The Salvadoran Roundtable Against Mining Releases a Statement Against the P3 Law

Yesterday the Salvadoran Legislative Assembly passed the controversial Public Private Partnership Law. The Law passed 84-0, meaning that no representative in the Legislative Assembly opposed the Law. The vote doesn’t necessarily reflect the public’s opinion of public-private partnerships or the Law. Many groups throughout El Salvador oppose the Law for a variety of reasons.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Over 75 leaders of communities throughout the Bajo Lempa and Bay of Jiquilisco gathered the day before yesterday’s vote to again denounce the law and the implications that public private partnerships have for the region (click here for more on that). In addition to opposing privatization of more state resources and services, leaders throughout the region oppose the plan to use public-private partnerships to promote tourism in the region.

Simiarlly, the labor movement organized a couple of protests this week and circulated an online petition (click here for more on that). They are concerned that public-private partnerships will cost thousands of public-sector jobs and a deterioration of workers rights.

The Salvadoran Roundtable Against Metallic Mining (MESA, in Spanish) are concerned that the PPP Law will result in government-sponsored mining activities. The MESA released a statement yesterday afternoon and this morning quickly translated it to English (apologies in advance to the authors for any errors) – it is posted below, first in English and then the original in Spanish.

The MESA Statement in English

We REJECT THE LAW BECAUSE Public Private Partnership OPEN POSSIBILITIES FOR METAL MINING IN EL SALVADOR

With regards to the debate around the Public-Private Partnership Law (PPP) and its dishonorable approval by the Legislature, the National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining releases its strong rejection of this new attempt to privatize public services .

As the National Roundtable Against Metallic Mining, we also express our deep concern that the PPP Law opens the door for approval of mining projects in [El Salvador]. When there is no law that prohibits metalic mining or a General Law on Water to alieviate the water shortage that we suffer, it is irresponsible and reprehesible that [the Legislature] would pass a law like the PPP Law that creates the conditions for severe predation and environmental degradation, and a the socio-environmental crisis in which we live.

It is foolish and wrong to repeate actions that have already been proven to be the cause of many of our structural problems. Vulnerability to disasters, along with environmental degradation, massive budgetary and institutional weaknesses in addressing climate change, forced migration, social exclusion and violence are the result of not keeping the voracious markets under control. The State’s goods and resources should serve to provide a dignified life for the population, not to finance predatory corporate profits.

The proposed public-private partnerships are a continuation of the neoliberal policies of the privatization of public services that affect the economic, social and cultural rights of the Salvadoran population. From an environmental sustainability perspective, we urge government authorities and the Legislative Assembly to stop implementing programs promoted by the International Monetary Fund, and pass with equal importance and speed, the General Law on Water, the Ban on Metallic Mining, and the ratification of Article 69 of the Constitution, which establishes the right to water and food.

We reject and deny that private concessions are the solution to improve the delivery of services to the population. We emphasize that if El Salvador prosecuted those who avoid and evade their tax liabilities, and adopt of a progressive tax code that requires those who have more to pay more, the State would have the conditions and resources to provide adequate public services.

We also call on legislative representatives to defend the sovereignty of our country. There are several international treaties such as the Convention for the Conservation of Biodiversity of SICA, Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization ILO, 1992 Rio Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes the right of people to participate and decide on the use that will be given to the resources of their territories. The Law on Public Private artnerships are nothing more and nothing less than an affront to any possibility of building a worthy development model that is just and sustainable.

Deputies: DEFEND THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE SALVADORIAN

No to the proposed Public Private Partnership law!

The MESA Statement in Spanish

RECHAZAMOS LA LEY DE ASOCIO PÚBLICO PRIVADO PORQUE ABRE POSIBILIDADES PARA LA MINERÍA METÁLICA EN EL SALVADOR

RECHAZAMOS LA LEY DE ASOCIO PÚBLICO PRIVADO PORQUE ABRE POSIBILIDADES PARA LA MINERÍA METÁLICA EN EL SALVADOR

En el contexto de discusión de la Ley de Asocio Público-Privado (APP) y su deshonrosa aprobación por parte de la Asamblea Legislativa, la Mesa Nacional frente a la Minería Metálica hace público su más enérgico rechazo a este nuevo intento de privatización de servicios públicos.

