new system and we don't plant by lunar phases anymore," explained an older farmer. To be better, projects need to have better communication with the community. Traditional knowledge should be mixed with Western Science, but tradition should dominate. These farmers feel that ideas from the outside need to be adapted to local needs and conditions. Development projects should bring their knowledge to the table and talk with communities. To the farmers in transition, development means evolution of the village. Change is good as long it is slow enough not to disrupt their way of life too severely. Everyone should progress together and not leave anyone behind. 63 They don't want to become dependent on new things. Training and education is important. More specifically, they want medical clinics, teachers, and more opportunity to buy and sell diverse products. Conventionalists Conventionalists are the youngest group (almost all under 30). This was the smallest group and almost half were women. They have little knowledge of traditional farming practices. They believe that because now people want money to buy things, the traditional system would never work. Monocultures, on the other hand, are excellent because they generate revenue with which to buy things they want/need. Chemicals are seen by this group as being a necessary evil. They are bad for the environment and people's health but show results and when used in moderation are beneficial. "On one hand it serves well because it develops the plants very well, quickly, but it also damages the earth. I think it is worth it to use it." explained a young farmer. "I think it is bad but it is sometimes necessary to get rid of the weeds," said another. These farmers don't remember any time of trade which didn't involve banana or plantain. For them there has always been trade with the outside and any 64 times when trade stopped (due to transportation strikes, or flooding) were very-bad. Conventionalists, like the other two groups, do not feel they have a lot of control in how banana is bought and sold in the community. There are just a few intermediaries who simply dictate prices. They have no preference for where their food comes from. It is economically beneficial to plant some foods, but since banana can be sold for cash it is better to plant bananas than to waste land on other crops. The good life for conventional farmers is to have good health, work, money to buy things, to be content with what you have, to trust people and being at peace with everyone. They also value education and training. Conventional farmers see development projects as good things but they have been generally ineffective. Development projects need to have good communication and have the confidence of the people. "They sometimes clash because they think that we don't understand or don't know things. They don't consult with us," one woman stated. Traditional knowledge needs to be mixed with Western Science for development to be achieved. 65 Development to them should be both agricultural and economic. It means having work, money, medical care, teachers, telephones, cars, police, and a good transportation system. 5.2.1 Comparison of Results Several commonalities can be found among all groups: 1) All feel that they have no control in markets, and don't trust the intermediaries. 2) All want greater, more direct access to markets 3) All want better education and training 4) All see that some mixing of Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Western Science (outside knowledge) would be beneficial 5) All value spirituality and include this in their statements on development and 'the good life' 6) All value being content with what they have and living in peace with others Several key differences in the three groups also emerged from the interview: 1) Traditionalists have the most knowledge of traditional practice and seemed to have the most confidence in an ideal in which all needs could be met with traditional polyculture farms. They also appeared to be most fit to critically evaluate the merit of development projects and packages. 66 2) Conventionalists were the most accepting of the conventional model of development. Although they believe that the use of chemicals is bad for the earth, it allows them to buy more things from the outside. To them, this is an acceptable trade-off. They are also less critical of development projects than the other groups and are more accepting of outside knowledge. 3) Farmers in transition walk the middle of the road between traditionalists and conventionalists. They have some knowledge and respect for the traditional system, but see that it is no longer possible to meet their needs under this system. To them, organic farming allows them to continue to respect nature, as their ancestors did, while earning money from the monoculture system. 67 C H A P T E R 6 DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, F R A M E W O R K F O R A M O D E L O F D E V E L O P M E N T 6.1 Discussion of Results and Implications of E F A From the results of the Ecological Footprint Analysis, it appears that the traditional farm is the most sustainable (ecologically efficient) farming system. It would be wise therefore to use it as a basis for an ecosystem based development model. The current trend towards organic agriculture, although more representative of the values of the Bribris, is less ecologically efficient (based on the EFA) than the conventional, chemically based system. It is important to note, however, that this analysis did not include the ability of the land to assimilate the chemicals used on the conventional plantain farm. Had it been calculated, the Ecological Footprint of the conventional plantain would have been larger. For this study, the ability of the land to assimilate chemicals was not calculated because it was methodologically too complex for the scope of this study. This is also consistent with Wada's (1993) thesis and allows for comparisons with greenhouse and field tomato production in Canada to be made. The traditional farm also produces the same amount or more bananas (from 10 different varieties) as the organic monoculture. A portion of the banana produced on this farm is 68 sold to intermediaries for about 20,000 colones (approximately $85 CDN) about a third the amount the average family needs to survive) and the rest is either eaten or decomposes back into the soil. In addition, the traditional farm produces a diverse diet of tubers (yucca, sweet potato, other native crops), tree fruits (orange, grapefruit, limes, pears, papaya, banana, plantain), fuel wood, lumber and medicinal plants. All that is strongly lacking for a balanced diet in the traditional system is