Pics from Nicaragua

School Gardens in Nicaragua

Hello,
The picture was taken in a school at San Jose de Cusmapa, Madriz. This state one of has the worst food insecurity indicators in Nicaragua.
Bellow is a summary of the School Garden project we're conducting. The report is not ready yet so this is rather a draft, yet it has some info you may find useful.

Project Rationale and Priorities

The main objective of PESA Nicaragua is to contribute to the access and availability of food and to improve the nutritional situation of the 16 municipalities where the project currently exists.

One of the many initiatives to achieve such objective is through the implementation of school gardens which are improving the food security of the communities where they are being grown. This is done mainly through both education and production. The gardens are used as tools for the teaching of the concept of nutrition, e.g. the importance of a balanced and diverse diet. The garden activities engage children more than the traditional confines of the classroom, guaranteeing a clear understanding of food and its role in their wellbeing.

A school garden encourages local children to transfer the gardening techniques learned in the school garden to gardens in their homes, introducing new vegetables into their diets and that of their families. In addition, the garden products can be used as complements to a School Lunch Program, whereby food can be taken home by the kids, or sold at the local markets.

Although school gardens around the world have been used to generate income, promote community participation, and improve the teaching of applied curriculum activities, the priorities of this project are the effective teaching of a) nutrition and b) practices of growing vegetables and other foods. This is not to say that the other components mentioned above are not important. In fact, there are some schools where the teaching of science, math, and other assignments through community gardens is achieved with good results. Nevertheless, FAO through the PESA project expects augmented nutritional and production patterns in the communities where the project is been implemented.

Such impact should be measured through: improved understanding of nutrition; recognition and consumption of new vegetables and fruits; creation of home gardens at the children’s homes; and, of course, a reduction of under-nutrition indicators.

Location and Size

The representation of FAO in Nicaragua has been working in school gardens for the past year. Thus far, FAO-PESA in alliance with members of the private, civil, and public sectors (see annexes) have set up about 60 gardens in the north and central region of the country, prioritizing those counties with severe under-nutrition indicators. The school gardens are mainly found in rural communities, but there are some gardens that have been implemented in the peri-urban belt of Managua.
There are about 14,000 students participating in the gardens in six different Nicaraguan states. In addition, 450 teachers, extension agents, and social workers have been trained to set up and oversee the school gardens.


Beneficiaries

The FAO-PESA provides training in setting up and running a school garden to extension agents of private and public entities, social workers, teachers, instructors, and parents. Nonetheless, the main beneficiaries of the school garden project are the children and their families. The project also expects positive influence on the community as a whole, resulting from better community organization, improved school environment, and, of course, healthier and brighter children.


Main Components

The methodology of the project can be divided into four main components: 1) Organization; 2) Education; 3) Nutrition; and 4) Production.

PESA considers community organization as one of the main means of achieving its goal of improved food security. Organization is key for guaranteeing the sustainability of the school garden project and the involvement and commitment of the participant agents. Before implementing the garden, the project assesses the level of interest of the parents, teachers, students, and other participant organizations in the area. If the level of organization and enthusiasm is adequate, committees are formed with specific tasks, e.g. watering, harvesting, security, etc. The parents participate in the committees conducting heavy labor that is inappropriate for children. They also play a crucial role during vacations as they have to ensure that the gardens are well maintained.

Education is another important component of the project as gardens can be used as tools in practical curriculum. Advocates of experimental learning like Jean Piaget and Maria Montessori have acknowledged the tremendous success of these techniques. School gardens can be used in subjects such as math, science, environmental studies, and even writing and arts. At a recent meeting, teachers were eager to show us the result of creative artistic work for labelling the garden beds and other decorations inside the garden. Also, the change of environment from a classroom to the garden has proven to provide positive impacts in the learning capabilities of children. California is a leading example in this area, as the state-wide campaign for greening the schools and using gardens for applied curriculum have had excellent results.

Nonetheless, the primary curricular component that the project wants children to clearly understand is nutrition. The project believes that a positive difference in food security can be made by changing the diet patterns of children at the school and, subsequently, at home. As a result, school gardens are used to introduce new vegetables that already exist in the communities but are not widely consumed. In addition, healthy snacks such as fruit and some vegetables are being encouraged as replacements for packaged munchies and sodas. Changing the diet habits of an adult is far more difficult that changing that of a child, and if the children are participating in the production of such new products, incorporation into the diets of children will be much easier.

The last subject is no less important than the others. Good production and a healthy garden are essential to keep the participants motivated and enthusiastic. In this regard, the project provides training in vegetable production using different techniques such as drip irrigation, raised bedding, tire gardening, and Earth Boxes (see annexes). Training in weed and pest management is also provided emphasizing the used of local resources and organic pesticides. For instance, neem tree seeds have been used widely as a repellent against Aphids, Coccoids, and Lepidoptera.

As mentioned before, the outcome of the garden is used in the school kitchen as a complement of a school nutrition program. However, there is no way a school garden will be able to replace such a program. Gardening is a difficult task that depends in a lot of variables like water, soil, light, pests, inputs, labor, etc. Thus, having a school food program that relies solely on the products from the garden is unwise and could put children in jeopardy.

