In conversation with Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this Chatham House virtual event. It’s our great pleasure to welcome you for a conversation with President Carlos Alvarado Quesada, the President of Costa Rica. It’s really a great honour to have you with us today, sir, and we know what it’s like, or we can imagine what it’s like, up in Glasgow. We have several of our Chatham House colleagues there and we’re delighted that this event that you’ve kindly joined us for is part of our Virtual Pavilion that Chatham House is hosting up in Glasgow between the 1st of November and the 11th. We’ve a series of events, but this really is one of the highlights, given the role that Costa Rica, the pioneering role of Costa Rica has been, and is, playing in addressing the climate challenge. And there seems to be a flow here from the last COP in Paris, where Christiana Figueres, a renowned Costa Rican Diplomat, and former Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC played such a pivotal role, and now to see Costa Rica, which was one of the winners of the Earthshot Prize just three or four weeks ago, is also playing the same role.

Let me just let you all know that I’m going to be engaging in conversation with President Alvarado in a minute. We will have a quick discussion around some of the main topics on our mind and I’m sure on his mind, and then we will open it up to questions. And I think, although we have a few people joining us on the Zoom platform, just to remind you, if you want to ask questions, please put them in the Q&A function, as you would always do, at the bottom of the screen, and I will then pose the questions to the President. But I think we have many more people joining us, I understand, through our Conference Plus platform, which is the one we’re using right now for the Virtual Pavilion that we’ve created. And there, please keep an eye on the ‘group chat’ function on the right-hand side of your screen, and there’s an event chat icon. Please click on ‘event chat’ and put your questions in there and they will come through to me. So, depending if you’re on Zoom or Conference Plus, you’ve got two different options to engage in the conversation.

I did want to say, Mr President, great to have you with us. You’ve got, I suppose, nine months, ten months left in your Presidential term, elected in May of 2018, therefore, under the Costa Rican constitution, a one-term Presidency, though I believe it’s possible to run again in the future, but not in succession. But Prime Minister Alvarado was also, in the last government of President Solís, Minister for Labor, also Minister for Human Development and Social Inclusion. And if I can say one more word of introduction, this connects to your British connection, as you did your – some of your studies at Sussex University and I know you got your master’s degree in development studies and that was a great university for that and were part of the Institute for Development Studies, IDS, which is a renowned British organisation. So, we feel that there’s a bit of a UK connection here, Mr President.

Any case, look, I want to ask you an opening question and don’t want to use up more time. This is on the record, just to remind you. We’re not under the Chatham House Rule. But with that on the record warning, what would you say at this early stages, still, of this very important COP26 in Glasgow, what are you taking away from the big leaders’ visit that we’ve had you, and other heads of state and governments who’ve been present there? What do you feel like the successes are so far, I know it’s early, but so far, from Glasgow? And maybe we could come to some of the disappointments, the things you hope might be fixed or get better. So, those would be my opening big question to you.

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Thank you very much, Robin, and I want to thank Chatham House. For me, it’s a real privilege and honour to be here in such a renowned institution, not only in the UK, but around the world. It’s a real honour and privilege.

To your question, let’s start with the positive. I do believe that the commitment to stop deforestation by 2030, it’s a great delivery, because let’s frame it this way, in the past we were investing more in the kind of investments that were destroying forests, even though we were not aware of that, and we were investing less in the process of reforestation. So, this commitment is not only about investing more in reforestation, but also being mindful, as a humanity, as a international community, public and private sector, to where we place investments, and not to place money wherever there’s going to be destruction.

So, this commitment is a huge commitment, given that it’s also a broad platform of countries. Sometimes we just see the announcement and we say, “It seems quite obvious, straightforward,” but the thinking behind it is robust and this is going to be an important impact. And this is key milestone, in order to tackle climate change. Oh, similarly, with the commitments on methane, that’s also relevant a milestone here. I had a whole conversation with Secretary, or Ex-Secretary Kerry, the Special Envoy of the United States, John Kerry, and we shared the thought that in terms of finance, we’ve seen progress. I mean, we’ve seen – we are more optimistic, particularly with announcements such as Japan, on adding more to the finance and co-operation, so those are positive things.

