Salvadoran Government Catching up to Communities on Climate Change

Yesterday we issued a press release reporting that Salvadoran government officials attribute last week’s record rainfall and flooding to climate change.

This morning Hernán Rosa Chávez, the Minister of the Environment and Natural Resources, told La Presnsa Grafica that El Salvador is about to “begin the process of shielding itself against climate change.” He wants El Salvador to be a model country for the international community on how to live with climate change.

He said, “we have to prepare ourselves for this [the rains] to occur every year. We have to make changes in agriculture so that [farmers] will not lose their crops. We have to build an infrastructure thinking about vulnerability, and develop the country without needing to destroy it.”

While these statements are an important recognition of the problem, they are also another sad reminder that the time for the United States and other industrialized nations to change their greenhouse-gas emitting ways is running out. And its countries like El Salvador that are suffering as a result.

With regards to Minister Chávez’ plan to change the agriculture sector so farmers won’t lose their crops, communities long-ago recognized that extreme weather patters would affect their crops. In the Lower Lempa region of Usulután, one of the most affected during last week’s historic rains and floods, farmers have been converting some of their fields to rice which is more flood resistant. That have also been installing irrigation systems that will allow them to plant corn in the dry season when the risk of flooding is low. Local development organizations and farmers talk openly about climate change and how to better protect their crops, and increase their food security.

Rio Lempa flowing through a levee break on October 13th, days before the flooding got really bad

If the Salvadoran government really wanted to help, they could work with local farmers to protect domestic markets for their crops instead of allowing cheap imports from heavily subsidized US farmers to run them out of business. In September, President Funes was in the Lower Lempa to announce an $18 million aid package for the region that will in part help farmers convert to “exotic crops” such as cashew nuts that they can sell in the US. Such crops are even more sensitive to climate change and would subject Salvadoran farmers to the ups and downs of US markets. And if locals are not growing corn and beans, it creates a greater market for US farmers. If the Funes administration really wants to help the domestic agricultural sector respond to climate change, they should help provide farmers access to simple technologies that give them more control over their crops, and protect domestic markets for domestically grown products.

Minister Chávez also said the government will improve the nation’s infrastructure to decrease vulnerability. That’s great, but communities in the Lower Lempa and other river basins around El Salvador have been asking for better levees and drainage systems for more than 10 years. The levees have failed in several of the most recent storms, and since 2003, communities have marched from the Lower Lempa to San Salvador to demand they repair them. It’s great that the Minister supports these efforts now. Imagine if he and other government officials had supported these efforts last year or the year before. Maybe Nueva Esperanza, Ciudad Romero, Zamorano, Nuevo Amanecer, Salinas del protrero, and hundreds of other impoverished communities would have faired a little better last week.

Climate change is a reality. And with all due respect for Minister Chavez, if there is a silver lining to last week’s rains its that the government and international community may begin supporting communities that have been trying to deal with it for years.

The Cost of Free Trade: 5 Years into DR-CAFTA

The Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (or DR-CAFTA) went into effect March 1, 2006. After 5 years, it is time to evaluate what kind of results this agreement has produced. Like any other free trade agreement, the logic behind CAFTA was that liberalized trade leads to a net welfare gain for both countries. Furthermore, because the seven countries involved in the agreement (US, Dominican Republic, Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Nicaragua) have different resources, technologies, and preferences, there are gains to be made from trade. By pursuing each other’s comparative advantage, as David Ricardo first argued, each country may specialize in that which it is relatively better at producing. This is a powerful theory, but as economics often shows, theory cannot always be reconciled with reality; many of these models make specific assumptions that do not always match the real world. Specifically in the case of CAFTA, it appears as though the Central American countries have suffered several negative consequences of this free trade agreement. The results of the agreement that weren’t clearly negative are ambiguous at best.

 

The removal of tariffs lowers the costs of trade between these countries and their main trading partner–the US. That being said, because tariffs have been removed, the governments of the Central American countries have less government revenue flowing in. While the US hardly had any tariffs on imported goods from Central American countries, the Central American nations had high tariffs on US goods in order to raise revenue for their governments. Before DR-CAFTA came into effect, about 80% of all US goods were not duty free, and the removal of the tariffs caused the governments to lose a substantial amount of revenue.

 

Additionally, because the US subsidizes its agricultural products, it has hurt the average farmers in these Central American countries. Since most Central American farmers cannot compete with the massive, more efficient farms in the US that are subsidized by the government, many of these Central American farmers find themselves out of business.  This forces them to instead try to find work in the multi-national corporations’ factories. More individuals in the cities seeking jobs in the so-called “maquilas” means that the supply of labor rises while the number of maquilas stays the same. This leads to an excess supply of Salvadorans seeking jobs in these factories. Thus, factory owners may lower their salaries because there is so much competition for work.

