What has happened with “Fomilenio II” in El Salvador?

[fomilenioii.gob.sv]

READ IN SPANISH

The government of the United States, like other entities with transnational reach—such as the World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, and the European Union—have worked for decades to foment economic development and poverty reduction in “third world” or “developing” countries”. The US state has demonstrated a special interest in the development and stability of the Central American region, given its proximity and subsequent geopolitical importance. As a result, in countries such as El Salvador, billions of dollars have been invested since the 1960s in projects designed to foment “progress”, “reduce poverty”, “promote democracy”, “consolidate peace”, and most recently, to “prevent violence”, and “eradicate poverty” through a development model that seeks to incorporate the country into the global economy. These foreign investments—always in combination with the organized efforts of the Salvadoran people—have led to certain advances in the well being of the population. Nevertheless, El Salvador continues being a country with much poverty, much violence, a democratic deficit, and disastrous levels of economic inequality. This is to say that the dominant model of development—which has certainly been consolidated in El Salvador—has Benefited the very few, while it has exploited, marginalized, or expelled the vast majorities. 

Instead of changing this development model which has systematically produced poverty and inequality in the first place (and which many call “neoliberal”, for privileging the free market above and beyond other interests or factors), the recent decision of the foreign aid institutions of the US government has been to more holistically incorporate the countries who receive aid programs into the responsibilities around financing and executing these programs: that the poor countries gain “ownership” over the processes of their own development. The thinking of the US is that if these countries have to put their own money toward development programs, there won’t be as much money wasted, their won’t be as much corruption, and the poor countries will eventually no longer be poor, but rather equal counterparts in an interconnected global economy that is mutually beneficial to all, and will also no longer be sources of instability, migrants, and violence.  

And so, during the administration of George W. Bush, at the beginning of the 2000’s, the US government began implementing Millennium Challenge Account Funds across the world. These funds were not simply donations for developing countries, but rather contracts by which the funds-receiving countries had to put their own funds toward these development projects, though they would still be primarily financed by the US. Furthermore, the receiving countries would have to comply with certain requirements—such as respect for free expression, transparent democratic procedures, and the elimination of corruption, among other things—in order to continue receiving the necessary funds from the US to conclude their development projects. 

Given its close relationship with the US, El Salvador was chosen to receive a first Millennium Challenge Account fund in 2007, under the administration of Tony Saca. The funds from this contract were aimed at impacting the northern zone of the country, where the majority of the financing would go toward the construction of a “longitudinal highway” that would more effectively connect this region with the rest of the country and with neighboring countries so as to facilitate commerce, connectivity, and the continuing insertion of El Salvador into the global economy. 

The implementation of this project generated resistance from many communities residing in the northern part of the country, who feared that these infrastructural projects would destroy their communities and their livelihoods, including rivers, water sources, and farmlands. Nevertheless, the project was completed in its totality. The communities that had most resisted the construction of the highway—and who even had called it a “project of death”—eventually managed to negotiate an acceptable route for the highway that would avoid major environmental and social damages. From the institutional side, the Salvadoran government had managed to comply with all of the financial and institutional requirements that the Millennium Challenge Account Fund had demanded of it. From the perspective of ordinary inhabitants of rural communities across the region however, the project did little to change or improve their daily lives, but did bring in new, outside, trans-locally linked actors, and in broader terms, the project further deepened the neoliberal model in the region. 

By the time the first “Fomilenio” was being concluded across the northern belt of El Salvadoran in late 2012, the US and Salvadoran governments were planning the implementation of a second Fomilenio project, this one to be aimed at the southern, coastal region of the country. There too, the objective of the project as a whole would be to reduce poverty through the economic growth, as a means to the end of increasing the productivity and competitiveness of the country in international markets. 

“Fomilenio II” began on September 9, 2015 and finalized in September of 2020. It was financed with $277 million dollars from the government of the US, in addition to a counterpart contribution of $88.2 million that would come from the Salvadoran government, making a total of $365.2 million.

According to the Fomilenio II website, upon the finalization of the contract, the program had executed more than 100 interventions, divided into three larger project areas: 

The Human Capital Project, which primarily included the construction of schools, the creation of technical-vocational high school, and the training of teachers in different specialties. 

The Logistical Infrastructure Project, which included the widening of 28 kilometers of highway, improvements in a border checkpoint and other logistical infrastructure, as well as the automation of customs processes and procedures associated with foreign commerce. 

The Investment Climate Project, which led to a reported 15 private investment agreements, among which the training and certification of more than 900 aerospace technicians is notable, as well as the establishment of an irrigation system for agricultural production, and the implementation of six feasibility studies for the creation of “public-private” partnerships, among other investments. 