There is evidence, however, of some school gardens in Sub-Saharan countries that depend on the school gardens to provide for a feeding program. Similarly, there are school gardens that effectively sell their harvests, process the food into value added, and obtain significant income from the gardening activities. Yet, these tend to be schools with decades of experiences at gardening, and under different conditions of those in Nicaragua.


Cost and Benefits

A cost-benefit analysis has been challenging to put in place as most of the benefits of the garden take the form of intangibles. There is still much controversy in the economic literature regarding the quantification or returns of benefits such as education, improved nutrition, better organization, etc. In this regard, my study lacks the tools and the time to gather primary information for a strong qualitative data set. However, I’m relaying on other studies to estimate the contributions of improved primary education, enhanced nutrition on children, and superior communal organization. Such studies quantify lost revenue for not having a school degree, or the forfeited wages due to illness, an indirect cause of malnutrition.

The only quantifiable benefit in a school garden project is the production coming out of the gardens. In this regard, garden production can be quantifiable by estimating the output per square meter and the commercial price of vegetables such as tomatoes, radishes, cucumbers, squash, onions, and beets among others. The results so far show that the financial contribution of such production is minimal compared to the investment required in setting up a school garden. However, students and parents have expressed in different workshops the advantage of not having to spend money in some items of their food basket. On this point, I have to emphasize that we are working with communities making less than two dollars a day, so small savings coming from the garden production are greatly appreciated.

Concerning the cost calculations of the project, the study has determined that it costs about US$300.00 to set up a garden with the necessary inputs for a year of production. Included in these calculations are tools, worm castings or compost mixture, fertilizer, some organic pesticides, seeds, and transport. I am in the process of calculating cost of technical assistance and opportunity costs of all the participating agents in the garden.

From a rigid financial point of view and assuming production to be the main benefit, gardens are an inefficient tool, as the school will be better off by obtaining the vegetables at the local market. This action would save time for both teachers and students, increase school space, make access to food more reliable (free from worries about pests and other problems), and contribute to the local economy by purchasing from nearby farmers. It may even be the case that the total quantity of food that US$300.00 can buy over a year is higher than what a garden could produce during the same period of time, implying that a cash transfer is a wiser option.

Nevertheless, the main benefits of the school garden are not on the production side. As mentioned before, they can be summarized in a better understanding of nutrition, so the children can make more educated decisions regarding their diets. Changes like the diversification of consumption patterns that include more and new vegetables and fruits that can be accessed locally is the project’s main goal. These changes will guarantee a reduction in malnutrition levels, and the adequate presence of micro nutrients that are so essential for the development of children and their future livelihoods. Therefore, school gardens appear to be an appropriate tool in the fight against food insecurity.



Main Issues

Even though Nicaragua has seen initiatives of school gardens dating back to the 40’s and 50’s, the sustainability of such programs has never been ensured. The U.S., under the Alliance for Progress (former USAID) promoted the use of gardens widely. In a similar way, and under the pressure from food scarcity, the Sandinista government sponsored in the 1980’s a nation-wide strategy for the implementation of school, community, and home gardens. However, the school gardens have never been implemented into the school curriculum, and no national agency has taken responsibility for their sustainability. Most of the promoters came from the civil sector and acted in an Ad Hoc way, with few linkages to research, extension, and educational intuitions of Nicaragua.

Although these aspects have been changing progressively (the Ministry of Education signed an agreement for a pilot program with school gardens and Nicaragua’s Agricultural Research and Extension Institute has been of the main participants of the school garden project), the sustainability of the school gardens in term of funding, technical support, and other aspects remains uncertain.

Another drawback of the school gardens is technical assistance. Vegetable gardening in particular requires careful oversight as these crops tend to be extremely susceptible to water depravation and vulnerable to a host of pests. So far, the amount of literature available to the instructors at the schools is limited. Although there are several manuals and guides in school gardening, the project is in the process of adapting those to the local circumstances.

The project is also using a technology called Earth Boxes. A close facsimile to tire gardening, the boxes maximize water usage and vegetable production (www.earthboxes.com). Although the sustainability of this technology is questionable as each cost about US$40 (they have been donated by Growing Connections), the boxes bring to the garden an attractive component that makes students and instructors more willing to participate.

The last issue has to do with the way many people in the project and at national institutions see school gardens. For them, gardening has no place at a school and sees no connection between a school garden and education and nutrition. These are typical misconceptions that will take time to change.