And I want to underline one – another aspect that I think it’s one of the key – and in this, Costa Rica participated with some parties, other countries of the region. So, yesterday, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia and Costa Rica announced the protection of a great part of their oceans, which is going to be a joint conservation area in the oceans. But it’s not a – like a – any other part of the world. Here we’re talking Galapagos Islands, here we’re talking about Cocos Island. The richness of these ecosystems and their protection is going to help not only climate change, because of the car – of the fixing of carbon, or the absorption of carbon, but also protect biodiversity, protect the future of fisheries, so many things. Of those things I feel very optimistic. Those are accomplishments that had happened here in Glasgow.

On the other hand, what we are not yet optimistic is that, even though those are concrete advancements, it’s still not enough, and that’s the great question. It is – those are huge steps. It demonstrate that it is possible to advance, but yet, we need to go even further, because we need all the national determined contributions to adjust to the global target, then Secretary-General Guterres has said – and I mean, he is a real champion on reminding us, also, that we are not yet delivering. So, that is why Costa Rica and other developing countries, and particularly the state – the island state countries, have been very, very vocal, very bare. We have stressed why this is critical and this is a discussion of literally life and death. So, those are, for me, the positives and the not so positives.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

No, thank you and I’m – obviously, it’s encouraging that there are these specific outcomes that have already been announced. I suppose the G20 commitment not to invest more in international coal financing is heading in the right direction, as well. Though, as I think you noted, these positive steps could be overwhelmed by the continuing track that so many countries are on right now, in terms of the pace at which they’re reducing their carbon emissions, and this is something that goes beyond, I suppose, Costa Rica’s control when we look at China, the US, parts of Europe, etc., and India, the kind of tracks they’re on.

Could I just ask you, though, very specifically, ‘cause you’re somebody who I know who understands a kind of, a multilateralism, how it works, how you can try to bring about change between countries that sometimes have quite different perspectives and timelines, just to keep it at this big level for another question? Do you sense that the voice of smaller countries is having weight in this COP26 and in the lead-up to it? People have been somewhat disappointed, maybe, by the G20 eight steps, but there is a sense that smaller states are finding a voice and to the extent that you’re able to ally with business or civil society organisations, do you feel that there’s some weight, if I may put it that way, behind the smaller countries in driving change at the moment? There was – am I being over-optimistic when I put that thesis forward?

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

I do believe the – that weight does exist, and for several reasons. One, case of Costa Rica, because we have demonstrated few example that it is possible to reverse deforestation, that it is possible to have 99.5% of your electricity to be produced by cleaner, renewable sources. One of our powers is to demonstrate – to lead by example. A second, very strong, and it’s a real power and it’s a moral power, has to do with the situation that smaller states are facing. When one talks to the leaders of the Caribbean, for example, or Palau or Marshall Islands, and especially now that the COP is – we are all here gathering in Glasgow, it’s not too soon, but you can see eye-to-eye people. And when they tell you, looking at you at the eye, that their life is at risk, that they will be facing migration because they’re conscious they’re going to be flooded for good, I mean, that is very persuasive, because we are, at the end of the day, we are humans, and we empathise.

So, I do believe they have a strong moral power towards other countries, particularly developed or gree – or large economies. It’s – they have very compelling cases of why we need to act. So, it – they does – I do believe they are very strong and, also, because they are doing their part. All of these countries have their decarbonisation plans, they have their commitments in place, they’re also leading by example, and they also have a very compelling case when they say, “And we do not pollute with fossil fuels.” That means we have not created this problem and we are suffering. So, there’s a very strong moral power, particularly when you get to be looking eye-to-eye and demanding answers.

My other approach on this, Robin, and all the people that are following us, is that in the multilateral arena, I do believe that there is, more or less, but I believe there’s a consensus now. We have moved from what happened a couple of years ago that, still, there was some discussion if climate change was real or not. I believe that consensus is in place and sadly, I think that fires throughout different continents and floodings throughout – from China to Germany, and Belgium and Costa Rica and Central America and hurricanes in the Caribbean, as I mentioned the fires in California and in Australia, they’re pointing out at the extreme weathers are now having impacts.

But I do also think that this is a moment when national politics and multilateral politics are having a disconnection, or they are working at different levels. The more – most clear example, President Biden, who is being – he’s doing his part in the multilateral arena. I mean, he’s pushing for the agreement, he brought back the US to the Paris Agreement as one of his first actions as a President. So he’s delivering in the multilateral arena, but now one of his major, most ambitious budgets for climate change, is to start by one vote in the domestic policy because of, locally, a regional goldmine and one vote in Congress, in the Senate.

