Costa Rica's Greater Osa Bioregion

Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Towards a bioregional approach to tropical forest conservation: Costa Rica’s Greater Osa Bioregion Thomas T. Ankersena,*, Kevin E. Reganb,1, Steven A. Mackc,2

aCollege of Law, University of Florida, P.O. Box 117629, Gainesville, FL 32605-7629, USA bConservation Clinic, University of Florida, 1200 Brickell Bay Drive, Apt 2223, Miami, FL 33131, USA cCosta Rica-USA Foundation, Campan˜a Osa, Apdo. 1628-1000, San Jose´, Costa Rica Available online 12 September 2005

Abstract

Even by neotropical standards, the Osa Peninsula on the Southwest Paciﬁc coast of Costa Rica contains extraordinary levels of biodiversity and endemism. Despite a 40-year history of conservation in a country known for its conservation efforts, the greater Osa Bioregion and its complex of protected areas face an uncertain future. Habitat fragmentation and genetic isolation threaten the long-term survival of the Osa’s signature species, while Osa policymakers with limited resources struggle to address dilemmas posed by illegal resource extraction and uncertain and changing land tenure. More recently, the socio-political landscape has changed with the emergence of a ‘landed conservation gentry,’ sharing the Osa’s ecological wealth with the poor frontier campesino. A review of conservation efforts in the Osa through the political ecology construct of bioregionalism provides an opportunity to further deﬁne this construct in the distinct context of neotropical forest conservation. In this article we review the theoretical underpinnings of bioregionalism, focusing on its value for neotropical forest conservation, and apply it to the mosaic of public and private lands that encompass the Greater Osa Bioregion. We characterize the complex and shifting governance framework for Osa conservation focusing on the current conservation initiative, the Osa Biological Corridor project. We conclude with the suggestion that bioregionalism’s emphasis on reconciliation of humans and their environment—‘reinhabitation’— an implicit goal of the Osa Biological Corridor project, may offer the best hope for the future. q 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C1 352 392 2237. E-mail addresses: [email protected]ﬂ.edu (T.T. Ankersen), [email protected] (K.E. Regan), [email protected] (S.A. Mack). 1 Tel.: C1 305 503 0726. 2 Tel.: C506 234 3360.

1. Introduction

The Osa Peninsula on the Southwest Pacific coast of Costa Rica contains the most significant remaining areas of lowland Pacific tropical forest in Central America. The extraordinary levels of biodiversity and endemism in the Osa have made it one of the highest conservation priorities in Central America. In the heart of the Osa Peninsula is Corcovado National Park, which many regard as the crown jewel in Costa Rica’s highly regarded system of protected areas. Despite ongoing conservation efforts over the past four decades, there are still challenges to ensuring the long-term ecological viability of Corcovado National Park and its associated bioregion. Habitat fragmentation and genetic isolation threaten the long-term survival of endangered species, such as jaguars, tapirs, white-lipped peccaries, and other mammals. In addition, protected area managers with limited financial and human resources are struggling to curtail problems with illegal poaching, logging, and mining in what has historically been one of the poorest areas of Costa Rica. The conservation strategies that are evolving to address these challenges reflect a more comprehensive and bioregional approach to tropical forest conservation. Current conservation efforts in the Osa Peninsula emphasize the relationship of core conservation areas to surrounding conservation and buffer areas through the Osa Biological Corridor, a component in the greater effort to maintain and restore the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, a global initiative to maintain a biogeographic corridor between North and South America. Such connectivity promotes migration and the genetic exchange necessary to maintain viable wildlife populations within the region and between two continents [90]. In addition, current conservation efforts stress the relationship between local communities and protected areas—a source of continuing conflict that has escalated to pitched battles in the past. The emergence and growing role of tourism and foreign real estate investment in the Osa Peninsula and in Costa Rica has introduced a new suite of stakeholders in the effort to ensure the sustainability of the region. Cooperation between local residents, conservationists, and park managers is essential to overcoming financial and logistical challenges to protecting the integrity of natural systems. Thus, consideration of the successes and failures of conservation efforts in the Osa Bioregion provides an opportunity to further define bioregionalism and illustrates the importance of a comprehensive and adaptive approach to tropical forest conservation. Section 2 of this article provides an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of bioregionalism and focuses on four themes of bioregionalism that are especially useful for developing more effective conservation strategies. Section 3 provides a description of the ecological significance of the Osa Bioregion. Section 4 describes the history of conservation and development efforts in the region, and discusses some of the major challenges that have shaped current efforts. Section 5 describes the current status of conservation efforts in the Osa Peninsula and the framework of governmental and non- governmental entities involved in these efforts. Section 6 explores the lessons that conservation efforts in Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula provide for bioregionalism and discusses the importance of a long-term conservation strategy for tropical forest conservation that fully appreciates global change. Section 7 concludes with an observation on the Osa’s future and the potential contribution that bioregionalism brings to this discourse—on the Osa and elsewhere. 408 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431

2. Bioregionalism as a political ecology construct

In the last 25 years the concept of ‘bioregionalism’ and its associated vocabulary has been rapidly spreading within a variety of environmentally related disciplines. One author explains that ‘[b]ioregionalism is an environmental movement and social philosophy that envisions decentralized community self-rule within political boundaries redrawn to reflect the natural contours of differing ecosystem types’ [94]. While the concept of bioregionalism emerged through countercultural environmental movements in the mid- 1970s, it has begun to ‘influence contemporary environmental politics and resource management strategies’ [95]. Bioregionalism has attracted the intellectual attention of philosophers, deep ecologists, political scientists, geographers, urban and regional planners, landscape architects, and even novelists. Bioregionalism has its roots in Aldo Leopold’s land ethic [2] and strives ‘to foster an ethics of place and create sustainable human societies in harmony with the natural world’ [96]. Shorn of its countercultural trappings, bioregionalism may best be viewed as a form of political regionalism loosely based on principles of ecology and cultural geography. This part explores the utility of bioregionalism as a conceptual framework for tropical forest conservation, focusing on four themes of bioregionalism that are especially important for conservation. First, bioregionalism emphasizes inclusive ecological boundaries that ignore political demarcations. Second, it encourages cooperation among various governmental and non-governmental management and conservation groups, and emphasizes community-based solutions. Third, bioregionalism promotes a rethinking about how to design and connect protected areas in the midst of landscapes fragmented by human use [97]. Fourth, it encourages local communities to foster a sense of bioregional self-identification and participate in the development and implementation of conservation strategies. While these themes are discussed separately, it is important to recognize that there is much overlap between them.

2.1. Deﬁning more inclusive ecological boundaries

One of the fundamental tenets of bioregionalism is the idea that conservation strategies should be framed by inclusive ecological boundaries. Bioregionalism emphasizes that natural ecosystems and cultural contexts should dictate, or at least influence, how humans organize their relationships with the environment. Central to this idea is the concept of a ‘bioregion.’ One well-known definition of a bioregion is ‘a place defined by its life forms, its topography and its biota, rather than by human dictates; a region governed by nature, not legislature’ [72]. Thus, bioregionalists argue that nation-states and other administrative divisions are artificial constructs [3] and they emphasize the importance of other criteria for ecosystem governance. While defining a bioregion can be problematic, as is discussed below, some of the most commonly proposed criteria for making distinctions among bioregions include ‘biotic shift, watershed, land form, cultural/ phenomenological, spirit presences, and elevation’ [35]. In the United States and elsewhere a number of ambitious governmental and non- governmental efforts have sought to apply all or some of these bioregional criteria. One of the best examples is California’s movement in the early 1990s toward a more bioregional T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 409 model of natural resource management. California state and federal agencies established 11 bioregions based on watersheds and ranges of flora and fauna, and agreed to establish ‘bioregional councils’ to develop regional biodiversity strategies [14]. Similarly, a number of individuals in the Midwest have proposed the restoration of the historic range of the American bison as a ‘Buffalo Commons’ [85]. In the eastern United States, an effort is underway to protect a mosaic of public and private lands across five states as the ‘Southern Appalachians Bioregion’ [84]. In Central America, a consortium of governments and international organizations are participating in a project to protect and restore a biological corridor along the Central American isthmus between North and South America, which has been named the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor [76]. These efforts reflect a more comprehensive focus on protecting entire ecosystems, ecosystem processes, and ecological phenomena such as migration and speciation. While the premise of a bioregion as a unit for ecosystem governance appears more ecologically inclusive, there are significant issues about how to define bioregions. One commentator notes: ‘Perhaps the central problem in bioregionalism is that of fluid boundaries and the difficulty of demarcating what constitutes a bioregion’ [98]. Another concludes that some of the more common criteria for determining bioregions may be mutually exclusive and can reflect human subjectivity [4]. For example, a river watershed may yield a bioregion which is long and narrow, biotic shift (the similarity of plants and animals in a given region) usually encompasses several watersheds, and using elevation can yield yet another type of bioregion [5]. Similarly, at the ecological level certain species simply refuse to be pigeonholed into neatly drawn ecosystem boundaries, prompting the need for a term like ‘greater ecosystem’ when defining a bioregion [51]. The difficulty of defining bioregional boundaries reflects the fact that they ultimately reflect human values and judgments. J. Lewis Robinson, a noted geographer, explains: ‘Even though one accepts that regions exist, one should be aware that they are human intellectual constructs. They exist only in the minds of the persons who define, and accept the criteria and characteristics of the region’ [74]. However, one commentator explains that such a perspective does not suggest that regions are ‘arbitrary,’ but rather that ‘human subjectivity plays an important role in determining which level of aggregation is meaningful’ [6]. Perhaps the difficulty of demarcating bioregions can be resolved through a pragmatic approach. As one author notes: ‘By recognizing that any conceivable bioregional identification is a contested and negotiated human construction, the prospect of demarcating bioregions and somehow basing human action upon them becomes possible’ [99]. Thus, as is discussed below, consideration of human cultural values can play an important role in defining bioregions. Furthermore, an adaptive approach to management may also require that bioregional distinctions be reassessed in light of new scientific information, cultural change, or the experience of those engaging in management or conservation of an area. One commentator explains: ‘Bioregional boundaries cannot be pulled out of a textbook or derived from merely studying maps; bioregional definitions must (and will) emerge in practice’ [7]. In light of this discussion, we refer to the mosaic of protected areas and private lands and their associated ecosystems in and around the Osa Peninsula as the ‘Greater Osa Bioregion.’ As is discussed below, the ecological area of 410 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 concern for conservation efforts in the Greater Osa Bioregion has evolved greatly in the last 30 years, as has its cultural context.