During the initial phase of Fomilenio II, this Investment Climate project was especially worrisome for many communities and social organizations because it had been announced that the focus would be on incentivizing private investment, simplifying commercial procedures, and making laws and regulations more flexible so as to enable private business to conduct business with as much ease as possible. 

Fortunately, the creation of public-private associations and the implementation of large-scale tourism projects was not carried out the way that had been feared. It is very possible that this was due to the fact that the private sector of the country was simply not yet ready to make these types of investments. 

A third Fomilenio could however unleash an offensive of projects associated with tourist infrastructure, which undoubtedly would provoke a large ecological impact in the fragile ecosystems on the Salvadoran coast. Nevertheless, everything indicates that a third Millennium Challenge Account contract is not likely to happen. 

This is the case first and foremost because there were irregularities in the final phase of Fomilenio II. As mentioned above, part of the contract required the Salvadoran state to assign counterpart funding to the project. In 2020 however, these funds were not included in the government’s national operating budget. For this reason, on September 9th, 2020, the Legislative Assembly assigned $55 million from a loan from the Inter-American Development Bank to honor the country’s commitment to Fomilenio II. But these funds did not end up going toward Fomilenio II because, according to the Executive Branch, led by young president Nayib Bukele, these funds had to be prioritized for attending to the Covid-19 pandemic. 

Subsequently, at the end of November, the Ministry of the Treasury of El Salvador, solicited the approval of $50 million from the Legislative Assembly to be assigned to Fomilenio II obligations. On November 26th, the Assembly approved—for the second time—the allocation of these funds, but this approval was vetoed by the President of the Republic, who argued that it would not be possible to obtain these funds from the financial source established by the legislators. 

In response to this controversy, the Millennium Challenge Account Corporation in El Salvador emitted a communique on December 1, 2020 that informed of the suspension of various projects and warned of the possibility that El Salvador might enter into the list of “countries that cannot honor their commitments,” given the country’s inability to allocate the necessary funds to Fomilenio II. And although the contract technically ended on September 9, 2020, a 120-day period had been established to enable the closing down of offices and final operations, so that all of the actual infrastructure projects would be done by January 2021. However, this communique also announced that given the Salvadoran government’s lack of allocation of funds, various projects would not be finished. 

But then, on December 24th, the Legislative Assembly, after a long debate, approved the country’s general budget for 2021. As a result, on January 20, 2021, the Ministry of the Treasury—together with Millennium Challenge Account officials—announced that the previously suspended projects would be restarted with funds from the Salvadoran Ministry of Public Works, and would be finished by the following April. 

In order to be eligible for a third Millennium Challenge Account however, the country was required to comply with at least 10 of a list of 20 indicators. In El Salvador’s last evaluation, it complied with 12 of the indicators, but the problem was that the indicator of “control of corruption and good democratic government”, was of obligatory compliance, and was not met. According to the resident director of the Millennium Challenge Account Corporation in El Salvador, Preston Winter, over the last four years, El Salvador has consecutively maintained a lack of control over corruption, thereby implicating both Bukele’s current government, and the previous government administered by Sanchez Ceren of the FMLN in acts of corruption. 

So although the contributions of this second Millennium Challenge Account contract for the coastal zone of El Salvador cannot be denied—the construction of infrastructure, the training of teachers, the improvements in logistics for private investment—these are measures that contribute little or nothing to poverty reduction. Rather, these measures deepen an economic model that for decades has generated poverty and inequality. In order to reduce poverty, social inequality must also be reduced, and this requires deep reforms to the tax system and effective measures to combat corruption, so that the Salvadoran state can leverage more resources for social investment. Universal access to quality education, effective health coverage, strategic support to family-based agriculture, protection of the environment, universal access to dignified housing, and the provision of quality basic services are all measures that would actually contribute toward significantly reducing poverty.

verdaddigital.com

---

Qué ha pasado con Fomilenio II, en El Salvador.

El gobierno de EEUU, como otras entidades con alcance trasnacional, como el Banco Mundial, El Fondo Monetario Internacional, y la Unión Europea, se han esforzado por décadas en las tareas de fomentar el desarrollo económico y la reducción de la pobreza en los países “del tercer mundo” o “en vías de desarrollo”.  Estados Unidos ha demostrado un interés especial en el desarrollo y la estabilidad de la región Centroamericana dado su proximidad y su consecuente importancia geopolítica. Como resultado, en países como El Salvador, se ha invertido miles de millones de dólares desde la década de los 60 en proyectos orientados a “fomentar el progreso”, “disminuir la pobreza”, “promover la democracia”, “consolidar la paz” y más últimamente “prevenir la violencia” y “erradicar la pobreza” mediante un modelo de desarrollo que busca incorporar el país en la economía mundial. 

