Bridge Woes for Nicaragua

Ortega's Bridge Over Troubled Waters

By: Tim Rogers

Nicaragua Dispatch and Prensa Latina  

March 1, 2012

Citation: http://tinyurl.com/7afhqbkhttp://tinyurl.com/86e9qhz

President Daniel Ortega and Japanese Ambassador Jiro Shibasaki trekked to the Río San Juan Wednesday afternoon to lay the ceremonial cornerstone to the $30 million, Japanese-funded Santa Fé Bridge, which will cross the Nicaraguan river and connect to Costa Rica.

Article clipped, see link for details.

Did you know that 95% of road construction machinery in Nicaragua comes from Japan in the form of technical assistance? Apparently this relationship is not new; Japan has been funding road work projects in Nicaragua for the last twenty years. All this is coming to light with the recent cornerstone-laying of the Santa Fe Bridge, a Japanese funded venture, that will link Nicaragua to Costa Rica. The idea is that one completed in 2014, the bridge will allow for increased trade, tourism, and economic development between the two countries and that it will have wider implications for Central American cooperation. The Japanese ambassador said that the bridge will unite Nicaragua and Costa Rica, allowing for increased development. The ambassador also indicated Nicaragua's "priority" status for Japanese aid, and commented on Nicaragua's solidarity after the 2011 Japanese earthquake. The laying of the cornerstone was quite anti-climatic, and was accompanied by a bizarre speech from el Presidente Ortega. Ortega's speech, far from being prepared or lengthy, was mild prattle. Instead of mentioning the border conflict with Costa Rica, the Tico highway project across the river, the evils of capitalism, or his good buddy Tio Chavez, Ortega exchanged niceties with engineers. Then, in another bizarre turn of events, the event just fizzled out; he concluded abruptly, placing the first stop after bumbling over his words, and then it was over.

As you may have noticed, many of our posts indicate the presence of China and Iran in Latin America (see posts on Foxconn assembly-line, Taiwan student loans, and Iranian involvement in Latin America), and what this means in terms of globalization and development efforts in Latin America. Yet, these are not the only countries who appear to be investing in Latin America. Japan has long been a player in this mix, donating money to Nicaragua to deal with some must needed infrastructure maintenance. As other bloggers have asked before me, my first question is why? Why is Japan showering Nicaragua with $30 million dollars to fund a huge bridge, the biggest of its kind in the country, in Nicaragua. Is it because of the outpouring of solidarity that the Nicaraguan government showed to Japan after last year's devastating earthquake? I know that Japan is a very generous donor country in terms of foreign assistance. But still, I wonder about Japan's motivations for aid in Nicaragua.

I was also interested in how the article highlighted the issues that Ortega didn't speak about. In my mind, perhaps the most pressing were the issues that have to deal with Nicaragua's southern (and more well off neighbor), Costa Rica. From my own personal experiences in Costa Rica, I know that there are some rivalries between the two countries. Many Nicaraguans I met in Costa Rica encountered difficulties related to prejudices. I think it's interesting that Nicaragua and Japan both perceive this bridge as a way to unite these two countries in a very literal way. However, I think that without addressing other issues, like the border problem or the Nicaraguan environmental concerns with the Tico highway across the river in Costa Rica, this bridge may bring more harm than good. On the other hand though, perhaps the benefits of the bridge (increased trade, more jobs, potential increases in tourism) will actually help better relations between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Finally, in light of my post on the drug war and its affect on education in El Salvador, I wonder what this bridge will mean in terms of the deadly business of the drug trade in Latin America. Will its construction allow for an even easier pathway for drugs to make their way from Costa Rica to Nicaragua and onwards to places like El Salvador and Mexico? It's definitely an interesting point to consider. After all, while Ortega has proclaimed that Nicaragua is winning the war against drugs (see: http://www.nicaraguadispatch.com/features/is-nicaragua-winning-the-war-on-drugs/3099), the country's drug seizures have decreased, according to a State Department report. So, my lingering question is, what will the effects of this bridge be? Will we see an increased ease of drug trafficking through Nicaragua? Will it benefit trade and relations between Costa and Nica?