basic grains. It is worth noting that the traditional polyculture also produced almost twice times as many calories per hectare as the conventional plantain. It may be surprising that the traditional polyculture out produces both the organic banana farm and the conventional plantain. There is, however, ample evidence in the literature to support such findings. Altieri (1987), reports that it is not uncommon to find that polycultures produce more combined yield than monocultures of their component species. Polycultures have been found to out produce monocultures by up to 2.5 times (Altieri, 1987; Altieri, 2002; Carr et al. 1995; Hector et al. 1999; Naeem et al, 1996; Tilman et al. 1996). For example, 2.51 hectares of monocultures were found to be required to produce the same amount of food as one hectare of a cassava/maize/groundnut polyculture (Altieri, 1987). In Cuba, cassava/tomato/maize polycultures were found to produce 2.17 times more food than monocultures on the same area of land (Altieri, 2002). This is because polycultures create a more diverse plant architecture which allows the system to capture more light and produce more plant material (Naeem et al. 1996; Naeem et al. 1994). In addition, polycultures are more resistant to pest and disease making them more stable in the long term (Altieri, 2002). 69 It may also be surprising that the traditional polyculture produces such an abundance of food on one farm. Although much more food is produced on this farm than a single family can consume, this overproduction is an important part of the system. The surpluses of the polyculture return organic matter back to the soil, recycling nutrients for the next crop and creating a more closed nutrient cycle than export oriented agriculture. For an ecosystem based development model, a more ecologically efficient farming system (i.e. one with a smaller Ecological Footprint) would be desirable. However competing economic tensions often lead farmers to practice methods which are less ecologically efficient. A method of farming which is capable of maintaining the small Ecological Footprint of the traditional farm while still earning an adequate income for the farmer would be desirable. Toledo (1995), suggests a method which integrates various aspects of peasant and agro-industrial modes of farming to form a sustainable model of economically profitable yet ecologically sustainable farming. It is interesting to note that if the products of a traditional farm (which initially had an Ecological Footprint of approximately half the size of field tomato production in B.C.), were transported to markets in Vancouver, B.C., the footprint of that farm would be only very slightly larger10 than growing field tomatoes just outside the Fraser Valley. This has interesting policy implications for international trade with developing nations. Based on this information, trading with Costa Rican traditional farmers is just as ecologically efficient as producing certain crops (at least field tomatoes) locally. A trade policy with 1 0 Approximately 53 ha/lOOOt/yr based on a transportation distance of 5600 km by ship (Hammond World Atlas, 1999). 70 developing nations, therefore, which favoured trade with ecologically efficient farming systems such as the Bribri traditional polyculture, would not be more harmful to the ecosphere (based on EFA) than consuming locally grown field tomatoes. This would allow wintertime consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables in northern countries without the negative ecological effects of trade with conventional export-oriented agriculture. Policy makers could use EFA to determine if production systems in the developing world are more or less taxing on the ecosphere than locally grown food and make decisions based on this. Of course, there are some side effects to this proposal which may detract from the ecological efficiency of the traditional farm. Nutrient cycling, for example, inherent in the traditional fanning system where locally grown food is locally consumed would not be present under international trade. According to Altieri (1987), sustainable traditional farming systems are characterized by a high ratio of permanent biomass to exported biomass. Presently, this is certainly the case for the traditional polyculture, but it may not remain so if international trade of its products is initiated. Further study would be needed to determine if the Bribri traditional polyculture would be ecologically sustainable as if crops for export were incorporated. Other side effects of international trade in the products of Bribri traditional farms would be decreased nutrient quality and palatability (because crops have to be picked unripe in order to survive transportation undamaged, then ripened by distributors), and social distancing of producers and consumers (which ultimately disempowers both consumers and producers leaving control of the food system in the hands of large agribusinesses) (Kloppenburg et al, 1996). 71 Another possibility would be to try to reduce the footprint of the organic banana farm, which is presently the favoured farming practice in the area. Two factors contribute significantly to the footprint of the organic banana farm: fertilizers and low output. If the farmer were applying more nutrients than are extracted by the banana plants, the amount of fertilizer could be reduced, thereby reducing the footprint. A quick analysis of nutrient removal from a banana farm was done. According to the USDA nutrient database, more potassium is removed than any other nutrient; therefore, I used potassium as an indicator. A banana farm removes approximately 32.2 kg of potassium per hectare per tonne of bunches (Von Uexkull, 1985). The banana farm produces approximately 1.2 tonnes of banana monthly on 5.5 hectares. This calculates to approximately 38.6 kg removed from the banana farm monthly. According to the farmer, approximately 167 kg of KMag (22% K2O) were applied monthly. This translates to 30 kg of K applied to the farm monthly. More fertilizer, therefore, not less, would actually be required to have proper nutrient balance, which eliminates the possibility of reducing the footprint by reducing potassium fertilizer application. To remedy the low output of bananas on the organic banana farm, more KMag could be applied to remedy the shortfall shown above, and more nitrogen fertilizer could also be applied. Von Uexkull (1985) reports that 8.5 kg nitrogen per hectare are removed per tonne of bananas, however, according to the farmer, no nitrogen fertilizers are applied. Either the banana crops are nitrogen deficient or they are using nitrogen already available in the soil. Application of nitrogen rich, locally