Estas inversiones extranjeras—combinadas siempre con los esfuerzos organizados del pueblo salvadoreño han logrado ciertos avances en el bienestar de la población. Sin embargo, El Salvador sigue siendo un país con mucha pobreza, mucha violencia, un déficit democrático, y niveles nefastos de desigualdad económica. Es decir, el modelo de desarrollo dominante que se ha logrado consolidar en el país, ha beneficiado a pocos, mientras ha explotado, marginado, o expulsado a grandes mayorías. 

En vez de cambiar este modelo de desarrollo—que muchos llaman “neoliberal”, por privilegiar siempre un libre mercado por encima de otros intereses o factores—el cual sistemáticamente produce pobreza y fomenta la desigualdad en primer lugar, la reciente decisión de las instituciones de ayuda” extranjera de los EEUU, ha sido de incorporar más integralmente a los países receptores de fondos de ayuda en la responsabilidad de financiar y ejecutar programas de desarrollo económico y reducción de la pobreza: que los países pobres asuman con propiedad los procesos de su propio desarrollo. La idea de Los Estados Unidos es que si estos países tienen que invertir hacia sus propios caminos de desarrollo, ya no habrá tanto dinero desperdiciado, no habrá tanta corrupción, y los países pobres ya no serán pobres sino que se desarrollarían económicamente y serian contrapartes iguales en una economía mundial interconectada y mutuamente beneficiosa para todos los países, y ya no serian fuentes de inestabilidad, migrantes, y violencia. 

Así que durante la administración de George W. Bush a principios de los 2000, se empezó a implementar los Millenium Challenge Accounts (Cuentas de Reto de Milenio), al nivel global. Estas “cuentas” ya no eran simples donaciones desde la USA hacia los países en vías de desarrollo, sino contratos en que los países receptores de fondos tenían que poner fondos propios hacia proyectos de desarrollo que serian financiados mayoritariamente por EEUU. Además, los países receptores tendrían que cumplir con ciertos requisitos—como respeto a la libre expresión, procedimientos democráticos transparentes, eliminación de la corrupción entre otros. 

Dado su relación cercana con los EEUU, El Salvador fue escogido para recibir un primer contrato del Reto del Milenio, en 2007, bajo la administración de Tony Saca. Los fondos de este contrato fueron destinados a la zona norte del país, donde una mayoría del financiamiento estaría destinado a la construcción de una “carretera longitudinal” que conectaría la zona al resto del país, y a otros países vecinos para potenciar el comercio, la conectividad, y la progresiva inserción de El Salvador en la economía mundial. La implementación de este programa generó resistencia de muchas comunidades al norte del país que temían que los proyectos de infraestructura destruirían sus comunidades y sus fuentes de vida, como ríos, cuencas acuíferas, y terrenos agrícolas. Sin embargo, el proyecto fue llevado a cabo en su totalidad. Las comunidades más resistentes a la construcción de la carretera—que incluso la calificaban como un “proyecto de muerte”—al final lograron negociar una ruta aceptable para su construcción que evitara mayor destrozo social o ambiental. Desde el lado institucional, el gobierno salvadoreño logró cumplir con los requisitos, tantos financieros como institucionales. 

A finales de 2012, cuando El Salvador estaba terminando su primero contrato de Fomilenio, los gobiernos de El Salvador y Estados Unidos ya estaban negociando un segundo contrato—el Fomilenio II, y este último que estaría destinado a implementarse en la zona costera-sur. Ahí también, el objetivo sería reducir la pobreza mediante el crecimiento económico, y como meta incrementar la productividad y competitividad del país en los mercados internacionales. 

Fomilenio II empezó el 9 de septiembre de 2015 y finalizó el 9 de septiembre de 2020. Fue financiado con US$277 millones donados por el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, más una contrapartida de US$88.2 millones que deberían provenir del gobierno de El Salvador, haciendo un total de US$365.2 millones.

