Speech at the 11th Informal Meeting to Further Actions on Climate Change

Thank you, Mr. co-Chair.

I am the Costa Rican ambassador to Japan and I have the mandate to establish a bilateral green growth agenda between both countries.

Two years ago, upon arrival to Japan in the wake of the worst tsunami in 1000 years, my wife and I planted 50 cherry trees that will hopefully be in bloom this week. That is a repeated effort that we have done to increase the planet’s biocapacity.

Yesterday was my first day in school, as some of you mentioned, and today might be my last one, unfortunately. I have had a memorable experience so far although ambivalent in extreme.

On the one hand, I have admired the knowledge, technical skills and experience expressed in every comment and concept that I have heard. For an enthusiast trained in philosophy of law, this has been a magnificent playground and a unique learning opportunity.

On the other hand, I have become increasingly concerned about the state of affairs of the only planet that supports life in the universe. NASA proved last week that life had become extinct in Mars and our main objective must be to revert the trends that are leading Earth towards collapse and reinvigorate life across all species by embracing regenerative development as a humankind.

I feel additionally ambivalent when I compare and contrast ecologists’ prognoses about the planet’s ecosphere –where life lives- and the apparent consensus or at least political leverage to allow the long-term global temperature to rise by 2C.

If you take a closer look, you will see some turtles in the patterns of my tie. If we allow the planet’s temperatures to increase by 2C, there will be no more marine turtles, of which five of a total seven species are born in Costa Rica.

My country committed six years ago to become carbon neutral by 2021 and we are working hard to achieve it, including support from the Japanese and other governments represented here.

But the truth is that for the last 30 years we have become an exemplar of regenerative development, tripling our GDP and at the same time doubling our forest coverage. Our green growth strategy runs on the principle that our behavior must have a net positive impact on our ecosystems.

A final source of ambivalence is when I hear the finances of mitigation and adaptation. One hundred billion dollars a year is less than 10% what the world spends in military armament. If I were the finance minister of planet Earth it would be a no-brainer to shift spending from the latter to the former.

Perhaps that is my cultural bias, as Costa Rica abolished its military army 65 years ago and effectively spent that money in education, healthcare and environmental conservation. In a way, we could say that Costa Rica swapped its weapons for trees.

I am confident that with 65 negotiation days ahead towards a legally binding agreement we will be able to succeed configuring an innovative policy framework that will revert degrading trends and move us swiftly into a regenerative path.

Thank you. 

From Demilitarization to Bioliteracy: How Costa Rica has Become a Biodiversity-Friendly Country

One of the most well-known facts about Costa Rica is the elimination of its military army in 1948. The long-term, positive impact this decision has had in the nation’s development is a collection of benefits that we are still discovering and learning about as we move forward. You may be thinking: what does demilitarization have to do with biodiversity?

For 64 years, several generations of Costa Ricans have been born under a State that has a very high regard for human life. Having no military implies that under no circumstance, a political conflict will become violent through the use of weapons. It also implies that no aggressor, no invader, no trespasser that attempts to violate the country’s territorial integrity or sovereignty will ever be repealed using institutional, violent means.

This decision has shaped the mindset, culture and professional choices of millions of people throughout the last few decades. Most importantly, it has built in many of us the awareness and sensitivity to appreciate life in all its forms, since we have not been taught or raised to end, destroy or offend the lives of other humans.

The conditions of peace that Costa Rica has offered since 1948 have allowed many people to develop expertise in science, arts and humanities, a possibility that is unfortunately difficult in nations that endure long, violent conflicts. Since the 1950s, Costa Rican professionals specialized in fields that offered optimal learning conditions in the country’s natural environment. Today it is a very pleasant part of our history that renewable energies were developed since 1955 as an opportunity to generate electricity from the abundant sources of hydropower along several of the country’s rivers, lakes and waterfalls.

