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.  

¿Desarrollo para el país o el país por el desarrollo?

The University of Central America (UCA) in San Salvador just ran a program on the recent signing of the second Millennium Challenge Corporation compact between the United States and El Salvador. The program looks at the benefits proposed by the Salvadoran Government and the fears expressed by communities in the Bajo Lempa and San Juan del Gozo.

The program features Voices’ Field Director Jose Acosta, and many of our friends and partners in the Jiquilisco Bay region of El Salvador.

The 25-minute video is in Spanish only right now, but we will be working with AudiovisualesUCA to add subtitles and we will post it as soon as its ready.

We are writing up an analysis of the second MCC-FOMELINIO Compact that we’ll post soon.

MOVIAC Environmental Reflections

This morning, the Movement of Victims Affected by Climate Change and Corporations (MOVIAC, in Spanish), published a two-page statement in Diario Co Latino on pending environmental issues in El Salvador – the Pacific Rim claim in the World Bank tribunal and the proposed ban on mining, Climate Change and the current economic model, the recent signing of the Millennium Challenge Corporation grant, and the Legislative Assembly’s failure to recognize water as a basic human right. MOVIAC wants the new Sánchez Cerén administration and the Legislative Assembly to be doing way more than they are.

Voices staff translated the MOVIAC statement to English and have attached it below along with the original in Spanish. (We will update this post with a link to the digital copy of today’s Co Latino when it is available.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. and El Salvador Ready to Sign Second MCC Compact

Beach in Corral de Mulas on the San Juan del Gozo Peninsula. Behind the fence is an incubator for critically endangered sea turtles. The land is owned by a wealthy investor who is allowing locals to incubate the sea turtle eggs until he is ready to break ground on a tourism project.

After more than a year of delays, the governments of El Salvador and the United States seem ready to sign a second Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) compact. Last weekend, Salvadoran President Salvador Sanchez Cerén said they would close the deal on September 30th.

The U.S. Embassy says the second MCC compact, which includes $277 million from the U.S. and $88.2 million from El Salvador, will “spur investment through public private partnerships and better regulations, improve the quality of education, and strengthen key logistical infrastructure.”

After the agreement is signed, the U.S. will disburse $10 million to FOMELINIO (the Salvadoran organization managing the grant) to lay the groundwork for MCC projects. From then it will take six to nine months before other funds will be released and projects can begin.

While the $277 grant from the U.S. is popular among Salvadorans and politicians, communities in the Jiquilisco Bay of Usulután remain strongly opposed to the aid package. They believe the MCC grant will help finance the destruction of the region’s fragile natural resources and agrarian culture.

As Voices has discussed elsewhere on this blog, developers want to use MCC funds to promote tourism along the coast. They are particularly interested in the Jiquilisco Bay, which they have proposed turning into the “Cancun of Central America.” The communities targeted for development argue that large-scale tourism projects will cause irreversible harm to the mangrove forests they rely on for their survival and beaches that critically endangered sea turtles use for a nesting ground.

A community leader speaking to a group about how land speculation and tourism projects are already affecting the health of the mangrove forests and destabilizing the community.

Hundreds of families in the Bay region make their living by fishing and harvesting crab. For generations they have cared for the mangroves and beaches, protecting them and taking only what they need to survive. In theory the Ministry of the Environment is supposed to enforce laws that protect the forests and the right for local communities to harvest what they need to survive. But residents say the State does not get down there much, and few have faith in the Ministry’s ability or willingness to enforce laws.

Community leaders emphasize that they are not against tourism; they welcome visitors who want to tour the mangrove forests, bird watch, and even surf. They are opposed only to the kind of large-scale, unregulated development that investors are planning for the region.

Most of the opposition to MCC is due to the complete lack of public consultation. Community leaders are quick to point out that MCC and FOMELINIO officials have never been to the region to discuss development priorities or what is at stake when investors talk about turning the Jiquilisco Bay into the Cancun of Central America.

Manuel Cruz, a representative of El Chile, says his community is united in their opposition to the MCC grant. He says MCC or FOMELINIO representatives have never come to the region to discuss the grant, much less ask how it might benefit (or harm) the region. All they have heard is that investors want to use funds to develop tourism and that land speculators have been acquiring land all around them, denying access to mangrove forests and beaches that are supposed to be public land.

Another community leader who wishes to remain anonymous says that the closest thing to consultation he knows of was an informal conversation he had in March 2013 with a supporter of the MCC grant. The supporter, who works for an international NGO, said his community had to support the MCC because opposing it would be going against the FMLN party, for which there would be consequences. The community leader ignored the threat and his community remains united in its opposition.