2.2. Encouraging cooperative conservation strategies

Another important theme of bioregionalism is its emphasis on encouraging cooperative conservation strategies among government entities, conservation groups, and local communities. One author criticizes the more traditional hierarchical relationships in the environmental policy arena in the United States: ‘In many cases it is hard to imagine a more irrational way to organize resource regimes than the present approach, with many competing governmental stakeholders—local, state, and federal—all contesting resource regimes, both internally, and with their diverse publics’ [100]. Although many of the original proponents of bioregionalism eschewed existing political systems in favor of decentralized self-rule, there are bioregionalists who are more willing to work within the constraints of existing political institutions. For example, one influential bioregionalist has argued that there are ‘obvious advantages to bringing a unified political control over the management of a single ecosystem,’ yet he recognizes that there are major ‘political difficulties involved in redefining longstanding county or state boundaries’ [32]. Thus, he asserts that ‘it appears more feasible to seek close cooperation among the agencies involved in the management of a bioregion than to attempt the redrawing of political maps’ [33]. In light of the fact that the political boundaries that bedevil the proponents of ecosystem governance units are unlikely to dissolve in the near future, this cooperative approach offers a more realistic model for conservation strategies. In the Greater Osa Bioregion, political and resource management decentralization have been coupled with coalition building and community-based conservation to create a strategy that is distinctly bioregional.

2.3. Rethinking protected areas: the ‘biosphere reserve’ model

Another important theme in bioregionalism is the emphasis on the relationship between protected natural areas and associated communities. One author notes: ‘Bioregionalism promotes a rethinking about how to design and connect biosphere reserves in the midst of landscapes dominated by intensive human use’ [101]. This landscape-level emphasis on the functional relationship between protected areas and human society, as well as the relationships among different protected areas, is consistent with the thinking of environmental planners. One environmental planner explains: ‘The message is clear that Nature does not recognize Man’s laws and boundaries and that laws by themselves do not change human habits and traditions. Protected area management must therefore consider the physical and social environment of the broader region if it is to be effective’ [47]. The ‘biosphere reserve’ concept, promoted by United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Man and Biosphere Reserve Program, is perhaps the most popular conceptual framework for ecosystem governance [62]. The simple but elegant concept of human-ecosystem interaction envisioned by the nested trilogy of core area, buffer zone, and transition zone seeks to integrate humans and nature from the outset [11]. In this three-tiered land-use strategy the inner preservation core is protected by T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 411 separate buffer and transition zones that serve as sites for resource conservation and scientific research and laboratories for experiments in sustainable resources use and development [88]. The buffer areas permit limited levels of use without imposing the strict limitations of the protected area or the more human dominated land uses of the general region [40]. Much like bioregionalism, the idea of the biosphere reserve reflects the importance of the cultural dimension to conservation strategies. One environmental planner explains that ‘although protected areas are primarily for the protection of natural species and systems, the whole process of defining differing types of land tenure, controlling and use by legislation and deciding the positions of boundaries is entirely a human cultural concept’ [41]. Thus, he emphasizes that these cultural concepts must be viewed as ‘abstract tools which assist in wise physical management of the total landscape, with strictly protected areas being just part of the overall pattern of balanced land use’ [42]. One of the key advantages of the biosphere reserve concept for developing countries is the accepted recognition that management requires incorporating the economic needs of area residents into the protected areas planning process and forging links between the reserves and local residents [89]. One environmental planner explains that in order for effective management of a protected area to occur, ‘its whole physical social and economic relationship with the surrounding regions must be carefully considered and necessary actions taken to ensure wise management of the total landscape’ [43]. He further explains: ‘Too often, the legal establishment of a protected area is seen as the sole target and its achievement is hailed as a total success for conservation’ [44]. In addition to stressing the importance of the relationship between human communities and protected areas, bioregionalism emphasizes the importance of the relationships between protected areas. Garratt notes that protected areas ‘cannot be seen as islands which exist in isolation from their surroundings’ and that ‘the mutual relationships and linkages between the adjacent land must be understood and applied to management’ [45]. Conservation biologists view linkages and corridors between natural areas as essential for the interchange of populations between them, in order to ensure that species will not suffer isolation and inbreeding depression [91]. Thus, consideration of the extent of physical habitat connections between natural areas, often referred to as connectivity, is essential for developing effective long-term conservation strategies [34].

2.4. Encouraging local participation and bioregional self-identiﬁcation

Another important contribution of bioregionalism lies in the reafﬁrmation of the cultural dimension to conservation. Cultural and individual perceptions of what constitutes a region can vary dramatically. This idea is particularly true from the standpoint of cultural geography where regions may or may not be perceived along the same line as ecosystems. For example, the mainland of the tiny country of Belize is ecologically connected to the Central American Isthmus, yet it has historically enjoyed a cultural and linguistic afﬁnity that is distinctly Caribbean. Similarly, the city of Orlando, Florida lies at the extreme headwater of a watershed-based ecosystem that terminates in South Florida as the Everglades, yet residents of Orlando consider themselves Central Floridians. These examples illustrate that there is an important cultural dimension to bioregionalism that may confound ecological boundaries. 412 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431

In addition, it is necessary that there be some human identification with the landscape and its bioregional attributes in order for local conservation initiatives to be successful. This notion is reflected in the bioregionalist-coined term ‘reinhabitation’. Two early and highly influential bioregionalists defined reinhabitation: Reinhabitation means learning to live-in-place in an area that has been disrupted and injured through past exploitation. It involves becoming native to a place through becoming aware of the particular ecological relationships that operate within and around it. It means understanding activities and evolving social behavior that will enrich the life of that place, restore its life-supporting systems, and establish an ecologically and social sustainable pattern of existence with it [13]. This formulation of reinhabitation suggests that by developing a sense of identity with a bioregion, humans living near protected areas are more likely to take an active role in facilitating the protection and management of these areas. One commentator explains that by ‘[a]ccepting the fact that ‘natural’ regions have begun to give way in people’s lives and consciousness to functional (i.e. cultural) regions, we should resolve to take advantage of whatever potential these hold for developing an attitude of ecological and social responsibility’ [8]. The early Costa Rican colonists on the Osa were landless campesinos (‘peasant farmers’) whose relationship to the forest was characterized by conquest and subjugation, a mindset reinforced by agrarian reform laws. A corollary of encouraging local self-identification with bioregions is the importance of encouraging the participation of local communities and individuals in the decision-making process. One author notes that ‘[b]ioregionalization is partly fueled by the accurate perception that the resolution of conflicts related to natural resource regimes will be difficult if not impossible if decisions are not widely perceived as legitimate in the affected region’ [102]. An environmental planner further explains: ‘Successful integration of protected area management with management of other land requires adequate systems for involvement of local people and other organizations. These systems must be designed to suit local needs and to encourage involvement at all levels’ [46]. For example, the bioregional organization that took place in the 1990s in California strived to create governance structures that ‘establish environmental sustainability and local social choice as joint priorities under ‘local’ control—not only the control of municipal or county government but civil society, too’ [75]. Thus, bioregionalism strives to implement large- scale goals through action and participation at the local level. As one leading bioregionalist author notes, the colloquial saying ‘think globally, act locally’ can be restated as ‘think biospherically, act bioregionally’[12]. Despite its countercultural baggage, and practical difficulties such as defining bioregions, bioregionalism remains a viable conceptual framework to approach ecosystem governance within the constraints of contemporary political sovereignty. In Costa Rica, the government has divided the country into 11 regional conservation areas, based loosely on bioregional boundary principles. One conservation area website explains: ‘Each of the different Conservation Areas is in a different evolutionary and development stage, adapting its model to the characteristics of the region where it is located’ [63]. Due to the intense national and international interest, the Osa Conservation Area may be the most bioregionally evolved. Thus, the conservation experience of the Osa has great potential to T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 413 serve as a model for future conservation strategies throughout Costa Rica as well as other tropical areas.