One of the results of these peaceful conditions for human development has been a growing bioliteracy over generations. I would define bioliteracy as the understanding of ecological processes and the richness that derives from them. In a country with outstanding natural characteristics, one is very frequently faced with amazing natural beauty and wealth, making it easier to develop empathy and appreciation for birds and snakes, trees and flowers, whales and dolphins that visit and live in Costa Rica. 

This bioliteracy has facilitated the adoption of the mentality “know-save-use” regarding biodiversity. First, it is important to know the natural wealth in a country’s surrounding ecosystems. As you hear a bird sing or appreciate a colorful tree blossom or experience the might of a whale in open ocean, it is easy to feel a connection with other life forms. Then, making political and economic efforts to preserve ecosystems and save species is more likely, as there is high awareness of such unique high concentration of living organisms in a fairly small territory like Costa Rica. As a result, the use of natural resources for human development and economic growth will happen in observance of other living beings.

This poses an interesting dilemma that needs to be decided by every generation’s leaders: should progress cost us our natural environment? In 1979, leaders chose to stop deforestation, preserve remaining forests and recover the ones that had been lost. A few people made an invaluable contribution to Costa Rica’s biodiversity by implementing an innovative policy that offered economic incentives for conservation. Today, we talk about Payment for Environmental Services, and it is said to be a policy innovation made in Costa Rica. This has recovered nearly half a million hectares of forests, transferring to property owners some US$200 million (JP¥16,000,000,000) in the course of three decades of public, private and international efforts.

In times when humanity’s consumption of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources provokes an ecological footprint that far exceeds the planet’s ability to naturally recover and replenish them, Costa Rica has become the focus of international attention as a result of the country’s economic success while simultaneously reforesting and improving ecosystemic performance. In the last 30 years, Costa Rican GDP has tripled and forest coverage has doubled. This, more than a case of sustainable development, is a case of regenerative development. Instead of setting the goal of not harming nature, Costa Rica has accomplished the goal of enriching nature while improving socioeconomic conditions for its people.

Innovation and entrepreneurship have become important components of this process. In 1989, a group of local and foreign visionary experts followed Dr. Rodrigo Gámez’s initiative to create the Biodiversity Institute, a non-governmental, not-for-profit institution that has been declared of public interest by the government, due to its enormous contribution to environmental conservation, scientific discoveries, bioliteracy and ecosystemic recovery. A few weeks ago, at the COP 11 that took place at Hyderabad, India, Dr. Gámez was awarded the AEON Foundation Midori Prize of Biodiversity, a well-deserved recognition for his efforts to improve the quality of all forms of life on Earth.

For nearly 25 years, the Costa Rican tourist industry has become instrumental in the promotion of ecological tourism, offering abundant business opportunities that have triggered private innovation in the form of ecological activities such as canopy or tree rappelling, surfing and river rafting, as well as tours for bird-watching, whale-watching and turtle-watching.

Public innovation has also played a significant role in the process of improving facilities and conditions for tourists to enjoy nature intensely. In 1996, a public program called Ecological Blue Flag was introduced to promote a healthy competition between tourist destinations, nature reserves and national parks, hotels and government institutions, to comply with sustainability requirements in order to obtain a blue flag that is to be displayed publicly. Every year, each entity must renew its “blue flag” status, raising national and international awareness about these efforts, which attract tourists by the hundreds of thousands.

In 1999, Costa Rica received one million foreign tourists for the first time. Ten years later, it reached two million, despite terrorist attacks in New York or the global economic recession.

Today, the country’s aspiration is to become a global leader in green growth, promoting regenerative development through ecological tourism, commercial use of biodiversity for biotechnology and attracting more modern technologies for renewable energy generation. With this strategy in place, a strong relationship with a country like Japan could create shared value for mutual benefit, and also for the benefit of people from other countries and even for other forms of life.

I hope I have managed to explain the relationship between demilitarization and biodiversity, and explain why Costa Rica means “rich coast” in Spanish, and why it is recognized as the country that has made Peace with Nature.