Jose “Mario” Santos Guevarra, representative of the United Communities of the Bajo Lempa and the President of MOVIAC, has voiced opposition against MCC and FOMELINIO on several occasions. His concerns also focus on the lack of consultation from MCC and FOMELINIO. He argues that if MCC and FOMELINIO were really interested in building infrastructure and had consulted with the people, they would know that one of the biggest barriers to economic growth along the coast is the poor condition of the levees along the Lempa and other rivers.

Mario and many others see the lack of consultation as an indication that the MCC grant is meant to benefit rich investors – creating conditions for them to extract value out of the coastal region. He says that if the MCC was to benefit the people, it would not require a $100,000 counterpart to access grant funds. In theory, communities like El Chile, La Tirana, and others could apply for MCC funds to finally install potable water systems or connect to the electrical grid, which they need. But they are unable to front the $100,000 needed to receive MCC funds.

Residents of Chile during a recent meeting to discuss tourism and the impact of land speculation on their ability to access mangrove forests.

Over the past year and a half, Voices staff has shared these concerns over the lack of consultation with policymakers at the U.S. Embassy in San Salvador. We have extended at least three invitations to host meetings between Embassy staff, who have a role in the MCC grant, and coastal communities. The Embassy has declined each of these invitations.

According to newspaper articles, $110 million of the MCC grant will be used to expand a section of the Litoral Highway between the airport and Zacatecaluca. Another $100 million will be for education. That leaves another $155.2 million to cover administrative costs and support tourism and other development. Communities in the Jiquilisco Bay have not had a voice in the MCC planning or approval process, and it is unlikely that that they will have a voice in deciding which proposals for MCC projects get approved. That does not mean, however, communities are going to allow developers to destroy their mangrove forests, beaches and agrarian way of life. They will be paying close attention to how MCC and FOMELINIO use the funds and ensure none will be used to harm their fragile ecosystems.

Jiquilisco Bay Communities Oppose U.S. Embassy Threats AND the MCC Grant

This week, U.S.-based organizations working in El Salvador published a letter opposing the U.S. State Department’s threats to withhold a $277 million Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) grant over a possible violation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Sixteen U.S. Congressmen signed onto the letter and sent it to the U.S. Department of State, sharing their concern over the controversy.

At issue is a seed distribution program for which the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) purchases seed corn and beans from Salvadoran cooperatives and distributes to more than 400,000 small farmers. The program is a huge benefit to rural families and the 17 agricultural cooperatives that supply the seeds. The U.S. Embassy argues that the MAG violates CAFTA by not allowing international seed producers participate in the procurement process, buying seeds only from Salvadoran producers. The Embassy will not release the $277 million grant until El Salvador is in compliance with CAFTA.

Jose Santos Guevarra (aka Mario) in a community meeting to discuss MCC and tourism issues

Voices on the Border, at the advice of our Salvadoran partners, did not sign the letter published by the other solidarity organizations for one simple reason. Communities and organizations in the Jiquilisco Bay oppose the $277 million MCC grant and believe the outrage over the seed program, while justified, fails to address a much bigger issue – the MCC fund will destroy El Salvador’s coastal environment and agrarian way of life.

Yes, the Embassy’s complaint about the seed program is wrong. But the impacts of the $277 million MCC grant will be worse. Here’s why:

1. FOMELINIO will fund large-scale tourism development in the Jiquilisco Bay, causing irreparable harm to the region’s fragile mangrove forests, beaches, and agricultural lands, and drain the El Salvador’s scarce water resources.

2. MCC and FOMELINIO (the Salvadoran counterpart to the MCC) have never considered how the projects they are funding will affect the targeted communities. Jose Santos Guevara, resident of La Canoa and President of MOVIAC, makes this point well. “During the design phase of the FOMELINIO [proposal], they did not consult [the communities] with respect to the type of projects needed for the development of the communities. We have a series of proposals aimed at reactivating production in the region – the construction of levees, improving roads and drainage systems. However, none of these were incorporated into the proposal that the Government of El Salvador sent to the MCC.” The only people consulted were private investors and others with financial or political interests in the outcome of the proposal.

3. In order to have a project proposal considered for MCC funds, an applicant must be able to invest at least $100,000. There are no communities or community-based organizations that are able to front those kinds of funds meaning the only people who can develop projects are outside investors.

4. There has never been a public discussion or debate about the content, objectives, and impacts of FOMELIO projects. State institutions control the information about plans and projects, releasing only vague statements to the media when it is politically expedient.