So – and that’s an extreme example where maybe one vote in a national Senate can impact the whole multilateral policies, and you can see that right across the growth world countries, because everybody’s country is facing elections, so many of the democratic countries are facing elections, and then you should – some poor count – some countries, the climate change is very important. I see that in Europe, elections in Germany, elections in UK, climate change positions are in the middle of the discussion. But for example, in Latin America, climate change not necessarily is at the top of mine topic. You might have migration. You might have employment. So many people will give you an argument, “Why do you care about climate change if you’re not emitting and you’re not giving emissions, while our key problem is employment, this or the other?”

So, there’s a straight correlation between the awareness there is in the multilateral arena, but some obstacles in the national and local politics that inhibits, sometimes, us, as a world, to advance much faster as required.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah, I mean, I’m interested that you went to this space, ‘cause I think this question about the disconnect, as you said, between national politics and the climate risk, the timing is out of sync, in many cases, as well as the political systems themselves. Let me ask you one more question because of the way you’ve, kind of, answered one of my questions already, which was a little bit about how national politics is playing in. But I wondered if you could – and let me just let folks know, especially those joining us on the Conference Plus platform, who joined us later on, those who are not on Zoom, ‘cause I know we have about 1,800 people signed up to this series of activities we’re doing this week. If you want to ask questions, please go to the event chat button, which is on the right-hand side of your screen, under the group chat function, and go to event chat and you’ll be able to get your questions over to you us there and I’ll see them here on the Zoom platform, where I’m sitting. Hopefully, these two things are interconnected.

But Mr President, if I could just take you to the question I really wanted to ask, which links to your point about national politics, how replicable do you think Costa Rica’s example is in Latin America? I don’t know Costa Rica well enough to know where mining fits in your economy or, you know, cattle production and agriculture for driving it forward. People look at the case of Brazil, they look at the case of other countries in Latin America and that challenge of near-term economic development and yet, the impacts on the climate, are clearly severe. And I’m just wondering, Costa Rica, a small country, but it had its own history of deforestation, it overcame it, how replicable do you feel your example is, either across Latin America, or even in Central America specifically?

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Well, that’s a question we get a lot. Sometimes people say, “Well, Costa Rica can do that because you’re small and – but that cannot be replicated,” and other people say, “Okay, how do we – can we replicate that?” So, I think that to be true to the question, one will have to say, first, I do believe every country have to find their own path. It’s not that we are telling everybody you have to apply the Costa Rican model. Everybody has to learn their own ways and to construct their own development. That being said, the example of Costa Rica clearly defines that change is possible, that good change is possible. I mean, our example is not that you have to do this and you have to do that, our example is you can do positive things, they’re not impossible. Our example is that, for example, 70 years ago we abolished the Army. We have no armed forces whatsoever. We’re not telling anybody to do that. We will love everybody to abolish their armies, say, and to invest in – instead of investing in military, to invest in resilience or in adaptation for climate change. Can you imagine that kind of a world? What we are saying is that is possible.

I mean, when we reversed deforestation, people kept saying, “That’s impossible, because the land you’re going to reforestate is not going to be productive and our GDP is going to drop,” but actually, the opposite happened. We not only recovered our forests, we recovered our biodiversity, which is also very important. It’s not only forests we recover and carbon we fixed. We also recovered the ecosystem that it habitat to many a species, so, our biomass and our wildlife increased again. So, that – we are – they are addressing COP25 on climate and COP15 on biodiversity, with one nature-based solution, and our GDP grew because of ecotourism. There were more jobs, there were more rural jobs and payment for environmental services, this public-private scheme that was awarded the Earthshot by Prince William, demonstrated that it is possible to have this public and private alliance. It’s financed through a tax on fossil fuels and, also, delivers the money to the owners of the private forests, particularly indigenous people or farmers.

So, what – the example says that some things that are seen as impossible can be possible. Similarly with the clean and renewable energies. Presently, we have 99.5 of our electricity being clean and renewable, but now, our transportation, that is 60% of our energy, is based on fossil fuels. So, what are we doing now? We are plugging our clean electric grids into transportation. Many people say – they’re telling us now, “That’s impossible, we should not do that, that’s very costly,” but then, I think that a key of the example is saying that impossible can be possible. I believe there is a quote on Mandela that said something like that “Things seem impossible until somebody gets them done.” That’s quite true.