Según el sitio web de Fomilenio II, a la fecha de finalización del convenio reportaba haber trabajado en más de 100 intervenciones, divididas en tres grandes proyectos: 

• Proyecto Capital Humano, que incluyó principalmente la construcción de escuelas, la creación de bachilleratos técnicos vocacionales y la capacitación de docentes en diferentes especialidades.
• Proyecto de Infraestructura Logística, el cuál comprendió la ampliación de 28 kilómetros de carretera, mejoras en un reciento fronterizo y otra infraestructura logística, así como la automatización de procesos y trámites aduaneros relacionados con el comercio exterior.
• Proyecto Clima de Inversión, como resultado de este proyecto se reporta 15 acuerdos de inversión privada, entre los que se destaca la formación y certificación de más de 900 técnicos en aeronáutica, construcción de plantas de tratamiento de aguas residuales, establecimiento de un sistema de riego para la producción agrícola y la realización de 6 estudios de factibilidad para la creación de asocios público privados, entre otras inversiones.

En la etapa inicial del Fomilenio, este proyecto Clima de Inversión fue de especial preocupación para muchas comunidades y organizaciones sociales, porque se anunció que la apuesta sería incentivar la inversión privada, simplificando trámites, flexibilizando leyes y regulaciones para permitir a la empresa privada, realizar negocios con todas las facilidades posibles. Afortunadamente la creación de asocios público privados y la implementación de proyectos de turismo a gran escala, no se llevó a cabo como se esperaba. Es muy posible que esto se deba a que el sector privado del país aún no estaba listo para realizar este tipo de inversiones.

Un tercer Fomilenio, si podría desencadenar una ofensiva de proyectos de infraestructura turística y de otro tipo, que indudablemente provocaría un gran impacto ecológico en los frágiles ecosistemas de la costa salvadoreña; sin embargo, todo parece indicar que una tercera intervención, tiene escasas probabilidades de suceder.

En primer lugar, porque se presentaron irregularidades en la etapa final del Fomilenio II. Como parte del convenio, el Estado salvadoreño debía asignar una contrapartida, el año 2020, pero esos fondos no fueron incluidos en el presupuesto general de la nación, por lo que el 9 de septiembre la Asamblea Legislativa asignó $55 millones provenientes de un préstamo con el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID). Para honrar dicho compromiso.  Pero esto no sucedió porque, según la versión del gobierno, los fondos se priorizaron para atender la pandemia por el Covid19.

Por lo que a finales de noviembre el Ministro de Hacienda, nuevamente solicitó a la Asamblea Legislativa la aprobación de $50 millones para el mismo fin. El 26 de noviembre la Asamblea aprobó, por segunda ocasión, dichos fondos, pero esta aprobación fue vetada por el Presidente de la República, argumentando que no era posible disponer de esos recursos, de la fuente de financiamiento establecida por los legisladores.

Ante esta controversia, El 01 de diciembre de 2020, FOMILENIO II emitió un comunicado informando la suspensión de varios proyectos y advirtió de la posibilidad de que El Salvador entre en la lista de “países que no pueden honrar sus compromisos”, por la no asignación de fondos. 

Si bien el convenio finalizó el 9 de septiembre de 2020, se establecía un periodo de 120 días para el cierre de oficinas y operaciones finales, por lo que todas las obras deberían ser concluidas en enero de 2021; sin embargo, en dicho comunicado se anunció que, por la falta de asignación de fondos, varios proyectos quedarían inconclusos.

Pero el 24 de diciembre la Asamblea Legislativa, después de un largo debate, aprobó el presupuesto general de la nación para el año 2021, por lo que el 20 de enero el Ministro de Hacienda, junto a funcionarios de Fomilenio anunciaron que se reanudarían los proyectos suspendidos, y que serían financiados con fondos del Ministerio de Obras Públicas, además se dijo que estos concluirían el próximo mes de abril.

En segundo lugar, para optar a un nuevo Fomilenio, se requiere que el país cumpla por lo menos 10, de una lista de 20 indicadores. En la última evaluación El Salvador cumple 12 de estos indicadores, el problema es que el indicador “control de corrupción y buena gobernanza democrática”, es de obligatorio cumplimiento y según el director residente de país de la Cooperación Reto del Milenio, Preston Winter, en los últimos cuatro años El Salvador ha mantenido de manera consecutiva un incumplimiento del control de la corrupción.

El Fomilenio I y Fomilenio II, han significado una contribución importante para El Salvador, especialmente en lo referido a la construcción de infraestructura y otras mejoras logísticas para la inversión privada. Sin embargo, estas son medidas que poco o nada contribuyen a reducir la pobreza, más bien profundizan un modelo económico que por décadas ha generado pobreza y desigualdad. Para reducir la pobreza, hay que reducir la desigualdad social, esto pasa por una reforma profunda del sistema tributario y por medidas efectivas de combate a la corrupción, de manera que el Estado pueda disponer de más recursos para financiar la política social. 