Future Cities and Green Growth

Imagine the following newspaper front page:

"Two countries sign the first Green Trade Partnership -GTP. The agreement aims at promoting investment, infrastructure development, transfer, manufacturing and international trade of smart city technologies, renewable energies, bio-industry, environmentally sustainable agriculture, and special visa conditions for tourists and businessmen and women that will engage in conservation and eco-tourism activities."

We want to believe that Japan has the right conditions to be one of those two countries. I already has the technology, the policy, the infrastructure, the financial capability, the track record and, most importantly, the urgency to move faster towards a low-carbon economy, reducing the country's ecological footprint.

We also believe that Costa Rica is a likely partner for this green growth initiative. In the last 30 years, Costa Rica has tripled its GDP and doubled its forest coverage at the same time. More than sustainable development, Costa Rica is an example of regenerative development.

With 95% of electricity from renewable sources and almost 30% of its ecosystems under legal protection, it is clear that Costa Rica is already a green country.

Today we want to invite you to imagine the newspaper headline and imagine it with your country's name on it.

What will it take to change the world as we know it? A lot of work and commitment indeed. First and foremost, it must start with a vision we can share and agree upon.

It is my great honor to introduce Dr. Rene Castro, Costa Rican Minister. His vision of a more prosperous world has changed Costa Rica since 1994 when he was Environment and Energy Minister for the first time, and I was a first year Law student. His influence in my career has been very profound.

I want to thank Ota-san from JICA and Kondo-san from the Ministry of Internal Communications for accepting to share their vision with you today. It is my firm belief that smart cities are the future. Japan knows it and it is an idea that could transform the world as we know it.

I also want to thank the Inter-American Development Bank, the Latin American Association of Japan, and Aoyama Gakuin University for supporting and co-sponsoring this event and taking on the challenge to create shared value together.

Finally, I thank you all for coming, fellow Ambassadors and diplomats, public officers of the Japanese government, executives of private corporations, professors, students and friends. I hope we can imagine the future together.

Conflictos, costos y beneficios

Un conflicto es una incompatibilidad de objetivos. Varios niños pueden jugar con la misma bola. No todos podrán llevársela para la casa, por más fervientemente que lo deseen.

Los costos en un conflicto son múltiples, sobre todo los que implican recursos no renovables que se agotan irreparablemente. El más valioso de ellos es, sin duda, el tiempo, que se consume para siempre en cada instante que transcurre.

En un conflicto, el tiempo que invierten las partes atizando la incompatibilidad es tiempo que pierden ellas y también otros que indirectamente podrían verse afectados.

De una relación conflictiva, las partes nunca derivarán más beneficios que costos. Habrá quienes ganen a expensas del conflicto de otros, como los fabricantes y comerciantes de armas en las guerras. Pero los agentes que deciden permanecer en un conflicto o trascenderlo nunca ganarán más de lo que pierden permaneciendo en él.

La trascendencia de un conflicto es siempre posible. Es de mentes perezosas pensar que "la única opción es pelear." Se requiere ingenio y creatividad para imaginar escenarios en los que las partes involucradas puedan obtener más beneficios que costos.

Ese proceso de innovación tendrá mayor probabilidad de éxito si todas las partes son representadas en ambientes que faciliten la búsqueda de opciones a través de métodos eficaces de transformación de conflictos.

Los beneficios que trae la creación de un escenario de paz entre las partes son ilimitados. El más palpable, otra vez, es el tiempo. Tan pronto sea superado un conflicto, las partes podrán emprender la producción de bienestar que les corresponda y les convenga. Entre más pronto sea transformado un conflicto, más pronto comenzará a generarse la nueva riqueza a la que las partes aspiren.

Esto es tan cierto para los conflictos ambientales que aquejan a nuestro planeta como para las disputas domésticas que son un lastre para el desarrollo de toda una comunidad o un país.

A todos nos conviene hacer esfuerzos para transformar la crisis en oportunidad. Total, son caras de la misma moneda.