Annexes

List of organizations participating in the School Garden Project. NGO (1), Government (2), Private Sector (3)

Alcaldía de Managua. 2
Fundación COEN. 1
Fundación Familia Fabreto. 1
INPRHU. 1
Alcaldía de Las Sabanas. 2
CISA Exportadora. 3
INTA. 2
Fe y Alegría. 1
Europa Motor. 3
Café Soluble. 3
Continental Airlines. 3
Ganadería Santa Elisa.3
Cristiani Sánchez. 3
Química Word. 3
Televicentro Canal 2. 3
BANCENTRO. 3
Kola Chaler. 3
CARLAFISA. 3
Enrique Zamora. 3
COASTAL. 1
Fundación Pantaleón. 1

"it is imposible to fight poverty when we pay the poor to remain that way" something like that, but you get the message right?. Milton Friedman

Is Raining Coffee in Nicaragua

As Juan Luis Guerra once hoped "I wish it rains coffee in the field" in Nicaragua it is coffee time and you can feel it in the atmosphere. Yesterday I had the opportunity to go to Jinotega, the department north of Matagalpa in the Honduran border, famous for its shade-grown Arabica coffee. The purpose of the visit was to check on the progress of a School Garden we had helped implement a couple months ago. But as we travelled this mountainous region, I was amazed by how it looks so different now that the coffee is being harvested.

The rural roads look like ant paths, with hundreds of people going back and forth carrying sacks of coffee, food, tools, and guitars. Although the pick of the seasons hasn’t started yet, you’ll be able to find Nicaraguan from all over. Some come from the Atlantic coast where poverty is more prevalent. Others live in the region and spend some time harvesting coffee, then sugar cane and then back to their farms. This region in fact, has been a reservoir of agricultural labour. This is one of the reasons why so many agricultural projects that try to convert these seasonal workers to producers fail.

The town is bursting and the money starts to trickledown to restaurants, shops, and obviously to the local tavern. There are problem, most of then alcohol related after pay-day, yet the mood is pleasant as the farmers know that all the hard work is finally producing the first fruits and the workers are getting some money to bring back to their families. The farms where the berry pickers work are filled with joy: don’t get me wrong as I’m not saying that coffee picking is an easy, pleasant job. What I’m saying is that to the foreign eye it looks like a romantic painting of blue skies and green landscapes: a resting yet deceiving image from colonial times.

But forget about the Germans and other Europeans who once owned and managed these coffee farms, although there is some left, most farms are now owned and operated by Nicas. So Nica is the music played on the radio, or sang by the workers as they pick the berries. At lunch time, you'll hear a whistle telling you is time for lunch. A Nica lunch of beans, tortilla, cuajada, meat (sometimes), and of course coffee, giving these good-hearted Nicaraguans the energy to keep going.

During the Sandinistas time and to some degree today, you hear many voices that complained about coffee and other monocultures as being promoters of poverty and food insecurity. The rationality of their argument is based on a colonial systems of production that reflect little to today’s reality. Nowdays, the wages for pickers are regulated and there are a wide range of standards for the conditions in which they have to work, guarantying their safety and wellbeing. People also think food security for farmers means producing food, when most of the time they are better off by producing goods to commerce and then buying food.

A quintal (100LB) of dry coffee is being paid at US$120.oo aprox. The coffee price is now recuperating from a two decade low that busted the market for speciality coffees such as shade-grown, fair treaded, organic, etc. Now, there are plenty of farmers that are meeting their ends by growing this berry. So next time you drink a cup coffee, imagine all the bliss that came into bringing it to you.
Salud,

“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”.— Old Chinese Saying

My version: “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to sell the fish, so he can also eat some chicken”. – Rafael I Merchan

Why Daniel Ortega is back in power and why to Remain Suspicious

Ok, so the news that Daniel Ortega, the former Sandinista guerrilla combatant, won last Sunday presidential bid were digested easily as a learn that the democrats got back control of both houses of congress. That said, we need to explore why that Danielistas won and what are the prospects of his presidency.

There are several factors that influenced last Sunday election outcome. First and most important was the overwhelming support the Sandinistas obtained from the youth. In order to vote in Nicaragua you have to be 16 or older, so there is a big chunk of the population that did not experience the hardships of the 80’s and was eligible to vote. Youth “had it easy” -as and older guy told me- “they didn’t have to be part of the obligatory two year army service in the middle of a war and they didn’t have to harvest coffee and cotton for three months a year, eight hours a day”. They were in fact, easily persuaded by the overused, coldwared antiyanqui speech of the Sandinistas. With magnificent but undoable offers of employment, education, and other benefits, the youth selected to what their eyes was a new path, the Sandinista path. A path with not clear destination and a familiar blocks on the way to many of the older generations.

Another very important factor that influenced this election was the mess created by the liberal party in control for the past 16 years, the PLC (Partido Liberal Constitucionalista). Although two of their presidents, Violeta Chamorro and Enrique Bolaños were in fact conservative minded, the PLC must take blame for the corruption scandals and the clientelims characterized of their governments. Graft, bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, and patronage were common place after the end of the Sandinista era. Predictably, at the height of all this came the Political Pact (El Pacto) signed by the Arnoldo Aleman of the PLC and Daniel Ortega of the FSNL. This power sharing agreement had among others decrees that one could be president with 35% of the popular vote as long as they maintain a 5% lead. Before the pact, the percentage needed was 40 and since Ortega only got 38% of the vote, there would have been runoff election in which he would unquestionably loss.

