The Aftermath of the Escazú Agreement: a Failure, or the Path to Environmental Awareness and the Protection of Environmental Activists in Latin America?

Source: Photo by Isabella Jusková on Unsplash

By: Mathilde Aupetit

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao.

Introduction

Indigenous communities are essential actors against climate change, the disappearance of species, increasing desertification and the decline of ecosystems. They represent 5% of the world's population and protect 80% of the planet's biodiversity in their daily life (Raygorodetsky 2018), yet indigenous communities and their lands have been under threat for centuries (Sierra Praeli 2019). In recent decades, increasing rates of deforestation, infrastructure development and resource extraction have destroyed their lands, threatening the stability of the planet at large.

When community activists try to oppose these tendencies, they are often arrested, attacked, or even killed. The non-profit NGO, Global Witness, documented more than 200 killings of environmental defenders in 2019 (Global Witness 2019), the majority of which took place in Latin America. It is in this context that the Escazú agreement, an innovative treaty on human rights in environmental matters, was signed by 22 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Context of the Agreement’s signature

September 2020 marked the second anniversary of the opening for signature of the Escazú Agreement at the United Nations. This little-known regional treaty, adopted in 2018 in Costa Rica, aims to strengthen the rights of those in Latin America and the Caribbean who defend the environment (CEPAL 2018). This international treaty is the object of a real campaign of disinformation, which aims to ensure that it is neither signed nor ratified. Indeed, it is since September 2018 that this important regional agreement, adopted in Costa Rica in March of the same year, was officially opened for signature by thirty-three States from the Latin America and the Caribbean (Wilson 2018).

What is the Escazú Agreement?

The Escazú Agreement is the first regional environmental treaty in Latin America and the Caribbean, and the first in the world to include specific provisions on environmental defenders. It aims to guarantee the full and effective implementation of the rights of access to environmental information, of public participation in environmental decision-making processes and of access to justice in environmental matters (Amnesty International 2018). In addition, it seeks international cooperation to protect the right to live in a healthy environment, which is especially important in the Latin American region as, according to the FAO, 49% of the total area of Latin America and the Caribbean is covered by forest, which corresponds to around 20% of the world’s forest area (FAO 2020). This agreement is also important because, as mentioned earlier, Latin America is one of the most dangerous regions for environmental activists, accounting for two thirds of the world assassinations of environmentalists (Greenfield and Watts 2020). The Escazú Accord was developed over a six-year period, with input from civil society and community groups. Based on Principle No. 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the treaty has three main objectives: to provide citizens with full and transparent information on activities affecting the environment; to allow citizens to have more say in how land and marine resources are used; and to ensure full legal rights and protection for environmental defenders (World Resources Institute 2018).

What are the main debates about it today?

Two years after its inception, the treaty has yet to be ratified. September 26th, 2020 was the deadline for at least eleven countries ratifying the agreement, the amount required for it to enter into force, but only ten had done so. Indeed, although negotiations were led by Chile and Costa Rica, neither country ratified the agreement, which is one of the major paradoxes and topics of debate surrounding the Escazú Agreement (Guzmán 2020). Even Chile, who currently holds the presidency of the UN summit on climate change, the COP25, has not even signed the agreement, which calls into question the country's commitment to the environment (Aguilar Córdoba 2020).

The reasons given by the Chilean government are that the text, which Chile assisted in drafting, is too ambiguous and that it would give rise to possible international requests, on the parts of European governments especially, regarding Latin American progress, and reinforce the dependency of the Latin American region to its European counterpart (Aguilar Córdoba 2020). On the other hand, and just a few hours before the ratification deadline, Chile’s president, Sebastián Piñera, assured that Chile is "totally committed" to climate change before the United Nations General Assembly (Ibidem). However, there is no legal reason, from the point of view of international law, not to sign the agreement. Rather, one could point to possible economic interests behind Chile's refusal to sign the Escazú Agreement (Gandara 2020). The treaty therefore remains open for ratification by countries that have not yet signed or ratified it, but it will be necessary to wait for this eleventh signature for it to enter into force.