El acceso universal a una educación de calidad, una efectiva cobertura de salud, un apoyo decidido a la agricultura familiar, la protección del medio ambiente, el acceso universal a vivienda digna y la provisión de servicios básicos de calidad, constituyen medidas que si pueden tener un impacto significativo en la reducción de la pobreza.  

Celebrating 30 years of Solidarity with the People of El Salvador – 2016 Annual Report

2016 was a dynamic year for Voices. We said goodbye to old friends and opened the door to new ones. We began an extensive education revitalization project in Bajo Lempa, started supporting women’s empowerment in Morazán and even joined in on environmental justice protests in the capital San Salvador.

This year is even more special because we turn 30! Since our inception in the refugee camps until now, we have never deserted our communities and are committed to being a critical source of support for them now, and in the future.

Read our report to find out what our partners have been up to, the large scales issues they are facing and how Voices has been working hard in collaboration with leaders to find solutions to issues and pathways to accomplishing goals.

Youth Development in Community Octavia Ortiz – The Orientation

This January, South Bay Sanctuary of Palo Alto is partnering with their sister community Octavia Ortiz in the Bajo Lempa to impart programs that improve the quality of life for the young people there. The year-long project focuses on reviving youth-led cultural groups, and a Series of Workshops with themes like critical thinking, healthy relationships and group management.

On behalf of the community, we want to extend warm gratitude to our friends in Palo Alto.

Below is a video of the orientation we had last week and Stay Tuned for more!

Learn More about the Bajo Lempa Education Project

On the 1st, we launched a Global Giving fundraising campaign for an intensive educational project in the Bajo Lempa. To date, we’ve recieved numerous generous donations and have less than a week to reach our goal. Today Global Giving will be matching donations at 20%.

Have you been wondering what our Bajo Lempa education project is all about?             Click on the PDF below to get a better understanding of the nuts and bolts and, as always, feel free to share.

LEER, Lograr en Educación Rural / Success in Rural Education

El Chile: A Struggle for Land Rights and Environmental Conservation in the Face of Tourism Development

Two weeks ago we posted a report on tourism and another report on how land speculation is affecting land rights in El Chile, a small community on the San Juan del Gozo Peninsula.

We wrote the report on El Chile in full cooperation with the community and they approved the final draft. Hours after we posted it, however, a community representative called and asked that we wait on posting it due to growing tensions in the region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We met with the community again this week and they gave an enthusiastic green light on posting the report. Tension around the issue has not subsided but the community feels it is important to get their story out, and they are more determined than ever to defend their land.

Please take a look at the El Chile report. Even if you’ve never been to the San Juan del Gozo Peninsula, the struggle for land rights and the opposition to large-scale tourism in the Bay of Jiquilisco will soon be a national issue, and El Chile appears to be where the struggle to prevent large-scale tourism is beginning.

Tourism Plans for the Jiquilisco Bay

(Voces está trabajando para traducir este artículo al español y se publicará muy pronto)

Since at least 2004 the Salvadoran Government has been planning large-scale tourism development in El Salvador. Among the goals articulated in the development plans is for tourism to account for 10% of El Salvador’s GDP, up from 3.7% in 2005.

Just this week, Global Travel Industry News wrote, “El Salvador is the diamond in the rough, the potential jewel that needs the savvy hand of a smart developer who is willing and able to chip away on the rough edges to release the beauty and unbridled opportunities of the destination.”

Many people view tourism as a way to create jobs and economic growth. Communities in the Jiquilisco Bay of Usulután, however, do not want developers to chip away at their rough edges or promote development they fear will irreparably harm to their mangrove forests, estuaries, beaches and other natural resources.

Government agencies have at least three plans guiding tourism development – the Plan for the Sustainable Develop of Eco-Tourism in the Jiquilisco Bay (2007), the 2014 National Plan on Tourism (2006), and the 2020 National Plan on Tourism. The 2020 Plan proposes constructing at least 350 new hotels and resorts that will offer at least 23,000 rooms. The Plan suggests that 85% (or 298) of these 350 new hotels and resorts should be small rural or beachfront cabins with 50 rooms or less. If each small hotels maxes out at 50 rooms, in order to achieve the 23,000 room goal, the remaining 15% (or 52) hotels and resorts will have to average 156 rooms.

The Ministry of Tourism wants 1.9 million tourists to visit El Salvador in 2014, a number they want to increase to 3 million with 12 million overnight stays in 2020. In 2005 Central Americans comprised 70% of tourists in El Salvador while North Americans were only 25%. The 2014 Plan says that by 2014 Central Americans should “be no greater than 40% of all tourists” and North Americans should make up at least 45%. The 2020 plan articulates the same numeric goals, but does not state that they should limit the number of Central Americans. Additionally, the 2020 Plan wants tourists to stay at least 7 days and spend more than $160 per day.

