There and back again: a holiday in Antigua

Nestled among a ring of active volcanoes, the city of Antigua, Guatemala, is one of the most charming places I've ever been. Wide cobblestone streets lined with colourful shops criss-cross the city, taking you from the artisan market to the leafy main square to the magical ChocoMuseo (Chocolate Museum), which is only surpassed by the Valhalla Macadamia Nut Farm we visited a few kilometres out of town. Everywhere you go in Antigua you're surrounded by mountains and ruined cathedrals. You see, the Spanish built this city to be their capital and they had a knack for choosing places that were earthquake-prone and surrounded by erupting volcanoes (San Salvador is also built on the slope of an active volcano). I wouldn't have chosen Antigua's current location, but the Spanish were not about to let a little thing like plate tectonics get in their way. Every time there was an earthquake they just rebuilt, displaying a touching faith in the power of their righteousness over the forces of nature. This happened again and again and again, until they finally abandoned Antigua for a less earthquake-prone region. I think Antigua has more ruined cathedrals per capita than anywhere else on the planet. 

Now the ruined cathedrals house eerily life-like Easter floats

Previously a Jesuit seminary

We stayed in Antigua for four days in a hostel called Hostal Holistico. If you ever go to Antigua - and you will now that you know there's a Chocolate Museum - you should stay here. It's got real mattresses, hot showers, an espresso machine, and the nicest staff ever, all for $10/night. 

The high point of our trip was hiking Mount Pacaya. Mount Pacaya last erupted two years ago, sending a 40 metre flow of lava down its flank. It destroyed an entire village of 300 homes, but everyone had evacuated. There was only one death: a television reporter who got hit by a flying rock.

The hike was like the hobbits' trek to Mordor. We started in lush green pastures filled with cows, and walked straight up the side of the mountain. As we climbed it began to rain, a drizzle at first and then heavy and cold. The vegetation grew more and more stunted, until finally we climbed over a ridge and there were no more trees. A vast lava plain extended below us and the cone lay ahead, although we could barely see it through the rain. We were to follow a narrow path along the cinder slope. It looked barely wide enough for a goat. 

Cows

The tree line

Ashes and smoke

Goat track

We knew we were getting close when the rain started steaming as it hit the ground. For the last part of the hike we had to walk over the lava flow itself. The brittle rocks looked like a field of bones, or a bomb site. 

Finally we crested a ridge and found ourselves a few hundred feet below Pacaya's smoking crater. We weren't allowed to go any closer, so we roasted marshmallows in volcanic vents. Tons of tourists were there, including a couple of large and rowdy youth groups on a 'mission year,' which apparently is a thing that Americans are into right now.

The vent is right around our knees spewing super-heated air from the magma chamber

Our friend Xixi

All too soon it was time to leave. We went through the steaming rain over the brittle lava flow, passed the Lava Store (a hippie outpost that sells jewellery encrusted with volcanic rock), and began to make our way down the path. Suddenly we heard the thunder of hundreds of teenage feet. Looking back, we saw the American youth group bearing down on us. The kids were running totally out of control ahead of their leaders, laughing and shrieking at the top of their lungs. Our guide took one look and said, 'we're not getting caught in that', and took us on a shortcut through the jungle. We re-emerged lower on the path, but they were running so fast that all too soon we heard their terrible thunder from behind. They were gaining on us. The parking lot emerged from the mist, and we ran for its safety as though fleeing the Nazgul. We just barely made it. We jumped into our van and the driver stepped on it to get us down the highway before their buses clogged the entrance. As we sped away into the tropical dusk, we saw them milling around their garishly coloured buses, still laughing. 

P3s: The Good, the Bad, and the Just Plain Weird

Leah and I have finished our research report on public-private partnerships (P3s)! We actually finished last week and celebrated by going to Guatemala for a few days (I'll post on that later).  