The failure to ratify the treaty: a reflection about the lack of environmental preoccupations from the Latin American region

The decision from the Chilean government not to ratify the agreement drew harsh criticism from the opposition and environmental organizations. According to Amnesty International, this long waiting time before the ratification of the treaty shows a lack of interest and willingness to put in effort on the part of the governments in the region (Amnesty International 2020). Matías Asun, national director of the Greenpeace organization in Chile, criticized the government's management, accusing it of carrying out "misleading advertising" for making people believe that environmental policies are at the centre of its agenda (AFP and the Tico Times 2020).

Conclusion

Although it is a necessary step to protect environmental leaders and promote sustainable development in the region, the Escazú Agreement is not a magical remedy against environmental damages. Even in the countries that have signed and ratified the agreement, environmental decision-making remains contradictory. In Mexico, for example, the Senate that ratified the treaty also eliminated the funds for the protection mechanism for environmental defenders, which in practice leaves them even less protected (Mexico News Daily 2020). Besides, in Antigua and Barbuda, and many Central American countries, the destruction of natural barriers due to the construction of large infrastructure projects leaves them even more exposed to natural events such as the recent storms Eta and Iota (Sanders 2020).

For now, the double discourse of Latin American governments seems to show that it takes more than eleven signatures for this unprecedented instrument to really work; this change should also operate through a change of mindset and perception about a conception of development in which economic growth should not be opposed to environmental preservation and life, in all its meanings.

Originally from France, Mathilde is currently a MPhil Student in Latin American Studies at Cambridge University. Before her MPhil, she completed a BA in International Relations at King’s College London, with a focus in Latin America, which sharpened her interest in the region. She is especially interested in Latin American identity politics and minorities integration

Bibliography

AFP and the Tico Times. 2020. ‘Chile Rejects Escazú Agreement, Environmental Pact Supported by Costa Rica’. Chile Rejects Escazú Agreement, Environmental Pact Supported by Costa Rica. 23 September 2020. https://theworldnews.net/cr-news/chile-rejects-escazu-agreement-environmental-pact-supported-by-costa-rica.

Aguilar Cordoba, Andrea. 2020. ‘Why Won’t Chile Ratify Escazu Environmental Agreement?’ 25 September 2020. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/environment/why-wont-chile-ratify-escazu-environmental-agreement/1985943.

Amnesty International. 2018. ‘Americas: 12 Countries Sign Historic Environmental and Human Rights Treaty’. 27 September 2018. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2018/09/americas-12-countries-sign-historic-environmental-treaty/.

———. 2020. ‘The Americas Must Not Miss Opportunity to Lead on Environmental Protection’. 26 September 2020. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/09/americas-oportunidad-para-proteccion-medio-ambiente/.

CEPAL, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean. 2018. ‘El Acuerdo de Escazú: un hito ambiental para América Latina y el Caribe’. Text. CEPAL. 2018. https://www.cepal.org/es/articulos/2018-acuerdo-escazu-un-hito-ambiental-america-latina-caribe.

FAO. 2020. ‘Forest Loss Slows in South America, Protected Areas Rise  | FAO’. 7 May 2020. http://www.fao.org/americas/noticias/ver/en/c/1274254/.

Gandara, Fernanda. 2020. ‘Escazú Treaty: “Human Rights Cannot Be Enjoyed Without a Healthy Environment”’. Chile Today (blog). 24 September 2020. https://chiletoday.cl/chile-rejects-the-escazu-agreement-that-it-originally-spearheaded/.

Global Witness. 2019. ‘Land and Environmental Defenders: Annual Report Archive’. Global Witness. 2019. https:///en/campaigns/environmental-activists/land-and-environmental-defenders-annual-report-archive/.

Greenfield, Patrick, and Jonathan Watts. 2020. ‘Record 212 Land and Environment Activists Killed Last Year’. The Guardian, 29 July 2020, sec. Environment. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/29/record-212-land-and-environment-activists-killed-last-year.