So, to your question, yes, I believe change is possible. Change – because change, and this is a bit more philosophical, but I do believe it, that change is a matter of will and change, we, in the capitalist view of our world, change we associate with changing our phone or changing our clothes, or changing our views or something. But change has to do with a clear objective to where we are and where we want to go, and the second element is persistence, waking up every day knowing where you want to go and keep – and thriving and not giving up. Persistence is a great deal of what change is all about and Athletes demonstrate that, and great Authors demonstrate that, and Scientists demonstrate it.

So, that’s why I think there’s also this – there’s a perspect – different perspectives of time. People say, “Nothing is happening on COP. Why is it taking so long? Why decisions are not being made?” But as we have seen in Costa Rica, good decision take seven decades, six decades, four decades, like when we abolished the Army or where we established national pacts – parks, the great results you get afterwards. So, we have to be very clear on that, very persistent and know that we are building, today, the legacy for the world we are going to inherit to all children, because we want to inherit the world to our children. That’s also part of that discussion.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you, that’s, no, very interesting. Showing what’s possible is a critical part, obviously, of making change happen. People are looking for examples, want to feel optimism about the future and not just simply feel this is a problem that is impossible to be able to fix.

Just taking one more question from me, and then I’m going to turn to some of the good questions we’ve got coming in here. But just on this issue of domestic politics, because it is so wrapped up in what countries can and cannot do. Rather than ask you to comment on other countries, which obviously, you’re free to do as much as you wish, but you know, you won pretty handily in the Presidential election, but – back in 2018, but your opponent, as I understand it, you know, brought more of a different view, a cultural view of what Costa Rica should or shouldn’t be, a form of conservatism, which we see, actually, in many parts of the world. You’re seeing this in Europe. You’re seeing it in the political debate in the United States. It is not unique to Costa Rica, but it exists, from what I understand, in Costa Rica, as well. And I suppose my question to you is, how worried might you be, or should we be, that the climate debate gets caught up inside the cultural-political debate, that in a way, dealing with climate gets put into the side of social progressivism, but the taking the harder, nearer-term focus on jobs gets pulled into the more conservative cultural part? ‘Cause if that’s where we end up, then it’ll be very difficult to take the long-term decisions or for successors of yours, as President of Costa Rica, to build on the successes of the past. How worried are you about the way politics is changing, especially in democracies around the world, including in Costa Rica, and how could this affect climate change?

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Sorry, I do believe that in Costa Rica, but elsewhere, particularly in the democratic world, we should be very mindful of the politics and particularly mindful of populism. Because there’s this current in which whenever you see leaders that disregard evidence, data and science, which do not condemn violence in political debate, whenever you see leadership that do not validate opposition, because part of the democratic debate is that you know you have your stand and that there are others, and that there is a democratic, when you start seeing that, you should be aware or you should be mindful of what’s going on, on your democracy.

And I believe that current it’s still there. For example, the last lit – the debate on our last campaign, it revolve around human rights, for example. I’m proud to say that in Costa Rica, during the egalitarian marriage came into reality, that means same sex marriage is reality in Costa Rica, and that’s because we believe that from the perspective of human rights. Also, that we put decarbonisation in the climate agenda as one of the key elements and now we have in Congress a bill to prohibit exploitation and exploration of oil in Costa Rica, forever, for good, and we have a bill, also, well, to have an electric train. There’ll be a renewable clean energies, so we put that in the centre of our agenda.

But for example, there are other views even within Costa Rica and even we have this reputation of being a very green, forward-thinking country, there are many views that say that “We need to explore it, oil, for example, to pay our international debt.” Even in the 21st Century, the people saying that, openly, in the political debate. Or there were people that said that we should get out of the Inter-American Human Rights Court, because they were against the right of a marriage between same sex people. So, that debate’s still there and we should not take for granted the – a notion of progress that is constant. That’s not true, though, we can have setbacks. We saw the impact of, for example, the United States dropping from the Paris Agreement, and as Secretary Kerry, the Special Envoy, Kerry, was talking to me last night, he said, “It’s not only the impact of the years we were out. It’s the time for President Biden administration that’s going to take to catch up,” because they have to start building a new budget, they have to start building alliances and programmes again, many times from scratch.