produced compost or manure could be 72 done at low energy costs. Also, the use of legumes for biological fixation of nitrogen could be achieved at low energy cost. Further research would need to be done to determine if this additional fertilization could increase farm output and how much it would reduce the footprint of the banana farm. The productivity of this farm is extremely low. This form of organic agriculture is essentially input substitution organic agriculture. The farmer has taken the practices of a conventional banana monoculture and substituted "organic" fertilizers for the chemical fertilizers, both of which are imported from abroad. I believe this form of organic agriculture is less productive than a form in which structural changes to the farm are made. Input substitution organic agriculture also goes against the philosophy on which organic agriculture is founded. According to the BC Association for Regenerative Agriculture, one of the organic certifying bodies for BC's Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley, organic agriculture is "an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity," (www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca'). Furthermore, "it is designed to promote and maintain ecological harmony," (www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca'). The organic banana farms studied here were structurally like chemically-based monocultures but without the chemicals. Intercropping legumes into the system, incorporating livestock and composting would bring the organic banana farms more in line with the philosophy of organic agriculture and could increase the productivity of this farm, and decrease the size of the footprint. 73 Analysis of the conventional plantain farm could be done as well, to determine if the footprint could be reduced. Fertilizers and agrichemicals are significant contributors to the footprint. To determine if fertilizer application could be reduced, a quick nutrient analysis was done. As with the banana farm, potassium was used as an indicator. According to the USDA nutrient database, plantain removes approximately 20% more potassium than banana. Based on Uexkull's (1985) banana data, this would calculate to approximately 38.6 kg of potassium per tonne of bananas. The farm produces approximately 12 tonnes of plantain on 10 hectares monthly. This translates to 463 kg of potassium removed monthly. According to the farmer, roughly 4000 kg of K 20 (as Formula Completa, 15% K20) is added monthly to the farm, which works out to 498 kg of K monthly. This indicates that the fertilizer application balances the crop removals; therefore, the footprint of this farm could not be decreased through reduced fertilizer application. Nitrogen fertilizer is a much larger contributor to the footprint of the conventional plantain farm than the potassium fertilizer, therefore by replacing chemical nitrogen fertilizers with locally produced compost or manure or with nitrogen fixing leguminous plants the footprint could be reduced by up to 40 ha/lOOOt output. Although there would be some ways to reduce the footprint of the organic banana farm and the conventional plantain farm, it is unlikely that either of those farms could come close to the 23 hectare footprint of the traditional farm. Of all three farms, the traditional 74 farm, from an ecological perspective, is the best choice for use as a basis for community development. 6.2 Discussion and Implications of Results of Participatory Research From the interviews, it appears that using chemically based agriculture is against the value system of the majority of Bribri farmers. Although many farmers favoured at least some area of the farm dedicated to banana production, the results of the EFA indicate that organic monoculture plantations are not ecologically efficient, appropriate more natural capital than the traditional polyculture and, therefore, are less sustainable. As mentioned above, it is logical that an ecosystem based model of development should be based on an ecologically sustainable farming system. This would make the traditional polyculture the preferred farming system for this model, perhaps with some design changes which allow for more areas of intensive banana and/or plantain production to increase economic profitability. The farmers also indicated a strong desire for education and training in fields such as education, health, and commerce. Several indicated that this was because it would allow them to take control of their future instead of having it dictated by banana buyers, and governmental and non-governmental development agencies. A development model for the Bribris of Mojoncito would have to involve some form of education or training, but more importantly, it would have to be participatory and democratic so that the education and training led to more self-reliance and self-determination and not serve to further bind 75 them to conventional models of development. Without farmer participation and free choice, education and training could conceivably result in increased intensification of production (more monocultures), increased use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and increased dependence on external sources for seed and access to markets (Conroy, 1996; Harper, 1996)". Such consequences would almost certainly increase the Ecological Footprints of Bribri farms, increase the rate of natural capital consumption and decrease the long term ecological sustainability of the area (Altieri and Rojas, 1999; Alternatives to Conventional Modern Agriculture, 1999; Pretty et al, 2001) The farmers' desire to have more control over markets and have more direct access to markets would appear to favour intensification of their agriculture as mentioned above. Here the contradiction between ecological values and economic desires which characterizes the sustainable development debate (see Table 1.1) becomes more acute because it deals with poor subsistence farmers of a developing nation, rather than the wealthy of the developed world. There may, however, be a way to retain the traditional farm and still achieve some level of more direct market participation. Several farmers indicated that they would favour the establishment of local markets and farmer cooperatives. Local markets would encourage farmers to produce a diversity of foods to meet the food demands of the population within the region. This is not unlike the concepts of'foodshed' and 'bio-regionalism' where regional self-reliance takes precedent over reliance on international trade (Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Sale, 1996). There are many benefits: it enables for reinvestment in the community and limits the flight of capital; control over what is bought and sold remains in the hands of the community; 1 ' Further down the path of the Neo-Liberal paradigm, see Chapter 1 and Table 1.1 76 family savings would increase because they no longer need to buy imported food at inflated prices (Sale, 1996; NUR 1999). Cooperatives would be a way for the farmers to maintain their traditional polycultures and still have some external trade. The traditional polyculture farm produces dozens of diverse crops but some of them only in limited quantities, therefore it isn't economically viable to transport them to markets outside the region. Once organized into a cooperative, farmers could continue growing the diverse crops of the traditional polyculture and be able to export some of them to national or international markets. 