Extractivism in Central America

Quite often, the term extractivism is associated with two specific activities: oil extraction and mining. However, as pointed out by Gudynas ^{Gudynas (2013a)}, the definition of extractivism should include activities such as intense fishing and monocultures intended for export, such as pineapple, African oil palm, and banana in the case of Central America. All of these activities are characterized by the removal of large volumes of natural resources, of which at least 50% will be exported (^{Gudynas 2013b, p. 4}). These resources are often unprocessed or scarcely processed before their international sale and, in general, their role in local production circuits is small.

In Central America, most of these activities are carried out by companies supported by transnational capital in rural, peripheral, and border regions. Currently, there are 81 territorial defence conflicts derived from extractivism practices, 62% of them in Guatemala and Honduras (^{Bran-Guzmán, 2017}).

The presence of extractive activities in the Central American border regions was confirmed during the study period, from 2015 to 2018. The Costa Rican border regions are complex scenarios where extractive activities, protected areas, and indigenous groups coexist. It should be added that most border areas of Central America present the same scenario, which has made these areas prone to tensions and ecological distribution conflicts (^{Martínez Alier, 2004}). Indeed, the conflicts characterizing the study region are due to an unequal distribution of resources and environmental services, that is, the costs and benefits of an activity in which transnational corporations seize the benefits and local communities have to deal with the environmental and social costs of the exploitation.

We found an important lack of information on the impact and conflicts derived from monocultures in Central America. Monocultures are a “silent enemy” that grows unchecked; it is not perceived to be “as harmful as” mining or oil extraction, so its presence is often normalized, and it becomes part of the landscape.

The current form of extractivism in the Central American isthmus, especially in border regions, can be categorized as classic or conventional (^{Gudynas 2009, p. 187}; ^{2013a, p. 8}) because transnational corporations and private entrepreneurs are the primary exploiters and relegate the State to a secondary role. However, the role of the State is still decisive, since it often relinquishes its sovereignty in certain territories and, in many cases, acts as a partner or facilitator of these processes without assuming a truly redistributive or controlling role.

Extractivism in Costa Rica: The Case of Monocultures in the North

The north of Costa Rica, in the province of Alajuela, includes the cantons of Upala, Guatuso, and Los Chiles, and it is affected by its proximity to Nicaragua as it is part of an axis of intense interaction with the Nicaraguan municipalities of San Carlos and Cárdenas. According to ^{Girot and Granados (1997)}, this region is characterized by its cultural and economic proximity; the border has been historically porous and isolated from the national centers on both sides, which has facilitated the emergence of a shared identity reinforced by important commercial links and cross-border families (^{Morales Gamboa, 2010}). Indeed, these municipalities have very dynamic links and interdependent relationships, as well as a shared environmental system that encompasses a great diversity of ecosystems, such as tropical forests, rivers, aquifers, and wetlands, for example, the Caño Negro and Medio Queso wetlands (^{Rodríguez, 2014}).

Most of the population on both sides of the border is composed of mestizo agricultural workers sharing cultural characteristics. The Malek indigenous group, one of the smallest in Costa Rica, is another part of the system; its territory is located in the canton of Guatuso, which covers 2,993 km², although, in the past, its territory included the south side of Lake Cocibolcaque, also known as Lake Nicaragua (^{Montoya-Greenheck, Carvajal & Salas, 2008}).

During the 1950s, the region was considered a critical pioneering front by the Costa Rican State (^{Castillo, 2006}). The area was settled as a result of migratory and immigratory processes involving agricultural workers and indigenous populations from different parts of Costa Rica and Nicaragua (^{Acuña & Valverde, 2011, p. 7}). However, due to their traditional agricultural exportation structure, these peripheral regions were included in the logic of State formation only when the agricultural border was saturated. Since the1980s, as a strategy, the Costa Rican State has been developing an agro-export model based on the production of pineapple, citrus fruits, and African oil palm monocultures (^{Granados & Jiménez, 2002, p. 202}).

The Introduction of Pineapple in the North

The introduction of monocultures for export, especially pineapple, began in the 1980s when PINDECO (a subsidiary of Del Monte) began using a genetically modified pineapple strain called Sweet Golden M-12, as well as new technologies and production methods.

The expansion of pineapple cultivation in the north was fueled by a series of incentives³ and benefits provided by the State. The distribution of pineapple production in Costa Rica is shown in Map 1 .

Source: National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (^{INEC, 2015}).