So, we should not take for granted where we are standing, and I think other – my other – the other thing I have learnt is. we need to take the courageous decisions regardless of, even of electoral politics, because in these cases, we’re – this discussion is pretty unique, Robin and friends. We’re talking about the existence of humans and the existence of the planet. I always use this example to anyone in the room or in the conversation. If you have a child, if you have a son or a daughter, and for any reason, they fall ill and you go to the hospital, do you at that moment, in the hospital, think about the amount of money you’re going to invest in your child’s health, if you’re going to get indebted, if you have to go to your work instead of being there with your children? I mean, you do about anything possible. If you have to give your kidney, you will give your kidney to your child, literally. Many parents around the world have done that.

So, let’s put it in the climate discussion. If we need a planet for our children and grandchildren, for there to be a planet for them to live, who – is it worth to do about anything to make that happen? I think, yes, that the answer is yes. So, regardless of politics, regardless, sometimes, of popularity, regardless of many things, but we need to do the right thing and if one seizes the evidence and one is convinced, then the answer is very straightforward. Do you – one should not use any other calculation, but the ethical thing to do. So, I think there is the moral compass.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Well, you mentioned the ethical thing to do. I want to turn to the first question that we’ve got here on the – on our list of questions, from Trisha de Borchgrave, who asks about the fact that “Costa Rica consistently scores as one of the highest on the UN’s World Happiest Report.” So, staying – you were talking about doing the moral thing, but the question here is, is there a connection, in your opinion, between the kind of, ecological investments, the climate efforts that Costa Rica has made, and the fact that the country is scoring high in that UN Happiness Report? Is there something that’s going on that creates that connection? Do you have any sense, as a Politician, that that connection exists and are you working on it? Is that part of the selling point, if I may say, for your party?

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Well, I think there – one component has to do with that, with us – that mean your opportunity to have a healthy environment does improves the quality of life of people, but I also think has a cultural component. One, for example, not having an army, not having conscription and not – for decades, not having a armed conflict, not with any other country and not within our country. So – and put it that the largest investment’s in health and education, I think is the best way to protect and that can produce happiness, and not having any threat, a constant threat of – and things.

So, I think that is one of our, you know, of our traits and there might be any – many others. I mean, when Costa Rica this year is becoming 200 years – celebrating 200 years of its independence, but Costa Rica used to be a very poor province during the colony in Spain. And one thing that really mark Costa Rica is that as we were a really poor province, there were not these aristocrats from Spain living in Costa Rica. It was the, like, the low hierarchy, of the Spaniards that come to Costa Rica, basically, to work the land. There were no big latifundias and so, there is also a route – even though there was violence, and even though there were many things, like in any process of conquest and colony, it was less severe than in other places. So, inequality, from a cultural perspective, was not as present. I mean, recently, I received the DNA and my heritage information, and the interesting part is I have blood from low noble Spaniards, I have blood from enslaved mulattoes and I have blood from indigenous people, all mixed in who’s the President of Costa Rica today. So, one never knows.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

No, one certainly doesn’t know, and actually, on that point, let me just bring one more question I want to come in, before I go back to the questions that are coming in from people participating, which is actually to do with migration, something that can create a sense of insecurity in a society, something for which, quite often, armed forces can be used. So, this is a question here from Doris Eirafi, who asks about, you know, “How come you were able to get rid of your army?” And Professor Eirafi’s asking, you know, “What do you do about protection of your borders?” You know, the military and armies aren’t always used for conquests, they’re often used for defence, and we have pictures, right now, in Europe of Polish soldiers on the border with Belarus, trying to prevent migrants who’ve been, in essence, sent over by the Belarus Government, but from poorer parts of the world. But the army are on the border, protecting it.

And I suppose the question I have with you, you have, as I understand it, quite a few immigrants coming in now from Nicaragua. It’s quite a – it’s a country going through some challenges. It has not taken the same democratic path, despite the existence of elections, as other countries in Latin America, including yours. Is this a problem and is this a worry? Central America is badly affected by climate change and there’s a lot of movement of people, but including to Costa Rica. If you’re too successful, too happy, what – you know, how – where does migration fits into this and how are you going to manage the process of immigration? Could this become a real risk for Costa Rica?

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Well, I thank the question from Doris and, first, I want, also, to point out that we have do – we do have challenges. It’s not that I could – we have solved everything. We do have challenges, and also in equality and poverty, that we are tackling. But it’s true that, in many aspects, we are better off.