6.3 T E K and Western Science as Knowledge Bases for Development Model Most farmers indicated that they felt that both Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and Western Science could and should be integrated for the benefit of the Bribris. Much research has been done on the value of TEK in designing sustainable ecosystem management practices and academics are increasingly looking to traditional knowledge systems to find answers where Western Science is inadequate (Altieri, 1987; Toledo, 1995; Scientific Panel, 1995; Barsh, 1997; Shaw, 2000; Snively and Corsiglia, 2001). Resource-based industries as well, such as forestry and fisheries, are increasingly looking to TEK for answers (Scientific Panel, 1995; Shaw, 2000). TEK is a knowledge system deeply rooted in the ecosystem to which it pertains (Barsh, 1997). It is knowledge collected over time of the relationships of a community to the 77 environment including resource practices and the human place in the ecosystem (Berkes, 1999; Doubleday, 1993; Lertzman, 1999). According to Sniveley and Corsiglia (2000), it can contribute greatly to our understanding of the environment and sustainability. Shaw (2000) further elaborates on TEK as being: • qualitative knowledge gained through intimate use of resources • learned through generations of observation and hands on-experience • rooted in a social context which sees the world in terms of interdependent relationships between all life forms. TEK, as a system of knowledge deeply rooted in place which evolves hand in hand with extensive experience giving us detailed knowledge of the role humans play in the ecosystem, can contribute to the agendas of ecological and social sustainability. The TEK-based traditional polyculture has been shown in this study and throughout the literature to be a highly productive and ecologically efficient system. This farming system is knowledge-intensive and uniquely adapted to the local ecosystem as opposed to capital intensive 'one size fits all' modern agriculture based on Western Science. That it out- produces modern agricultural systems is evidence of the merit of using TEK as a basis for ecosystem based community development. Of course, the relative weakness of the traditional system compared to the conventional and organic monoculture is that it is not profitable in the monetary economy. As the process of population growth continues, the land base of the community shrinks and the forces of enclosure expand, and policies are not tailored to protect this system, the traditional option will be gradually displaced as the elders who are the repositories of TEK are replaced by the newer generations 78 educated in monetary economy. This phenomenon is known around the world, and well documented in the anthropological literature (Adams, 1975; Bodley, 1990; Lee and DeVore, 1966; Sahlins, 1972; Shiva, 1995). The above mentioned evidence, as well as the expressed desire of most Bribri farmers to weigh scientific and technological innovations against TEK or at least to incorporate TEK with Western Science for any development model, strongly reinforces the idea of using the traditional polyculture as a foundation for an ecosystem based model of development for the Bribris. This foundation could be used by policy makers, NGOs working in the region, and/or farmers groups to articulate a more detailed model of development for the Bribris of Mojoncito. Incorporating TEK into the development process will not be an easy task as many have found in other parts of the world (Scientific Panel, 1995; Shiva, 1995). For centuries, science along with Western religions have been a source of power and control over traditional societies and their relationships with nature (Shaw, 2000). Even when TEK has been recognized, it must often be independently verified by scientists before being accepted (Shaw, 2000). Integrating the two knowledge systems as equals would require the elimination of this prejudice, and acceptance that, although TEK uses different means of experimentation and verification of findings, it still has elements of observation and repeated experimentation common to science. 79 6.4 Framework for a Model of Ecosystem Based Community Development Based on the results and implications of the Ecological Footprint Analysis and Participatory Research, several concepts emerge as forming a framework for a model of ecosystem based community development. This framework can be divided into organizational and farm design strategies. (i) Organizational Strategies => Devise a form of farm co-operative which allows farmers to continue producing diverse crops under the traditional system and pool resources to be able to sell a portion of their production to larger markets. => Establish local training institutes. The content of the training should be determined by local farmers based on the needs they perceive. Efforts should be made to incorporate both TEK and Western Science in the training. This may involve creating farmers' groups, along the lines of the farmer to farmer movement in Latin America, which would allow for the sharing of traditional knowledge and cultural memory (Pretty, 2000). Priority should be placed on empowering a few individuals to continue the training once educators from the outside leave. 