Map 1. Hectares of Pineapple Production by Canton in Costa Rica, 2014  

We should highlight that the introduction of this model is part of structural adjustment programs aimed at liberalizing the economy and attracting foreign investment (^{León, 2015}). Through these programs, the State progressively penetrated the dynamics of the region to promote and position the private sector and support the stimulation of new agricultural goods as monocultures. The strategy sought to transform this border area into a “living frontier,” that is, to politically, economically, and culturally integrate it with the Costa Rican State (^{León, 2015}). This new production structure opened the door to transnational corporations in the region, where these firms found optimal conditions (available land, water resources, peripheral situation, and migrant and Costa Rican labor) for the development of new agricultural products.

The atmosphere of economic openness contributed to the transformation of the predominant production structure in the north, adversely affecting the small and medium-sized agricultural and stockbreeding economies. Non-traditional products such as pineapple and oranges become predominant in the region, displacing the production of basic grains (see table 1). However, despite the different agricultural activities and the incursion of transnational corporations and foreign capital, in terms of wealth distribution, the region has the lowest social development rates today, especially in the cantons of Upala, Los Chiles, and Guatuso (^{Zeballos, 2013}), which are among the lowest-ranked in Costa Rica’s Human Development Index.⁴

According to the Costa Rican Foreign Trade Promotion Agency (PROCOMER), in 2014, pineapple production generated total profits of around 865.1 million dollars, surpassed only by the 905.1 million dollars from banana production (^{PROCOMER, 2014}).

Estimates show that the population living in this border has grown 18.04% on the Costa Rican side between 2000 and 2007, and 38.31% on the Nicaraguan side (^{Cubero Acevedo & Soto Acosta, 2010, p. 39}). This was due to the growth of pineapple production, which became a source of employment for both Costa Rican and Nicaraguan workers. Taking advantage of its location near the border, the new production structure used temporary Nicaraguan laborers to work in the pineapple fields. This migrant labor force is often irregular and unregistered, and it lacks social guarantees (^{Rodríguez, 2014}).

Map 2 shows the proximity of the border to the cantons where pineapple is mainly produced and their border crossings points. The geography of pineapple plantations facilitates the flow of migrant labor. Although there are formal border crossings points in Los Chiles, there are many informal crossings points as well, being used daily by migrants and Nicaraguan nationals who work in the fields but live in Nicaragua.

Source: National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (^{INEC, 2015}).

Map 2. Border Cantons and Border Crossings  

Who are the Producers of Pineapple?

Costa Rica has become the leading pineapple producer in the world, with an estimated 45,000 to 58,000 hectares allocated to the activity in the national territory (^{Maglianesi-Sandoz, 2013}), more than half of which are located in the northern border.

Small and medium-sized producers were identified in the border cantons of Los Chiles, Upala, and Guatuso; some are part of Cooperativa Coopepiña, while others are part of an association known as AsoNorte. Other national capital companies, such as Upala Agrícola, Piña Pavón, Exportaciones Norteñas, Compañía Agropecuaria Las Brisas, and Finca 11, among others, are mostly associated with the National Chamber of Pineapple Producers and Exporters (CANAPEP) (^{Rodríguez, Obando & Acuña, 2018}).

Although these structures secure the presence of small and medium-sized producers in the market, large companies are powerful enough to set the agenda, for instance, they have a much stronger influence on the CANAPEP (^{Obando, 2017}) because small and medium-sized producers who own plots of around 5 to 10 hectares face legal and economic limitations in this regard. Many of these minor producers lack property titles, which prevents them from applying for loans or incentives, and the pineapple production chain is pyramid-shaped and exclusive: although almost all producers have access to the sowing, cultivation, and harvesting phases, the smaller producers lack the necessary resources to participate in the post-harvest and commercialization phases. These processes are monopolized by large companies that possess infrastructure, such as packing plants and can meet international export standards and certifications (^{Obando, 2017, p. 88}).

Since the 1980s, small and medium-sized producers have been progressively absorbed by large companies connected with the global market, which are not only monopolizing the land, but also State credits and aid, and their control of the production process guarantees them the largest share of profits (^{Obando, 2017, p. 180}). According to research carried out by the weekly newspaper Semanario Universidad, 96% of the pineapple is produced by 31 companies, and Del Monte produces more than half of the country’s pineapples; 4% of small producers sell their product to large companies (^{Blanco Picado, 2013, s/n}).

Today, large transnational corporations are the primary owners of the land. Small and medium-sized producers are gradually selling their land or leasing it since it is more profitable than small-scale pineapple or the production of basic grains. Between 1987 and 1995, the percentage of agricultural worker families decreased from 20.7% to 11.5% in the country; this decrease translates into the disappearance of small producers and the increase in wage labor and temporary work in larger farms, usually run by “transnational agro-industrial conglomerates” (^{Acuña, 2019}).