Well, to the question of Doris that we have a Civil Police, and we have a Border Police, just like any other country, but I do not think that military, at the end of the day, is – or a wall, by any extents, is the thing that’s going to protect, say, the population, if there’s – if there’s any to protect from migration. Think about the United States. They have the largest army in the world and, also, they have the largest amount of migration. For example, in Costa Rica, we see, every day, people moving from – well, we see people from South America going to Colombia, to Panama, to Costa Rica, and then to up North, particularly from Haiti, currently, to migrate to United States, or people from Central America.

And I think the best way to address migration that we have forgot has to do with going to the root causes of why people mobilise, and a lot has to do with lack of opportunities, insecurity, hunger. When we see how climate change has affected Central America, for example, we see not only drought, but floodings in many rural areas of Central America, particularly in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, and many people looking for opportunities for jobs, they’re moving to United States for – searching for an answer for their families, for themselves. Also, sometimes, drug trafficking and gangs and security can be something that mobilises people to look all other opportunities.

But I know that the necessity of human development locally, climate change, also sometimes violence, it’s a mix of causes that triggers migration, and us, as international community, need to understand that, to address it in a multidimensional manner. Thinking of climate change, thinking of gender, how women are – the women and children the most affected by migrations because of violence toward women or lack of education and nutrition for children. So, I do believe that – and that’s why, in Costa Rica, and us, as a policy, internationally, we say instead of investing in missiles and in weaponry, you were investing in development, in forests that are taken care by local communities, in innovation, the world would be way different. I always use this example, Mandela, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, they did not have an army to change the world. They had ideas, principles, and with that, they leaded and mutually changed the world. So, I think all those investments we can use for developments.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

No, it’s great you mention those leaders and I’m thinking we have a big quote by Mahatma Gandhi up in Chatham House, from when he spoke there, and actually, one up from Nelson Mandela, as well. So, we could show those to you and welcome you to Chatham House yourself in one day. And actually, the Founder of Chatham House, Lionel Curtis, we have a quote of his up on the wall, who talks about an idea having “greater penetration” and being able to, you know, “fire and going further distance than any type of bullet.” You know, an idea can have so much more penetration and distance that it can cover. So, I very much take your point.

We’ve had two questions that come to the same point, from Sortiv Dimirov and from Shitov Dianis, both who ask a question, really, about the role of civil society. “How important is civil society in your development paradigm, in your capacity to address climate change?” And “How much are you going to have to rely, in essence, on NGOs, non-state actors, to drive the decarbonisation agenda?” How central are they, in your experience, in Costa Rica, or even more broadly? Yeah, is this where the power lies, or has part…?

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

They are central. I think it’s – I think we need to see the actors and like in a team, we need to see the strengths and where are your strengths, where are your weak points, and how we can work together. From my experience, the public sector can drive direction, can enforce rules, but it’s not necessarily the most agile or the most flexible, or sometimes could get just lost in politics and in bureaucracy.

The private sector, let’s say, the pure private sector, sometimes has the willingness, sometimes not, and sometimes, when they have – do have the willingness, which is good, not necessarily have the tools where to direct their energy, to say, “Okay, we want to help, but we don’t necessarily know what – how is apt, or if this is going to really impact this investment,” or – so, the willingness has to be driven, channelised properly. And sometimes, the private – the pure private sector when deals with the public sector, they get just – they said that “This is terrible, nothing is working,” and they get really anxious.

So, the NGOs here work at many levels. One, they drive a moral compass, as well. They tend to say, “Here is the problem. This is immoral, we need to change this,” and they have that capacity to be very vocal and drive action from civil society, from private sector, from public sector. They have this capacity to mobilise public opinion and that’s very powerful. Also, they have the capacity to mobilise talent in a way that many other do not. They – so, you have people, the best minds, people that donate their time or that [audio cuts out – 42:40] that tend to drive momentum for causes or for actions, and this is – you see this more often in civil society and it’s a very powerful tool to drive change.