3. The ecological signiﬁcance of the greater Osa Bioregion

Located in the Puntarenas Province along the southwestern coast of Costa Rica, and bordered by the Golfo Dulce (‘Sweet Gulf’), the bioregion that includes the Osa Peninsula (hereinafter ‘Greater Osa Bioregion’ or ‘Osa’) contains extremely wet natural systems that evolved in partial isolation from the drier parts of the Central American Paciﬁc Coast (See Map 1) [114]. As a result, the rainforests and other terrestrial, freshwater, and marine

Map 1. Greater Osa Bioregion. 414 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431

Map 2. Levels of bioregional protection under Costa Rican Law. environments of the Osa are among the most interesting and species-rich in Central America [105]. These rich biological resources are located within and around a network of protected areas, which receive different levels of legal protection under Costa Rican law (See Map 2). Corcovado National Park and Piedras Blancas National Park have the greatest levels of legal protection and may be thought of as core areas. Similarly Isla del Canõ Biological reserve, an island located about 17 km off the Pacific coast, and the associated marine protected area, have strong legal protection. The Golfo Dulce, one of only four tropical fjords worldwide, separates Corcovado and Piedras Blancas National Parks. These two parks are nested within the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, a controversial protected area category that receives less legal protection and includes private lands. The Golfito Wildlife Refuge, across the Golfo Dulce from the Osa Peninsula, has received very little attention. To the North, where the Osa Peninsula joins the mainland on the Pacific Coast, is the Sierpe-Terraba National Wetland, a vast mangrove area that has been designated as a wetland of international significance under the RAMSAR Convention. The bioregion also includes the Guaymı´ de Osa Indigenous Reserve that is located in the heart of the Peninsula. This jurisdictional mosaic of areas falls under the management of the Osa T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 415

Conservation Area (i.e. Area de Conservacion Osa, hereinafter ‘ACOSA’), the regional agency representing the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MINAE) in the Osa. As is discussed later in this article, current conservation efforts are focusing on maintaining the biological corridor that links these protected areas together, and ensuring that these remain connected to other protected areas in Costa Rica and Central America. The Greater Osa Bioregion has been described as one of the most biologically intense places on earth [115]. This is partly due to the fact that the Central American Isthmus serves as a biological corridor between North and South America, and Costa Rica represents the continental transition area along the isthmus [110]. The Osa’s flora has strong affinities with the Choco´ region of northwestern South America as well as the Venezuelan Amazon [53]. In addition, the area around the Golfo Dulce was a natural refuge cut off from the mainland during glacial periods [111]. These circumstances led to accelerated rates of speciation, and many new species probably evolved in the Osa’s forests [112]. This resulted in a biodiversity ‘hot spot’ containing extraordinary levels of endemism [113]. One study indicates that the Osa’s upland forest is characterized by the complete absence of dominance by one particular species [54]. The region contains at least 13 major ecosystems, but it has been estimated that detailed studies will most likely yield 25–30 discernible vegetation associations [55]. According to the Holdridge Life Zone System, one of the leading systems of ecosystem classification used in the tropics, the main life zones in the region are the Tropical Wet Forest, the Tropical Moist Forest, and the Tropical Premontane Wet Forest [106]. The Osa contains the finest example of lowland tropical wet rainforest in Central America, and it is estimated that at least fifty-percent of Costa Rica’s species are found in this area. In terms of plant life, 2709 species of vascular plants have been recorded in the Osa [107], but some biologists have estimated that there are 4000–5000 vascular plant species in the region [61]. The Osa contains over 700 tree species, the greatest trees species diversity in all of Central America, and represents one-fourth of all the tree species in Costa Rica [108]. An estimated 49 species of trees in the area are in danger of extinction, at least 12 of which are endemic to Costa Rica [80]. The abundant rainfall coupled with a short 3-month dry season seems to be ideal for tree growth, which helps explain why the Osa is one of the most impressive forests in Central America [56]. These forests exemplify the popular conception of the tropical rain forest, with a multitude of species, very tall trees, spectacular buttresses, large woody vines, and abundant herbaceous vines [57]. One group of scientists reported that the most outstanding feature of their study site in the Osa Peninsula is the extreme height of the forest; they encountered 22 species over 50 m tall, five species that exceeded 60 m, and one, Minquartia guianensis, that reached 73 m [58]. The largest known tree in Central America is an example of Ceiba pentandra measuring 80 m tall, 3 m in diameter, and with 10 m tall buttresses, which occurs on the Corcovado plain [60]. In addition to rich plant biodiversity, the Osa contains an astounding variety of animal species. Biologists estimate that the area contains approximately 10,000 species of insects, 140 species of mammals, 367 species of birds [93], 117 species of amphibians and reptiles [87], and forty species of freshwater fish [77]. The Greater Osa Bioregion contains the most significant populations of large endangered mammals such as jaguars, pumas, ocelots, white-lipped peccaries, and tapirs on the Pacific coast of Central America. 416 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431

In addition to endangered mammals, there are relatively large populations of endangered birds in the region, including scarlet macaws and the great curassow. The Greater Osa Bioregion is the home of an endemic species of bird (Habia atrimaxillaris) and 17 endemic subspecies of birds [78]. According to Dr Larry Gilbert, a well-known biologist from the University of Texas—Austin, the Osa’s ‘biological diversity.ranks [the Osa] above all Pacific lowland rain forests in the Americas as a global priority for conservation’ [48]. The Greater Osa Bioregion is also surrounded by important freshwater and marine resources. In addition to the Sierpe-Terraba National Wetland, the largest mangrove forest on the Pacific coast of Central America, mangroves also occur in association with the tidal estuaries of the Llorona, Corcovado, Sirena, Esquinas, and Coto rivers [109]. Lake Corcovado is one of the region’s notable hydrological features, and encompasses approximately 10 km near the center of the park. An extensive floating mat of herbaceous vegetation surrounds the relatively small, open-water section of the lagoon, and a thick Yolillo palm forest (Raphia taedigera) encircles this swampy area [59]. The Osa also contains a large system of rivers, including the Madrigal, Claro, Sirena, Corcovado, Llorona, Esquinas, and Coto rivers. An extensive network of tributaries extends from these rivers. The Golfo Dulce, to the east, is one of only four fjords in the tropics worldwide, and although little studied, its great depth and still waters harbor marine environments unknown elsewhere in the region. The Pacific marine waters to the west of the Osa Peninsula are prime habitat for large numbers of marine mammals (four species of dolphins and four species of whales have been sighted here), and impressive coral reefs fringe Corcovado National Park and the Isla del Canõ. The coral reefs surrounding Isla del Canõ are comparable to the best-developed reefs in Panama, Colombia, and the Galapagos [52]. These unique marine environments have been targeted as being some of the most important for conservation in the country [79]. In addition, the beaches of the Osa Peninsula are important nesting sites for four species of endangered sea turtles. Scientists are still identifying new and unique biological phenomenon that occur in the greater Osa. In the early 1990s scientists discovered that the marine waters surrounding the Osa may be the only place in the world where breeding populations of northern and southern humpback whales overlap [1]. Recently, the highly endangered harpy eagle (Harpia harpia) believed to be extirpated, was confirmed to still exist in Corcovado National Park or to have returned [36]. Moreover, biologists have suggested that due to its climate, topography, location, and great variety of ecosystems, the Osa Peninsula is especially conducive to the development of new species [50]. The Osa also has special significance because of its opportunities for research. Because different areas of Corcovado National Park were subjected to different land uses, and because these uses have been documented, Corcovado provides an excellent opportunity for the study of secondary succession and restoration in disturbed tropical forest. The presence of healthy populations of large fauna in a large conservation area is also very significant. According to Dr Gilbert: ‘Sirena Biological Station in Corcovado Park provides an opportunity, possibly unique in the Americas, to study simultaneously viable populations of peccary, tapir, puma and jaguar and their relationships.. The Osa may provide our best hope for understanding the ecological relationships of large animals, and T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 417 how best to manage reserves for their survival’ [49]. As is discussed below, the high level of scientific interest in the Osa’s rich natural resources has been an important factor in catalyzing conservation efforts in the area. For similar reasons, the eco-political context of the Osa makes it a laboratory for bioregional experimentation.