Guzmán, Lorena. 2020. ‘Why Chile Promoted the Escazú Agreement Then Rejected It’. Dialogo Chino (blog). 26 November 2020. https://dialogochino.net/en/climate-energy/38525-why-chile-promoted-the-escazu-agreement-then-rejected-it/.

Mexico News Daily. 2020. ‘Mexico Ratifies Treaty That Protects Rights of Environmental Activists’. Mexico News Daily (blog). 14 November 2020. https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/treaty-protects-rights-of-environmental-activists/.

Raygorodetsky, Gleb. 2018. ‘Indigenous Peoples Defend Earth’s Biodiversity—but They’re in Danger’. 16 November 2018. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2018/11/can-indigenous-land-stewardship-protect-biodiversity-/.

Sanders, Sir Ronald. 2020. ‘WORLD VIEW: We’re in a New Reality and Those Who Control the Purse Strings Need to Realise That - and Help’. 23 November 2020. http://www.tribune242.com/news/2020/nov/23/world-view-were-new-reality-and-those-who-control-/.

Sierra Praeli, Yvette. 2019. ‘Latin America Saw Most Murdered Environmental Defenders in 2018’. Mongabay Environmental News. 29 August 2019. https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/latin-america-saw-most-murdered-environmental-defenders-in-2018/.

Wilson, Kate. 2018. ‘The Escazu Agreement: A Case for Signature’. 27 August 2018. https://pressroom.oecs.org/the-escazu-agreement-a-case-for-signature.

World Ressources Institute. 2018. ‘RELEASE: 12 Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean Sign Historic Agreement to Protect Environmental Defenders’. World Resources Institute. 27 September 2018. https://www.wri.org/news/2018/09/release-12-countries-latin-america-and-caribbean-sign-historic-agreement-protect.

Costa Rica: No military? But what about regional security?

Source: https://destinationsguide.copaair.com/en-ca/flights-to-costa-rica

By: Adriana Ibale Barajas

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the KCL Latin American Society or El Cortao.

Since gaining independence, Latin American states have often experienced violence and political disruption in their domestic affairs; some scholars attribute such instability to the close connection between the political and military realm. The academic literature on the topic highlights the contestability of civil-military relations in Latin America due to historical evidence which suggests that a strong military force has been tied to a pitfall in social growth. The case of Costa Rica portrays that despite having neighbouring states as potential external threats, the abolition of its army has strengthened its political, social and economic development. Actually, Costa Rica’s demilitarisation in 1948 has instead enhanced its regional security in spite of prospective threats from Nicaragua for instance. 

From the years 1890 to 1948, Costa Rica had experienced “at least four unsuccessful coup attempts and eleven revolts against the government” alongside eight ammendments to the constitution due to internal disputes (Wilson, 1998). With the end of the 1948 Costa Rican Civil War, President José Figueres disbanded the army in order to prevent further challenges to his rule from Picado’s military-backed government. The military had in the past regularly been used as a tool by the elites to impose their authority and foster social inequality. The army had not been employed as brutally as in other countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador but the Picado administration had resorted to its use to maintain political power. Figueres’ decision on demilitarising Costa Rica was therefore not an economic goal but based on internal security which also managed to influence institutional development seeing as there has not been significant political violence in the country since then.

Turmoil in the country was also previously generated due to foreign powers’ interests entangling with military control. Latin American elites wanted to attract foreign investments to make their commercial land lucrative and even resorted to yielding control to a foreign power and indirectly promoting an externally instigated revolution. An example of “military facilitated bloodshed” was the Coffee Coup of 1917, the Costa Rican government tried to restructure the tax system and make the upper class contribute more (Benton, 2016). In response the elites led a military coup against the government installing military leader Federico Tinoco as the country’s dictator. This served as a lesson and demonstrated the dangers of conveying excessive power to the military, through the discreditation of the army Costa Rica eliminated this danger altogether. At a time where other Latin American countries were plagued with military dictatorships, Costa Rica was undergoing a period of positive social and economic development. Costa Rica’s demilitarisation aided in protecting its domestic security by generating a stable environment free from internal political threats and injustices propagated by the use of military force. The main threats to the state were either sourced from possible coups or instigated from an external power, Figueres’ decision on neutralising the military resolved both issues. 