Also, for many things that take very long, either for private or public sectors, the pure ones, let’s say, NGOs have a range to act promptly and quickly, it’s – and more spontaneously. It’s way stronger than – so, their role in the whole ecosystem is like providing agility, providing guidance, providing and making things happen, and I’ve seen that in the past. One of the great things of my – of the way I relate to NGOs and civil society is they keep me – reminding me about the costs, and that sometimes stop, because they say, “You need to do this. You need to do this. You’re getting off the – off road,” and that keep reminding you what the cause is. In politics, one determine to achieve things is not necessarily a straight line. Sometimes you go forwards, sometimes you go back, sometimes you have to go to the left, sometimes you have to stay still, but you know what your objective is. But civil society keeps reminding you where you want to go, so, their role is key in today’s society.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

We’re coming close to the time that we said we’d break. I wanted to make sure I got in a question that was shared with me ahead of this event, by one of my colleagues in Chatham House, because obviously, you have been, you know, a absolute driver, not just on the climate front, but also, you’ve been quite vocal on the global health response to the COVID pandemic. And if I could finish with a question to you on this front, because we talk about an area where there was a discrepancy between what some of the richest countries have been doing and the support they’ve been providing to those that are less well enough and who, you know, were certainly not the originators of this crisis. What is your sense of how we can move forward on pooling, technology, research, in order to drive global health co-operation and make societies more resilience, not just on the climate front, but also, obviously, on this other side, as well? That would be a, you know, a question I would definitely want to get your sense on, which is you know, what would be your take on the possibilities for greater co-operation in the global health front?

And by the way, I can see, as always happens at the end, people are throwing in all sorts of questions in the last second, just when I thought we were coming to the end, including one from Bianca Jagger, which I feel I – is quite – you can imagine what her question’s going to be about. So, I’ll let you – I’ll hold that to the end. But let me just come back to you very quickly and maybe we could squeeze one more in after this question. Could you say a word or two about the efforts you’re making on technology sharing for health resilience, in particular, around the COVID crisis?

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Thank you, Robin, that’s a great question, I think. Currently, in Africa, the latest data says that it’s about 5% of the population in that continent that has been vaccinated, and that is a huge risk, not only for the Africans, the African people and children and the elderly, but it’s a huge risk for the rest of the world. Because if there is to emerge a new variant of the virus in a place with such small levels of vaccination, and let’s pray to God that this new variant – that the vaccines work on a new variant, but just imagine for a moment that a new variant version of COVID is resilient to the current vaccination. In that scenario that nobody in the world wants to happen, we will go back to the beginning of the pandemic, well, with more knowledge and with – but that will be a setback, an awful setback.

And that is happening at the same time that many countries, particularly rich, developed countries, have surplus of vaccines. I do know, and I thank that, that many of the developed countries have been donating those doses and that more and more countries have the access. But it is true, this is not only a nice phrase, it’s true that nobody is going to be safe, or completely safe, until everybody is safe. So, Costa Rica launched an initiative with Dr Tedros, in the World Health Organization, to have a pool of voluntary scientific developments and, also, for intellectual property, to freely share that. And our goal is that the faster we get this fixed around the world, the faster we are going to be okay, and that counts treatments, diagnosis and, also, if somebody wants to put their vaccines, that could be possible.

We have been told that, for many, that “Well, it’s not only intellectual property. It has to do with the goods, necessarily, to build vaccinations and all that chains related to make that happen.” But I do believe that where science gave – delivered during this pandemic, they delivered the vaccination, the rest of us, in terms of the politics regarding vaccines, how they were distributed, how they, unequally, were distributed within, depending on the, basically, on the per capita of each country, how rich and how poor a country is, determine the amount of vaccines and the time they receive them. So, there, I believe, we failed, we failed.

And look at that discussion vis-à-vis climate change, because I don’t want a world in which there’s going to be resentment and anger, saying, “You are the part of the world that polluted and created climate change. You are the part of the world that accumulated vaccines, and here we are flooded and here we are without vaccines and now you’re asking us to increase our forests and to diminish our emissions.” That’s a very polarised view. So, I think we better improve how we distribute our vaccines around the globe, because it’s in the interests of anyone. I believe there’s not a touch – we are so inter-related, that today, the most selfish values sometimes align with the most selfless and the solidarity values. So, now are – my interest is for everybody to be vaccinated around the globe, and that is solidarity, but that’s also somehow selfish.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

And it’ll help with the climate change. Look, as I was – I was going to try and wind it up close to the hour, but we’ve got – I’m only got to fit, I’m afraid, two of the last four questions in. So, I’m just going to ask two, if I may, ‘cause one is very specific and I’m sure you’ll probably have a short answer to it, but Bianca Jagger asks, “Dear President, What is Costa Rica’s plan about the fraudulent elections in Nicaragua on the 7th of this month?” Do you have a plan? I’ll let you answer that question first and I’ve got a closing one.