Transforming Global Conflict #3: Courage, Bravery and Entrepreneurial Spirit

No one can take on the world alone. Everyone needs a flourishing network of contacts that effectively builds a community of leaders that share a common purpose. This is the same for a small or large business as it is for a not-for-profit endeavor. Building such networks requires taking a step outside one’s comfort zone, which implies an act of courage. In fact, not everyone does it, although anybody can.

Transforming global conflicts requires a wide array of leaders of all sorts to make individual acts of courage and hope that those efforts meet, mix and match with the efforts of others, therefore building that community network that will alter a particular reality upon which one intends to influence.

Defying fear is the first challenge humanity must embrace. Fortunately, it is something we are hardwired for. Even waking up to an unknown, uncertain world is an act of defiance. Together, all these acts of individual courage build up our bravery, which, brought together as a civilization, conform our human character. The reminder is worth noting because, as societal, economic and environmental challenges loom large, human character will be called upon to harness our aspiring resolve for prosperity.

Such traits that define us also determine success in our ability to create new institutions that create value. The entrepreneurial spirit required to wander the forest in search of food is the same employed to build a new tool that improves our quality of life, and also to replicate it, sell it, and improve it over time.

Tackling the most severe conflicts in today’s world requires a systemic vision to perceive the intense and regenerating resources within and the systemic scenarios without, thinking innovatively about ways to make them meet, mix and match.

Transforming Global Conflict #2: Opportunities to Create Change

Innovation is the buzzword of the times. In the information era, good ideas put into action create enormous wealth although they might not create real value. A commentator on a recent article about Steve Jobs was wondering if Apple’s innovative devices had really created new value for the planet, making people happier, societies safer, or ecosystems more vibrant. In fact, quite the opposite could be argued, whereas stress, envy and environmental degradation seem to be additional components to the marvelous built-in, proprietary software inside an iPhone.

Real innovation is the one that brings along systemic change that can be measured as a net positive impact; that the planet, as a whole, is better off with this new idea or device or institution or policy. In order to achieve such stage of virtuous novelty, we must first comprehend the natural constraints of our planet. We will get into detail later. For now, suffice it to say that as long as life on Earth inextricably depends on the conditions for its existence –sunlight, water, and vegetation- these conditions must be respected when thinking about the consequences of our every behavior at a systemic level.

Identifying opportunities for real innovation is an intellectual activity that has become indispensable in this day and age when several ecosystemic measures indicate the breach of some natural limits of the planet. The carrying capacity of the global ecosystem has been overloaded for more than two decades, and today we consume 50% more natural resources than the planet can regenerate on a yearly basis.

These constraints and diagnosis about the state of affairs of the web that supports life are an infinite source for real innovation. Putting our minds together in synergy will render ideas to lead civilization to more prosperous scenarios. 

Transforming Global Conflict #1: Personal Anecdotes

From 2002 to 2004, I studied a Masters degree in Peace Studies andConflict Transformation at Tromsø University in northern Norway. Back then, Iwas convinced the most severe conflict humanity was facing was the “War onTerror”, a euphemism for many atrocities that have taken place in the name ofgods and motherlands since the Twin Towers episode in New York City in 2001.

In 2007, the Costa Rican president at the time, Dr. Óscar Arias Sánchez,gave a speech at the launching of the international campaign called Peace withNature, in which he raised awareness about the state of environmental affairsin the world. All ecosystems and biodiversity species threatened, he vowed to“not renounce to life on planet Earth.” This became my calling and since then Ihave been eagerly studying Climate Change as the most severe conflict humankindfaces.

It has come quite handy to study conflict transformation. As I learnmore about energy and environment, consumption and pollution, natural constraintsand people’s expectations, I have plotted a matrix of causes and consequencesthat have facilitated my understanding of the issue, allowing me to describediagnoses, prognoses and proposals for effective transformation.