A small town nestled into the mangrove forests, but threatened by tourism projects targeted for the region

While the 2020 Tourism Plan does not identify any specific region for tourism, the 2014 Tourism Plan and the Jiquilisco Tourism Plan identify the Jiquilisco Bay as an important region for development. The region’s bay and long stretch of undeveloped coastline includes miles of beautiful beaches, mangrove forests, estuaries and rivers, islands and protected park lands. In addition to hanging out on the beach and surfing, the Plans envision tourist activities such as bird watching, canoeing and kayaking, boating and sport fishing, and more.

In 2004, CORTASUR, a government tourism agency, held a conference during which a consultant recommended that the Jiquilisco Bay become the Cancun of Central America, complete with hotels, resorts, shopping centers, restaurants, golf courses and other facilities. The consultant said that the first phase for development would include building a modern, paved road out the San Juan del Gozo Peninsula and acquiring land. A highway out the Peninsula was completed in 2011, and shortly after the conference land speculators began acquiring land. In 2003 a hectare of land on the Peninsula cost around $1,000. In 2005 the price the same hectare of land shot up to $12,000. Prices have been on the rise ever since. The 2014 Plan identified other goals for developing tourism in the region:

 – Promoting foreign investment and local entrepreneurship to develop small, boutique hotels and eco-lodges, and restaurants;

–  Equipping, altering, and cleaning the beaches so that they meet international quality standards;

– Creating the structure for services and activities related to sport fishing, bird watching, and a coastal route;

–  Recuperating and conserving the coastal environment;

–  Building the capacity of local human resources involved in tourism and those who would come in contact with tourists to better serve their clients;

–  Improving the landscape and the beauty of urban spaces; and

–  Improving the infrastructure of the ports.

Undeveloped beach along the San Juan del Gozo Peninsula

Currently the government is looking for foreign and domestic investments. The 2020 Plan says El Salvador should have at least 2000 investors in restaurants, hotels, and other hospitality services. To help out, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) recently approved a $277 million grant to develop El Salvador’s southern coast. While the funds do not identify support for tourism specifically, FOMELINIO (the Salvadoran Government MCC counterpart) and the El Salvador Investment Challenge issued a call for proposals while they were developing their MCC proposal. The ESIC said the purpose was to:

“to invest in public projects that catalyze private investments in tradable goods and services thereby generating economic growth and poverty reduction. The first phase of the ESIC is a competitive call-for-ideas that would catalyze investments in El Salvador through public-private partnerships, whereby private entities identify public or quasi-public infrastructure and services that are necessary to support private investments aimed at increasing productivity and trade of goods and services in El Salvador.”

Of the 49 proposals received, 27 involved tourism infrastructure projects in Usulután, La Libertad, and La Union. (Efforts to get the names of those who submitted proposals and what they proposed were unsuccessful). MCC funds won’t be available to fund hotels, resorts, or other private investments, but they will likely be available for infrastructure projects like building secondary roads, equipping, altering, and cleaning beaches, operating a tourism police force, creating programs to train locals in tourism and hospitality services, and similar projects to make it easier to attract investments. In addition to MCC funds, the Inter-American Development Bank has approved a $25 million dollar loan for tourism projects.

Currently, opposition to the government’s tourism plan is mostly local. It appears that most Salvadorans approve of tourism as a way to create jobs and improve their stagnant economy. But many residents and organizations in the Bay area are concerned large-scale tourism, and even the small, eco-tourism projects, will harm fragile ecosystems like the mangrove forests, network of rivers and estuaries, the Bay itself, and local beaches.

According to the Mangrove Action Project, their fears are legitimate – tourism is one of the greatest threats to the world’s mangroves. Worldwide the loss of mangroves results in the decline of fisheries, and weak or lost buffers that shield populated areas from storm surges. Specifically, the Jiquilisco Bay’s mangrove forests are home to thousands of species of birds, reptiles, and amphibians and capable of absorbing more than 5 times carbon than rainforests, making them a vital asset for stopping climate change.

Environmentalists also point out that 12 million overnight stays by tourists will put an impossible strain on El Salvador’s scarce water supplies. A water expert at CESTA (the Center for Applied Technology) reports that the average tourist in El Salvador uses at least five times the water that the average Salvadoran uses. Three million tourists who are spending 12 million overnights will put an enormous strain on the nation’s water resources, which are already insufficient to satisfy the country’s demand. It is inevitable that water resources would be diverted to resorts and other tourist facilities along the coast, leaving Salvadorans with even less access to water.