4. History of development and conservation of the Osa Peninsula and current threats

In order to appreciate the bioregional context of current conservation efforts in the Osa, it is important to develop a basic understanding of the history of land use, development, and conservation in the region. During the last 40 years, land use disputes in the greater Osa, particularly in the area surrounding Corcovado National Park, have epitomized the tensions between conservation and development in Costa Rica. Nevertheless, the government of Costa Rica, with the support and assistance of conservation organizations and concerned individuals, has established and managed protected natural areas to conserve the natural resources of the Osa Peninsula, beginning in 1975 with the creation of Corcovado National Park. This section ﬁrst provides an overview of the history of development and conservation in the Osa and discusses some of the limitations of the initial protected area approach. It also describes current threats to biodiversity that have led to more bioregional conservation strategies, culminating in the Osa Biological Corridor project.

4.1. History of development and conservation

The original pre-Columbian people of the Osa Peninsula lived in relatively dispersed settlements and the forest was the source of most elements of their survival [16]. However, the Osa’s native population disappeared centuries before the first modern colonization began on the Peninsula’s gulf coast [17]. During the colonial period, Spanish settlers established lasting population centers mainly in the Central Valley and areas of the Pacific Northwest. The remote Osa was largely ignored [18]. The first organized settlement began in 1848 close to the present-day location of the Peninsula’s principal town of Puerto Jimenez. During the colonial era, actual decrease in forest cover in the Osa was minimal, especially in lowland humid and wet life zones that were unappealing to Spanish colonists [19]. Development of the region began very slowly, most likely due to the high rainfall, steep slopes, and relatively poor soils that render most of the Osa Peninsula inappropriate for agriculture or ranching [20]. However, in 1937 placer gold deposits were discovered on the Osa Peninsula and as a result the ‘small sleepy hamlet’ of Puerto Jimenez gradually transformed into a slightly larger frontier town, complete with ‘a disproportionate number of bars and brothels’ [21]. Thus, the Osa began to develop its reputation as a rugged frontier area, with a mythology comparable to that of the mining towns of the western United States. The early Costa Rican land use paradigm, based on the Latin American agrarian reform model, was that land should be worked and ‘improved’ if it were to serve the country’s interest [22]. Regions with lowland wet forest were often replaced by agricultural ‘improvements’ in the form of cattle pasture and monocultures, such as banana and African oil palm plantations [23]. Although a subsidiary of United Fruit Company had 418 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 acquired much of the Osa Peninsula from the Costa Rican government by the 1920s, it determined that problems with transportation and irrigation due to the region’s isolation were serious enough that it did not wish to invest further in developing plantations [24]. Shortly thereafter, United Fruit awarded its lands in the Osa to a retiring chief engineer [25]. Later, United States investors acquired these lands and eventually registered a timber company, Osa Productos Forestales, with the Costa Rican government in 1959 [26]. A number of complications delayed the extraction of timber resources from the Osa. One historian explains: ‘Despite an abundance of potentially valuable timber species, Costa Rica’s mixed-species forests, untested wood properties, lack of forestry technicians, inadequate roads and sawmills, land titling problems, and absence of public sector financial support have all hindered the development of forest industries’ [27]. In addition, in the 1970s major disputes arose between Osa Productos Forestales and precaristas (‘precarious ones’), the untitled squatters who established small agricultural plots on the timber company’s land. These precaristas sought to gain legal title through a Costa Rican homesteading law that awarded land to those who ‘improved’ unused lands through agricultural development. By the mid-1970s this conflict had turned violent, and the resulting tension provided the political momentum that helped catalyze the creation of Corcovado National Park. Corcovado National Park was created as the result of a national and international campaign in the 1970s to save the biological resources of the Corcovado Basin from imminent threats posed by both agricultural settlers and Osa Productos Forestales. It was also a means to defuse serious and escalating conflicts between settlers and the company. Scientists had recognized the exceptional biological wealth of Corcovado during the 1960s, and the campaign for the creation of the park was waged principally by biologists working in the area and the Costa Rican National Parks Service, with the active support of international conservation organizations. While a detailed history of the developments leading up to the creation of Corcovado National Park is beyond the scope of this article, this history has been well documented by Catherine Anne Christen, an environmental historian [31]. The establishment of Corcovado National Park required the expropriation of a large portion of the holdings of Osa Productos Forestales and the resettlement of small farmers onto other lands, an act which led to a massive demonstration in the country’s capital. Although moved to action by the conflict, the president of Costa Rica, Daniel Oduber, had also been convinced by conservationists of the need to protect the forests of the Osa, and gave the order to create Corcovado National Park. The Institute of Lands and Colonization (ITCO), the Costa Rican land reform agency, undertook the expropriation of company lands. ITCO worked closely with the Park Service to create Corcovado National Park and re-settle the colonists found within its boundaries, while retaining control over former company lands outside the park. The creation of Corcovado National Park was a milestone in the history of conservation in Costa Rica and the world because it marked the explicit recognition of conservation as a priority in the nation’s development process. This commitment was demonstrated by the very difficult governmental decision to favor conservation over competing economic uses and to allocate the large amounts of scarce public funds necessary to create the park. Christen explains: ‘The hard-won triumph of Corcovado emphatically confirmed that T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 419 a vital new national land use imperative had emerged to claim a place beside the traditional development mandate represented by Osa squatters’ [28]. Corcovado was the first large Costa Rican park created specifically for ecological reasons and intended especially for scientific study [29]. Its original boundaries included the entire watershed of the Corcovado Basin, which is a coastal lowland surrounded on three sides by the steep hills of the Peninsula and the Pacific Ocean along its southwestern boundary. Christen notes: ‘For the first time an impressively large segment of national territory was set aside explicitly and exclusively because it encompassed a unique and environmentally valuable complex of ecological systems’[30]. However, it soon became apparent that protecting one watershed was not enough area to preserve the vitality of the bioregion. After the creation of Corcovado, the Costa Rican government began establishing legal protection for other areas in the Osa. In 1978, the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve was created by presidential decree [37]. The boundaries of the new reserve embrace the highlands surrounding Corcovado, stretching from the southern tip of the Peninsula, to the delta of the Sierpe and Terraba Rivers to the north, and to the mainland to the east. The reserve was created to serve as a buffer zone for the park, to conserve watersheds, and for managed forestry activities. Although the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve is also a protected area, it has different management objectives. In Corcovado National Park all resource extraction is prohibited, while in Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve the development of certain commercial activities is permitted. Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve was created as a multiple use area for the production of water, timber, wildlife, forage, and recreation, and was designed to minimize negative impacts on natural resources. Despite Corcovado’s status as a ‘protected’ area, a lack of active management has led to deforestation and threats to wildlife. Initially, the Osa’s remoteness mitigated the impact on the forests, but in the 1980s a road was built from the Inter-American Highway, Central America’s primary trans-isthmus transportation corridor, onto the Peninsula. Loggers began to exploit the Osa’s rich timber resources. In addition, the creation of the Forest Reserve contained the seeds of a new conflict: among the lands included in the new Reserve were those controlled by ITCO, whose mission was to provide lands to landless farmers. ITCO saw the lands it held in Osa as a resource for this purpose. However, the decree creating the Forest Reserve prohibited agricultural activities, and also prohibited titling of lands to individual landowners. Despite these legal contradictions and the fact that few of these lands were suitable for agriculture, ITCO continued its efforts to distribute lands to small farmers. For the next two decades, ITCO and the Forest Service worked at cross-purposes. Lack of planning and poor coordination between these entities contributed greatly both to the reduction of the forests of the Osa Peninsula and to the frustration of farmers who had moved to the region hoping to become landowners, but who were unable to obtain title. This conflict continues, and has become more serious over time. In 1982 ITCO was renamed the Institute for Agrarian Development (IDA), but its mission did not change. The ‘lost decade’ of the 1980s was marked by economic crisis throughout Latin America, and the southern zone of Costa Rica was severely affected. A particularly heavy blow to the economy of the region was the abrupt decision of the United Fruit Company to abandon its plantations in the area in response to a labor dispute, a decision that posed challenges for conservation in the region. The sudden loss of employment by thousands of 420 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 workers resulted in the migration of a great number of them to ecologically fragile lands throughout the area. Many attempted to survive by subsistence farming or mining for gold. Although there had previously been a small number of traditional miners in the areas of Corcovado, after the economic collapse as many as 1000 miners entered the park and severely threatened the ecological integrity of this area by redirecting streams to cut into the steep riparian banks in search of gold deposits. The southern portions of Corcovado National Park were severely threatened by both gold mining and subsistence hunting by the miners [64]. The Costa Rican government responded to this threat by evicting the miners. Although this was successful in conservation terms, it was also highly controversial. A number of displaced gold miners marched on the capital of San Jose and won significant monetary compensation from the government. This episode with the miners offered important lessons for the Costa Rican government regarding the management of protected areas in Corcovado and Costa Rica in general. The invasion of Corcovado made it clear to the administrators of the National Park System that the value of National Parks was neither well-understood nor greatly respected by local communities. The incident with the miners illustrated that some locals believed that the resources in the park could and should be exploited in times of need. In an effort to educate local communities as to the value of Corcovado National Park, as well as to improve relations with inhabitants of nearby communities, the National Parks System opened the first field office outside the borders of a National Park, in Puerto Jimenez. This move began the process of decentralization, education, and increased community involvement that now characterizes, at least in theory, the management of Costa Rican National Parks. Another result of United Fruit pulling out of the southern area was that the lands that the company had maintained as a reserve in the hills surrounding Golfito, across the Golfo Dulce from the Osa Peninsula, were donated to the Costa Rican government. These lands were later included in a new protected area, the Golfito Wildlife Refuge, which covered 2900 ha. As is the case with Forest Reserves, the state was not obligated to purchase private properties in National Wildlife Refuges. Thus, the Golfito Wildlife Refuge contains both private and public lands, which has complicated conservation efforts in the Refuge. Like the Golfo Dulce Reserve, the Refuge has never had a comprehensive management plan. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the World Wildlife Fund and USAID initiated a project to slow deforestation around Corcovado, which was known as BOSCOSA. The project was intended to introduce a program of community-based sustainable forestry in the Osa, the so-called ‘integrated conservation and development’ strategy that had achieved global currency in the era. In addition, it marked the beginning of a discrete emphasis on management of buffer zones around protected areas. The BOSCOSA strategy of seeking forest management concessions for small landowners in the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve was stymied by the confused and contradictory land tenure regime. While the project had some success in improving economic and social conditions of small farmers, its efforts were unsuccessful due to poor planning and a hostile policy environment. Eventually the project was suspended due to lack of funds, and many regard it as a conservation and development project failure [73]. However, BOSCOSA was important in raising awareness of the importance of the Osa forests and stimulated the development of a regional development strategy referred to as Osa 2000. In addition, BOSCOSA trained T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 421 and oriented a number of young Costa Rican conservationists, who would continue to be very involved in conservation in the Peninsula and elsewhere. In 1992, the government created a new protected area just north of the Golfito Refuge, and at the eastern end of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, in order to protect roughly 15, 000 ha of forest. This new area was created as the Esquinas sector of Corcovado National Park, reflecting the hope that the two areas would eventually be joined, even though the new park was over 30 km away from Corcovado’s nearest boundary. Although by law the State must purchase private lands in National Parks, there was insufficient government funding. Over the next decade, the government and conservationists together would obtain funding to purchase less than half of the lands within the Esquinas sector. Again, more conflict resulted when private landowners within the park, whose access and activities were now limited by the National Park designation, demanded payment for their lands. Eventually, this new area was renamed Piedras Blancas National Park, and placed under separate administration from Corcovado National Park. Despite efforts on the part of the Costa Rican government to designate forested areas throughout the Osa as protected areas, there are still a number of threats to biodiversity in the Osa. ACOSA lacks adequate human and economic resources for effective management of protected areas. There are too few park guards, many park staff lack uniforms and field equipment, and some guards suffer health problems from the difficult working and living conditions. As a result, control over poaching and mining activities in the park is weak, attention to visitors is poor, buildings and other infrastructure within the park are deteriorating, and, until recently, much of the border of the park remained unmarked. There are still serious problems with illegal poaching, most of which is not subsistence hunting, but rather is undertaken for sport by hunters from outside of the Osa region. These poachers often are equipped with heavy weaponry, such as AK-47s, and sport utility vehicles [92]. In addition, the marine protected areas of the Osa, especially around Isla Del Canõ, face problems with illegal commercial and sport fishing. As a result of the urgency of these threats to biodiversity in the Osa, there has been an effort toward a more comprehensive and bioregional approach to conservation in the region.