Large-scale farms are currently the main source of employment in the region, and they are also responsible for much of the pollution (^{Blanco Picado, 2013}). The interviews and participant observation carried out in meetings with actors opposing the expansion of monoculture pineapple in the north allowed to confirm that, for these actors, the most important socio-environmental conflict is precisely the extensive cultivation of pineapple.

According to interviews carried out in 2015 with members of the Asociación de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (ASADA) of Pavón in the Los Chiles canton, as well as other organized groups in the border districts of Nueva Esperanza and Caño Negro in Costa Rica, there are substantial concerns about social and environmental justice. Specifically, concerning corporate accumulation of land, displacement of agricultural worker families; loss of woodlands; the presence of a pineapple-related fruit fly that affects livestock; the constant burning of old plantations in preparation for new ones, and the potential contamination of drinking water sources.

Extractivism and the Border in Central America

The border is much more than a form of discontinuity and organization of political space: the border is a natural (^{Fourny, 2005}) and social region with particular characteristics due to its location, which makes it different from the rest of the national territory. The present study regards the border as a dynamic region comprising territories divided by a boundary but connected by a series of exchanges and power relations that link a wide range of actors, ecosystems, and production activities (^{Rodríguez, 2014}). These geographical spaces are known as cross-border regions, and they consist of two spaces located in different countries that nevertheless share a series of dynamics (^{Newman, 2011}).

Central American borders are characterized by being scarcely populated since the Isthmus population is concentrated in urban centers located on the Pacific coast (^{Rodríguez, 2014}). Authors such as ^{Debarbieux (2005)} refer to the borders as “human deserts” or “no man’s land” due to the difficulty of accessing them, their lack of investment, and the weak presence of the State. ^{Foucher (1991)} points out that sparsely populated border regions are usually poorly monitored. This isolation increased during the armed conflicts of the 1980s when the borders of the Central American Isthmus became the scene of numerous confrontations and forced people displacements; as a result, the borders began to be perceived as dangerous and inaccessible zones.

The presence of monocultures in these regions is not recent. Since the 19th century, exogenous actors, such as colonial empires (Great Britain) or American transnational corporations (e.g., the United Fruit Company) installed plantation systems in the form of enclaves (^{Girot & Granados, 1997}). Thus, the lack of State investment, infrastructure, and even presence facilitated the establishment of monoculture production systems (banana, pineapple, and African oil palm) in these regions without due land-use planning, which endangered natural resources such as aquifers, watersheds, and wetlands (^{Lavell, 2004}; ^{Aravena, 2005}).

The Central American borders represent ideal sites for the establishment of extractive activities (monocultures, mining, and oil extraction); this is how these forsaken lands became extractive enclaves associated with global markets but isolated from national centers (^{Gudynas, 2009}).

The Agro-Export Model: Dispossession and Accumulation of Land

The State and its institutions are responsible for regulating and controlling the expansion of pineapple production in the country; however, they are unaware of the total cultivated hectares, as these vary depending on the institution consulted (^{Rodríguez, Obando & Acuña, 2018}). According to a study by the Monitoring System for Land Use Change in Production Landscapes Associated with Tenure (MOCUPP), satellite imagery revealed that as much as 58,000 hectares were being used for pineapple production in 2016, a five-fold increase with respect to the 11,000 hectares registered in 2000; these figures are far from those reported by the 6th Agricultural and Livestock Census in 2014. The inaccuracy of this information highlights the poor planning and control of monoculture expansion in Costa Rica. The lack of data increases at the canton level: local governments have failed to register the number of hectares, farms, or companies associated with this activity in their territory. The Los Chiles and Upala cantons lack regulatory plans, which are vital to determine the areas where crops can or cannot be expanded.

Therefore, the State has had a fundamental role in the appropriation of natural resources; their actions or lack of intervention facilitates the extraction and exploitation of nature and exerts a negative impact on the environment and society. The introduction of monocultures in the country was not only the result of the economic interests of transnational corporations, but it also required the participation and complicity of the Costa Rican State, which invested in infrastructure and research to position the crop (^{Avendaño, Ramírez & Segura, 2014}). As described by ^{Osorio (2014)} the state apparatus as such, composed of public officials (city mayors, ministers, middle managers, among others), is far from unbiased: the actions of these officials respond to the holders of power, who guide their interventions and decisions (^{Osorio, 2014}).