 

Many theorists would assert that one of the largest benefits of trade is that after lifting barriers to trade, the countries involved in the agreement will be able to consume more, leaving them all better off. In reality however, the results are neither negative nor positive, but rather unclear. Data shows that over the course of the last five years and until 2010, exports and imports in El Salvador have steadily increased. One, however, cannot say for certain that this is a direct result of DR-CAFTA. More than that, while Salvadoran exports and imports may have increased, it does not necessarily mean that El Salvador is physically producing and exporting more goods. Export and import data are calculated by value, and therefore one must factor prices into the equation. It is possible that El Salvador produced just as much last year as it did five years ago. However, because prices have risen, the value of its exports has also risen even though El Salvador is not better off in real terms. There is some evidence that suggests that increases in price levels over time account for some of the rise in exports. According to the data, El Salvador has experienced inflation since 2005. Because of the difficulty of directly attributing rises in exports and imports to DR-CAFTA the actual effect of the agreement on trade is ambiguous.

 

The effects of DR-CAFTA remain unclear when analyzing Chapter 10 of the agreement, which eliminates barriers to investment. According to the chapter, investments are very strongly protected.  This protection is provided by the most-favored nation provision (in which the countries agree to accord one another with the same favorable terms that would be offered in treaties with any other nation) the “fair and equitable treatment” clause (which refers to a country agreeing to treat foreign investors the same as domestic ones), and the “full protection and security” clause (which refers to a country’s agreement to protect one other’s investors by providing them with security).  Because of these provisions, multi-national corporations can securely conduct their business in signatory nations and employ their citizens.  Although this is positive for El Salvador and the rest of Central America, the nature of the jobs these corporations often provide is unsanitary, unsafe, and low-paying. Thus, the citizens of Central America are not necessarily better off, especially since the multi-national corporations often do not reinvest their profits within the region but instead send it back to their home country. Due to the lack of economic development from the international investors, workers do not necessarily stand to gain.

 

For all of these reasons, DR-CAFTA has no clear and significant benefits to El Salvador and the other Central American members of the agreement. Salvadorans and other Central Americans need development, and because DR-CAFTA seems to facilitate it through spurring investment, but impede it through working conditions, among other things, this trade agreement is neither a sufficient nor an ideal solution to development.  DR-CAFTA, along with its effects like poor working conditions, low salaries, US subsidized exports, etc, will continue to remain an issue of concern until further investigation and/or reforms can be completed.

El Salvador’s Ongoing Struggle with Food Security (Part 2)

Food security and water issues in El Salvador are partially caused and definitely worsened by the effects of climate change.  The unpredictable patterns of rainfall and drought that are characteristic of climate change negatively affect crop production, thereby leading to reduced yields and higher market prices.

 

José Camilo Rodriguez, mayor of the community of Tonacatepeque, remarked in an interview conducted by the World Bank on the stress that has been put on the poor farmers in his community, due to the effects on the market that were caused by precarious weather conditions, such as floods.

 

Floods, in addition to harming crops, often tend to lead to the contamination of rivers as sewage and rainwater combine and flow back into rivers as the floods subside. FAO estimates that a mere 16% of Salvadorans have access to water that is safe to drink.  The Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) additionally notes that only 2% of the rivers in El Salvador hold water that is suitable for human consumption.  MARN alleges that one of the most contaminated rivers is the Lempa River, which reaches a large number of communities over its 360-kilometer span and is highly polluted by fecal bacteria.

 

In regards to food related security, FAO cites that 9% of the Salvadoran population is undernourished, missing about 190 calories from their diet.  Inequality in access to food is troublingly high.  Despite all of the challenges and problems the Salvadoran people face, at least a few communities have come together in community-based projects to improve their food and water security situations.

 

Grassroots community efforts to improve food security and water quality are making concrete, positive impacts in El Salvador.  We at Voices on the Border have had a direct hand in working with communities in the Lower Lempa to help develop irrigation systems that facilitate crop cultivation, especially during the dry season and periods of drought, which threaten crop yields.

 

In addition, communities in Santa Marta, El Salvador, with the help of an international NGO have successfully worked to raise fish, harvest honey, and crops.  These products are sold at market and some of the profits are invested back into the venture, to keep it growing.  This project enjoys the help of many members of the community, who take turns fishing or selling their products at market.  Grassroots level improvement of the food security situation in El Salvador is promising and seems to be gaining popularity.