Over the past couple of years the U.S. Embassy has used the $277 million MCC grant to get El Salvador to adopt several laws and policies that promote corporate interests. Just last year the Legislative Assembly passed the Public Private Partnership Law, which the U.S. Embassy had made a prerequisite for approval of the MCC funds. The Embassy, however, did not like a couple provisions in the final draft of the law and are requiring reforms before they will release the MCC funds. The U.S. Embassy also made reforms to the Law on Money Laundering a requirement for receiving MCC funds. And of course, the Embassy is requiring the MAG to reform the seed program so that international seed producers like Monsanto can compete for contracts alongside Salvadoran agricultural cooperatives.

Just this week, Medardo Gonzàles, the Secretary General of the FMLN, said the government has done everything the Embassy wants, but it seems they will never be able to satisfy their demands. Yesterday, Danilo Perez, the Director of the Center for Consumer Protection, recommended that the Government of El Salvador reconsider signing the second MCC Compact because of all the U.S. Embassy’s conditions.

Communities and organizations in the Jiquilisco Bay see the reforms and MCC funds as a really bad deal – adopt pro-development economic policies so wealthy developers can receive financial support to take their land and destroy the region’s mangrove forests, beaches, and agrarian culture. They prefer that the Salvadoran government just say no to the MCC; maintain the seed program the way it is; and start pushing back on the pro-corporation economic policies being pushed through the Legislative Assembly.

Yes, folks in the Jiquilisco Bay are angry that the U.S. is trying to get El Salvador to change a seed program that provides so many benefits for so many families. But they are even more concerned about the long-term negative impacts that the $277 million will have on the region.

 

Earth Day, the Bajo Lempa in Resistance

Today, residents of the Bajo Lempa region of Jiquilisco, Usulutan are marking International Earth Day with a large event in Amando Lopez. Event organizers have made it clear that this is not so much a celebration, but a call to action.

Communities throughout the region have identified food sovereignty and protection of the region’s natural resources as their top priorities. They reject mega-development projects and large monoculture-based economies as a threat to their existence. For more on the mega-projects, click here. For more on mono-culture-based economies (i.e sugarcane) click here. For more on climate change, click here).

Today, organizers of the Bajo Lempa Earth Day event released this declaration stating their positions (we’re posting the declaration in English and Spanish).

ON INTERNATIONAL EARTH DAY, THE BAJO LEMPA IN RESISTANCE – More than a celebration, a cry of alarm and indignation!

Gathered in the community of Amando Lopez to commemorate International Earth Day, we are more than 1,500 people, community leaders, members of grassroots organizations, social groups, and movements, and we declare that we will defend our constitutional right to life.

Our Mother Earth is suffering the consequences of capitalism, which has plundered natural resources and caused serious problems such as destruction of biodiversity, the pollution of the oceans, depletion of water resources, and climate change. This indefensible destruction infringes upon the rights of the poor by making them even more vulnerable.

The main threats to the Bajo Lempa are the profit-driven national and multinational entities that are eager to invade and plunder the region without regard for the rights and dignity of the communities, or the rights of the population. They are doing so in the form of mega-tourism projects that are already underway with the appropriateion of land and the construction of a highway through the San Juan del Gozo Peninsula.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC, known in El Salvador as FOMILENIO) is a mechanism for implementing these megaprojects. If passed it will stimulate private investment for mega-tourism projects whose main goal is generating profits and not the wellfare of the communities.

The consequence of MCC/FOMILENIO and related investment projects will be the predation and contamination of the coastal region of El Salvador, as well as the eviction of the peasant communities that have traditionally lived sustainably in the region.

It is sad that these types of mega-projects are possible because stakeholders employ strategies that dismantle the social fabric of communities, and  discourage and deter the organized struggle of hope.

Faced with this reality, there are two possible paths for residents of the Bajo Lempa: tolerate the domination and irrational exploitation of Mother Earth, which will generate disastrous consequences for the poorest, or deploy a strategy of resistance based on sovereignty, sustainability and solidarity with nature and individuals.

For this reason, we, the social organizations and rural communities of the Bajo Lempa, commit ourselves to strengthening the economic struggle in an organized, persistent and brave manner, which involves:

• Defending our region to the end against all those that threaten to deprive us of our scarce resources, especially our land;
• Promoting and maintaining a strong mobilization and advocacy campaign to prevent the passage of the Law on Public-Private Partnerships to protect against the privatization of water and health;
• Strengthening atonomous ways of life and reject the establishment of monoculture economies such a sugarcane production;
• Creating alliances with all organizations and social movements that reject the Millennium Challenge Corporation;
• Developing a process to achieve food sovereignty with a focus on agro-ecology that includes the protection of heirloom seeds, the defense of the earth, and the conservation of sources of water;
• Promoting awareness and disseminating information on the FOMILENIO megaprojects, including tourism, to increase and maintain strength.