5. Current bioregional conservation efforts: the Osa Biological Corridor project

In light of the limitations of traditional protected areas conservation in the Osa, there has been an evolution towards a more bioregional conservation strategy. The Osa Biological Corridor project epitomizes this effort. The Osa Biological Corridor project is an inter-institutional effort to consolidate forested corridors between existing protected areas in the Greater Osa Bioregion, and link them to larger corridor conservation initiatives in Costa Rica and Mesoamerica. This project includes efforts to assist with the sustainable development of local communities and seeks the involvement of local residents in conservation activities. This part of the article describes the Osa Biological Corridor project and explains how it reﬂects the four themes of bioregionalism identiﬁed in Section 2. Strategies being used to achieve these goals include promoting conservation on private lands, legal and land tenure 422 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 reforms, education and training, improved control of hunting and logging, and economic activities that are compatible with the goals of the corridor. Although these efforts are discussed below in terms of separate bioregional themes, it should be noted that they are inherently intertwined as a part of a greater bioregional effort to work toward long-term sustainability in the Osa.

5.1. Inclusive ecological boundaries

Perhaps the most important goal of the Osa Biological Corridor project is to pursue a comprehensive conservation strategy that views the entire Osa as a bioregion, rather than as seven separate protected areas. The project seeks to retain forest around and between the various protected areas, with an emphasis on maintaining the connection between the two National Parks that serve as the ‘anchors’ of the Osa Corridor. This connectivity will facilitate migration and genetic exchange. In terms of expanding existing protected areas, the project aims to use primarily biological criteria to maximize inclusion of the most important areas. Furthermore, the Osa Biological Corridor project encourages protected area managers to manage in accordance with a management and protection strategy that considers the entire bioregion. Mapping efforts are underway to gather data that can be used in designing an effective corridor that will be successful in achieving connectivity goals. This data will also serve as a baseline for future monitoring. Scientists from National University, located in Heredia, Costa Rica, are monitoring the movement of large mammals in the area of the Corridor. In addition, a number of para-taxonomists from INBio are working to identify species located in the area. Furthermore, local residents have had some involvement, assisting with basic research activities. These efforts will improve the current understanding of ecosystem processes in the region and improve the potential for bioregional-based planning and conservation. In addition to providing biological connectivity, the corridor planning process attempts to reach more productive and sustainable land use decisions. The project participants strive to gather and apply biological information to determine which areas are best suited for forest restoration, sustainable agriculture, tourism and other sustainable development activities [65]. A conservation director for INBio notes: ‘In the end, conservation depends on land management.After that comes the importance of developing specific initiatives that demonstrate how people and conservation can coexist’[66]. Current activities to facilitate the Corridor include resolving land tenure conflicts, encouraging conservation on private lands, environmental education, and community involvement in enforcing environmental protections. In addition to connecting the protected areas within the Greater Osa Bioregion, the project is a specific component in the larger effort to establish the transnational Mesoamerican Biological Corridor in order to maintain the genetic link between North and South America [9]. The Mesoamerican Biological Corridor is currently a priority for international development assistance in the region and is spearheaded by a regional environmental integration organization, the Central American Commission on Environ- ment and Development. Technical and financial support for national corridor plans has been provided to each of the countries in the region. One of the Osa Corridor’s links to T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 423 mainland Costa Rica and the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor is through the Corredor Biologico Paso de La Danta, (‘Path of the Tapir Biological Corridor,’ hereinafter ‘CBPD.’) This connecting corridor is a community-based effort to retain a 50 km forested corridor to the Osa Peninsula along the mountainous central Pacific coast of Costa Rica [83]. Significantly, it has been named for the region’s largest endangered mammal, which is in danger of becoming genetically isolated in the Central America [10]. Restoring the Tapir to these forests is the bioregional goal of the CBPD. The CBPD connects the network of protected areas in the Osa with others throughout Costa Rica, including, Los Santos National Forest Reserve, Chirripo National park, and La Amistad Biosphere Reserve, which reaches to the Caribbean Coast [81]. The CBPD project encompasses 52 communities located with four cantones (similar to counties), most of which have agreed to participate in the Corridor project [82]. Thus, by considering its role in the larger effort to establish the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor, the Osa Biological Corridor project is taking a more comprehensive and biogeographic approach to defining and managing the greater bioregion.