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Well, no, we, as the rest of the region, we have a – deploy our diplomatic efforts. We do believe that being the opposition President, it’s not going to be a process that’s going to have any transparency. What we do believe is that Nicaragua needs, urgently, to recover its democracy and for that to happen, the most realistic and physical way to make that happen is a dialogue. To open a dialogue that will, hopefully, end up in a dialogue, particularly between the Nicaraguans, that will end up with real, true elections. Also, we are, well, doing our part, in terms that it is true that we have half a million Nicaraguans in Costa Rica working or living in our country. It’s roughly 10% of our population. So, we keep observing the situation there, but the true is that the international community in Costa Rica being part of it, an active part of it, we need to persuade to have a real dialogue, to recover a real democracy for the Nicaraguan people. So, that – our efforts are aiming in that direction.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Understood. Look, last question, ‘cause I think this is a good one to finish up with, from Ronald Fitzherbert. There’s so much of a focus on COP26 on governments and what governments can and can’t do, but his question to you is, “What do you think the Costa Rican people’s ask is, what do they ask from other people in the world on climate change?” What do you think the Costa Rican people are asking other people to do?

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Well, I think our people are asking, or demanding, persuading others to do their share, to do their best. Perhaps, as we have been living in a country that has accomplished many things, we see, somehow, that it’s the obvious way. I mean, for us, it’s the way it’s meant to be and perhaps, as we have done it, we now do not realise it that’s so complex and difficult. And I will not try to be arrogant, perhaps it’s just mere ignorance, but what we want is to persuade people to go in the right direction. We want persuade – we’re going to be inspire people. We want to inspire people that this is the way to go. And we sense it, when people go to Costa Rica and visit us, and they say, “Wow, there’s no army. How come you are still here, existing?” or, “Wow, there – so green, your country and why are there so many forests?” or this – “the energy.” Well, we want to say that’s not something that we believe is exclusive of us. We’ll be happy that there was the case everywhere, or those objectives were the case everywhere.

So, I think our – it’s more than an ask, it’s an invitation for everybody to commit in – with those values. And perhaps, I don’t want to state the – a causation relation, perhaps a correlation, perhaps those things are truly linked with happiness, what we were discussing before, happiness, wellbeing. Because at the end of the day, if we want to have a planet, we wanted to live in it, and if we want to live, it’s to pursue, to have a purpose. And while, well, being happy is nice, it’s a nice purpose for one’s life, so I think all those link together.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you. Look, I think I’m glad we ended with that question, because in a time when there is so much around the COP26 Summit, that as you gave your sense of what’s working and what isn’t, I’m sure there will be disappointments over the coming days, as much as there will be signs of progress, and that’s going to be the story for the next decade or so, at least. And let me just say, I think, on behalf of my colleagues at Chatham House, those who work in our Environment Society Programme, in our Sustainability Accelerator, where Chatham House is trying to drive, really, towards a 2035 target of our own, in terms of ideas, but all of us across the whole institute of Chatham House, this idea about not what you ask from people, but what you can show as an example, or what you can show as a way forward, is often the best way to get the results. When you, as you said, when you demand things, then bring out the wrong kind of politics, and I appreciated your time explaining to us the politics that you have to deal with as a leader, as any leader at COP26 is having to do over these days, and over the months that will follow, as well.

So, in the spirit of that, thank you very much for some inspiring comments and for sharing your vision, or the message you’re trying to push in COP26, and for the very good example that Costa Rica certainly is setting. And for that reason, we were really pleased to have you, amongst others, as part of our programme for this very important week. As I said, hope to welcome you at some point, Mr President, to Chatham House on another day, but thank you for the moment. Thank you very much for everyone who joined us, especially those coming in to us from the Virtual Pavilion. Look forward to having you with us on the rest of the events this week, but for the moment, if we could give a big hand, we would, but I will say just a big thank you from everyone here, President Alvarado Quesada, great to have you with us.

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

My pleasure. My honour being on Chatham House.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

See you next time, hopefully. Bye, bye, everyone, thank you so much.

Carlos Alvarado Quesada

Bye.