The Role of National Parks in the Success Story of Costa Rica’s Reforestation
Citation:
Picado-Umaña, Wilson, and Elisa Botella-Rodríguez. 2023. “From Grassland to Forest: The Puzzle of Land Tenure and Forest Conservation in Costa Rica (1962–2014).” Rural History 34 (1): 115–36. doi:10.1017/S0956793322000139.
Importance of This Article:
By the 1980s, deforestation had become a global issue, and from the 1960s to the 1980s, Costa Rica was one country who had one of the worst track records. In spite of this, it was one country in particular that was not only able to turn the tide of deforestation, but did so at a time of social and environmental crisis. This article is important because it helps us understand how relationships between political ecology, agrarian conflicts, and environmental studies played a role in Costa Rica’s reforestation, as well as the role that national parks played in helping to making Costa Rica’s reforestation a success.
Summary:
This article examines the intricate relationship between land tenure, forest conservation, and the agrarian question in Costa Rica from 1962 to 2014. It scrutinizes the policies and institutions established by the state during the agrarian reform period, including the creation of national parks and forest conservation policies, such as with the establishment of the Departamento de Parques Nacionales in 1977 and the creation of the Fondo de Financiamiento Forestal (FONAFIFO). The article posits that these transformations have given rise to a “new agrarian question” that encompasses land concentration and payments for environmental services. It also highlights the recovery of forests in Costa Rica since the 1990s.
The role of peasants and land tenure in forest logging and deforestation in Costa Rica is a central theme. The article challenges the common blame placed on peasants and precaristas (landless peasants) for forest logging, arguing that the logging industry and large-scale farmers also play significant roles. The creation of protected areas and peasant settlements as responses to deforestation and land concentration are looked at. The impact of environmental incentives and initiatives, such as payment for environmental services, on land tenure and forest land distribution, is an important issue. The article concludes that despite some forest recovery, land concentration in forests persists.
This article further discusses the land concentration in forests in Costa Rica and its implications for social inequality. It underscores the appropriation of resources by different social groups and the lack of positive social implications. The Payment for Environmental Services Program (PES) in Costa Rica, which provides financial incentives for forest conservation, is also discussed. The expansion of forest plantations and the various modalities of PES payments in Costa Rica are looked at in detail. However, the article argues that the PES program has led to a concentration of resources among medium and large landowners, rather than benefiting peasants and medium-sized farmers. The article concludes by emphasizing the need to consider the history of land tenure and the dynamics of the ecological question in understanding forest conservation and agrarian reform in Latin America.
While Costa Rica’s forest restoration has had many challenges, social and environmental, it serves as a successful example for other countries. In recent decades, Costa Rica has had a net increase in forest coverage, as well as a major increase in the amount of forest protection. In the early 1970s, 43,000 hectares of forests were protected. By 2012, more than 1.3 million hectares had some form of protection, 600,000 of which are protected as national parks.
Report compiled by Brian O’Riley – article summary generated with Humata AI
An Underground Dilemma in Mammoth Cave National Park
Citation:
Warrick, Alyssa D. “Underground Wilderness? Mammoth Cave National Park, the Wilderness Act of 1964, and the Limits of Preservation.” The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 116, no. 3/4 (2018): 405–41. http://www.jstor.org/stable/45013585.
Summary:
This article addresses how the National Park Service (NPS) opposed the designation of any areas within Mammoth Cave National Park as wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964 due to their commitment to ensuring public enjoyment of the parks. The NPS was less concerned with the preservation mandate from the Organic Act of 1916 and more focused on park development and public access. The Wilderness Act’s preservation requirements were the exact opposite of the NPS’s historic enthusiasm for park development. Congressman William H. Natcher also argued that since Kentuckians had paid for the national park, they should be able to recreate in it as they wished, within the bounds of the preservation rules already in place.
Environmental advocates, such as the Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club, and the National Speleological Society, were concerned about the protection of natural and cultural resources within the park. They believed that the National Park Service (NPS) could not truly preserve its natural resources without knowing as much about those features as possible. They also broadened the definition of what might be considered “wilderness” under the terms of the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Report compiled by Greta Helfenstein – article summary generated with Humata AI
Protection Reflection: Land Use and Climate Change in National Parks
Citation:
Hansen, Andrew J., Nathan Piekielek, Cory Davis, Jessica Haas, David M. Theobald, John E. Gross, William B. Monahan, Tom Olliff, and Steven W. Running. “Exposure of U.S. National Parks to Land Use and Climate Change 1900–2100.” Ecological Applications 24, no. 3 (2014): 484–502. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24432164
Summary:
This article discusses a study that examines the exposure of U.S. National Parks to land use and climate change from 1900 to 2100. The study assesses the vulnerability of protected areas and identifies which parks are most at risk. The findings show that most parks have experienced significant change over the past century, and projections suggest that these trends will continue in the future. The study emphasizes the need for better protection and management of national parks in the face of global change.
Sample Question:
Q: How has climate change affected national parks?
A: Climate change has significantly affected national parks in various ways. Rising temperatures have led to changes in species distribution and behavior, altered water availability, and increased frequency and intensity of wildfires and storms. For instance, in Yellowstone National Park, warmer winters have contributed to a pine beetle outbreak, killing a significant portion of whitebark pine trees. In Glacier National Park, rising temperatures have led to the rapid retreat of glaciers, with some predictions suggesting all glaciers in the park could disappear by 2030. In terms of species, changes in temperature and precipitation patterns have led to shifts in the timing of natural events, such as flowering and migration. This can disrupt ecosystems and lead to mismatches between species and their food sources or habitats. Furthermore, sea-level rise and increased storm intensity, driven by climate change, threaten coastal parks with erosion and flooding. For example, in Everglades National Park, sea-level rise is leading to saltwater intrusion into freshwater habitats, affecting both wildlife and plant communities. In addition to these impacts, national parks are also facing increased visitation pressure due to climate change. As temperatures rise, more people are visiting these parks, leading to increased wear and tear on park infrastructure and potential disturbances to wildlife. Overall, climate change poses a significant threat to the health and sustainability of national parks, and these impacts are expected to intensify in the future.
Report compiled by Brian O’Riley – article summary generated with Humata AI