I intend to make a brief description of this intellectualmatrix that both shows the origin of some of our most pressing issues at alocal level, and also presents a clear exit path into the future. This is anempirical effort to raise awareness and generate enthusiasm through thevirtuous strategy of ethical action. As Emile Durkheim once said: “When valuesare sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when values are insufficient, laws areunenforceable.” This is why I strongly believe ethics is the common thread outof this big mess. 

Coping with Climate Change: Earth from Jupiter

Introduction.

Imagine standing on the surface of planet Jupiter. How would the Earth look from there? It could be inferred that, in the same way that Jupiter is not visible through the naked eye from Earth, the same would hold true in the opposite direction.

This visualization exercise is useful to put into perspective the dimension of the global conflict otherwise referred to as climate change: it is not perceptible from Jupiter.

Nevertheless, as one approaches planet Earth from outer space, the degree of the problem becomes more and more visible: burning fossil fuels means burning the fossilized remains of living matter that grew with sunlight, decomposed and was compressed over layers of new material decay. The present rate of fossil fuel consumption is equivalent to one million years of ancient sunlight every year. This explains two facts: a) that fossil fuels will eventually be exhausted permanently from the planet; and b) that the exhaust fumes from such burning process accumulate in the atmosphere, as they have nowhere else to go outside of the physical constraints of the planet’s environment. This causes the well-known greenhouse effect, increasing the temperature of at least the Earth’s land and water.

The last four million years, the planet’s long-term average temperature had remained stable, after hundreds of millions of years of instability. Naturally, the geological process of tectonic and volcanic turmoil created the required conditions for life to evolve into more complex species and into an incredibly wide variety and diversity of them.

In only two hundred years, human industrious activity spawned sufficient carbon dioxide to alter such stability, bringing climatic uncertainty to a habitat that had become quite predictable to human understanding.

Excess evaporation and the melting of ice formations have additionally triggered a disruption in the planet’s water cycle, from cloud formation to sea levels, and from potable water to floods.

The wrong question.

I am fundamentally at odds with the case study and subsequent questions for this Module. Although there may or may not be subtle ecosystemic differences between the vulnerability of the Sundarbans region in India and Bangladesh, another fact holds true: c) as climate change consequences progress in visibility, the alteration of living conditions –not only for humans- in an already vulnerable geographical area will become more evident.

Living in Australia I had the opportunity to visit several natural sites where there is physical evidence of sea levels way above present levels. Such water surges are not as old as climate instability, but the result of climate oscillations that provoked melting of ice formations, altering sea levels significantly. Subsequent ice ages re-captured water in the form of glaciers and polar ice caps, making sea levels recede worldwide.

This allows me to understand two additional facts: d) whether there is anthropogenic climate change or not, sea levels will rise again, perhaps not as the result of human activity and not in such a short period of time in geological terms; and e) relocation of human settlements will be forced by sea levels in this century or a few centuries later regardless of what mitigation efforts humanity embarks on.

Although I could make an effort to substantiate a statement in either direction in response to Assignment Question 1, I prefer to consider the worst-case scenarios projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the Stern Report, other geological data about ice ages and higher sea levels in previous millennia, and take action counterfactually from there. In other words, if there will be a one-meter sea level rise by the end of the century, what kind of adaptation should we engage in? If prior to the next ice age sea levels will rise 60 meters, where would be the safest places to establish human settlements?

The right question.

Our scientific reasoning is based on methodologies that embrace deduction and induction as principles to advance new knowledge. A principle that has been neglected is abductive reasoning, paradoxically being the source of the initial hunch that leads to all scientific research. As Einstein reminds us, “imagination is more important than intelligence.”

The way abductive reasoning could help us cope with climate change is by allowing us to collaborate creatively in the process of imagining a new model for thriving life -also human- on the planet given the global constraints that we already know and even considering a few that, although there is no certainty about, there is some likelihood of. For example, the constraints by 2050 if human population reaches 9 billion, greenhouse gas emissions continue a steady rise, and the planet’s biocapacity –forest coverage, land fertility and ocean resilience- continues a steady decrease.