 

Supplementing these grassroots initiatives are the efforts of various international organizations that have attempted to help improve the food security situation in the country.  On March 24, the USDA, under their Food For Progress (FFP) initiative, donated 30,000 metric tons of wheat to El Salvador.  The sales of this wheat are intended to generate about $11 million of revenue that will be utilized to finance infrastructure and development projects to help farmers affected by Tropical Storm Ida. Food For Progress  also urges them to take advantage of the trade opportunities afforded to them under the DR-CAFTA agreement. Since 2001, USDA has delivered 130,400 metric tons of food to El Salvador, for a total value of approximately $27.5 million.  While this form of aid seems both promising and beneficial to food security measures, due to the direct investment in domestic production El Salvadoran agriculture, other programs have not been as conscientious.

 

USAID’s “glass of milk” project, was launched in 2009 with the intention of providing a daily glass of milk to 3,790 students in 15 schools of Ataco, Ahuachapán, with the aim at improving the physical health and development of Salvadoran youth.  USAID invested $76,317 for the provision of these resources and the program was successful with the caveat that it missed a prime opportunity to invest in the Salvadoran economy.  Instead of cooperating with local dairy farmers within the country, USAID financed the importation of dried milk imported from northern US states.  This large-scale importation of milk drove down market prices for dairy products, creating adverse consequences for local dairy farmers.  While the aid of international organizations is necessary for food and water improvements in El Salvador, this project is an example of why organizations need to be wary of the manner in which they seek to make improvements.

 

Food and water security is a vital issue for communities in El Salvador who are experiencing unpleasant consequences on their agricultural sector from the economic interdependence that has arisen from globalization and the effects of climate change.  These factors continue to complicate El Salvador’s quest to better its food security situation, but through domestic investment in agricultural infrastructure and products and grassroots community efforts to promote sustainability, it is likely many of these problems could be mitigated.

El Salvador’s Ongoing Struggle with Food Security (Part 1)

El Salvador has not been exempt from the food security problems that have historically plagued developing countries.  According to The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), food security exists when “all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.” Currently, El Salvador’s food security condition remains stable, without instance of acute food shortages.  Although ‘stable,’ the food security situation in El Salvador is definitely less than ideal and market prices for agricultural products continue to climb.

 

FAO’s Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture reports (GIEWS) highlight a few important characteristics of the current Salvadoran state of food security.  A 40% rise in the price of maize and beans since last year is the first among the challenges facing Salvadorans.  These are the country’s basic food sources, which experienced severely reduced yields due to the excessive rainfalls of 2010, coupled with the international rise in grain prices.  Finally, the 2011 sowing of cereal crops is predicted to be low due to the damage caused by the La Niña phenomenon.

 

Food security problems in El Salvador have historical roots. Landholdings in El Salvador were once concentrated in the hands of a small group of wealthy elites until agrarian reforms were initiated in 1980.  This group of landholders instituted a system of cultivation in which they focused on a singular export, producing a mono-crop culture that would persist for decades.  The focus of production on a singular crop necessitated the importation of many other important agricultural commodities that were not being domestically produced. The first of these mono-crops was cacao, during the end of the 16^th century, followed by indigo in the 18^th century, and then finally in the mid-19^th century, coffee. From 1871 to 1927 El Salvador was referred to as the “coffee republic.” The extremely lucrative nature of the coffee trade served to further concentrate land in the hands of oligarchy that had developed.

 

The beginning in the 1980s witnessed an increase in demand for government intervention in the agricultural sector, as Salvadorans pressed to gain access to land through protests and other public demonstrations.  An agrarian reform eventually liberated over 500 hectares from 230 estates, or about 15% of the country’s farmland. Although the redistribution of land seemed to be promising, overall it was not effective enough to change the trajectory of El Salvador’s agricultural sector or economy.

 

During the Cristiani administration (1989-1994), El Salvador’s economy remained dependent on agricultural imports.  Cristiani prioritized his family business, Semillas Cristiani Burkard (SCB), a privately held seed company headquartered in Guatemala City, Guatemala, over internal development of the agricultural sector.  Crisitani curtailed the growth and development of the domestic sector by heavily importing seeds from SCB in order to accumulate personal wealth.

 

Cristiani also pushed for further industrialization of the country, which had been seen briefly during the Civil War, in the form of maquiladoras, which contained free economic export zones or ports commonly located in and created by third world countries, which dealt mainly with exporting cheaply priced, handmade products. Maquiladoras were located in the metropolitan areas of El Salvador, which heightened the level of urbanization, creating problems of congestion, but also demands for more industrial commodities and services, such as electricity and transportation.