The lack of a military force not only marked a difference in terms of political and judicial security in the country, but also meant that the funds previously gone to military expenditure were now able to lay the foundations for positive growth through facilitating commerce, investment and employment rates (Sada, 2015). Abarca and Ramirez published the first study which linked the abolishment of the military with economic success; the scholars found that before 1948 Costa Rica was the fourth country with the slowest GDP rate in Latin America, yet after it became the second state with fastest growth just behind Brazil. General welfare also improved as for example when having an army, 21% of Costa Rica’s economically active population was covered by health care whereas in 1978 the figure rose to 66% (Abarca and Ramirez, 2018). 

One must acknowledge that even if Costa Rica was a politically and economically secure country taking into account its geographical location, it still underwent difficulties and its success cannot be compared to those of developed nations (Trejos, 2008). Issues such as the deterioration of regional trade and amounts of debt owed to lenders abroad cannot be ignored. Despite these domestic problems Costa Ricans still believed that their greatest threat in the 1980s was Nicaragua, Nicaragua’s increase in military strength as well as territorial disputes between the two states fostered a sense of mistrust in regards to Nicaraguan intentions. However, Costa Rica has an ally in the United States due to the fact that it serves as a successful example of Latin American democracy and is simultaneously compatible with the U.S’ system. In this sense, the United States has a ‘dual interest in the continuity of the system’ which thus acts in Costa Rica’s favour and protection (Furlong, 1987).

Ultimately, the absence of a Costa Rican military force has helped to maintain political and institutional stability and hence foster economic growth and widespread welfare in the country. Past attempts by social elites and foreign powers to use the military as a tool in their favour were no longer possible; at a time where other states in the region were suffering from dictatorships and social unrest, Costa Rica was free from this danger sourced from the use of military force. Furthermore, funds previously gone to military expenditure were now employed to fund economic projects raising general welfare and education levels. Nonetheless, regional threats were still a perceived problem amongst the population even if these disputes have not escalated into major concerns.

Adriana is a 3rd year International Relations student at KCL, who is particularly interested in the impact of identity politics and international development in Latin America.

Bibliography 

Abarca Garro, A. and Ramirez Varas, S. A. (2018) Adiós a las armas: los efectos en el desarrollo de largo plazo de la abolición del ejército de Costa Rica. Working paper: Observatorio del Desarrollo de la Universidad de Costa Rica

Benton, J. L. (2016) Eliminating war by eliminating warriors: a case study in Costa Rica. Postgraduate. Naval Postgraduate School. 

Buscone, P. (2017) The Demilitarization of Costa Rica. College Honours Program. 10 https://crossworks.holycross.edu/honors/10

Furlong, W. L. (1987) Costa Rica: Caught between Two Worlds. Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs. 29 (2) pp. 119-154

Kruijt, D. (1996) “Politicians in Uniform: Dilemmas about the Latin American Military. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 61 pp. 7-19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25675710?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Skidmore, T. and Smith, P. (2005) Modern Latin America 6th ed. New York: Oxford University Press

Sada, M. (2015) The Curious Case of Costa Rica: Can an Outlier Sustain its Success? Harvard International Review 36 (4) pp. 11-12

Trejos, A. (2006) Country Role Models for Development Success: The case of Costa Rica. Country Role Models for Development. INCAE.

Vogt, M. (2019) Variance In Approach Toward A 'Sustainable' Coffee Industry In Costa Rica. London: Ubiquity Press.

Wilson, B. M. (1998) Costa Rica: Politics, Economics, and Democracy. Boulder: Lynne

Reinner Publishers.