Como Mesa Nacional frente a la Minería Metálica  manifestamos además nuestra profunda preocupación de que la Ley de APP abra las puertas para la aprobación de proyectos mineros en nuestro país.  Mientras no se cuente con Ley que prohíba la Minería Metálica o una Ley General de Aguas orientada a revertir el estrés hídrico que sufrimos, es irresponsable y repudiable que se apruebe un marco jurídico como la Ley APP, que sienta las condiciones para agudizar gravemente la depredación ambiental y por ende, la crisis socioambiental que vivimos.

Es absurdo y equivocado que se repitan medidas que ya demostraron ser la causa de muchos de nuestros problemas estructurales. La vulnerabilidad ante desastres, al igual que el deterioro ambiental, las enormes desventajas presupuestarias e institucionales para enfrentar el Cambio Climático, la migración forzada, la exclusión y la violencia social son el resultado de no controlar la actitud voraz  del mercado. Los bienes y recursos que son patrimonio del Estado deben orientarse para garantizar la vida digna de la población, no para financiar el lucro depredador de las corporaciones.

Las propuestas de Asocio Público constituyen la continuación de las políticas neoliberales de privatización de servicios públicos que afectarán los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales de la población salvadoreña.  Desde una lógica por la sustentabilidad ambiental, exigimos a las autoridades del Gobierno y a la  Asamblea Legislativa que en lugar de hacer valer los programas del Fondo Monetario Internacional, hagan valer con la misma importancia y celeridad, las leyes de agua, de la prohibición de la minería metálica, así como la ratificación del artículo 69 de la Constitución que establece el derecho humano al agua y a la alimentación.

Rechazamos y desmentimos que las concesiones a privados sean la solución para mejorar la prestación de servicios a la población. Enfatizamos que si en El Salvador se persiguiera la elusión y evasión fiscal, así como si se aprobara un pacto fiscal progresivo donde los que tienen más pagan más, el Estado contaría con las condiciones y recursos suficientes para hacerlo.

Llamamos a las y los diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa para que hagan respetar la soberanía de nuestro país. Existen diversos tratados internacionales como el Convenio para la Conservación de la Biodiversidad del SICA, el Convenio 169 de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo OIT, la Convención de Río de 1992, la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos que reconocen el derecho de las poblaciones para participar y decidir sobre el uso que se le dará a los recursos de sus territorios. Los Asocio Públicos Privados son nada más y nada menos que una afrenta más para cualquier posibilidad de construir un modelo de desarrollo digno, justo y sustentable.

DIPUTADOS Y DIPUTADAS : DEFIENDAN LA SOBERANÍA DEL PUEBLO SALVADOREÑO

¡No a la propuesta de ley de Asocio Público Privado!

 

The Debate Over Public-Private Partnership Law and MCC Funding in El Salvador

Last week Pacific Rim Mining Company announced it is seeking $315 million dollars in damages from El Salvador. It was a stark reminder that the 8-year old mining debate, which included several years of threats and violence between mining supporters and opponents, has yet to been resolved and could still result in a devastating economic blow to El Salvador.

As the mining issue continues, another debate with the potential to become just as volatile is brewing. In March the Funes Administration provided some details about its proposal for a second round of funding from the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a US aid program started by President Bush in 2004. The proposal is worth $413 million dollars, half of which will likely go towards an infrastructure project like improving the Litoral Highway that runs along El Salvador’s southern coast. The other half is likely to help finance public-private partnerships and improve human capital, which seems to mean education.

As details of the proposal emerge, opposition to a second round of MCC funding is growing. So far, opposition has opened on two fronts. The Salvadoran labor movement has been the most outspoken opponent, denouncing the proposed Law on Public Private Partnerships (P3 Law) since last year. Environmentalists and communities in the Lower Lempa region of Usulután have been less outspoken, but oppose the MCC proposal because the public-private partnerships will support tourism, which they strongly oppose. In 2011, members of the anti-mining movement also spoke out against the P3 Law fearing it would result in mining activities.

Mangrove Forests near La Tirana, a community targeted for a large tourism project

Because politicians within the FMLN are supporting the MCC, the politics of opposing the P3 Law and tourism are a little more complicated than opposition to mining was. Other than a protest outside the US Embassy in March and other small activities organized by the labor movement, opposition has remained largely behind closed doors, which may change soon.