80 => Establish local markets to allow farmers to trade their products within the community itself. This could be done by local NGOs and/or farmers' groups. This will encourage farmers to produce diverse crops to meet the needs of local diets and reduce reliance on imported foods. => If some amount of international trade is deemed necessary or desirable, find links to 'green' companies in North America interested in fair trade with Bribri farmers and take advantage of a niche market in products of sustainable traditional farms. The fair trade movement is a well documented alternative to the conventional model of trade. It aims to pay producers to cover the costs of sustainable production and living and pays a premium to farmers who invest in sustainable development (Fair Trade Federation, 2002; Fair Trade Foundation, 2002). (ii) Farm Design Strategies => Experiment with farm designs which integrate intensive banana production with the traditional farming system. This can be done by local NGOs in cooperation with individual farmers or farmers groups. => Diversify the products which are intensified. Produce not only intensive banana and plantain in parcels or strips within the farm but also other 81 marketable crops such as papaya, peanuts, or coconuts. Individual farmers can implement this, possibly under the facilitation of farmers' groups or local NGOs. My goal in creating this framework is that either an NGO, such as NUR, or the Bribris themselves get organized and examine this framework and if they find merit in it, they create more detailed plans for their own model of development based on this framework . It is not meant to serve as an action plan for community development for Mojoncito, but rather an outline which locals can modify and from which they can create their own action plans. It is important to recognize that there are many barriers to the implementation of even the framework presented here. The examination of these barriers is, for the most part, outside the scope of this study, however, identifying them provides areas for further research and analysis. Population pressure and enclosure within the reserve, government policies shaped by the need to repay foreign debt, and a general disinterest in sustainable development in the indigenous zones of Costa Rica must be resolved for an ecosystem based model of community development for the Bribris to have any significant effect. Hall (2000) describes foreign debt as a major obstacle to sustainable development in Costa Rica. According to Hall, Costa Rica increasingly needs to borrow money for what he calls 'maintenance metabolism,' that is, money needed just to maintain the country's 1 2 A condensed version of this thesis is being given to the N U R board of directors and Bribri leaders for their consideration. 82 production rather than enhancing it. Agricultural policy is very much shaped by the need to generate exports just to pay the interest on foreign debt. Hall also claims that Costa Rica as a whole can no longer produce the food to feed its own growing population. The Bribris are in much worse shape, in this respect, than the rest of the population because they are enclosed in a relatively small reserve and they have a significantly larger birth rate13. NUR (1999, 2000) has recognized this as a significant barrier to food security in the community. During my time in Costa Rica, several newspaper articles were published about the poor state of drinking water, sanitation, and education in the indigenous reserves of the country. It appears as if the indigenous zones are not a priority, which makes sense in the context of the need to repay foreign debt. Several hundred Bribri farmers, each with less than 10 hectares of land in production, cannot compete with the thousands of hectares used to produce bananas in the fertile valleys outside the reserve. 6.5 Conclusions This thesis has found the development experience to this point of the Bribris of Mojoncito, Costa Rica to be typical of the conventional model. This is a model which peasant farmers throughout Latin America are experiencing (Altieri, 1987; Gliessman, 2000; Hall 2000; Toledo, 1995). From my experience working with the Bribris and from 1 3 One family I met had 19 children. In my estimation, I would say that the average number of children per family is six in Mojoncito. 83 the research done by NUR in the community, it is clear that this experience has done little to improve their wellbeing. Although many efforts have been made to improve the farming systems of the Bribris and increase profitability, the results of these efforts have failed to create a better standard of living for the Bribris (NUR, 1999). Ecological Footprint Analysis of the three farming systems used by the Bribris revealed that the traditional polyculture, used for centuries in the region, is by far the most ecologically sustainable production system (25 ha/lOOOt). In addition, it produces food for a much more diverse diet than the other systems, as well as producing medicinal plants and construction materials and allows for more leisure time and community life. The favoured alternative, organic banana production, was found to have the largest footprint (418 ha/lOOOt) and was therefore the least ecologically sustainable. The conventional plantain farm was found to have a footprint much smaller than the organic banana farm (203 ha/lOOOt), but still much larger than the traditional polyculture farm. The use of chemicals, however, is seen by most Bribris as harmful to their health and the environment and therefore conventional plantain production would not be the ideal alternative. As stated earlier, the data collected for the ecological footprints was primarily from farmer interviews and that independent verification was not possible due to time and financial constraints. Independent verification of farmer data could be conducted in future research in this area. This study, however, has confirmed what the literature in this field has amply demonstrated. The main constraint to the widespread practice of 84 traditional farming is profitability. In the absence of enabling policies to counter the growing population and enclosure in a reserve, the traditional system cannot compete with the alternatives within the dynamics of the global market. The experience of the Bribris with the development projects brought to them, which to this point has been typical of the conventional model, is not ecologically sustainable according to Ecological Footprint Analysis of the three systems. This model has favoured the more intensive forms of agriculture (organic banana production and conventional plantain). The traditional polyculture system provides a much more ecologically sustainable alternative to the intensive forms of production. Comparison with Wada's (1993) thesis on the Ecological Footprints of tomato production in BC reveals that, in general, more intensive forms of food production (greenhouse tomato production, organic banana production, and conventional plantain production) have significantly larger footprints than less intensive forms of food production (field tomato production, and the traditional polyculture farm). Participatory research with Bribri farmers indicated that Traditional Ecological Knowledge could provide a basis for an ecosystem based model of community