SHARE’s Grassroots Economic Justice Initiatives
SHARE’s Grassroots communities in the US and in El Salvador are working on three main advocacy initiatives right now impacting communities in El Salvador . As we live in a more globalized world, we find that our work is not only focused on advocating on behalf of communities but also on behalf of the land and resources that they rely on for survival. If you would like to get involved with these advocacy initiatives, sign up for our SHARE e-newsletter to receive updates on how you can take action (news at share-elsalvador.org). Read more about these exciting initiatives:
Plan Puebla Panamá
 Plan Puebla Panam á (PPP) is a $10 billion project supported by the Inter-American Development Bank, other public banks, and private investment, that threatens SHARE sister communities, including San Roque, Maria Madre de los Pobres, and communities in Chalatenango. Its purpose is to achieve commercial integration throughout Central America by providing infrastructure for the implementation of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). The PPP is divided into several mega-projects, which includes the development of ports, highways, and hydroelectric dams.
Unfortunately, the PPP is not as attractive in reality as it appears on paper. The project fails to address the basic infrastructure needs of Central Americans, such as access to potable water, roads to community market places, and affordable, reliable and environmentally sound public transportation systems. While the PPP will pave highways between factories, it will not pave roads to small rural communities: while it will create hydro-electric power for maquilas (export-processing factories), it will not bring power lines to isolated rural towns or marginal urban neighborhoods: while it will develop port cities, it will fail to prioritize services such as primary education or health care.
 Although the PPP claims to promote social development, programs that deal with human development, the environment, and the mitigation of damage caused by natural disasters have been afforded little beyond lip service. Social development programs account for only 10% of all spending. Yet without a human development focus in the creation of “infrastructure,” it will be impossible for Central Americans to develop and compete in the globalized 21 st century.
For El Salvador , a major PPP project is the construction of a super-highway that will serve as a beltway and bypass system for San Salvador and a shipping route between Guatemala and Honduras . In order to construct these projects, communities will be forced to relocate. In a non-partisan poll of over 500 businesses and families located in one of the proposed areas of construction, 94% are opposed to the highway.
There is opposition to the beltway beyond that of the affected communities. Serious flaws in the beltway plans identified through an environmental impact study worried the Inter-American Development Bank, as well as the Salvadoran National Development Commission, usually firm supporters and financial backers of PPP projects. As a result, the Inter-American Development Bank pulled its funding. In its place, the Central American Bank of Economic Integration will provide loans to finance the construction.
 There are serious safety and environmental concerns associated with the current plan. For instance, the construction of the highway and bypass will create high-risk zones vulnerable to environmental disasters. During the January 2001 earthquake, it was unsound construction in this area, similar to the proposed construction, that caused a landslide, killing more than 700 people. Furthermore, the highway construction plans pass through El Espino, an area declared to be an ecological reserve by the Municipality of San Salvador . Given El Salvador’s level of deforestation, considered to be the world’s worst by the United Nations in 2005, further deforestation promises future flooding and destruction in the wake of hurricanes.
The Salvadoran beltway and bypass system will only benefit a small group of citizens, largely those who already have access to wealth; yet this project will increase the tax burden on all citizens, increasing the already unsustainable national debt by over $1 billion over the next ten years. With El Salvador ’s limited budget, paying off the loan for the PPP will most certainly come at the expenses of other important projects that promote sustainable community development.
The creation of infrastructure in El Salvador is a critical goal for the development of the country and the region. Yet infrastructure must also take into consideration human development and start by prioritizing the needs of the Salvadoran people.
What are SHARE partners doing about the PPP in El Salvador ?
 SHARE provides financial and technical support to the Association of Communities Affected by the Beltway and Bypass (ACAP), a group of local citizens who oppose the construction of the highway in their neighborhood. This group educates and organizes community members to halt the construction of the project. Through community education and advocacy pressure at the local, national and international levels, they have had success in halting construction along the eastern portion of the beltway. In place of the highway, ACAP is proposing basic infrastructure projects such as community roads and urban planning efforts, to build El Salvador ’s economy from the ground up.