5.2. Encouraging cooperative conservation strategies

The Osa Biological Corridor project has an interesting history with important lessons for bioregionalism. It emerged in a conservation vacuum on the Osa that developed in the wake of the dissolution of the BOSCOSA project, decentralization of the protected areas system that resulted in the division of the country into conservation regions, years of neglect in the management of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve, and the conflictive land tenure situation in the Forest Reserve. Local conservation NGOs stepped into this vacuum and organized themselves cooperatively to ensure a conservation presence on the Peninsula. It was only later that the larger international NGOs worked to support the coalition and MINAE returned its focus on the region as part of the national contribution to a $30 million fundraising effort known as ‘the Osa Campaign’ as well as to the consolidation of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. The Osa Campaign was initiated by the Costa Rica-USA Foundation (CR-USA), a small philanthropic organization created with funds donated by USAID and the Costa Rican government, in an effort to develop fundraising capacity in Costa Rica. The Campaign is coordinated by an Executive Committee consisting of two international NGOs (Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy), the government ministry MINAE, and CR-USA. The focus of the Campaign is to consolidate the Osa’s existing protected areas through the purchase of inholdings, integrate communities into the broader conservation strategy, promote private lands conservation, environmental education, community support for control and protection efforts, and sustainable development. This campaign has already provided planning money to coalition members for the work of the coalition. The original coalition, now referred to as the ‘Technical Coalition’, currently includes five Costa Rican conservation organizations, including the Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center (CEDARENA), the National Biodiversity Institute (INBio) the TUVA Foundation, The Neotropica Foundation, and the Corcovado Foundation, each with its special role in the project’s development. ACOSA participates as an ex-oficio member. 424 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431

The Coalition is not incorporated as a separate organization, and thus it utilizes the services of one of its members for signing contracts or receiving donations. For example, donations for work in the Corridor developed by the Coalition are received by the organization within the Coalition most closely involved with the work to be undertaken. The member organizations of the Coalition have signed a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the purpose of the Coalition and the responsibilities of each of its members. To date, the Coalition has worked with the facilitation of a part-time coordinator, although negotiations are presently underway with a donor to hire a full-time coordinator and establish an ofﬁce in the Osa Peninsula for the Coalition and other groups working in the Corridor. In practice, the decisions of the Coalition have always been taken by consensus, although the agreement signed by the member organizations calls for decisions to be taken by majority vote in the case a consensus cannot be reached. The Coalition meets regularly on a monthly basis. The Technical Coalition assisted in the creation of a Local Committee comprised of representatives of the local communities in the Osa, as well as a number of the Osa’s grass roots organizations. This Committee, in response to the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor project’s recommendation that local Committees be formed for local Corridor initiatives, is intended to ensure that the interests of Osa residents are considered and that Corridor efforts better appreciate the social contexts necessary for effective conservation and sustainable development strategies. The Technical Coalition and the Local Committee are cooperating closely, with funds provided by the Coalition to help pay for a local coordinator and meeting costs for the Local Committee. The Local Committee will also invest coalition Funds in a strategic planning and outreach effort. This effort reﬂects the recognition on the part of the Committee that to date, the Local Committee has met limited success in attracting the active participation of a cross-section of the Osa’s residents.

5.3. Promoting the biosphere reserve concept

An important bioregional aspect of the Osa Biological Corridor project is its emphasis on encouraging compatible development in areas surrounding protected areas using the UNESCO model of the biosphere reserve, discussed in Section 2. Under the charge of coalition member Fundacion Corcovado, the Osa Coalition has a long-term goal of designating the Greater Osa Bioregion as a Biosphere Reserve through UNESCO’s Man and Biosphere Reserve program [38], and designating Corcovado National Park and the Isla del Canõ Biological Reserve as a World Heritage Natural Property under the World Heritage Convention [39]. These listings would serve as an important core area of the Biosphere Reserve, and increase the region’s eligibility for additional technical and financial assistance through United Nations agency programs and international donors and organizations. Both designations would also formalize the Osa’s already considerable international reputation as a biodiversity and conservation innovation hotspot. Several of the organizations participating in Osa Biological Corridor project have considerable experience in promoting sustainable development activities in protected area buffer zones. For example, the Cecropia Foundation is working with integrating reforestation with the operation of small farms through the creation of shade corridors and promotion of silvo-pastoral systems in general, as well as developing the potential for T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 425 non-traditional agricultural crops. Likewise, the TUVA Foundation has nearly 10 years experience in researching and developing sustainable production activities in the areas adjacent to Corcovado National Park. Foremost among these is a model of Fallen Timber Extractive Reserves that produces certified lumber from naturally fallen hardwood trees with minimal environmental impacts. Other areas of expertise include ecotourism, community-based management, and organic agriculture. One important ecological and cultural element of the proposed corridor is the Guaymı´ de Osa Indigenous Reserve. This reserve was established in 1985 as part of a nationwide effort to ensure that the indigenous population of Costa Rica controlled enough lands to maintain their traditional way of life [86]. While the reserve has maintained most of its forest cover, it faces important challenges, including squatters, poverty, and conflicts between the families that make up the population of the Reserve. Efforts are underway to survey the Reserve and initiate legal proceedings to clarify land title in the reserve, [104] which will help make the community eligible to receive cash incentives for environmental services provided by the forests on their lands under governmental programs. In addition, other ongoing activities include a pilot program for the sustainable extraction of fallen wood, the compiling of cultural history and traditional methods for the management of natural resources, the recuperation of traditional medicine, and a program to provide solar electricity in return for the conservation and sustainable management of the forest. While publicly established protected areas have long been the focus of conservation activities in the Osa, efforts to conserve forests and other resources on private lands are very significant and growing. Though desperately poor in places, a sort of ‘conservation gentrification’ is taking place in the Osa. In the past decade, the Osa Peninsula has experienced a significant increase in individuals—many of them foreign—who have bought land for the purpose of building vacation homes, for the establishment of ecotourism businesses, or to create private nature reserves, or research stations. For the most part, these individuals and entities have purchased lands on or near the coast and in close proximity to protected areas, and as a result land prices have risen greatly in these areas [103] to the point where their purchase for inclusion in public conservation areas would be prohibitively expensive in all but a few special instances. However, these individuals often share the conservation and sustainable development goals of the Corridor project. For example, the TUVA Foundation has worked with private landowners to create the Osa Private Wildlife Refuge in the southern part of the Osa Peninsula. One important private law tool proposed for the Osa Biological Corridor project will be conservation easements. The Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center (CEDARENA), a coalition member based in San Jose, Costa Rica, has developed and applied conservation easements in several areas of Costa Rica, including the Osa. In addition, CEDARENA has worked heavily with the Coalition in identifying priority lands for private conservation, the process of which has resulted in at least one publication [15]. In addition to conservation easements, Costa Rican legislation offers several public incentives for persons willing to conserve forest on private lands. For example, the Wildlife Conservation Law contains provisions that grant financial incentives to persons who establish private conservation refuges on their lands, subject to a management plan approved by the Ministry of the Environment. These incentives include a property tax 426 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 exemption, priority to receive cash incentives for conservation, and, in the coastal area, exemption from the provisions of the coastal zone planning law. The government of Costa Rica also has an environmental service payment program. Through this program it pays landowners for four kinds of environmental services associated with maintaining forest cover: (1) mitigation of greenhouse gas effects, (2) water protection, (3) biodiversity protection, and (4) scenic beauty. As of March 2004, a total of 1500 ha within the area of the Osa corridor have been enrolled in the environmental services payment program [71]. However, because environmental service payments for forested land are only guaranteed for 5 years, project directors hope to motivate landowners to obtain income through sustainable farming and other activities in order to maintain long-term protection.