It is paramount that humanity imagines those scenarios –regardless of the likelihood of them happening- so that we can start generating ideas and building solutions for that not-so-distant future.

One last fact I would like to propose: f) I will not be alive in 2100. But that is not necessarily the same expectation for my unborn children, who might, and my grandchildren, who most likely will be around at the coming turn of the century. This leads me to believe that the efforts that we are doing and should continue doing to save the planet from humankind are not to improve the world we will live in, but the world our grandchildren will. This is why I strongly support the promotion of intercultural ethics as the way forward to reach global agreements towards the build-up of critical masses of leaders who will bring about a sustainable change that can ensure the regeneration and preservation of natural habitats as rich and unique as the Sundarbans. 

Coping with Climate Change: Sea Level Rising

In reference to the YouTube video explaining The Netherlands’ efforts to reclaim land from the sea and to retain tidal surges from flooding low-lying lands, the effort has achieved a variety of results: more than 2000 square kilometers of reclaimed land from the ocean, a dike or barrier to stop high tides from affecting land that lies below sea level, disruption of otherwise natural habitats, diversion of ocean currents, and creation of a safety device to stop storms short of human settlements.

In the process, local fishermen complained that erecting a normal dam would keep fish away from coastal fishing zones. This sparked innovation in the engineers in charge resulting in what is known as one of modern engineering’s marvels.

The question is whether this is a sustainable effort from a financial, environmental and social point of view. As a human-made construction, it will require maintenance because the forces of nature will degrade it over time. This is opposite to what happens with natural constructions, be it forests, marshes, or grasslands: they regenerate over time.

At least that was the case until anthropogenic climate change, where some natural constructions are degraded permanently.

Reclaimed land in the Netherlands has not been reclaimed permanently. If worst-case scenarios of sea level rising occur, it could bring that land back under the ocean. The attempt to prevent it would require a financial and engineering mobilization that might require lifting up the barriers not only along the Dutch coast, but also essentially along the coast of all territories where oceans could penetrate. Financially, that would be out of the question already.

The issue at stake is whether humans are able to cope with climate change through human technology. An interesting approach is what Dutch architects have been developing as housing solutions for high-sea level regions, like the Maldives, which could altogether disappear from above the ocean surface. These architects have been designing life-supporting structures that basically float and are also tied to the ocean floor, allowing for human life to thrive. Another entirely different question is whether the necessary resources to subsist would be available, but the effort is worth mentioning.

Coping with climate change means coping with the new forces of nature that are being triggered: higher sea levels, greater humidity in the air causing more rain and increasing likelihood of flooding, shrinking ice formations reducing river flows during melting season in spring and summer, less arable land and forests, to name a few.

This would require –at a formidable cost- to displace coastal communities to higher ground where the probability of severe disruption by climate-related catastrophes is reduced, relocation of communities towards sustainable water basins to support human activities, better technologies for water preservation, purification, reutilization and management, planting new forests to naturally store and purify water, among others.

It would also imply to change habits of consumption, not only renewable resources, such as water and timber, but also less renewable, like beef and fish, whose consumption at present rates come at such a high environmental cost.

In response to the second sub-question, the largest demerit of engineering approaches to adaptation is that it is an attempt to fight back nature instead of adapting to it. This, instead, would require understanding the new forces of nature and utilizing them to the benefit of life in general, and not only human life in particular.

The greatest merit is the intellectual process that leads to innovation, which is always so inspiring. Even the way inaccessible oil is drilled out through innovative technologies is inspiring, despite the consequences of burning such oil might have. Human inventive character is monumental and truly indispensable for climate change adaptation and mitigation to happen effectively and sustainably. In fact, it would be ideal if experts from different fields of study would come together to collaborate creatively towards the innovation of systems that will address the causes and consequences of anthropogenic climate change. Imagine engineers, mathematicians, economists, natural scientists, medical doctors, computer programmers, architects, and philosophers, among others, coming together to define global constraints and to generate new ideas and building solutions for a more prosperous future.