The U.S, as in the last two centuries of Nicaragua history, played an important and influential role in the election outcome. This time by interfering directly with the electoral process of Nicaragua’s election. This blatant and often absurd interference lead to a boomerang effect, reinforcing Ortega’s claims of American interventionsionism and rallying the youth as already mention. In the words of Tim Padget of TIME “the yanqui politicking — which included a threat to cut off U.S. aid to impoverished Nicaragua if Ortega won — backfired miserably, actually helping boost the Sandinista leader to his first-round victory. That such U.S. pressure tends to work in favor of its opponents is a lesson Washington seems woefully unable to learn in a post-Cold War Latin America whose electorates have unexpectedly turned leftward in recent years” (Read article HERE). And Mr. Padget is not alone, Marcela Sanchez, a Colombian reporter of the Washington Post, writes “Scare tactics were the wrong choice for Washington. But this was again a case of pragmatism blinded by ideology. That was evident when Rep. Dan Burton, chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere, wrote that an Ortega victory raised the possibility that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his ailing mentor Fidel Castro could be expanding their influence, meaning that "our enemies will be that much closer to our borders"” Read article HERE. En ESPAÑOL AQUI. However, I believe the percentage of the population that got turn off by Washington’s bad neighbour talk was miniscule as Nicaraguans have gotten used to the American ascent. This is not to say, though, that D.C’s foreign policy is antiquated, in need of a reality check, something hopefully democrats will do now they the control the congress.

Now that I’ve discussed what I see as the most important reasons for Ortega’s victory, lets look at the prospects of his presidency. First and foremost Nicaragua needs investment: after decades of war, natural disaster, and corruption is natural that the country ranks as the most food insecure and poor in continental America. So foreign currency is essential to lift the country out of poverty. Before going any forward, imagine I give you half million dollars for a tourism investment in Central America. You can choose any country as long as you maximize profits. So obviously you google all the countries trying to learn more about history, economic potential, governance, transparency, in other words business climate. It should take you less that an hour to realise that Nicaragua is a no–no. With a very recent history of expropriation (See my older post), corruption, and most important economic risk, investment in Nicaragua is a casino-like experience, is you like Vegas bring your money to Managua. Worst now that the man that was in charge of all economic chaos of the 80’s is back in power.

But where is the money coming from if is not from international investors? It won’t come from the black riches Ortega’s friend to the south sits on, or the vast agricultural and mineral exports of the others in the lefty South American wagon. Unfortunately, Nicaragua is energy dependent, lacks adequate infrastructure, and most of its land is unsuitable for productive agriculture. This raises the basic question of how to finance the large agenda of social investment without resource to access to.
For now we can only wait and see. Although Ortega may not turn out as bad as many predicted, it is almost undeniable that he will bring a climate of uncertainty: not a good weather forecast for a country with way too many political storms.
If you hate my grammar and my bias, data-lacking-right-leaning reporting, check out this article about Nicaragua’s recent news. First check out excellent World Opinion Roundup on Nicaragua’s election by Jeferson Morly of the Washington Post. Also, check out what my favourite magazine had to say The Economist-Fasten your Sit belts. The people from NicaNet had this to SAY. Finally, what the Brits had to say BBC.
From now on, I’ll finish every post with a quote: here is today’s.
There is a common tendency to ignore the poor or to develop some rationalization for the good fortune of the fortunate. John Kenneth Galbraith

School Garden Group

Hola Gente,
You are missing something big if you haven't open an account on FLICKR, the best photo sharing website out there.
Taking advantage of such technology, I've created a group of School Gardens around the world. Ideally, people will post picture of school gardens and share their experiences with them. But hey, just pics are fine. We already have 6 member (not bad...the group was created yesterday!!), but I want to see more. Thus, YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED
Stay tuned for a more detail analysis on the many benefits of School Gardens. In the meantime check out the group's pictures.

Also, check out The Growing Connection, an initiative to "link people and cultures in a revolutionary campaign that introduces low-cost water efficient and sustainable food growing innovations hand in hand with wireless IT connectivity. It provides a sound educational foundation, and offers hundreds of families, both in America and abroad, a concrete opportunity to earn income and climb out of desperation".
Photo Credit: Sustainable Harvest International. Original Link

VIEWS: Targeting Nicaraguans’ Stomachs

Hello,
Trying to remain partial in the discussion of politics in Nicaragua is a difficult task, specially now that we are four day away from the elections. So here is an article by Ben Beachy of Witness for Peace who talks about U.S interventionism in Nicaraguan elections, a subject I have to some extend ignore. As mentioned before, this blog is about Agriculture and Rural Development and the outcome of this election will have a certain effect on both.
Enjoy.

October 30, 2006
By Ben Beachy

Imagine the following: you and your family decide to remodel your kitchen. Your neighbor, also the principal at your children’s elementary school, hears of the plan and immediately states his opposition. He argues that the remodeling project is not the sort of investment your family needs and hints that carrying it out would jeopardize his friendship. Deciding to move ahead with the remodeling anyway, you and your family begin removing the kitchen cabinets one day, but are interrupted by a knock at the door. Your neighbor enters and grimly announces to the entire family that if the remodeling is carried out as planned, he will see to it that your children do not pass another grade in his elementary school.