Tourism can also have a tremendous impact on water quality. Three million tourists will produce large quantities of solid waste and sewage, and El Salvador lacks the facilities to manage them properly. Environmentalists fear contamination will further damage the country’s already contaminated water supplies. They also fear that construction projects, buildings, parking lots, and other development will will upset local water tables, resulting in irreversible salinization that would render them useless.

Environmentalists and local populations also fear tourism development and the MCC investments harm the four threatened and endangered species of sea turtle that use the San Juan del Gozo Peninsula beaches as a nesting ground. Approximately 40% of the critically endangered Hawksbill turtles in the eastern Pacific use the region to lay eggs, and in recent years communities have played an important role in protecting their nests and saving the turtle from extinction. “Equipping, altering, and cleaning” local beaches, building beachfront hotels and resorts, and allowing tourists unfettered access to beaches would likely be disastrous for these conservation efforts.

In El Chile, land speculators have started to buy the best land and deny access to locals, which is against the law…

Locals also fear that tourism will result in their mangrove forests and beaches being privatized. Even though Salvadoran law prevents private ownership of beaches and recognizes the right for all people to enjoy unfettered access, private landowners are already fencing off sections of beach and limiting access to mangrove forests. Locals are aware that the Royal Decameron in Sonsonate have sectioned off more than a mile of beach in front of their resort, denying locals all access. This is more than just an issue of locals enjoying a swim every now and then. Many of the families that live near the coast depend on fishing to survive and must have access to the water.

Community boards in the region have also expressed a concern that land speculation is already having on their efforts to achieve food sovereignty. More than jobs, communities want to preserve their agrarian culture and ensure they can feed their families with locally produced, organic food. Just the idea that there might be tourism has already fueled a land grab in which small farms and cooperatives are sold to investors, meaning that they no longer contribute to the region’s ability to achieve food sovereignty. And once farmland is turned into a golf course, resort, or shopping center it is lost forever.

Many people in the Jiquilisco Bay region are quick to say they are not anti-tourism; they are just opposed to the scale of the government’s plan and the lack of consultation with the affected populations.

Young punchero from La Tirana giving a tour of the community’s mangrove forests

La Tirana, a small community nestled in a mangrove forest, enjoys hosting bird watchers and others who regularly ask to be guided through local estuaries and forests. The community’s board even wants to build some small cabins and a comedor (eatery) so they can better host visitors. Residents are very committed to protecting the forests, despite their lack of electricity or running water. Their plans for tourism will allow them to control the number of people that come and go, the areas they visit, and the impact that it would have on the region. La Tirana residents are concerned because land speculators have purchased land in the community and they have heard of plans to build a resort and golf course next to the mangroves. The local population is adamantly opposed to these plans and has vowed to fight them any way they can.

Even though tourism enjoys national and international support as a apparent win-win way of developing the economy, locals are confident that they if they organize they can stop plans to develop hotels, resorts, shopping centers, and sport fishing in the region. Prior to 2005, most people in Cabanas supported Pacific Rim’s plans to mine gold and silver – they thought it would provide them with jobs and economic growth. But once they realized the impact mining would have on their environment, especially water resources, locals organized a strong movement against Pacific Rim and mining. Pacific Rim never got mining permits and this month the Legislative Assembly introduced a bill to ban mining in El Salvador.

Organizations and communities in the Jiquilisco Bay region understand that stopping tourism will be a long, difficult struggle. But according to a declaration they made in July,

“our communities have a history of struggle and organization. This land and its resources belong to us, and our children and grandchildren, and we have the strength, courage, and moral duty to defend our lives and territory until the end.“

Cities: El Salvador’s Growing Problem

Urbanization is something that every country faces at one point or another in its development. The US, for example, experienced urbanization during the industrial revolution and on to the early 20th century. Today, many developing countries are also experiencing it. Because it is part of the path to development, urbanization is an indicator worth analyzing in the context of El Salvador as it becomes increasingly problematic, specifically in terms of poverty, violence and health.

 

As nations’ economies move from rural farms to more modern technologies, cities begin to form as hubs for commerce and other economic activity. Urbanization’s momentum grows when even more poor people then decide to relocate to the city in an effort to find better opportunities. This can be seen from Mexico City to Shanghai. Problems arise, however, when cities begin to get overcrowded and the poor create squatting communities along the outside of the cities. Often times these individuals have no rights to the land; more so, living conditions in these communities are terrible.