development which is less impactful than Western Science which has produced the capital intensive monocultures of the conventional model. Participatory research also revealed that the Bribris found a mixing of the two knowledge systems to be beneficial, especially if done on equal terms. Bribris with more knowledge of traditional ecological 85 practices appeared to be more able to critically evaluate development projects and packages. From the Ecological Footprint Analysis and participatory research, several organizational and farm design strategies emerged as forming a framework for a model of ecosystem based community development. Organizational strategies involve creating farmers groups, farm cooperatives, and local markets. Farm design strategies involve finding ways to mix intensive organic banana production with the traditional farm and diversifying the products which are intensified. These strategies can be implemented by local NGOs or farmers groups and used to form a more comprehensive model of ecosystem based community development for the Bribri Indigenous peoples. 86 REFERENCES Adams, Richard Newbold (1975). Energy and Structure: A Theory of Social Power. Texas: University of Texas Press. Alternatives to Conventional Modern Agriculture for Meeting World Food Needs in the Next Century. Report of a Conference on Sustainable Agriculture: Evaluation of New Paradigms and Old Practices. April 26-30, 1999. Bellagio, Italy. Altieri, Miguel A. (2002). Agroecology, the Science of Natural Resource Management for Poor Farmers in Marginal Environments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 93, 1-24. Altieri, Miguel A. (2000). Multifunctional dimensions of ecologically-based agriculture in Latin America. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 7, 62-75 Altieri, Miguel A. (1987). Agroecology: the Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture. Colorado: Westview Press. Altieri, Miguel A. and Rojas, Alejandro (1999). Ecological Impacts of Chile's Neoliberal Policies, with Special Emphasis on Agroecosystems. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1, 55-72. Barsh, Russell Lawrence (1997). Forests, Indigenous Peoples, and Biodiversity. Global Biodiversity, 7, 2. BC Association for Regenerative Agriculture. Retrieved February, 2003, from www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca Bodley, John H. (1990). Victims of Progress. California: Mayfield Publishing Company. Borge, Carlos (1997). The Agriculture of the Bribris and Cabecares of Talamanca: The Foundation for the Construction of their Civilized Order. Paper Presented for the International Congress of the Peoples of the Americas. Costa Rica, 1997. Boustead, I. and Hancock, G.F. (1981). Energy and Packaging. New York: Halstead Press. ^ Brown, Harry L., Hamel, B. B. and Hedman, B. A. (1985). Energy Analysis of 108 Industrial Processes. Philadelphia: Fairmont Press. 87 Carr, P., Gardner, J., Schats, S., Guldan, S. (1995). Grain Yield and Weed Biomass in a Wheat Lentil Intercrop. Agronomy Journal, 87, 574-579. Catton, William. (1980). Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change. Illinois: University of Illinois Press. Cole, Raymond and Rousseau, David (1992). Environmental Auditing for Building Construction: Energy and Air Pollution Indices for Building Materials. Building and Environment, 27, 23-30. Conroy, Michael (1996). Cultivating Inequity: Non-traditional agricultural exports and the rural poor. In Michael E. Conroy, Douglas L. Murray, Peter M. Rosset (Eds.) A Cautionary Tale: Failed U.S. Development Policy in Central America. Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Costanza, R., Cumberland, J., Daly, H., Goodland, R., and Norgaard, R.. (1997). Introduction to Ecological Economics. Florida: St. Lucie Press. Daly, Herman E. (1996). Beyond Growth: the Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston: Beacon Press. Daly, Herman E., and Costanza, Robert (1992). Natural Capital and Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology, 6, 37-46. Doubleday, Nancy C. (1993). Finding Common Ground: Natural Law and Collective Wisdom. In Julian T. Inglis (Ed.), Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Concepts and Cases. Ottawa: International Program on Traditional Ecological Knowledge (Canadian Museum of Nature) and International Development Research Centre. El Serafy, Salah. (1991). The Environment as Capital. In Robert Costanza (Ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, New York: Columbia University Press. Environment Canada. (1991). The State of Canada's Environment - 1991. Ottawa: Government of Canada. Fair Trade Federation. Retrieved November, 2002, from www.fairtradefederation.com. Fair Trade Foundation. Retrieved November 2002, from www.fairtrade.org.uk. Gliessman, Stephen R. (2000). Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Florida: Lewis Publishers. Hammond World Atlas Corporation (1999). Hammond world atlas, USA. 88 Hannon, Bruce (1991). Accounting in Ecological Systems. In Robert Costanza (Ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, New York: Columbia University Press. Harper, CL. 1996. Environment and Society: Human perspectives on Environmental Issues. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA. Helsel, Z.R. (1987). Energy in Plant Nutrition and Plant Control. Vol. 2 of Energy in World Agriculture Series. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science Publishers. Hicks, J.R. (1946). Value and Capital. Oxford, USA: Clarendon Press. Jongmans, A.G., van Oort, F., Nieuwenhuyse, A., Buurman, P., Jaunet, A.M. and van Doesburg, J.D.J. (1994). Inheritance of 2:1 phyllosilicates in Costa Rican Andosols. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 58, 494-501. Kimmins, J.P. (1977). Forest Ecology. New York: MacMillan Press. Kloppenburg, Jack Jr., Hendrickson, J., and Stevenson, G.W. (1996). Coming into the Foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values, 13, 33^ 42. Lappe, Frances Moore et al. (1998). Free Trade is the Answer. In Francis Moore Lappe, Joseph Collins, and Peter Rosset (Eds.) World Hunger: 12 Myths. New York: Grove Press. Lee, Richard B. and DeVore, Irven (1966). Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Lertzman, David Adam. (1999). Planning Between Cultural Paradigms: Traditional Knowledge and the Transition to Ecological Sustainability. Ph.D Thesis, University of British Columbia. Material Property Database (matweb). Retrieved May, 2002, from www.matweb.com. McTaggart, Robin, (1997). Guiding Principles for Participatory Action Research. In McTaggart, Robin, (Ed.) Participatory Action Research. International Context and Consequences. New York: State University of New York Press. Mickelthwait, John, and Adrian Wooldridge. (2000). A Future Perfect. London: Random House Publishers. Mudahar, Mohinder S., and Hignett, T.P. (1982). Energy and Fertilizer: Policy Implications and Options for Developing Countries. Alabama: International Fertilizer Development Center. 