The Progress of Education in Latin America

Photograph: Manu Dias/AGECOM Bahia

Moving Latin American Education Forward

Latin Business Chronicle

February 15, 2012

By Gabriel Sanchez Zinny
Citation: http://tinyurl.com/7jahvuo

In the last few decades, Latin America has fared poorly in various international educationtesting assessments. The most well-known, the Program for International Student Assessment, administered by the OECD most recently in 2009, only included nine countries in the region, but the results were not encouraging, as these nine participants finished somewhere between 44th and 63rd place, out of 65 countries tested. Chile placed at the top of the region, with Uruguay close behind, but both countries still ranked well below average. However, there are encouraging signs of education reform in Latin America, and they provide a foundation for improving education throughout the region—a daunting but feasible and necessary task.

Article clipped; see link above for full version

Despite the low grades that Latin America has received on international education testing assessments, there has been a surge in funding for education throughout the region. In the past several years, Latin America nations have, individually, spent about $200 billion per year on education and as a region has received more than $5 billion from multi-lateral organizations. Their approach to education has also recently changed. Once focused on school attendance and retainment of students, ministries of education are now concentrating on investing in the quality of schools. Primarily they are beginning to follow the models of their fellow global nations like Singapore, Finland, and South Korea. Studies in these countries have shown that teachers are the essential school based factor that influences achievement rates of students.

As a result of the large amount of funds required to propel these ventures, Latin America have seen a new set of investors join the education scene. Business companies and other organization have stepped up in order to address these educational woes, providing support when public sectors do not have the resources or capital. Organizations like Argentina's EducAr 2050, Mexicanos Primeo, and Brazil's Todos Pela Educacao, are promoting the value of stronger curricula and effective teachers by integrating improved management skills and introducing technology into the classroom. It is the hope of these regional programs and initiatives to not only provide better support to the education system, but to also improve the learning conditions and quality of education for future generations.

When I initially read this article I was skeptical of Latin America's tactics to solve their problems with the quality of education in their respective countries. Immediately their intentions were good, to invest large sums of money in their education system. However their quick reactions only fulfilled their short term goals. When Latin American countries' focus shifted from short term to long term, they refined their approach and found global models that produced the results that they desired. Even then I was wary of their choice to have outside education systems be the model of achievement for their own. The last time I read an article about Latin America modeling other more "developed" nations' education systems, it ended in protesting on the streets in Chile (see my post Hidden Strife within Chile's Education System). However I was pleasantly surprised that, unlike the case of Chile, less government involvement and more private initiative seem to not only support the financial aspects of education reform, but also the personal side of education.

For me this article touched upon many of the same issues and concerns seen in Jaime's post The Case for Local Business Support for Education in Nicaragua. These companies took an interest in promoting education reform not just because it would improve the achievement of students, but that improving the quality of education now could lead to many other long lasting results. The benefits that society could reap from these investments could transcend present time and support the success of future generations. While this article focused more on national organizations rather than local ones, I feel that the concepts are very much similar. This sense of nationalism and pride propelled these organizations to take a calculated risk and invest in the future of their country's education system in hopes that the results generated would indeed produce an overall benefit to society and not just improve one set of achievement statistics.

Local Business Investment in Education in Nicaragua

The Case for Local Business Support for Education in Nicaragua
The Brookings Institution

By Justin W. van Fleet

March 6, 2012
Citation: http://bit.ly/edunica

Given this bleak assessment, the time for the Nicaraguan business community to step up and support the government’s provision of education could not be greater. The business case is simple: investing in education in Nicaragua is an investment in both current and future employees, the safety and stability of the communities where businesses operate, the potential purchasing power of consumers, and a company’s reputation.

The author, Justin W. van Fleet, writes that an investment in childrens' education from inside of Nicaragua is the next important step in supporting the quality of learning. A survey of business leaders, as part of the World Economic Forum, indicates that the current opinion of the “quality of Nicaragua’s primary schools education ranks among the lowest in the world: 134 out of 142.” This extremely low perception definitely screams crisis, and as van Fleet points out, that certainly might have something to do with the fact that public and private donor financing is low.  The author claims that Nicaraguan businesses need to step up and show more support for education in the country by giving economically to projects that promote education. Two companies have stood out as leaders in the private sector in terms of giving back: Telefónica and Plasencia. The former provides technological resources (computers, internet, etc.), professional development programs, with a focus then on teacher development in general. Telefónica Foundation Classroom has a group of participating “marginalized” public schools. They are committed to expanding to more schools, and the latter, Plasencia works in the town of Esteli, in which the company piloted a “full-scale education program for its employees”, and an early education development program for employees’ children. Working with groups like Empresarios por la Educación, Plasencia provides a range of educational support, such as the all important university tuition. While some groups see the need and importance in community development and investing in local education, the author states that without working together as advocates, we won’t see the changes that the country's young population needs. 