            The Public Private Partnership Law

US Ambassador Maria Carmen Aponte said in October 2012 that approval of a second round of MCC funds relies on the passage of the P3 Law. The labor movement and their international supporters, argue that the P3 Law will privatize government operations including the airport, seaports, health care facilities, and other important services. They fear it will result in the loss of thousands of jobs, increasing the country’s already high rates of unemployment and driving wages down even further.

The labor movement and other opponents also do not want the private sector to control important resources and services like water, education, and health controlled. For example, Salvadoran civil society has fought against privatization of water for many years, making it such a toxic issue that politicians are unable to advocate for it publicly. Just like the government has not been able to privatize water, civil society organizations have not been able to pass a water law they have been promoting for over 8 years. Among other things, the law would protect water resources from privatization. Similarly, in 2002 then President Francisco Flores tried to privatize part of the health care system, but health care workers and many others took to the streets and forced the government to back off. Opponents of the P3 law fear it will make it easier for the government to accomplish what it has failed to do in the past – privatizing water and health care.

Supporters of the P3 Law, including President Funes, counter that public-private partnerships are not privatization, and the government will not privatize any important services, like health and education. They argue, instead, that public-private partnerships will result in more foreign direct investments, injecting capital into services and industries that are lagging behind.

The labor movement and other activists fear, however, that while not called privatization, the P3s are a way to accomplish the same goals. Concessions could last as long as 40 years, which means the state is essentially relinquishing control of an asset. Similarly, while capital investments are needed, the P3 Law will allow private, international investors to generate profits from basic services in El Salvador and take the profits overseas instead of re-investing in El Salvador.

Public-private partnerships are not new in El Salvador – they government has contracted out many operations to private companies over the years. One regular criticism is that these relationships prioritize profits over the well being of Salvadorans. For example, in the aftermath of the October 2011 floods, communities and organizations in the Lower Lempa blamed the CEL for washing them out. The CEL is the state-owned agency that manages the dam, generating electricity that private power companies sell for profit. The more electricity produced, the more money the companies make. In the months after the 2011 floods CEL representatives responded frankly, stating they operate the dams to make electricity and generate profits, not protect the people downstream.

FESPAD and Voices on the Borders 2012 legal interns recently published a full analysis of the P3 Law.

Tourism and other Investments

One of the public-private partnerships being proposed in the second MCC compact is tourism – hotels and resorts being built along El Salvador’s Pacific coast. In December the government solicited proposals from the private sector and received 49 responses, 27 of which are tourism projects in Usulután, La Paz, and La Libertad.

Tourism is not inherently bad, but communities in the Lower Lempa of Usulután fear that building hotels and resorts in and around their important and fragile ecosystems will cause irreparable harm. One Lower Lempa community targeted for a tourism project is La Tirana, an isolated and economically poor community located at the edge of one of the most pristine mangrove forest in Central America. In addition to its immense natural beauty, the forest supports thousands of species of flora and fauna. The nearby beaches are protected as a nesting ground for several species of endangered sea turtles. Residents of La Tirana fear tourists would damage the fragile mangroves with construction of houses and resorts, jet skis and motorboats, and solid waste and sewage, while displacing local residents and their farms.

Proponents of tourism argue that resorts and hotels in places like Tirana would provide jobs and spur the local economy. They believe this to be especially important in communities, such as those in the Lower Lempa, that have had their agricultural economy diminished by free trade. But locals doubt resorts will help the local economy. They know that hotels are much more likely to hire bilingual youth from San Salvador who have degrees in hotel management than poor campesinos who barely have a sixth grade education.

Voices staff recently met with community members in La Tirana, and they are very much against outside investors building resorts in their region. Recognizing that they live in a special place, the community board is proposing that the community build a series of small, humble cabanas that would have a small ecological footprint, but provide comfortable housing for a small number of guests. They are also proposing that the community build a small community kitchen that could feed guests. The community wants to develop its own small eco-tourism industry that it can regulate and ensure does not harm the forest or turtle nesting ground. It would also mean that the money from tourism would benefit the community, and not just make wealthy investors in San Salvador or abroad even richer.