89 Naeem, S., Hakansson, K., Lawton J.H., Crawlet, M.J., Thompson, L.J. (1996). Biodiversity and Plant Productivity in a Model Assemblage of Plant Species. Oikos, 76, 259-264. Naeem, S., Thompson, L.J., Lawler, S.P., Lawton, J.H., Woodfin, R.M. 1994. Declining Biodiversity Can Alter the Performance of Ecosystems. Nature, 368, 734-737. Neumayer, Eric. (1999). Weak versus Strong Sustainability: Exploring the Limits of Two Opposing Paradigms. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc. Nieuwenhuyse, A., A.G Jongmans, and N. van Breeman. (1994). Mineralogy of a Holocene Chronosequence on Andesitic Beach Sediments in Costa Rica. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 58, 485-494. Norberg-Hodge, Halena. (1996). The Pressure to Modernize and Globalize. In Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith (Eds.) The Case Against the Global Economy. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. NUR. (1999). Exploratory Survey of the Economy of the Talamanca Indigenous Territory. Unpublished Document. NUR. (2000). Program: Bribri Bio-diverse Farming Year 2000 Annual Report. Unpublished Document. Peskin, Henry M. (1991). Alternative Environmental and Resource Accounting Approaches. In Robert Costanza (Ed.) Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, New York: Columbia University Press. Pimentel, David, Allen, J., Beers, A., Guinand, L., Linder, R., McLaughlin, P., Meer, B., Musonda, D., Perdue, D., Poisson, S., Siebert, S., Stoner, K., Salazar, R., and Hawkins, A., (1987). World Agriculture and Soil Erosion: Erosion Threatens World Food Production. Bioscience 4, 277-283. Pretty, Jules. (2000). Towards Sustainable Food and Farming Systems in Industrialized Countries. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 1, 1. Pretty, Jules, Brett, C , Gee, D., Hine, R., Mason, C , Morrison, J., Rayment, M., Van Der Bijl, G., and Dobbs, T. (2001). Policy Challenges and Priorities for Internalizing the Externalities of Modern Agriculture. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 44, 263-283. Redclift, Michael. (1987). Sustainable Development: The Problem. In Michael Redclift (Ed.) Sustainable Development: Exploring the Contradictions. London: Methuen. 90 Rees, William E. (2002). Globalization and Sustainability: Conflict or Convergence? Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 22, 249-268. Rees, William E. (2001). The Concept of Ecological Footprint. In Simon Levin (Ed.) Encyclopaedia of Biodiversity. San Diego: Academic Press. Rees, William E. (1998). How should a Parasite Value It's Host? Ecological Economics, 25, 49-52 Rees, William E. (1995). Achieving Sustainability: Reform or Transformation? Journal of Planning Literature, 9, :343-361. Rees, William E. (1993). Understanding Sustainable Development: Natural Capital and the New World Order. Journal of the American Planning Association. 59, 103-124. Rees, William E. (1990). Atmospheric Change: Human Ecology in Disequilibrium. International Journal of Environmental Studies 36,103-124. Rees, William E., and Mathis Wackernagel. (1999). Monetary Analysis: Turning a Blind Eye on Sustainability. Ecological Economics, 29, 47-52. Sahlins, Marshall. (1972). Stone Age Economics. New York: Aldine Atherton Inc. Scientific Panel for Sustainable Forest Practices in Clayoquot Sound. (1995). Report 3: First Nations' Perspectives Relating to Forest Practices Standards in Clayoquot Sound. Clayoquot Scientific Panel, Victoria, B.C. Shaw, Gary. (2003). Clearcut Identities: Tracking Shapeshifters in Clayoquot Sound. In Warren Magnussen and Kara Shaw (Eds.) A Political Space: Reading the Global through Clayoquot Sound. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, forthcoming January 2003. Shiva, Vandana (1995). Monocultures of the Mind. London: Zed Books. Simon, Julian (1994). More people, greater wealth. More resources, healthier environment. Economic Affairs, 14, 22-30. Smith, Susan E. (1997). Deepening PAR. In Smith et al (Eds.) Nurtured by Knowledge: Learning to do Participatory Action-research. New York: The Apex Press. Snively, Gloria and John Corsiglia. (2001). Discovering Indigenous Science: Implications for Science Education. Science Education 85, 6-34. Solow, Robert. (1986). On the Intergenerational Allocation of Natural Resources. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 88, 1. 91 Stout, B.A. (1984). Energy Use and Management in Agriculture. Massachusetts: Breton Publishers. Tillman, D. Wedon D, Knops, J. (1996). Productivity and Sustainability. Nature, 379, 718-720. Toledo V.M. (1995). Peasantry, Agroindustriality, Sustainability: The Ecological and Historical Basis of Rural Development. Interamerican Council for Sustainable Agriculture, Working Paper #3, Morellia, Mexico: UN AM. Tuma, Jan. J. (1983). Handbook of Physical Calculations. New York: McGraw-Hill. United Nations Development Program. (2001). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press. Van Kooten, G.C., and Blute, Erwin H. (2000). Ecological Footprint: Useful Science or Politics? Ecological Economics 32, 285-289. Vitousek, Peter M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A. H., and Mateson, P. A. (1986). Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis. Bioscience 5,368-373. Von Uexkull, H.R. (1985). Potassium Nutrition of some Tropical Plantation Crops. In Robert D. Munson (Ed.) Potassium in Agriculture. Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy. Wada, Yoshihiko. (1993). The Appropriated Carrying Capacity of Tomato Production: Comparing the Ecological Footprints of Hydroponic Greenhouse and Mechanized Field Production. M.A. Thesis, University of British Columbia. 92 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONS AND I N T E R V I E W E E D A T A 1) What do you know about the way of farming of your ancestors? What do you think of it? 2) What do you know about the plantation style agriculture that is practiced today? What do you think of it? 3) What do you know about the use of chemicals on the farm? What do you think of it? 4) Do you remember a time when bananas and plantain weren't traded in the community? 5) How much control do you feel you have in the sale of banana and plantain? 6) Where does the food you and your family eat come from? 7) What do you consider the 'good life?' 8) What kind of life do you want for your children? 9) What do you think of the development projects which have come to this community? 