 

This population shift, from rural to urban centers of living and sometimes from El Salvador to other international locations, had significant impacts on the agricultural sector.  Remittances provide a clear example of the consequences of migration on agricultural practices.  Salvadorans are extremely dependent on remittances, and as much as 20.7% of their GDP consists of said monetary transfers.  The Central Bank estimated that in 2010 remittances from Salvadorans working in the United States totaled a hefty $3.5 billion.  Essentially, the less developed communities in El Salvador are making lifestyle and economic shifts that signify a movement away from subsistence agriculture, made possible by remittances that supplement or comprise their household incomes.

 

The Funes administration (2009-present), has been left with the historical lack of diversification of agricultural production, along with the absence of development of the domestic agricultural sector as a consequence of Cristiani’s strategy to focus on crop imports.  Almost 95% of fruit and vegetables consumed in El Salvador are imported from abroad, along with 30% of all its beans and 40% of corn.  Funes and the FMLN have made it a goal in May of 2011 to achieve “food sovereignty” meaning the ability to decide what agricultural policies El Salvador will implement which will also hopefully lessen the impact the international market has on the Salvadoran agricultural sector.

 

In an effort to achieve “food sovereignty,” Funes has explicitly recognized the role of small, non-commercial family farmers who produce 70% of the country’s domestically cultivated grains, mainly for the consumption of their own family.  These farmers are particularly significant to stability of El Salvador’s food security situation and Funes proposed the Family Agriculture Plan in an effort to aid them. This plan intends to serve over 325,000 families that are dependent upon subsistence agriculture by continuing to provide them with free agricultural packets of seeds and chemical fertilizer.

 

Food security has historically and currently is a major issue that confronts El Salvador.  The problems caused by a lack of food security must not only be addressed by the Salvadoran government but also highly prioritized, as current environmental and market conditions—climate change and high market prices for agricultural commodities—are only serving to exacerbate the insecurity.

Al Jazeera in the Lower Lempa

 

At the beginning of February, a fellow Lower Lempa solidarity organization Eco Viva, invited Aljazeera reporter Dahr Jamail to the Lower Lempa.  Jamail spoke with members of the communities, representatives from the Jiquilisco and Tecoluca mayor’s offices, and doctors with the NefroLempa kidney medical team.  His article, published this week, is titled  Climate: Putting People over Money: Facing climate change, a social movement in El Salvador fights mass flooding and toxic burning of cane fields.

Tropical Storms and Small Farmers

Small producers in El Salvador are facing a grim agricultural season this summer.  Tropical Storm Agatha started off the rainy season with torrential rains that caused landslides and massive flooding along the coastal river basins.  Last week’s Hurricane Alex brought more rain that further saturated the soil of already vulnerable communities.

The outlook for the rest of the rainy season doesn’t bode well either.  Colorado State University, NOAA, and Climate Prediction Center (CPC) are predicting a very active hurricane season in the Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean with an average of 18 tropical storms between June 1^st and November 30^th.  These storms push ample amounts of rain and wind onto El Salvador, where 95% of the population is vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters.

In a discussion with Voices on the Border’s partner community Octavio Ortiz, in the Lower Lempa, Jiquilisco we can begin to understand what this means for small subsistence farmers.

In Octavio Ortiz 60 of the 97 families farm their own land; an average of 5 acres per family.  Other community members work as day laborers, or in a handful of trade skills.  With the land overly saturated, landowners can’t count on their own harvest for their year’s supply of corn, and the day laborers have been without work.  The average pay is $4.00 for four or five hours of heavy manual labor.

Some families planted corn before Agatha and then lost it.  A few of those families decided to re-plant, only to lose that seed to Alex.  Very few farmers dare to try again, especially with the heaviest rains expected for July, September and October.  After Alex, the community reported a loss of about 66 acres of corn.  680 chickens also died.  No one had risked planting vegetables which are a much more expensive investment, so there was no need to report losses there.  Most of the fruit trees survived the storm, but about 15 families had hoped to plant mango, cocoa, and lemon trees.  They’re having trouble finding land where the young saplings won’t rot before they take hold.

Swampy fields also impact the backbone of the community’s economy – cattle.  Traditionally the rainy season is ideal for abundant pasture and local cows can thrive.  This year’s pastures are either still flooded or have become de facto swamps.  One woman said that before the storms her seven cows were producing 35 bottles of milk every day.  Now they are only able to produce between 10 or 12 bottles.  That means she has gone from earning about $14 dollars a week to just $4 dollars.

Efforts to aid the community have been piecemeal.  The mayor donated small packets of food last month.  This weekend the Red Cross donated more food aid packages that will last families at least a month or two.  Other associations and NGO’s have distributed aid to their corresponding sectors.  The Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle has collected the reported losses from the community and is offering rice and sorghum seeds come August.  They are also selling chickens at very reduced prices ($18 for 50 chicks).