Your neighbor’s behavior, however far-fetched it may seem, is no more ridiculous or offensive than the treatment U.S. political figures have been giving their neighboring Nicaraguans in the last several days. Nicaragua is currently gearing up for its national elections on Sunday, November 5.

For the last year, Nicaragua’s complicated electoral panorama has been further convoluted by a string of U.S. representatives endeavoring to ward off an electoral victory by Sandinista (FSLN) leader and former president Daniel Ortega. U.S. officials have publicly censured Ortega, attempted to unify his opposition, and threatened that an Ortega win would endanger U.S. financial support. The continuous intervention, however, has failed to unite Nicaragua’s divided right or significantly detract from Ortega’s base. Now U.S. meddlers are flustered and desperate in the face of recent polls revealing that Ortega is within a few percentage points of clinching the presidential office.

In a last-ditch effort to undermine Ortega, U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, chairman of the House’s International Relations Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, sent a letter on Friday, October 27, to Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security. Rohrabacher enjoined Chertoff “to prepare in accordance with U.S. law, contingency plans to block any further money remittances from being sent to Nicaragua in the event that the FSLN enters government.” The nearly half million Nicaraguans currently living in the U.S. send around $500 million each year to their family members in Nicaragua, according to Nicaraguan economist Nestor Avendaño.

Nicaraguans have reason to believe Rohrabacher may not be bluffing. In the buildup to Nicaragua’s 1990 elections, the United States promised Nicaraguan voters that it would continue fueling the decade-old contra war and maintain its economic embargo on Nicaragua, both of which were wreaking havoc on Nicaragua’s economy, if Daniel Ortega were reelected as President. Beleaguered by a crippling war, food rationing, and empty supermarket shelves, Nicaraguans opted for U.S.-backed Violeta Chamorro over Ortega. Satisfied, the U.S. then released its stranglehold on the Nicaraguan economy.

Seeing that the FSLN now has a chance to return to power, Rohrabacher seems eager to once again target Nicaraguans’ stomachs with callous pressure. Thousands of Nicaraguan families depend on remittances to augment the meager wages paid for picking coffee, sewing jeans in assembly factories, or selling water at intersections. In an economy sacked with underemployment, stagnant salaries, and rising costs, remittances keep Nicaragua afloat by generating an income equivalent to 70% of the country’s total annual exports, according to the most recent estimates. Avendaño projects that a U.S. embargo on remittances would prove as disastrous for Nicaraguans as the U.S.-imposed trade embargo of the 1980’s. Once again, the hardest hit would be the impoverished majority.

Nicaraguan voters are not unaware of this reality. Nor is Rohrabacher, no doubt. Nicaraguans’ direct dependence on remittances is what makes his open threat particularly potent. In the face of a potential Ortega victory, Rohrabacher is striving to make longstanding U.S. interference more personal by pushing Nicaraguans to see a vote for Ortega as a vote against their own pocketbooks.

Rohrabacher’s letter is but one voice in a recent cacophony of U.S. meddling. Headlines of the last week have been laden with unsolicited U.S. opinions on Daniel Ortega and the sort of President Nicaraguans should want. The day after Rohrabacher sent his letter, Florida governor Jeb Bush authored a letter published in a La Prensa paid ad. Bush’s letter declares that Nicaraguans must choose between a “tragic step towards the past,” which he identifies as the “totalitarianism” of the Sandinistas, and “a vision towards the future.” Jeb Bush’s own vision for Nicaragua’s future is revealed at the bottom of the ad, where the Alianza Liberal Nicaraguense party, which is running the U.S.- preferred presidential candidate Eduardo Montealegre, is named as the ad’s sponsor.

Just a few pages away from Bush’s ad appears an article in which Adolfo Franco, USAID’s Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean, warns that a FSLN victory next week could limit USAID support for Nicaragua, citing worries that Daniel Ortega might significantly alter Nicaragua’s current economic model. USAID’s admonition piggybacks on US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez’s more explicit pressure in an interview publicized one week earlier. Gutierrez threatened that an Ortega win could preclude a $230 million combined investment from three foreign companies that would generate 123,000 jobs, a $220 million aid package promised through the Millenium Challenge Account, and implementation of CAFTA in Nicaragua.

On October 29, the day after printing Jeb Bush’s letter, La Prensa published an editorial by Otto Reich, former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in which he accuses the FSLN of maintaining ties with terrorist groups, a claim that Reich does not attempt to substantiate. Though Reich does not currently hold a position in the U.S. government, he writes as if he does, stating, “If the Sandinistas control the government of Nicaragua, there will be strong pressure in Washington to review all aspects of the bilateral relationship, including remittances.” Reich equates a Sandinista victory with “a return to a past of poverty and international isolation.” Such a dismal outcome indeed seems likely if the U.S., as the party responsible for the isolation of the past, would implement Reich’s thinly cloaked threat of aid and remittance cutoffs.