There is an opportunity to make a sustainable difference in educational projects in Nicaragua if only more businesses take a larger role in investing. There is a shared social value at stake here that a recent forum demonstrates, as the author points out.  In our blog we have been examining news that relates to international investment, or aid, in education in Latin America. Many of us have an invested interest in Nicaragua and this article was very revealing (albeit short, but informative) in terms of expressing quite clearly not only the dire need for educational reform in the country, but a vital next step in terms of development where companies and businesses step up and start supporting educational initiatives! Although we live in a global era, it seems very little international money has actually trickled down to Nicaragua's education system. This article calls for greater local business involvement in education – an investment, as the author calls it, and an opportunity for both sides to benefit.

This article is particularly touching personally because our project, the Barrio Planta Project, relies strongly on the support of individuals and particularly, Nicaraguan businesses to stay afloat. Sadly, it's a struggle. We'd love to gain sustainability if only more corporations considered investing in local education initiatives. I think this call for a new, reformed, fairer type of aid makes sense. While other countries invest from the OUTSIDE towards the INSIDE of Nicaragua in the hopes of a return, van Fleet calls for a type of investment in development in which Nicaraguans invest in Nicaragua.

Culture and Knowledge Transmission in Nicaragua

Reinforcing the transmission of Mayangna culture, knowledge and language

By Natural Sciences Sector

UNESCO Media Services

January 25, 2012

Citation:

http://tinyurl.com/7zdeqry

Like many other indigenous peoples, the Mayangna people of the BOSAWAS Biosphere Reserve, Nicaragua are concerned about the erosion of their culture, language and knowledge. Around the world, indigenous people are experiencing rapid social, cultural and environmental change. While this change may offer new opportunities, it may also put at risk their rich cultural heritage by disrupting the processes by which indigenous culture, language and knowledge are transmitted.

(Article Clipped, See Link for Full text)

Due to globalization, indigenous groups are frequently faced with changing social and cultural interactions that lead to new and exciting opportunities; however, globalization may threaten their indigenous cultural background. This UNESCO article deals with indigenous knowledge in Nicaragua from a biodiversity standpoint, since indigenous peoples play an integral role in maintaining environmental biodiversity and protecting the environment form exploitation. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that indigenous knowledge is preserved. The article indicates how the Mayangna indigenous group solicited support from UNESCO's LINKS program to aid them in preserving their local indigenous knowledge about biodiversity in today's globalized world. First, the Mayangna recorded knowledge on natural history, habitats, invasive species, their language, and legends into a book, which they hoped would be incorporated into the Mayangna educational system. In fact the Ministry of Education in Nicaragua recognizes the importance of adapting curriculum and education to local contexts, especially for indigenous children. Members of MINED are working in conjunction with Mayangna educators to adapt and develop curriculum materials, such as teachers guides and textbooks. After a pilot phase and final phase complete with monitoring and evaluation, this project proved successful and will attempt to integrate Mayangna knowledge and culture into the new national curriculum.

I thought that this article was interestingly juxtaposed against my post last week about the Mayans in Mexico and their need to modernize. Unlike the Mexican government, which just went in and built new homes in an attempt to allow the Mayans to live a more modernized life (typical), I found that I was very pleased by the actions of the Ministry of Education in Nicaragua in their treatment of the Mayangna indigenous group (despite the fact that I've never heard of the Mayangna people in all my time in Nicaragua...which is curious). What this article says to me is that perhaps globalization does not have to equate to the death of indigenous culture. Especially if we're talking about environmental conservation and preserving biodiversity, we need to think about ways to preserve this local indigenous knowledge. For so many centuries, indigenous tribes have been taking care of our planet and living in harmony with the environment. Because of this, as the article points out, indigenous communities house "80% of Earth's remaining healthy ecosystems." From an environmentally conscious standpoint then, it is imperative to consider local indigenous knowledge if people want to preserve what biodiversity we have left on the planet.