  IN DEFENSE OF LIFE AND TERRITORY
  Bajo Lempa in resistance.

  Community Amando Lopez, April 21, 2013

EN EL DÍA INTERNACIONAL DE LA TIERRA – EL BAJO LEMPA EN RESISTENCIA: Más que una celebración, un grito de alerta e indignación.

Reunidos en la comunidad Amando López para conmemorar el Día Internacional de nuestra Madre Tierra, más de 1500 personas, entre líderes comunitarios, miembros de organizaciones de base, de grupos y movimientos sociales, declaramos que defendemos nuestro derecho constitucional a la vida.

La Madre Tierra sufre las consecuencias del capitalismo que ha depredado los recursos naturales y ocasionado graves problemas como la pérdida de  biodiversidad, la contaminación de los océanos, el agotamiento de fuentes de agua  y el cambio climático. Esta destrucción injustificada atenta principalmente contra las poblaciones empobrecidas incrementando su vulnerabilidad.

En lo local la principal amenaza es el afán de lucro de grandes empresas nacionales y trasnacionales que invaden y saquean los territorios sin importarles la dignidad de las comunidades, ni los derechos de la población que se ve afectada. El Bajo Lempa vive esta realidad producto de un megaproyecto turístico que ha iniciado con la concentración de tierras y la construcción de una carretera que cruza de norte a sur  la Península de San Juan del Gozo.

La Corporación Cuenta del Milenio (conocida en El Salvador como FOMILENIO), es un mecanismo para impulsar este tipo de megaproyectos. De aprobarse el segundo FOMILENIO, se realizarán grandes proyectos de turismo cuyo fin será la generación de ganancias y en ningún momento el bienestar de las comunidades.

Las consecuencias del segundo FOMILENIO, serán el incremento en la depredación y contaminación de los ecosistemas costeros del país; además el desalojo de comunidades campesinas que tradicionalmente han pertenecido a estos territorios, quienes han convivido y aprovechado sosteniblemente los recursos naturales.

Es de lamentar que este tipo de megaproyectos se hacen posibles porque los sectores interesados emplean estrategias que desarticulan el tejido social de las comunidades,  desaniman la lucha organizada y desalientan la esperanza.

Frente a este nuevo escenario hay dos caminos posibles para los habitantes del Bajo Lempa, uno tolerar el proceso de dominación y explotación irracional de la Madre Tierra,  ó plantearse una estrategia de resistencia, basada en la soberanía, la sustentabilidad y solidaridad con la naturaleza y las personas.

Por esta razón, organizaciones sociales y comunidades campesinas del Bajo Lempa, nos  comprometemos a trabajar para que se fortalezca la lucha reivindicativa de forma organizada, perseverante y valiente, que comprenderá lo siguiente:

• Defender nuestro territorio, hasta las últimas consecuencias, de  aquellos intereses que amenacen con despojarnos de nuestros escasos bienes, principalmente la tierra.
•  Impulsar y mantener una fuerte campaña de movilización para evitar la aprobación de la Ley de Asocios Público – Privados, por el riesgo de privatización de bienes como el agua y la salud.
• Fortalecer los medios de vida autóctonos y rechazar el establecimiento de monocultivos, como la caña de azúcar.
• Articular alianzas con grupos, organizaciones y movimientos sociales que rechazan el segundo FOMILENIO.
• Desarrollar un proceso de Soberanía Alimentaria, con enfoque agroecológico que incluya la protección de nuestras semillas, la defensa de la tierra y la conservación de las fuentes de agua.
• Impulsar procesos de sensibilización y difusión de información sobre el segundo FOMILENIO y megaproyectos de turismo, para incrementar el conocimiento sobre estos temas y mantener la resistencia.

POR LA DEFENSA DE LA VIDA Y EL TERRITORIO,

EL BAJO LEMPA EN RESISTENCIA.

Comunidad  Amando López, 21 de Abril de 2013.

Earth Day and Climate Change in the Bajo Lempa

This weekend residents of the Bajo Lempa region of Usulután are celebrating Earth Day in Amando Lopez. The events will focus on climate change and its extreme impacts on the communities, as well as the possible impacts of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) and associated tourism projects. Voices posted a blog last week regarding the MCC in El Salvador, and another today about the effect of climate change. We will post more over the weekend about the Earth Day activities and future efforts in the fight to protect communities and the environment in the Bajo Lempa.