Ironically, Reich precedes all the above statements with the disclaimer, “No one can tell [Nicaraguans] who to vote for.” Jeb Bush, Adolfo Franco, and other outspoken U.S. figures have similarly acknowledged Nicaraguans’ sovereign right to pick their own leaders. Unfortunately, such statements come across as meaningless niceties when subsequently contradicted with threats and admonishments against choosing a president not to the U.S.’s liking. As Nicaraguans make their way to the polls on Sunday, they must not only consider “What will this candidate do for my country if elected?” but also “What will the U.S. do to my country if this candidate is elected?” The product of relentless outside interference, this sad reality is profoundly undemocratic.

With numerous internal challenges posed by this election, Nicaraguans do not need to be further encumbered by fears of U.S. reprisal. If U.S. representatives truly wish to see free, unfettered elections in Nicaragua on November 5, they would do well to keep their mouths shut.

Ben Beachy is an educator with Witness for Peace in Nicaragua. Witness for Peace is a politically independent, grassroots organization that educates U.S. citizens on the impacts of U.S. policies and corporate practices in Latin America and the Caribbean. www.witness forpeace.org

International World Food Day. Oct 16

Hello,
Last week we celebrated the International World Food Day (WFD), as well as, the creation of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in 1945. Coincidence or not, FAO has been working extensible in the reduction of food insecurity around the world, and Nicaragua is not the exception.

There is now a global consensus on the fact that the fight against hunger requires a comprehensive approach: is not just about increasing yields as it used to be. The fight against hunger is also about creating new markets, promoting conservation and valued added practices, organizing the communities, and, of course, ensuring jobs and education. To accomplish these, however, there must be an alliance among the different components of a society e.g. government, NGO’s, donors, private sector. Our program on School Gardens is a good example of how different sectors can get together and work towards a common goal, food security. Bellow find a video FAO-PESA prepare for the WFD 2006.
Enjoy.

Un poco de Quejas

Saludos
Voy a escrivir en espanol pues la verdad es que me tengo que quejar un poco, y esto lo hago mejor en espanol. Las eleciones en Nicaragua estan a la vuelta de la esquina y todo parece indicar que Daniel Ortega podria ganar inclusive en la primera vuelta, con un poco mas del 30% de los votos. Esto, gracias a una estupida ley concorda entre mienbros del PLC (Partido Liberal Consituyente) y el FSNL (Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional). Las perspectivas de que los Danielistas retomen el poder nublan y cubren de incertidumbres un futuro nicaraguense que empiesa a salir de la sosobra. Solo para dar un ejemplo del nivel de atrazo que llevo la revolucion al pais, en este ano se alcanzaron los niveles de exportacion del 1976.
Pueda que el nivel de exportaciones no sea el mejor indicador para medir la properidad de un pais, sobretodo en el caso de Nicaragua pues este sector ha sido controlado ferozmente por un pequeno grupo de agroempresarios. De todas formas, no hay quien pueda negar que el fortalecimiento del sector agricola tiene efectos directos e indirectos en la reducion de probeza y la prosperidad social. Entonces el que los Sandinistas con sus politicas subsidiadoras e irracionales que llevaron al sector agricola a niveles de los anos 40 tengan la posibilidad de retomar es una razon logica para quejarme.
La otra razon para quejarme es que se me dano mi computador. Aparentemente, la Dell portatiles tiene problemas con los Disipadores de Calor (heat sink). El computador se calento tanto que afecto la targeta procesadora. Es tan grande el problema, que parece que toda mi informacion recopilada en ese computador por mas de 3 anos esta seriamente amenazada.
Seguire a la espera de un milagrito, no sin antes disculparme por la falta de egnes y los errores autograficos.

Elections in Nicaragua: Two Contrasting Paths to Choose

Hola Gente,
We're less than a month away from the presidential elections of Nicaragua, yet it seem that the voting is taking place tomorrow: the whole country is flooded with unregulated expensive political advertising (see the picture), the parties' caravans are seem everywhere making traffic worse, and politics is in everybody's conversations regardless of where you are. Since my arrival to Nicaragua, people tell me that these are the most decisive elections in recent history. And they are definitely right.

So without forgetting our topic agriculture, let’s talk about politics for a bit as they have a direct effect on the welfare of the rural sector and the fate of agriculture (check out this post). Since the end of the Sandinista Revolution in 1989, Nicaragua has seen bipolar election campaigns: you voted for the Sandinistas or against the Sandinistas. The Sandinistas, always represented by Daniel Ortega in the FSLN party lost to; Violeta Chamorro (1990), to Arnoldo Aleman (1997) and to Enrique Bolanos (2002). Until then, the run for president was solved easily because the Sandinistas haven't been able (since 1990's) to get more than 35% of the popular vote.

This changed drastically when Aleman signed "el Pacto" (a political pact) with the Sandinistas in which some key political figures of the FSLN got permanent government positions and other political favors. This pact improved the condition of the FSLN and in return Aleman received lax treatment when his corruption charges surfaced the public. The spillover effect, however, was a strong division in the two parties which saw the pact as ideologically incongruous and driven by personal ambitions of Aleman and Ortega. The results were the following: liberals against the pact (ALN) and for the pact (PLC), and Sandinitas against the pact (MRS) and for the pact (FSLN).