However, beyond being an article about indigenous people's importance in the realm of preserving biodiversity, I thought this article implicated the importance and possibility of integrating local knowledge into education at a national level, allowing for a dialogue between the traditional and the modern in Nicaragua. With UNESCO acting as an intermediary, the Mayangna logged all of their local knowledge and customs in their own language into a book, which needs to be incorporated into the Mayangna curriculum in order to ensure the transmission of Mayangna knowledge. However, more than that, the Ministry of Education in Nicaragua has actively been working alongside the Mayangna people through education in order to support their local knowledge and culture. While there are obviously many challenges ahead that both the Mayangna and MINED have to face in order to fully integrate Mayangna knowledge and language into the national curriculum, the fact that the Ministry does make indigenous knowledge a priority and engages in dialogue with indigenous peoples is an important first step. As someone studying development, I feel like all we talk about sometimes is how difficult it is to establish collaboration with the people in order to ensure equity in education and development, especially given the context of globalization. Really, a lot of the discussing I have as someone trying to navigate the world of development make me want to bash my head against a wall sometimes. Even my idealization of local knowledge construction has been dashed (after all, we have to ask the question of who exactly is constructing local knowledge?). Despite all this, in the context of educational development regarding indigenous people, I think that Nicaragua is on the right track.

Peace Corp Pulls Volunteers out of Honduras: 1 Week Later

Honduras Peace Corp Withdrawal: Volunteer Pullout Comes as Blow

The Huffington Post

By Freedy Cuevas and Adriana Gomez Licon

January 18, 2012
Citation: http://huff.to/GJuvSp

 

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — The U.S. government's decision to pull out all its Peace Corps volunteers from Honduras for safety reasons is yet another blow to a nation still battered by a coup and recently labeled the world's most deadly country.

Neither U.S. nor Honduran officials have said what specifically prompted them to withdraw the 158 Peace Corps volunteers, which the U.S. State Department said was one of the largest missions in the world last year.

It is the first time Peace Corps missions have been withdrawn from Central America since civil wars swept the region in the 1970s and 1980s. The Corps closed operations in Nicaragua from 1979 to 1991 and in El Salvador from 1980 to 1993 for safety and security reasons, but has since returned to both countries

It is no secret that for all of Central America's beauty and mystique, it is tainted by violence. Equally, it is well-known that many US groups have developed organizations aimed to combat this issue through different, dynamic educational programs. However, a week ago the US Peace Corp made the decision to withdraw volunteers from Honduras, which as the author explains, has come as a "blow". While similar withdraws have occurred in the past, most notably in Nicaragua and El Salvador, for safety and security reasons, for now projects in water sanitation, working with youth and HIV prevention are on hold in Honduras as drug-related crime has recently spiraled seemingly out-of-control. The move comes after a 27-year-old volunteer was shot in the leg Dec. 3rd during an armed robbery, and after a robbery and rape that occurred in late January of another volunteer. It is noted that this is a difficult time for Honduran NGO's (clearly) and that additionally, aid from Spain was "drying up" due to that country's own debt issues. A 2011 UN report states that Honduras has more violence than any other country in the world! It is unclear what effect these various changes will have on the Corp agency, and no other groups have pulled out as of yet (for more info. on this topic in Central America, see this article: El Salvador/Crime/Education)

I understand that the number one priority is the safety of the volunteers, and also, in turn, the reputation of the Peace Corps however violence is crippling education efforts leading to reports of rape, robbery, and other random acts of violence that operations no longer continue on a normal basis with Honduras in its' the current state. This is a United States government organization -- it would be incredibly irresponsible, and reprehensible, to maintain operations at the current level. However, the organizations departure from the Central American nation signals a message to the government of Honduras to take action.

As history reveals, the Peace Corp has reacted similarly in other countries, for example, in Nicaragua when the government was going through sharp changes in regime in the early 1990's, and it was simply too a dangerous place to live and work for expats and international volunteers. Bluntly put, this current situation is tragic from any perspective. People wanting to help in a place that so direly needs assistance, but halted, because the situation is actually so bad, that it is dangerous: this is the Peace Corp worker reality in Honduras at the present state. The authors report from Mexico and Guatemala, which is ironic that they too are outside of the country.