The political project for the promotion of this model, based on the unregulated expansion of monocultures, has been profitable for companies and the agro-export sector, but not for rural communities, who must assume the economic, social, and environmental costs of this form of production (^{Rodríguez, Obando & Acuña, 2018})

For example, pineapple production activities are exempt from taxation and considerably subsidized; thus, benefits for the country other than new jobs are minimal (^{Rodríguez, Obando & Acuña, 2018}). During the fieldwork carried out for the present study, when agricultural workers, producers, and activists were asked what benefits they obtained from pineapple production, the most common response was: “We do not make a profit from it.” The documentary “Costa Rica pura piña,” produced by the Era Verde show, on University of Costa Rica’s Channel 15, explains that 43% of the selling price of pineapple goes to the European supermarket selling the product, the 22.3% correspond to the cost of transportation and the payment of tariffs, 25% is for production expenses, and a 9.3% goes to workers.

The government’s discourse is that these companies are an indispensable source of employment for the impoverished villages in the region; however, the type of employment provided by the companies is considered as “precarious” by the interviewees: low wages, long working hours, and the use of illegal migrant labor who earn around 5,000 colones a day, or eight dollars according to the exchange rate in January 2019.

Land Accumulation, Loss Of Rural Culture, and Indigenous Agriculture

In Central America, extractive activities such as the export agro-industry lead to tension between agro-industrial companies seeking to accumulate land and traditional agricultural workers or indigenous communities, who are threatened by dispossession. Due to their extensive and expansive logic, monocultures exert pressure on the local geography, depriving communities of the land, water, and woodlands. These dispossession processes result in socio-environmental, agrarian, and labor conflicts.

Dispossession processes are complex; as stated by ^{Cáceres (2015)}, dispossession occurs as a consequence of the land accumulation process (^{Harvey, 2005}) in a given territory, where power relationships develop among actors around access to specific resources. Access to and control over these resources is not a natural occurrence but a process of constant tension, conflict, and inequality among the various actors. One of the most visible forms of dispossession caused by the expansion of monocultures and land accumulation is the detachment of agricultural worker families from their land or their natural form of subsistence production activity.

Pollution and Appropriation of Nature

The indiscriminate use of agrochemicals and waste mismanagement has important impacts on aquifers and human health. According to studies by the National University of Costa Rica’s Regional Institute for Studies on Toxic Substances (IRET), pineapple cultivation requires around 45 kg of agrochemicals per cultivated hectare (^{Ramírez, Bravo & de la Cruz, 2012}). Usually the most common are bromacil, diuron, paraquat (herbicides), as well as fungicides such as triadimefon, among others.

The agricultural frontier is also under pressure due to deforestation and wetland dredging required by monoculture activities (^{Maglianesi-Sandoz, 2013}, p. 66). The absence of state regulation, lack of territorial order, low or null taxation from these production activities, and excessive corporate transnationalization of extractivism are factors that facilitate the overall process.

Through the use of satellite imagery and terrain measurements by the MOCUPP under the supervision of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and state institutions, it was confirmed that forest cover has decreased considerably at the expense of pineapple production. A total of 5,568.93 woodland hectares were lost to pineapple production from 2000 to 2015, mostly in the north, where 3,192.70 forest hectares have disappeared (^{Araya, 2017}).

In addition, according to research carried out by the Research Center for Environmental Pollution at the University of Costa Rica (CICA), the bromacil used in pineapple fields contaminates both aquifers and land; after the departure of the companies, it would take more than 20 years for the land to desegregate the agrochemicals and become arable again (^{Córdoba, 2013}).

Labor Exploitation and the Mobile Workforce in Circulatory Territories

Although exploitation and labor vulnerability are a reality for most Costa Rican agricultural workers, the temporary use of labor, especially migrant labor, is key in the intensive agriculture sector. Therefore, as stated in our hypothesis, the development model based on intensive export production in national border areas is closely associated with the living and working conditions and the reproduction of the workforce required by the model. Questions arise as to the local and global benefits and impacts of such a development scheme: What happens in the places of origin of the day laborer? How does the rural family economy work in Nicaragua, where dependency and poverty are commonplace? (^{Prunier, 2016b}).

Although Central America is very often depicted as a peripheral region in the globalized system, current production, social, economic, and migratory processes clearly show that space is undoubtedly governed by the asymmetric logic of global capitalism and territorial competitiveness mechanisms; in this context, the border plays the role of comparative advantage. Moreover, the linkage between agricultural extractivism, the connection with the global agri-food system and workforce mobility are characteristic of a development model that challenges the global/local relationship while promoting a sacrificial discourse (^{Gudynas, 2013a}): the assertion that these communities must be “sacrificed” and that they must endure the socio-environmental impact in order to secure employment and the “common good,” either of the country (increase in exports) or their families’ (survival wages).