Now according to polls, the Daniel Ortega (FSLN) leads with 30% of the vote, followed by Eduardo Montealegre (ALN) with 25%, Mundo Jarquin (MRS) with 15%, and Jose Rizo (PLC) 10%. Because this distribution has never taken place in the recent history of Nicaraguan, there is an overwhelming sense of uncertainty that maintains the country on a frustrating status quo. Besides the unique campaign distribution, there has also never been a runoff election in Nicaragua before, and the amount of people expected to vote appears to be unprecedented, raising questions about logistics and transparency.

What is best for the country? You may ask. This is, of course, up to the Nicaraguans to decide. That is not to say, however, that the outcome of this election will have a direct effect in Central America and possibly in the whole continent. In my opinion, Nicaraguans have to choose between a prosperity path that guarantees economic, political, and social freedom, and an already traveled path of isolation, injustices, and poverty. Although these may sound like plain broad words, I believe the voting decision of the Nicaraguans boils-down to these two paths.

The former path is represented by both Montealgre and Jarquin. Montealegre, who I had the opportunity to speak with, will ensure economic prosperity with a broad growth agenda. Jarquin, also an economist, promises sustain growth and social equity. In my opinion, Nicaraguans must be practical a vote for Montealegre as he is the one with the highest chances of winning. This election is too important to take the risk of voting for a candidate with a slight chance of winning, and only Montealegre ensures a strong vote.

Looking at my notes on Montealgre's presentation at George Washington University in Washington DC (06/15/2006), I find a candidate prepare to run the country in the right direction. Putting emphasis on transparency, economic growth, government institutions, education, and health, he has the silent support of most governments in the region (U.S support for him is controversially quite noisy). When asked about agriculture, he talked about the importance of both creating new markets for export commodities, and assisting small farmers with technical, commercial, and financial help. With an almost nonexistent local market for agricultural output in Nicaragua and with the new set of trade agreements, focusing in exports is a wise policy.

From the time when Violeta Chamorro defeated the face of the revolution in the 1990’s presidential election, Nicaragua has traveled a bumpy road similar to the thousands that lead to the rural areas. Yet, the momentum gain until now is priceless as it has built the foundations for strong growth and stability. I hope this stability is not shaken by the usual earthquakes, not geological but political, that affect the country so often. Daniel Ortega remains an enormous threat to the future and prosperity of the country and must be defeated once for all.

I finish the post providing a link to an interesting article published by the Washintopost.com. The author Roger F. Noriega from the American Enterprise Institute (conservative think tank) talks about the possible scenarios for Nicaragua in this election. Click HERE the read the article.

Nicaraguan Agriculture: Private Property and the Revolution's Legacy

Private property in Nicaragua is a dubious concept in the process of being rediscovered. The country is been recovering from the revolutionaries years in which most of the productive land was confiscated by the Frente Sandinista de Liberacion Nacional (FSNL) and reorganized into cooperatives and Unidades de Produccion Estatal (UPE. State Production Units). The policies enacted during the revolutionary period created repercussions still seen today: farms with several titles, families disunited, violence over land ownership, and most important, a huge lost in agricultural productivity and national welfare.

The initial plans of the revolution of 1979 were to take possession of all the property own by Somozas’ family or by someone else who had gained it through positions within the dictatorship. There was little opposition to these actions as the Somoza regime had control and ownership of whole range of companies in several sectors: mining, construction, agriculture, banking etc. Before the revolution, even the well-off private sector was getting uncomfortable with the dynasty because they saw it as unfair state competition. For the general NIcaraguan public, this was just one of the many reasons to hate the regime and hope for change.

The initial plans for change, however, would resemble little to what most Nicaraguans had hopped the so-called “land reform” would bring. In fact, after Somoza and its followers were striped away of all property, the Sandinistas created another law in which anyone absent from Nicaragua for more than 6 months would have their property taken away.



These laws created an atmosphere in which private property was constantly been violated and confiscation became a normal routine. The allocation of lands and properties was completely based in clientelism bias towards sandinitas and, of course, those within the party would get the largest chunks. Holding a position in a public office was a tool to return favors to those you like, a patronage system still very common today and very similar to the years of the dictatorship. Talk to Nicaraguans and you’ll hear hundreds of stories of poor families that had their couple acres taken away by the Sandinistas, not because they were relatives of Somoza or because they went outside Nicaragua, but just because their land was nice to the eyes of somebody with party connections.

It didn’t matter anymore if you had been a staunchly opponent of the Somoza regime and had even supported the revolutionary effort, if you own a farm with cattle, cotton, tobacco, coffee, sugar cane or other goods, chances were that it would be confiscated under the most irrational excuses.