10) What does development mean to you? 30 participants were interviewed - 20 men and 10 women 3 Groups of people emerged from the interviews: 1) Traditionalists > 43.3% > Mostly aged 50+ > Almost half were women 93 2) Farmers in Transition > 33.3% > Aged 30-50, some under 30 > 2 of 10 were women > One farmer was in transition back to traditional farming 3) Conventionalists > 23.3% > Almost all aged under 30, just 1 was 30-50 > Almost half were women 94 APPENDIX B SPREADSHEETS F O R E C O L O G I C A L FOOTPRINT ANALYSIS 1) Organic Banana Production Input Material Volume Mass Energy Embodied Life Span Embodied Transport. Land Land Land (cub. cm) (kg) Intensity Energy Multiplier Energy Energy Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent (MJ/kg} (MJ) (per year) (MJ/yr) (MJ/yr) (ha/yr) (ha/yr/ha GA (ha/1000t/yr) 1.0 Land Occupied 5.50 1.00 383.54 2.0 Fertilizers 2.1 K-Mag 2000.00 4.06 8120.00 1.00 8120.00 6636.00 0.18 0.03 12.86 2.2 Rock Phosphate 2000.00 4.27 8540.00 1.00 8540.00 534.00 0.11 0.02 7.91 3.0 Tools 3.1 machete steel 20.96 0.16 30.00 4.95 1.00 4.95 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 (2/year) polypropylene 810.72 0.76 114.12 86.69 1.00 86.69 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.08 3.2 shovel steel 2.06 30.00 61.80 1.00 61.80 4.02 0.00 0.00 0.06 (2/year) wood 1.46 1.00 2.85 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.3 deleafer steel 94.23 0.74 30.00 22.25 0.50 11.12 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.01 (1/2years) wood 1.40 0.50 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4 file steel 49.16 0.39 30.00 11.61 1.00 11.61 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.5 knife steel 4.61 0.04 30.00 1.09 1.00 1.09 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.6 wheelbarrow steel 20.00 30.00 600.00 0.10 60.00 39.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 4.0 Labour (144 hour/mo) 828.43 1.00 828.43 0.01 0.00 0.72 5.0 Output 14340.00 3.85 55209.00 1.00 55209.00 11099.16 0.14 0.03 9.68 5.95 1.08 414.97 95 2) Conventional Plantain Production Input Material Volume Mass Energy Embodied Life Span Embodied Transportatk Land Land Land (cub. cm) (kg) Intensity Energy Multiplier Energy Energy Equivalent Equivalent Equivalent (MJ/kg) (MJ) (per year) (MJ/yr) (MJ/yr) (ha/yr) (ha/yr/ha GA (ha/1000t/yr) 1 Land Occupied 10.00 1.00 83.33 2 Fertilizers 2.1 Urea 7500.00 36.60 274500.00 1.00 274500.00 14625.00 3.61 0.36 30.12 2.2 Formula Completa 4000.00 15.79 63160.00 1.00 63160.00 8400.00 0.89 0.09 7.45 2.3 Nutran 4000.00 26.17 104680.00 1.00 104680.00 7800.00 1.41 0.14 11.72 3 Agrichemicals 3.1 Dithane 454.20 264.00 119908.80 1.00 119908.80 885.69 1.51 0.15 12.58 3.3 Herbicide 20.00 264.00 5280.00 1.00 5280.00 39.00 0.07 0.01 0.55 3.4 Nematidde 75.70 197.00 14912.90 1.00 14912.90 147.62 0.19 0.02 1.57 3.5 Bags polyethylene 300.00 188.72 56616.00 1.00 56616.00 13.65 0.71 0.07 5.90 pesticide 3.78 197.00 744.66 1.00 744.66 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.08 4 Tools 4.1 Machete 26" steel 125.76 0.99 30.00 29.69 1.00 29.69 1.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 (12 used/year) polypropylene 4864.32 4.56 114.12 520.15 1.00 520.15 8.89 0.01 0.00 0.06 4.2 Shovel steel 4.12 30.00 123.60 1.00 123.60 8.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 (4/year) wood 2.92 1.00 5.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.3 Rake steel 0.60 30.00 18.00 1.00 18.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1/year) wood 0.73 1.00 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.4 Deleafer steel 113071 8.90 30.00 266.96 1.00 266.96 17.35 0.00 0.00 0.03 (12/year) wood 16.80 1.00 32.76 0.00 0.00 0.01 5 Labour 100hr/mox 6 workers 3451.80 1.00 3451.80 0.04 0.00 0.36 6 Output 120000.00 5.10 612000.00 1.00 612000.00 126000.00 1.58 0.16 13.13 20.03 2.00 166.90 96 3) Traditional Polyculture Farm Input Material Volume (cub. cm) Mass (kg) Energy Intensity (MJ/kg) Embodied Energy (MJ) Life Span Multiplier (per year) Embodied Energy (MJ/yr) Transport. Energy (MJ/yr) Land Equivalent (ha/yr) Land Equivalent (ha/yr/ha GA Land Equivalent (ha/1000t/yr) 1.0 Land Occupied 4.00 1.00 22.99 2.0 Tools 2.1 machete steel 20.96 0.16 30.00 4.95 2.00 9.90 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 (2/year) polypropylene 810.72 0.76 114.12 86.69 2.00 173.38 1.48 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.2 shovel steel 1.03 30.00 30.90 1.00 30.90 2.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1/VT) wood 0.73 1.00 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.3 deleafer steel 188.45 1.48 30.00 44.49 2.00 88.99 2.89 0.00 0.00 0.01 (2/yr) wood 2.80 2.00 5.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.4 file steel 98.32 0.77 30.00 23.21 1.00 23.21 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 (2/vr) 2.5 rake steel 0.60 30.00 18.00 0.50 9.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1/2vr) wood 0.73 0.50 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.6 axe steel 294.48 2.32 30.00 69.54 0.50 34.77 4.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1/2yr) wood 0.73 0.50 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.7 pick steel 177.44 1.40 30.00 41.90 0.10 4.19 2.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1/10yr) wood 0.73 0.10 1.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.0 Labour (64hr/mo) 368.19 1.00 368.19 0.00 0.00 0.03 4.0 Output 174048.00 416730.00 1.00 416730.00 4.01 1.00 23.05 97 APPENDIX C C A L O R I E S IN T H E TRADITIONAL F A R M OUTPUTS Fruit Cal/100a Total kq/mo calories MJ Lemon 20 (incl peel) 5000 1000000 4184 Banana 92 (no peel) (peel wt deducted) 1332 1225440 5127.241 Quelites 25 (est as cabbage) 500 125000 523 coconut 230 (shelled) 195 448500 1876.524 plantain 122 (no peel) (peel wt deducted) 37 45140 188.8658 Papaya 39 900 351000 1468.584 avocado 161 300 483000 2020.872 Orange 40 (incl peel) 100 40000 167.36 grapefruit 33 (incl peel) 200 66000 276.144 Cocoa 229 Powder 60 137400 574.8816 Guava 51 (guanabana) 30 15300 64.0152 water apple 59 (est as pear) 300 177000 740.568 yucca 127 150 190500 797.052 Guavo 59 200 118000 493.712 Pejibaye 281 1000 2810000 11757.04 Chayote 45 50 22500 94.14 Nampi 26 (est as potato) 2000 520000 2175.68 Nami 26 (est as potato) 2000 520000 2175.68 Caymito 40 (est as orange) 100 4000 16.736 Tequisqui 26 (est as potato) 50 1300 5.4392 14504 8,300,080 34727.53 Note: Not all food crops were listed this chart because insufficient data was available for them. The list does not contain the dozens of species of medicinals, nor fuel wood, nor construction and craft materials as only food crops were considered for this study. 98 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items