 

El Salvador has cities that are not unlike those of other developing countries. In fact, about 60.3% of Salvadorans now live in urban areas. El Salvador’s main urban hubs are San Salvador, San Miguel, and Santa Ana. While Salvadorans decide to go to cities to pursue better lives, city life is often not that glamorous. Typically, urban homes are made out of bricks and cement. Homes in the slums however, are essentially huts made out of aluminum, plastic, and cardboard. It is important to note that these homes are especially susceptible to constant flooding in the rainy season. There are also instances where the single water source in these communities is contaminated.

 

Urban poverty in El Salvador currently stands at 56%; that is, more than half of those living in cities are barely able to afford to survive. Fewer job opportunities and high costs of living explain why urban poverty is so widespread. Even so, the urban population in El Salvador is growing by about 1.9% each year while the rural population is only rising at 0.6% each year. It becomes a problem when far too many Salvadorans are living in the cities because the government is not able to provide the necessary services to everyone.

 

Another problem related to urbanization is urban violence. Poverty alone does not explain why crime in cities is more common. It seems that inequality, which is more distinguishable in urban areas, is also a key indicator of crime. Inequality, coupled with daily living conditions, is likely to result in conflict and violence. Violence specifically affects developing countries by stifling necessary economic growth. Urban conflict drains financial capital by requiring greater investments in judicial services and healthcare. Human capital is also reduced by the presence of persistent violence. Deaths and reductions in life expectancy, lower levels of personal security, fewer educational opportunities and lower productivity in the workplace all function to weaken the labor force. Lastly, social capital is also reduced through the ongoing fear and lack of trust within communities that result in less coordination.

 

Health is yet another problem affected by urban growth; slums are inherently unhealthy living arrangements. Because these individuals do not own the land and are residing in informal communities, they cannot demand better living standards from the government. Living in city slums, like those in San Salvador, Santa Ana, and San Miguel, where there has been little to no urban planning also facilitates the spread of illnesses. More than that, traffic accidents and pollution, two seemingly trivial consequences of urbanization, account for an alarmingly high number of deaths and illnesses.

 

While the government has not done much to address the issue of living conditions in the cities and slums, it has attempted to address the issue of crime. As a result of its high crime rates, El Salvador has passed a substantial number of laws aimed at reducing crime. With mixed success, the government has remained dedicated to fighting crime since El Salvador became one of the ten most crime-ridden countries in the world. With that said, the government has done little to address the issues of poverty and health in the growing urban areas.

 

Indeed, urbanization signals progress, however it comes with its own unique set of problems. El Salvador does not have the necessary mechanisms in place to offer everyone in the cities the resources and services they need to pursue a better life. Instead, urban poverty is growing and living conditions continue to deteriorate. Poverty, violence, and health are all variables that interact with one another to create the reality of city life in El Salvador today. As such, one of these factors cannot be remedied without the other two being addressed as well. The government will be forced to address it in the coming years as more and more Salvadorans continue to move to the cities.

 

Voices on the Border – Introduction

Welcome to the Voices on the Border (Voices) blog we’ve titled “Voices from El Salvador.”

Voices is a non-profit, grassroots network of individuals and organizations promoting just and equitable development in the departments of Usulután and Morazán in El Salvador.

We’re launching this blog on July 3, 2008; our goal is to provide you with up-to-date information about our activities and our partner communities in El Salvador and the U.S. In doing so, we will put local issues into context by highlighting and analyzing regional, national, and international development and social justice issues.

A little about Voices…

We began our work in 1987 as a project of accompaniment with over 10,000 Salvadoran refugees in Colomoncagua, Honduras and in other refugee camps. In 1989 and 1990, Voices accompanied these refugees as they returned to El Salvador. Upon their return, many refugees founded Comunidad Segundo Montes, in the northern department of Morazán, while others moved to the Lower Lempa region of Usulután.

We have continued accompanying our Salvadoran partners for over twenty years, responding to their needs and priorities, facilitating partnerships with U.S. communities and other international organizations, advocating for justice and equality, and informing U.S. citizens of the realities in El Salvador. At any given time, we are engaged in a number of activities, including:

1. Grant making
2. Community organizing
3. Leading delegations to Salvador
4. Initiating and supporting development projects and activities
5. Advocating for social, economic and political justice
6. Other activities that further the social justice and development interests of our partners

Voices strength is in our small staff, active board, and network of individuals, organizations, and communities that partner in our activities and support our programs. As we have for over twenty years, we continue to draw our energy and inspiration from our local partners in El Salvador, who face challenges and struggles with grace, humility, and determination.

If you’re interested in more information about Voices and the work we do, please visit our website – www.votb.org. I also welcome you to write us at voices@votb.org or call our Washington D.C. office (202) 529-2912.