Science Daily — A study of forest cover in El Salvador in the September issue of BioScience presents novel findings on how economic globalization, land policy changes, and monies sent to family members by emigrants have transformed agriculture and stimulated forest regrowth.

The study, by Susanna B. Hecht and Sassan S. Saatchi, employed socioeconomic data, land-use surveys, and satellite imagery to document substantial increases in the area of El Salvador covered by both light and heavy woodland since peace accords were signed in 1992.

Most analyses of forest cover in Central America have focused on loss of old-growth forests. In drawing attention to regrowth of woodland in a country that was extensively deforested during the 1970s, Hecht and Saatchi call for a renewed examination of social and economic influences on agricultural practices and their effects on forest extent. New growth forests, most often in a mosaic along with agriculture, can buffer declines in biological diversity and are extensively used by old growth species.

War drove many people to flee El Salvador during the 1980s and early 1990s, which led to many farms being abandoned. The country experienced a net increase in tree cover thereafter. Hecht and Saatchi found a 22 percent increase in the area with 30 percent tree cover, and a 6.5 percent increase in the area with more than 60 percent tree cover. Policies that encouraged sustainable agriculture contributed to the increase, the authors maintain.

Strikingly, they also found a strong link between forest resurgence and remittances of money from family members abroad, chiefly the United States. More than a sixth of El Salvador's population left during the fighting, which helps explain why remittances now exceed direct foreign investment more than eightfold. Apparently, households receiving funds from abroad felt less need to maintain existing fields and also cleared less land. Conservationists should be more cognizant of the power of remittances and agricultural policies to benefit forest regrowth, according to Hecht and Saatchi.

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Institute of Biological Sciences.

From Tim's El Salvador Blog http://groups.google.com/group/WalkingwithElSalvador?hl=en

 

Over the past two years I have referred to the textile factory which operated under the name "Just Garments" as "worker owned" and "paying a living wage" and "respecting worker's rights." That's what many people with solidarity organizations in the US wanted to believe. That hope led them to give tens of thousands of dollars to support the experiment at Just Garments. That same hope made it difficult for them to recognize that Just Garments was not living up to its name. In a by-lined series of articles in El Diario de Hoy, reporter Jorge Ávalos has laid out the lack of substance behind the utopian image of Just Garments as a different kind of factory where workers interests were respected: The truth, confirmed by an abundance of testimonies and documents generated by 19 workers claims, is that the workers were not paid what was owed them. Under false promises and social pressure of "just employment", the employees suffered this abuse for months and years in silence, until, pressured by their economic situations, they abandoned the factory. Among the points laid out by Ávalos: - Just Garments was never owned by its workers. 99% of its shares were owned by a Chinese businessman, Tao Chang Wu. - Just Garments failed to account for tens of thousands of dollars raised from solidarity organizations in North America. - Just Garments repeatedly failed to pay contributions on workers behalf to El Salvador's social security/healthcare system. - Workers at the factory, primarily women, were paid less than the legal minimum wage and often wages were not paid at all. - The factory owed more than $65,000 in employee salaries and contributions when it was shut down. - The factory kept no accounting records and did not have its books audited. - Just Garments closed down with debts totaling as much as $250,000.Because of a lack of trustworthy accounting records, and the unwillingness of North American solidarity organizations to say how much money they sent to Just Garments, the El Diario stories are unable to say how much money might have been squandered or misspent. The articles in El Diario are not the first place where the mistreatment of workers at Just Garments have been described. The Human Rights Institute at the University of Central America has also been supporting former Just Garments workers in their attempts to get compensation for wages, severance and pension payments never made to them. The National Labor Committee has posted English translation of worker testimonies on its web site. For a somewhat contrary view of Just Garments, read this statement from USLeap, a worker's rights organization which supported the Just Garments project from its inception.