Not surprisingly, the productive sector of Nicaragua went into exile, jointed or financed the counter revolutionary force, or simply gave up. These actions affected the country’s economy enormously: in Esteli, the town where I live, after the Sandinistas took power, the owners of the tabacaleras (tobacco processing plants) ran away fearing retributions from the FSNL. Without owners and technicians, the plants were abandoned and thousands of women went unemployed.

Same story with sugar cane mills, coffee farms, and cotton plantations. Of course the U.S trade embargo played an important role in the economic crisis as the U.S was one of the main clients of Nicaraguan goods. However, the effect of the embargo was shorttermed and miniscule against the disincentives created by the Sandinistas in the agricultural sector as a whole.

Disincentives and lack of rationale was common place in the agricultural sector during those days. For instance, the Sandinistas tried to promote the utilization of Central Pivot Irrigation systems, a result of the latest in technology in the developed world. Of course, for a former farm worker who could barely read and write this new piece of technology resulted simply unsuitable. The irrigation pipes probably end up melted, same fate suffered by the Robotic Milking Systems, imported from Eastern Europe.


But this nonsense top-down, technology transfer approach to agriculture was not the only reason for failure: the social structure of the rural sector was also disrupted. Farmers where not allowed to commerce their goods, even in miniscule amounts. All output needed to be collected, transported, store, and sold by the government. Ignoring the common traditions of the rural people and imposing an alien Marxist system on them was deemed to fail.

Another ridiculous policy took place when it came to harvesting the crops: thousands of students from the cities were sent to the rural regions to do these tasks. Without any experience, away from their families, and under very harsh conditions, it resulted impossible to expect a high school kid to collect cotton or to cut sugar cane under the inferno heat of Chinandega. Some farmers would even reject the students knowing that they could easily ruin the plants and the harvest. Thankfully, the policy was dropped after three years.

Finally, another disincentive created by the Sandinistas was the so called “Piñata” in which farmers were given almost everything for free. Free land, free seeds, free technical assistance, and even free labor, all resulting in a rural sector that still wants everything for free. Visit the farmers today and see their faces when you tell them of their financial contribution to the project, not happy certainly. This dependacy in foreign assistance (central government, or aid agencies), I think is, a rooted problem that will take generations to solve.

Nicaraguan agricultural sector during the Sandinista years served as a sort of playground for the politicians in the central government who tried to implement what translated Marxist literature said. This improvised lab resulted on a series of failures still seem today. With almost 30% of the population undernourished, is depressing to realize that this was a direct result of a bunch of revolutionaries trying to “help” the people.

School Gardens as a Tool Against Food Insecurity

Hello All, I know it's been a while since my last post, but I've been very occupied gathering material to what is going to be a busy blog for the coming weeks.

School Gardens: I arrive to Nicaragua about a month ago. I've been working (or rather volunteering) on the Special Programs on Food Security, task force set up by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. As an Agricultural Economist, I have the task of evaluating, from an economical point of view, the viability of school gardens when it comes to reduce food insecurity. As mentioned earlier, I have been busy visiting schools mainly in the north of the country (Somoto, Jinotega, Esteli, Madriz). Initially, I though of doing a Cost-Benefit Analysis, but the project is quite diverse and most of the benefits are in form of intangibles e.g. education, better nutrition, etc. So allow me to discuss the rationale behind the school gardens and why is it can be difficult to analyze them.

In Nicaragua about 30% of the population, especially in the rural areas, is considered food insecure. This means that they cannot produce or acquire enough food for an adequate diet. Since the repercussions of undernutrition are enormous especially in children, one must think of an immediate solution that puts food in the people's tables. Therefore, school gardens should serve as providers of nutritional food that kids can eat in their school lunch or take with them to their homes. And some school gardens are doing just that.

However, most schools don't have the experience, resources, and/or technical assistance to maintain a garden that will produce an output significant in the kids’ diet. When this is the case, we justify the gardens as methodical tools that make the learning process easier. Proponents and literature argue that gardens can be use in the teaching of math, biology, other sciences, and even language using the concept of "learning by Doing". The rational behind this is that practice will guarantee that the kids will learn the material better and easier. If this is the case, then he will be more prepared to face a situation of food insecurity. He/she for instance can get a job easier, can help their parents in their business, can even set up a garden in his house or in other words can get food easier. Sounds very good but is that really the case? How can we know? And more important is it the best choice given our limited resources?

These are some of the questions I have to struggle with for the next three months. To me is very easy to conclude that a school garden is an effective tool against food insecurity when this garden is producing lots food that is being used in the school kitchen, the kids’ homes, or even process and sold. If this is the case, is simply a matter of comparing the US$250 that cost to set up and maintain a garden for a year with the benefits: lots of food probably worth more than the garden cost, not to mention improved nutrition, education, social skills etc.

But when the gardens do not produce a significant amount of food, then is hard to see whether or not school gardens are a good tool against undernutrition. Here is the case when the intangibles must be quantified and numbers must be given to kids doing gardening. It is hard as an economist realizing that such a wonderful experience as gardening may not the best thing to do given the difficult challenges they’re facing.

I’ll keep you posted as I come up with answers to these questions. As always check the pictures at www.flickr.com/photos/rafamerchan
Best,