This article was written by Jose Acosta, Voices’ new field director, and first published in Contrapunto (El Bajo Lempa con Tenacidad y Esperanza), an online journal in El Salvador.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The Bajo Lempa, with Tenacity and Hope

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says human actions are directly changing our global climate, and environmental changes will affect all people and ecosystems. The panel also shows that those who live below the poverty line will suffer the greatest impacts.

Residents of El Salvador have already felt the disastrous effects of climate change. The Salvadoran Ecological Unit (UNES, in Spanish) reports that the country’s average temperature has increased 1.2 degrees over the past 40 years. As a consequence, there has been an increase in the occurrence and strength of storms and hurricanes. A recent government study found that El Salvador has suffered five large-magnitude, climate-related events in just the past three years. These events resulted in 244 deaths and affected more than 500,000 people, 86,000 of which live in shelters. In addition, these events have caused considerable material damage. Three storms – hurricanes Ida and Agatha, and stropical storm 12-E – resulted in $1.3 billion in damage.

Poorer populations are even more vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and these storms exacerbate poverty by further reducing the ability of impoverished families to respond to crises. During and after disasters, households are forced to use or sell their few resources just to survive, limiting their long-term resilience and further diminishing their food security. Their way of life and capacity to cope with their poverty are weakened with each disaster, forcing many into chronic poverty. CESTA/Friends of the Earth demonstrated this cycle in a study carried out  in the communities of Amando Lopez and Comunidad Octavio Ortiz, located in the Lower Lempa region of Usulután.

The study reports that the main problem for communities in the Bajo Lempa is flooding. According to the Confederations of Federations for Agrarian Reform (CONFRAS) flooding is partly due to the mismanagement of the 15 of September dam located a few kilometers up the Lempa River. During Tropical Storm 12E (October 2011), the discharge from the dam reached 9,000 cubic meters per second, resulting in record flooding throughout the communities downstream from the dam. The CEL, the government institution that manages the dam, was supposed to send information about flow rates to the communities downstream to warn them when the Lempa River may rise. Unfortunately, the CEL did not communicate with the communities and the most extreme flooding happened with little warning.

Organizaitons in the Bajo Lempa, however, came together and formed the Inter-Institutional Roundtable, and issued a press release on November 11, 2011 stating, “We demand to know the CEL’s plan for managing the release of water from the dam and the environmental impact study in order to coordinate the agricultural production cycles and manage risks, and to prioritize life and the protection of the inhabitants of the communities.”

In addition to the flooding, the local population reports several other impacts of climate change, including higher temperatures, droughts, extinction of species, increase of disease, and salinzation of soil and water sources due to increased sea levels. The Association of the United Communities for Economic and Social Development of the Bajo Lempa (ACUDESBAL) declared that communities in the Bajo Lempa are strongly feeling the affects of climate change, and that it has increased food insecurity and made poverty worse.

These problems increase as the levels of consumption and the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continue to rise. The IPCC says that if CO2 in the atmosphere reaches 450 ppm, average temperatures will rise 2 degrees. Such a rise in temperatures will cause catastrophic climate events.

For El Salvador projections indicate an increase in the temperature between 0.8 and 1.1 degrees by the year 2020. Some of the expected impacts in the Bjao Lempa are:

–       Public health problems

–       Shortage of potable water and species of plants and animals

–       Contamination of wells and salinization of bodies of water,

–       Degradation of agricultural lands and decrease in their productivity

–       Loss of domestic animals and livestock

–       Local drainage systems will fill with sediment and collapse

–       Failure of other existing flood prevention systems, among them roads, paths, and bridges

The affected communities are already taking steps to prevent these impacts before they happen. Concepción Martínez, a historic leader of Comunidad Octavio Ortiz, recently stated, “We believe that in confronting climate change, the only viable option is to fight for our survival.”

A resolution adopted by various communities states, “we meet under the heat in La Canoa (another name for Comunidad Octavio Ortiz), to analyze the impacts of climate change that we are experiencing in the form of floods and droughts, but also in the form of the voracity of the transnational businesses and governments that do not respect the cycles of life.”

In this occasion we (communities in the Bajo Lempa) express:

“We commit to watch and demand that government policies confront climate change, and we demand they listen and include the opinions and proposals from the communities and civic organizations when forming these policies… to survive and maintain hope that another Bajo Lempa is possible.”