The reality of the situation is that this community and others like it will have to find alternative ways to feed their families for the remainder of the year.  When conditions are favorable, farmers can produce one more harvest after the rainy season thanks to the lingering humidity in the soil.  After that, only those with access to irrigation will be able to produce a harvest during the dry season.

Several local associations such as ACUDESBAL and ADIBAL have begun pilot projects with small groups sharing portable irrigation systems in an effort to confront climate change and create more resilient communities.  However, local farmers are hesitant to try their hand at the new systems.  For many, rain has always determined the growing season, and intensive farming requires a greater commitment in time, energy and maintenance.  Just consider that to buy the few gallons of gasoline that the pump requires per week, the farmer has to travel by bus with his or her gas can to the closest gas station 12 miles away.  Initiatives such as these require time and patience.  The experiences of those participating in the pilot project serve to convince neighbors and friends over time.  Typically, communities begin to reproduce these kinds of initiatives on their own after three years.  But – with weather patterns being anything but typical, farmers could embrace such alternatives more quickly.  It may be the safest card they have left to play.

Minister of Agriculture Resigns Over Political Concerns

Last Tuesday Manuel Sevilla, now ex-minister of agriculture and livestock (MAG, in Spanish), announced his resignation from the Ministry due to increasing political pressure from the Central Government.

The Funes administration has been committed to creating greater transparency in government and reducing corruption since taking office in June 2009.  In his resignation, Sevilla said the distribution of agricultural subsidies, which include seed and fertilizer for farmers, had been heavily influenced by senior officials and corrupted by the central government.

Historically, agricultural subsidies and other government benefits have been allocated according to political affiliation.  In 2009 when Funes nominated Sevilla to head the MAG, they each promised to end the system of political party preferences and distribute government benefits equitably. Sevilla, however, cites the administration’s failure to comply with this promise as the primary reason for leaving his post.  He claims that during the negotiation process central government stepped in to ensure that more subsidies went to traditionally right-wing and conservative agricultural groups, like CAMAGRO, which support political parties like the PNC, ARENA, and GANA.

Following the announcement, President Funes heartily defended his administration.  In an impromptu press conference, Funes said he believes Sevilla resigned to take another job with an international organization, not due to political pressures. He restated his commitment to the equitable distribution of subsidies and greater transparency in the MAG.  He believe that the subsidies could be distributed unfairly, as the more conservative MAG employees have not received any benefits with regards to the subsidies.  Funes also pointed out that the distribution plan was the same as last year, and Sevilla was involved in making and implementing that plan.

Agricultural organizations are divided over the resignation and distribution of agricultural subsidies. Some that ally more with rural farmers believe that Sevilla was an excellent candidate for the position, and are impressed by his development programs, which extend all the way to 2030. Others feel that he was an inefficient and ineffective leader, and lacked the necessary experience and ability to reform the MAG and create change for Salvadoran farmers. President Funes stated that he had received complaints about Sevilla from over 120 agricultural organizations, and implied that perhaps Sevilla simply quit before he was formally relieved of his duties.

Funes Administration to Strengthen Agricultural Sector

Last week, the Funes Administration launched a program that aims to strengthen El Salvador’s agricultural system by increasing production and legalizing land possession for farmers that have been unable to obtain titles to their property.

In a ceremony launching the initiative, President Funes stated that his administration “wants to make the countryside into the driving force behind the country’s development.”  President Funes also acknowledged that the agricultural sector has been ignored for too many years.  Since the late 1980s, conservative administrations have supported industrialization and manufacturing, and built a dependency on agricultural imports.

The administration’s plan will benefit 600,000 farmers and increase agricultural outputs by 10% from 2009-2010.  Government agencies will distribute fertilizers, and seed for corn, beans, rice, and sorghum.  The government will also create a commission to address the issue of cattle rustling, which has been a growing problem in recent years.  The plan also commits to renewing a Coffee Park over the next five years, by distributing 20 million coffee plants to growers.  Farmers will also receive technical training from agricultural experts, who will stress the importance of growing more fruits and vegetables for local consumption.

Since taking office on June 1, the new administration has granted land titles to 934 families that have farmed without them for over twenty years.  The government will soon begin reviewing title requests for another 849 families in Izalco, Usulután, and Ahuachapán. The government’s goal is to grant 3000 land titles as a part of the agricultural project.  Besides the obvious benefit of protecting the farmer’s right to his or her land, studies show that land titles allow farmers greater access to credit and provide incentives for investments into a property.