Other communities in the region are even more vulnerable than La Tirana. In El Chile and other small communities, many residents still do not have title to their land. They fear that if a private investor wants to build a hotel or resort the State could take their land and they would have no legal recourse.

Our staff also met with other communities in the Lower Lempa – Comunidad Octavio Ortiz, Amando Lopez, Nueva Esperanza – and several local organizations. They are also completely opposed to tourism projects in the region. They fear that hotels and resorts will further destroy agricultural land, use up limited water resources, and destroy local culture. The community of Octavio Ortiz even wrote in their strategic plan that they see tourism as a large threat to farming and their peaceful way of life.

While most of the public-private partnership proposals involve tourism, there are quite a few agricultural projects. According to PRESA, the government agency managing the project proposals, they received 14 requests to support production of exports in dairy, mangoes, limes, and honey. In order to be considered for a public-private partnership, investors have to have $100,000 in capital and be producing export crops. The capital requirement means local farmers will not be able to participate. And the requirement that products be grown for export means even more land will be dedicated to products that do not contribute to food sovereignty, which is a top priority for the region.

There are also civil society leaders and academics in El Salvador who oppose the MCC because they see it as the latest phase in implementing a neoliberal economic agenda in their country. They hold it in the same regard as the privatization of state assets (1990s), dollarization (1995-2001), Central American Free Trade Agreement (2006), the first MCC compact (2007-2012), and Partnership for Growth (2011). Similarly, Gilberto Garcia from Center for Labor Studies (CEAL, in Spanish) believes the

highway projects, including the northern highway funded by the first MCC compact and the Litoral Highway project planned for the second compact, are part of an effort to build a land bridge in Guatemala. The “Inter-Oceanic Corridor” will connect ports on the Pacific coasts of Guatemala and El Salvador with Caribbean or Atlantic ports in Guatemala. ODEPAL is managing the project in what they call a public-private partnership. The land bridge is located in Guatemala, but it is right on the borders with El Salvador and Honduras, giving both countries easy access.

Politics of Opposing the MCC and P3 Law

Building a strong national movement around opposition to the second MCC compact and the P3 Law may be more difficult than organizing Salvadorans against mining. While the anti-mining movement was able to reduce the debate to a single issue that all Salvadorans could understand – i.e. gold mining will destroy water resources for 60% of the country – most people believe that tourism, better highways, and other capital investments are always good. Similarly, the P3 Law is fairly abstract and difficult to reduce into a simple message that the majority of Salvadorans can relate to their everyday lives.

The politics around the MCC and P3 Law will make it more difficult to achieve the kind of nation-wide opposition that the anti-mining movement was able to garner. During the mining debate, the FMLN (leftist political party) was the opposition party and had the political freedom to take an anti-mining position. The FMLN is now in power and has to consider the economic and political interests that helped them get there. President Funes and FMLN presidential candidate Sanchez Cerén support the P3 Law and MCC compact, arguing the investments will be good for the economy. According to anonymous sources, many of the same business interests that helped Mauricio Funes with the 2009 presidential elections will benefit from the P3 Law and MCC funds. FMLN legislators have been a slower to sign on to the P3 Law. At times FMLN legislators have said it was not their top priority, and more recently they have tried to negotiate amendments to exclude certain sectors such as health and education from public-private partnerships. Officials from the conservative ARENA party have accused the FMLN legislators of not supporting the law because they want to implement a socialist economy agenda.

But the civil society organizations, communities, and labor unions that are opposed to the P3 Law and the MCC funding generally make up much of the FMLN’s base. If Sanchez Cerén and his supporters continue to embrace the P3 law and the MCC funding, while many in their base protest against it, it could exacerbate an existing split within the party in the months leading up to the February 2014 presidential elections. Many former FMLN militants and supporters, especially in the Lower Lempa, already believe the movement they once fought for no longer represents their interests and values.

Though the US and Salvadoran governments want to pass the P3 Law and sign the MCC compact before the elections, many opponents are gearing up for a long struggle. Even if the P3 Law passes, when the government wants to enter into a public-private partnership the Legislative Assembly will have to approve it. They are likely to face great scrutiny and opposition. Similarly, developers wanting to break ground on tourism projects in La Tirana and other communities are likely to face some rather significant legal and social barriers – much like Pacific Rim faced in Cabañas.