Websites for further information on Plan Puebla Panamá :
ACERCA (Action for Social and Ecological Justice)
http://www.asej.org/ACERCA/ppp/ppp.php
Central American Bank for Economic Integration
http://www.bcie.org/spanish/index.php
CIEPAC (Centro de Investigaciones Economicas y Politicas de Accion Comunitaria)
http://www.ciepac.org/ppp.htm (Spanish language)
Data Center
http://www.datacenter.org/research/ppp.htm
Global Exchange http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/ppp/ppp.html
Inter-American Development Bank
http://www.iadb.org/ppp/
Interaction
http://www.interaction.org/idb
Network Opposed to the PPP
http://www.lasolidarity.org/noppp/
Project Censored
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2004/16.html
UNES (Salvadoran Ecological Unit)
http://www.unes.org.sv/anpe.htm (Spanish language)
CAFTA and Trade Justice
The United States Trade Representative negotiated parallel free trade agreements with El Salvador , Guatemala , Honduras , Nicaragua , Costa Rica , and the Dominican Republic . Cumulatively, these agreements combine to create the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). CAFTA was signed by participating countries in May 2004 and passed in the U.S. Congress in July 2005. As of February 2006, all countries aside from Costa Rica have passed the agreement in their legislative assemblies.
CAFTA stymies Central American countries’ ability to construct distinct development  strategies. The treaty limits the governments’ power to protect the environment, contract local businesses, and protect basic services, including health care and communications. Without the guidance of an overarching plan for development that is centered on people and the environment, opening the Central American economies to unconstrained competition will further marginalize the poor majority, for the benefit of the few.
SHARE’s Salvadoran sistering communities have expressed the fear that “the only ones in El Salvador who will benefit [from CAFTA] are the most rich.” To view letters written by Salvadoran partners regarding CAFTA, go to http://www.share-elsalvador.org/cafta/letters.htm.
Over the past decade, El Salvador ’s poor have already suffered as a result of the “free trade” model. As tariffs have steadily been lowered, poverty and inequality have been on the rise. CAFTA will accelerate this process throughout Central America , much as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has in Mexico .
CAFTA also represents an unfair deal for U.S. workers and farmers. Labor protection laws in Central America fall below the United Nation’s International Labor Standards. With no regional labor standards included in the agreement, CAFTA will reward businesses that keep costs down by keeping wages low and squelching attempts at union organizing: U.S. workers cannot compete with these low wages. Moreover, CAFTA will benefit large-scale agricultural producers at the expense of the U.S. ’s 1.5 million small farms. Small farmers expect the same from CAFTA as they experienced with NAFTA: for example, in Florida , NAFTA led to an overall farm income growth by 13%, but a 74% decrease for family farms.
 What are SHARE partners doing about CAFTA in El Salvador ?
SHARE partners fought to prevent the passage of CAFTA in the Salvadoran legislature. Since CAFTA’s passage in December 2004, partners have focused on trying to delay CAFTA’s implementation in El Salvador through protest mobilizations and advocacy actions. Partners such as IMU (Women’s Institute) in Chalchuapa and CONFRAS (Confederation of Federations of Agrarian Reform in El Salvador ), are educating their bases about the projected effects of CAFTA on rural families and the agricultural sector.
SHARE supports, accompanies and promotes partners in El Salvador who are promoting ways to make trade fair. For guiding principles, go to: http://www.share-elsalvador.org/cafta/7ways.htm.
CAFTA is a part of a larger economic model called “free trade” or “neoliberalism.” Neo-liberalism is a set of economic policies that have become widespread over the past 25 years and include several main tools: cutting public expenditures; opening up the domestic market to “free trade;” privatization; and deregulation. Fallout from these policies has included the increase of external debt. The International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Inter-American Development Bank all have promoted the neoliberal economic model. The Andean Free Trade Agreement (AFTA) and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreements are based on this model. The economic policies enforced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) are also based on free trade principles. Neoliberal programs have made their way to the U.S. , too: it is under this logic that some economists and policy-makers attack the welfare system and social spending programs.
Read more about CAFTA at http://www.share-elsalvador.org/cafta/index.htm.
Websites for further information on CAFTA and free trade:
Citizens Trade Campaign
http://www.citizenstrade.org/cafta.php
El Salvador Ministry of the Economy
http://www.cafta.gob.sv/ (Spanish language)
Global Exchange
http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cafta/
Jubilee USA
http://jubileeusa.org
Public Citizen Global Trade Watch
http://www.citizen.org/trade/cafta/
Stop CAFTA Coalition
http://www.stopcafta.org/
U.S. Trade Representative
http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Bilateral/CAFTA/Briefing_Book/Section_Index.html
Washington Office on Latin America
http://www.wola.org/economic/cafta.htm
Mining in El Salvador
Mining threatens a number of the SHARE CRIPDES (Association of Rural Communities for the Development of El Salvador) partner communities, including those of the Association of Rural Communities of Chalatenango (including Ellacuria, Guarjila, Nueva Trinidad, San Jose las Flores, Teosinte, and Hacienda Vieja) and UCRES (including Rutilio Grande, Ita Maura, and El Buen Pastor) regions.