We need to consider this case in context of the value of human life. For the last 2 years I have worked as a teacher and most recently, as the Director of Adult Programs for a non-profit in the Nicaragua called the Barrio Planta Project. All humans experience violence but the amount of expose can certainly increase as expats living and working in Nicaragua. For a former co-worker her experience was enough to encourage her to quit her position and leave the country. She took a job in Guatemala and is now working in Antigua, which is relatively safer than other areas of that country but certainly not immune to the same problems found throughout Central America in terms of drug-related violence. I am lucky that nothing has ever happened to me, and I continue to make what I consider to be "smart choices". However, this organization has large implications beyond the individual level and their efforts in development, as United States citizens acting as educational ambassadors with countries around the world. What is the impact of cutting services and which services are specifically affected? 

Taiwan offering student loans to Central Americans

China's wage hikes could benefit Americas

University World News

By Chrissie Long

February 5, 2012
Citation: http://bit.ly/GK03sI

Taiwan is offering students in five Central American countries more than US$20 million in low-cost student loans. Analysts see the move to court the region, which has low higher education enrollment rates, as part of the ongoing battle between Taiwan and China over political allies in the West.

The programme, which is administered by the Central American Integration Bank (BCIE), provides loans to prospective students in Honduras, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Guatemala.

In a region with university enrollment rates of only 18%, compared to 28% in all of Latin America, and limited availability of student credit, the programme is bound to have an impact, said officials from the BCIE.

“We are conscious of the fact that many people can’t access education because they don’t have the financial means to do so,” said Ruben Mora, Costa Rica director for BCIE.

“The idea is to create opportunities for more people to form part of the higher education system, which will lead to better jobs, improved economic conditions and better economic development.”

(clipped; see above link for the rest of the article)

In this article, the author presents a program introduced by the Taiwanese government intended to provide low-interest and long repayment loans to Central American students in Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Honduras and El Salvador, through a program known as the BCIE loan programme (Central American Bank For Economic Integration). The author writes with the assumption that Taiwan acts in competition with China and that it has an invested interest in this offer to Central American university students. As the article explains, the program allows students the opportunity to pursue higher education in these countries through a loan program started in 2011. So far, 50 students have taken advantage of the offer, from Nicaragua and Honduras, and 8 universities are participating. The goal is the program seems to be to promote relations between Taiwan and the Western hemisphere, and to invest in human capital in order to promote economic development through educational advancement and opportunity. 

My initial reaction involves the word investment. What exactly is Taiwan investing in? Is this a form of neo-colonialism in which Central American students are only enslaved to another foreign government? Or, is this a real opportunity for young people to advance and in turn help their countries to advance?

The 5 countries that are offered this loan program are of course known as "third-world countries", and Nicaragua in particular is the second poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. In terms of a "first-world" model, it would seem to be a great opportunity. However, unlike the United States, where students take out loans from their own government, hence supporting their home country, these students are borrowing from a country on the other side of the world!!

This is a tough debate. On the one hand you have a low-percentage rate of college enrollment (18%) due to economic setbacks in this area. Thus, one might assume this is a good solution to that problem and that Taiwan should even be given a pat on the back, per se. However, on the other hand, is this not neo-colonialism at its best? Economic dependence on rich, industrialized country. Check. Aimed at maintaining global inequality. Check. So, it leaves us with quite a dilemma. As a teacher based in Nicaragua, I want my students to attend college. I really do. I know however that without money, that is quite difficult. So, I'd love to see more scholarship and grant programs. While this Taiwanese program appears like an "opportunity" to be taken advantage of, it may just well be in reality another debt trap, and moreover, a power move by Taiwan to attempt to step ahead in Central American relations in front of China. 

We return to the word investment. We might think about students investing in their own education, companies investing in students and countries investing in other countries through development programs like the BCIE. However, which students are affected? In all of the articles that I located on the program I could not locate any specific demographics on the students who are taking out loans through this program, particularly looking for economic demographics based on social class. Furthermore this is run through a bank! The purpose of banks are to make money. They supply no other purpose than that really. I think Central American countries need to find a way to support their own students' search for higher education. I wonder if any heads of these governments are receiving kickbacks. I wouldn't be surprised.