5.4. Encouraging local participation and bioregional self-identiﬁcation

A major difficulty that the Osa Biological Corridor project has experienced is the fact that local inhabitants are typically dispersed, independent-minded, suspicious of public and private institutions, and not accustomed or inclined to working together to seek solutions to common problems. A clash of culture between the new ‘conservation gentry’ and their San Jose allies and the traditional frontier campesino complicates the dynamics of Osa conservation. While a great deal of energy and resources has been expended to address the problems of poverty and environmental degradation in the Osa over the years, most of these initiatives have failed to effectively engage the local population as participants. In addition, bioregional memories can be long. For example, the Biosphere Reserve designation proposal has been controversial in the Osa due to the use of the term ‘reserve’. Local residents remember the creation of the Golfo Dulce Forest Reserve and the disappointment of BOSCOSA. One coordinator explains, ‘People think that the corridor is just another reserve that is going to limit their activities and we have to continue working so that they see it is something different’ [67]. Reversing this perception remains one of the greatest challenges facing the Corridor project, with or without a UNESCO biosphere reserve designation. Education, training, and community involvement are crucial elements of bioregionalism, and enjoy a significant role in Corridor project activities. An interesting model is the Neotropica Foundation’s Tropical Youth Center, strategically located in the center of the proposed Corridor. One project leader with the Neotropica Foundation notes: ‘Rather than promote the notion that the Osa must be bought by foreigners in order to protect it, our intention is to work with residents and give them incentives to stay, because it is possible for them to produce on their farms’ [68]. However, this goal may be somewhat at odds with the reality of real estate development on the Peninsula. More than 10 years of work by conservation organizations working in the communities of the Osa has resulted in a noticeable increase in consciousness of the importance of natural resources among the population of the Osa. Local residents have begun to assume an active role in assisting ACOSA with the enforcement of hunting and logging violations. Approximately 55 adults from various Osa communities have volunteered to assist government enforcement efforts through local groups known as Natural Resource Vigilante Committees (COVIRENAS) [69]. Although only park rangers have arrest and T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 427 confiscation authority, COVIRENAS groups monitor and report violations, and can exert significant local pressure and moral authority [70]. The groups have notified authorities about problems such as irregularities in forest-management plans, the hunting of endangered species, and stream channel diversion in the Osa. In light of these participatory activities, it seems clear that there must be an increase in local awareness of the importance of conservation and conservation initiatives in the Greater Osa Bioregion. The depth and extent of the latent social capital these efforts have engendered for the expansion of bioregional policy is more difficult to ascertain. Further research would yield clues concerning the extent to which conservation awareness has been translated into a bioregional self-awareness that translate into grass roots support for the Biological Corridor project.

6. Bioregionalism’s lessons for tropical forest conservation

Bioregionalism provides a valuable conceptual framework for the design and execution of conservation and development assistance programs in tropical forests. Indeed it may be more useful in this context than in the developed country conservation paradigm where protected areas continue to be managed as islands disaggregated from their human context. Perhaps the essence of bioregionalism is the idea that human societies should reflect the ecological and cultural attributes of the landscape they inhabit, and that these landscapes represent discrete ‘bioregions’ identified as such by their human inhabitants. This approach favors a broad, landscape-level focus on addressing entire ecosystems, ecosystem processes, cultural affinities, and, perhaps most importantly, human-ecosystem dynamics. The current approach to conservation on Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula appears to be following these tenets of bioregionalism, albeit unevenly and without explicit acknowledgment. The Greater Osa Bioregion has always had a regional identity in the eyes of Costa Ricans, but it has been more closely associated with the Latin American agricultural frontier. The establishment of Corcovado National Park in 1975 signaled the beginning of change, sometimes bloody, in Osa’s bioregional identity. More recently, a new and wealthier conservation and development culture has begun to inhabit the bioregion and challenge the Osa campesino for Peninsular identity. Reconciling these two identities remains a work in progress that has fallen to the Osa Coalition and its successors. The failed BOSCOSA Integrated Conservation and Development Project of the late 1980s serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in this task. As the pressures on tropical forest resources increase globally, the bioregional construct may prove useful for designing long-term conservation and sustainable development strategies. The bioregional approach currently being employed on the Osa Peninsula represents an important experiment in political ecology. With its well-deserved reputation as a biodiversity ‘hotspot,’ and the longest standing democratic government in Latin America, conservation in Costa Rica has received an extraordinary amount of international attention and technical assistance. The ongoing effort to raise the persona of the Greater Osa Bioregion through World Heritage and Biosphere Reserve designation processes linked to the larger Mesoamerican Biological Corridor will only embellish this 428 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 resume—and raise the stakes for success. The lessons that emerge from the Greater Osa Bioregion will help shape tropical forest conservation as humans continue to struggle to coexist with nature in a changing global environment.

7. Conclusion: the Greater Osa’s Bioregional future

By the beginning of the new millennium, the three cantons that make up most of the Greater Osa Bioregion had a population of nearly 100,000 persons. The Osa remains among the poorest regions of Costa Rica and corruption is chronic, with real estate developers replacing timber barons as the beneficiaries. While land tenure conflicts linger, the era of the Costa Rican agricultural frontier has all but ended, replaced by contemporary land use pressures, including infrastructure development, urbanization and tourism. Illegal resource extraction persists, changing only in nature—driven less by the needs of a subsistence livelihood than by quick cash and even recreation. These factors will persist for the near future and challenge efforts to develop a shared bioregional sensibility. The conservation history of the Osa Peninsula has been, and continues to be, one of crisis management. Despite a legacy of conservation visionaries who saw the Osa’s value in ecological terms, efforts to secure the region’s ecological future have always fallen short. The early and unfortunate political decision to shrink the boundaries of Corcovado National Park provides a case in point. On the Osa, the foreseeable future is often the next budget cycle, the next harvest, or the next tourist season. Plans, to the extent they are made, tend to be in 5, 10 and possibly 20 year time horizons—and seldom revisited. Yet the conservation rhetoric, on the Osa and elsewhere, is explicitly intergenerational. One potential benefit of anthropogenic climate change, if one had to seek silver linings, is that it requires environmental planners to think in terms of centuries and millennia—the new foreseeable future. Because it seeks to reconcile anthropocentricity with biocentricity, diffusing the boundary between parks and people, a bioregional perspective may best accomplish this—on the Osa, in the neotropics, and elsewhere.

References

[1] A. Acevedo, First records of humpback whales including calves at Golfo Dulce and Isla del Coco, Costa Rica, suggesting geographical overlap of Northern and Southern hemisphere populations, Marine Mammal Science 11 (4) (1995) 554–560. [2] D. Alexander, Bioregionalism: science or sensibility?, Environmental Ethics 12 (161-173) (1990) 167–179. [3] Alexander, supra, p 162. [4] Alexander, supra, p. 168. [5] Alexander, supra, p. 168. [6] Alexander, supra, p. 168. [7] Alexander, supra, p. 172. [8] Alexander, supra, pp. 172–73. T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 429

[9] T.T. Ankersen, The Mesoamerican biological corridor: the legal framework for an integrated, regional system of protected areas, Environmental Law and Litigation 19 (1994) 501. [10] Baird Tapir Project website, available online at: http://members.aol.com/crfoerster/index.html, last accessed May 16, 2004. [11] M.Batisse,Developingandfocusingthebiospherereserveconcept,NatureandResources22(3)(1986)2–11. [12] P. Berg, Putting the ‘bio’ in front of ‘regional,’, Landscape Architecture 84 (04) (1994) 60. [13] P. Berg, R. Dasman, Reinhabiting California in: P. Berg (Ed.), Reinhabiting a separate country: a bioregional anthology of Northern California, Planet Drum Foundation, San Francisco, 1978, pp. 217–218. [14] California Resources Agency, Memorandum of Understanding: California’s coordinated regional strategy to conserve biological diversity, “The Agreement on Biological Diversity,” 1991. [15] C.M. Chacoń, A. Meza, E. Alpizar, Caminando en la Conservacioń Privada: Definiendo Prioridades, Opciones Legales y Tenencia de la Tierra, CEDARENA, San Jose´, Costa Rica, 2004. [16] C.A. Christen, Development and Conservation on Costa Rica’s Osa Peninsula, 1937-1977: A Regional Case Study of Historical Land Use Policy and Practice in a Small Neotropical Country, Unpublished PhD. Dissertation, John Hopkins University, 1994, p. 31-32. [17] Christen, supra, p. 52. [18] Christen, supra, p. 33. [19] Christen, supra, p. 34. [20] Christen, supra, p. 51. [21] Christsen, supra, p. 54. [22] Christen, supra, p. 25. [23] Christen, supra, p. 395. [24] Christen, supra, pp. 63–64. [25] Christen, supra, p. 64. [26] Christen, supra, p. 69. [27] Christen, supra, p. 49. [28] Christen, supra, p. 397. [29] Christen, supra, p. 18. [30] Christen, supra, p. 394. [31] Christen, supra. [32] R. Dasmann, Bioregion, Conservation and Environmentalism: An Encyclopedia, Garland, New York, 1995. p. 84. [33] Dasmann, supra, p. 84. [34] D. Davis, P. Cramer, Parks and biodiversity preserves as islands: lessons from historical biogeography and limited trend analysis, in: A. Vega, (Ed.), Proceedings of a Regional Conference sponsored by the Paseo Pantera Project (1994) 22–42. [35] J. Dodge, Living by Life: Some Bioregional Theory and Practice,” CoEvolution Quarterly, 32 (1981) p. 8. [36] Eliecer Arce, Administrator Corcovado National Park, Personal Interview, June 15–18, 2002. [37] Executive Decree No 5357-A, on October 24, 1975. [38] Foundation Corcovado website, available online at: http://www.corcovadofoundation.org/new_projects. htm, last accessed May 16, 2004. [39] Foundation Corcovado website, available online at: http://www.corcovadofoundation.org/new_projects.htm, last accessed May 16, 2004. The Costa Rica government submitted a World Heritage Site nomination to UNESCO in 2003 but, apparently concerned about its present viability, withdrew it prior to formal consideration. [40] Garratt, supra, p. 69. [41] Garratt, supra, p. 69. [42] Garratt, supra, p. 66. [43] Garratt, supra, p. 66. [44] Garratt, supra, p. 66. [45] Garrat, supra, p. 65. [46] Garratt, supra, p. 65. [47] K. Garratt, The relationship between adjacent lands and protected areas: issues of concern for the protected area manager in: J. McNeely, K. Miller (Eds.), National parks, conservation, and development: the role of protected areas in sustaining society, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, D.C., 1984, p. 66. 430 T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431