The mining in El Salvador will be undertaken as a joint project by at least two Canadian companies, Au Martinique Silver, Inc. and Pacific Rim , a branch of Intrepid Minerals. Au Martinique has claims in the Chalatenango region, while Pacific Rim will be exploring in San Isidro , in the Department of Cabañas . The Department of La Uni ón is likely also affected.
The companies have been granted licenses for the exploration of gold and possible silver concentrations by the Salvadoran Office of Mining and Hydrocarbons. Even with these licenses, under national mining laws the companies are only allowed to explore and mine with the permission of land owners in the affected regions. This part of the law has been ignored, however, and some exploration has been undertaken despite the strong objections from members in the affected communities about the potential environmental costs. The entrance of CAFTA into force is expected to strengthen multinationals’ rights to exploration and extraction and further weaken community control of their lands and resources.
Mining proponents claim that the mines would bring money to one of the most impoverished areas in El Salvador and could reduce Salvadoran migration to the U.S. These effects are very unlikely, however, since Pacific Rim estimates that mining would bring $30 million in profits to North American shareholders, but only $300,000 a year to the San Isidro local government. The companies project that only 300 Salvadorans would be employed, and that these jobs would last for only 8 years. Furthermore, companies generally bring their own workers for the technical, better paid jobs, leaving lower paid jobs for locals. There is also a question of whether or not any workers from these communities will even be hired, since in the past companies have refused to hire workers from communities that protest mining projects.
After the mines are depleted, the companies would leave the region in a worse situation than it is in now: within 8 years, any newly employed Salvadorans would lose their jobs, and be left living with the environmental effects of the mines. The Association for Social and Economic Development (ADES), a Salvadoran NGO, confirmed the fears of residents by affirming that the waste from the mining would pollute local water supplies with arsenic, cyanide, and aluminum residue. This waste would not only adversely affect the already fragile state of local agriculture and fisheries, but would also put the health of nearly 10,000 people at risk. Any additional short-term revenue comes at too high a cost for the mines to be accepted.
The movement against the prospective mining operation has grown since the first protests in Chalatenango, as more people become aware of the risks posed by the project. Through community organizations, residents of the affected areas in El Salvador have researched the results of past mining operations in the country. With this information, the Association of Rural Communities of Chalatenango (CCR) has presented their demands to the government, calling for the mining companies to leave the region and for President Saca to protect the health and well-being of citizens. They have been joined in their demands by residents from San Isidro and also by sister parishes in the U.S. On January 13, 2006 , protestors in Chalatenango, supported by the Diocese of Chalatenango launched another mobilization to demand that the mining exploration and extraction be halted and that the affected communities be properly consulted.
What are SHARE partners doing in El Salvador ?
On October 10, 2005 , residents from Guarjila, San Jose Las Flores and Nueva Trinidad joined together and formed a human chain to block representatives from Canadian mining company Au Martinique Silver from entering their communities. This was the first formal protest of the prospective mining operation that threatens to exploit further El Salvador ’s natural resources and endanger the health of thousands of Salvadorans.
 In February 2006, the Human Rights Ombudswoman, Beatrice de Carrillo, visited the CCR communities to hear their concerns about the entrance of mining companies to the region.
Salvadoran non-profits who work on human rights, the environment, and community development, such as CEICOM ( Research Center on Investment and Trade), UNES (Salvadoran Ecological Unit), ADES (Association for Social and Economic Development) , and FESPAD (Foundation for the Study of Application of Law), are supporting local community members’ planning efforts.
Au Martinique Silver, Inc. and Intrepid Minerals
http://www.intrepidminerals.com
Au Martinique’s profile
http://www.pro-edge.com/RelatedFiles/1/PPT%20June%2005.pdf
CEICOM ( Research Center on Investment and Trade)
http://www.ceicom.net/index.php?module=pagesetter&tid=8&tpl=list (Spanish language)
Mines and Communities Network
www.minesandcommunities.org
"Technical Review of the El Dorado Mine Project Environmental Impact Assessment, El Salvador ." Moran, R. and Moran, M. October 2005. http://www.miningwatch.ca/updir/Technical_Review_El_Dorado_EIA.pdf
PICA- Peace through Inter-American Community Action
http://www.pica.ws/ss/mining_docs.html
SHARE Foundation: Building a New El Salvador Today
http://www.share-elsalvador.org/news/frcortina.htm
http://www.share-elsalvador.org/news/RememberingEarthDay2006.htm
UNES (Salvadoran Ecological Unit)
http://www.unes.org.sv (Spanish language)
Check out our Grassroots Annual Report!
©
|
Advocacy