[48] L.E. Gilbert, Global Importance of Corcovado Park and Surrounding Conservation Zone of the Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica: A Biological Perspective, 1999 (Unpublished, copy on file with authors). [49] Gilbert, supra. [50] Gilbert, supra. [51] R.E. Grumbine, Ghost Bears: exploring the biodiversity crisis 1992 pp.57–60. [52] H.M. Guzman, J. Cortez, Coral Reef Community Structure at Canõ Island, Pacific Costa Rica, Marine Ecology 10 (1) (1989) 23–41. [53] G.S. Hartshorn, Plants: introduction in: D.H. Janzen (Ed.), Costa Rican Natural History, 118-57, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983, p. 133. [54] Hartshorn, supra, p. 133. [55] Hartshorn, supra, p. 132. [56] Hartshorn, supra, p. 133. [57] Hartshorn, supra, p. 133. [58] Hartshorn, supra, p. 133. [59] Hartshorn, supra, p. 134. [60] Hartshorn, supra, p. 135 (citing M.A. Boza and A. Bonilla, Los parques nacionales de Costa Rica, INCAFO, Madrid, Spain, 1978). [61] O. Herrera-MacBryde, T.R. Maldonado, V. Jimenez, K. Thomsen, Osa Peninsula and Corcovado National Park Costa Rica, in: S.D. Davis, V.H. Heywood, O. Herrera-MacBryde, J. Villa-Lobos, A.C. Hamilton (Eds.), Centres of Plant diversity. A guide and Strategy for their Conservation Vol. 3, World Wildlife Fund, International Conservation Union, 1997. [62] H. Hinote, Framework for integrated ecosystem management: the Southern appalachian man and the biosphere cooperative in: J.D. Peine (Ed.), Ecosystem management for sustainability: principles and practices illustrated by a regional biosphere reserve cooperative, Lewis Publishers, New York, 1999, p. 81. [63] http://www.acguanacaste.ac.cr/1997/mapaacing.html, last accessed May 12, 2004. [64] D.H. Janzen, R. Dirzo, G. Green, J. Romero, F. Stiles, G. Vega, and D. Wilson. Corcovado National Park: a perturbed rainforest ecosystem, Report, World Wildlife Fund, Washington, D.C., 1985. [65] K. Murillo, Conservation corridor challenge: winning farmers’ support in biologically important Costa Rican Peninsula, The Panama News, 10(9) May 9-22, 2004, available online at http://www. thepanamanews.com/pn/v_10/issue_09/outdoors_01.html, last accessed May 16, 2004. [66] Murillo, supra. [67] Murillo, supra. [68] Murillo, supra. [69] Murillo, supra. [70] Murillo, supra. [71] Murillo, supra. [72] Kirkpatrick Sale, Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision, Sierra Club, San Francisco, 1985, p. 43. [73] K. Kurka, The BOSCOSA Project: An Experiment in Rain Forest Conservation and Rural Development on the Osa Peninsula of Costa Rica, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Evergreen State College, Olympia, Washington, 1994. [74] J. Lewis, Concepts and themes in the Regional Geography of Canada, Talonbooks, Vancouver, 1983. p. 14. [75] R.D. Lipschutz, J. Mayer, Global civil society and global environmental governance: the politics of nature from place to planet 1996 p. 83. [76] S. Maryowski, Paseo Pantera: the great American biotic interchange, Wild Earth Special Issue 1(1992) 71–74. [77] MINAE & FPN, supra. [78] MINAE & SINAC, Plan de trabajo para el Parque Nacional Corcovado y la Reserva Biolo´gica Isla del Canõ, Plan Hacia el Nuevo Milenio, September, 1999. [79] MINAE & SINAC, supra. [80] MINAE & FPN. Short-Term Measure for Corcovado National Park: Managing Biodiversity in the Heart of the Osa Conservation Area (A proposal presented to the Global Environment Facility by Ministry of the Environment and Energy of the Republic of Costa Rica and the National Parks Foundation). Puerto Jimeńez, Costa Rica, June, 1999. [81] Newcomer, supra. T.T. Ankersen et al. / Futures 38 (2006) 406–431 431

[82] Newcomer, supra. [83] Q. Newcomer, Path of the Tapir: integrating biological corridors, ecosystem management, and socioeconomic development in Costa Rica, Endangered Species Update 19 (i4) (2002). [84] B. Newman, H. Irwin, K. Lowe, A. Mostwell, S. Smith, J. Jones, Southern Appalachian wildlands proposal, Wild EarthSpecial Issue 1(1992) 46–52. [85] D.E. Popper, F.J. Popper, The buffalo commons: a bioregional vision of the great plains, Landscape Architecture 84 (04) (1994) 144. [86] R.S. Salvatierra, The Costa Rican indigenous people: an ethnographic overview, Editorial Tecnologica de Costa Rica, Cartago, Costa Rica, 2002, p. 16. [87] N.J. Scott, S. Limerick, Reptiles and Amphibians introduction, in: D.H. Janzen (Ed.), Costa Rican Natural History, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983, pp. 351–363. [88] W.D. Solecki, Putting the biosphere reserve concept into practice: some evidence of impacts in rural communities in the United States, Environmental Conservation 21 (3) (1994) 242. [89] Solecki, supra, p. 242. [90] F.G. Stehli, S.D. Webb, A Kaleidoscope of plates faunal and ﬂoral dispersals, and sea level changes, in: F.G. Stehli, S.D.Webb (Eds.), The Great AmericanBiotic Interchange,Plenum Press, New York, 1985, p. 11. [91] Stehli & Webb, supra. [92] Steven J. Barry, Poachers Ravage Corcovado Park, The Tico Times, March 19, 2004, available online at: http://www.ticotimes.net/archive/03%5F19%5F04%5Fts.htm, last accessed May 16, 2004. [93] F.G. Stiles, Birds: introduction in: D.H. Janzen (Ed.), Costa Rican Natural History, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1983, pp. 502–530. [94] B. Taylor, Bioregionalism: an ethics of Loyalty to place, Landscape Journal 19 (1 and 2) (2000) 50–72. [95] Taylor, supra, p. 50. [96] Taylor, supra, p 50. [97] Taylor, supra, p. 67. [98] Taylor, supra, p 61. [99] Taylor, supra, p. 62. [100] Taylor, supra, p 64. [101] Taylor, supra, p 67. [102] Taylor, supra, p. 64. [103] The Land Assurance Company website, available online at: http://www.landassurance.com, last accessed May 16, 2004. [104] TUVA Foundation website, available online at: http://www.tuva.org/pdf/TUVA-ACT%20Informe%20- Costa%20Rica%202000.pdf, last accessed May 16, 2004. [105] Weber, supra, Preface, p. 7. [106] A. Weissenhofer et al., p. 16. [107] A. Weissenhofer et al., supra, p. 16. [108] A. Weissenhofer et al., supra, p. 15. [109] A. Weissenhofer et al., supra, p. 21. [110] A. Weissenhofer et al., supra, p. 15. [111] A. Weissenhofer et al., supra, p. 15. [112] A. Weissenhofer et al., supra, p. 15. [113] A. Weissenhofer et al., supra, p. 15. [114] A. Weissenhofer, W. Huber, Basic Geographical and Climatic Feature of the Golfo Dulce Region, in: Anton Weber, An Introductory Field Guide to the Flowering Plants of the Golfo Dulce Rain Forests, Costa Rica: Corcovado National Park and Piedras Blancas National Park, Biologiezentrum des OO¨ Landesmuseums, Linz, Austria, 2001, p. 11. [115] A. Weissenhofer, W. Huber, N. Zamora, A. Weber, J. Gonzalez, A Brief Outline of the Flora and Vegetation of the Golfo Dulce Region, in: A. Weber, An Introductory Field Guide to the Flowering Plants of the Golfo Dulce Rain Forests, Costa Rica: Corcovado National Park and Piedras Blancas National Park, Biologiezentrum des OO¨ Landesmuseums, Linz, Austria, 2001, p. 15.