I've been writing about my activism, misadventures, real adventures, intestinal fauna, and random thoughts, but I've avoided writing about the actual work I've been doing down here. I felt that that telling a gripping story about the process of research is something only Steig Larsen can - or should - do (may he rest in peace). But we found out some really interesting stuff. Right-wing elements in the Salvadoran government, with support from the US government and international financial institutions, are pushing this pro-P3 bill through with all kinds of unusual, and, to my knowledge, unprecedented, features that will harm the country. I'm talking about the special fund that the government has to create for private bidders to borrow from, the provision that forces the government to pay the first bidder 1% of the estimated price of the project if their bid is passed over for one submitted later, the provision that forces the government to pay successful bidders 1% of the project cost if their bid is accepted by the Executive Branch but then rejected by the Legislative Assembly, and the provision that allows 40-year contracts when the international norm is 20-30 year contracts. The thing about public-private partnerships is that they work really well for 10-15% of capital infrastructure projects, 20% at the most, but no more. The P3 bill would make it mandatory for all levels of government to use P3s for all infrastructure projects and leaves a loophole which could allow P3s to be used for the provision of public services like healthcare, schools, and prisons. P3 service provision is incredibly controversial and has had mixed results. 


Anyways, here's the executive summary if you're interested. If you want to read the whole thing, give me a holler. Bear in mind that this is still in draft form and there may be typos and inelegant phrasing.  


Governments are responsible for providing public infrastructure (such as highways, bridges, waste and wastewater treatment plants, and recreation centres) and public services (such as education, health care, justice, and corrections). Since the 1980s, and especially since the 1990s, public-private partnerships (P3s) have become a popular alternative procurement model for governments who feel they cannot afford the traditional public procurement process. P3s are particularly prevalent in the areas of transportation (roads, airports, and railways), utilities (electricity, water, sewage, gas, telecoms), and amenities (lighting, social housing, and accommodation). P3s in social services such as prisons, healthcare and education are emerging, but are significantly more complex and controversial than their infrastructure counterparts.

P3s are a tool, not a panacea. Their proponents and detractors agree that P3s are not suitable for the provision of most public infrastructure and services. For smaller projects (i.e. those costing under 75 million USD), the P3 model may not be justifiable because any savings realized in the design and construction phases are outweighed by the higher procurement and contract management costs (see for e.g. Padova, 2010, p. 3). It is true that P3 procurement can work well in specific contexts – namely when:

a)     projects have low construction complexity and low revenue uncertainty;

b)     risks can be easily quantified and measured and  effectively transferred to the private sector;

c)      the government has strong contract negotiation and contract management abilities;

d)     there is very little direct customer service as part of the project’s make-up (e.g., highways, bridges and other ‘‘dumb’’ infrastructure);

e)     the private sector has extensive experience; and

f)       maintenance of the asset is politically problematic, since the public pressures governments to spend on other priorities (e.g., salaries and new services) such that the infrastructure gets run down and becomes more costly than it should be to operate and maintain across its entire lifespan (list compiled from Vining & Boardman, 2008, p. 11 and Cohn, 2008, p. 81)

However, in practice such contexts occur relatively rarely. P3s are not suitable in contexts where accountability is critical, competition is insufficient, vulnerable populations are affected or social values are more important than costs (Padova, 2010, p. 12).

Governments experienced with P3 procurement – mainly the United Kingdom and Australia followed by Canada and some European countries – regard it as one tool among several which can be used to provide public infrastructure and services. Accordingly, they allocate at most 20% of total government capital investment in P3 projects (Padova, 2010, p. 12). Typically the average is 10-15% (see Woodman, 2006; Padova, 2010). Nor do governments adhere to P3s unquestioningly. The United Kingdom (UK), which pioneered the widespread use of P3 procurement in the 1980s under the Thatcher administration, is currently reviewing its commitment to P3s. In November 2011 Her Majesty’s Treasury admitted their concern that P3 contracts are often “too costly, inflexible, and opaque” and called for evidence on which to base reforms to its P3-oriented infrastructure provision policy (Her Majesty's Treasury, 2011, p. 3).

As previously mentioned, President Funes’ P3 bill is seen as a response to the Constraints Analysis published by the government of the United States (USG) and the Government of El Salvador (GOES) as part of their bilateral agreement entitled Partnership for Growth. Through this bill, the government hopes to attract more foreign direct investment (FDI) to El Salvador so that the economy will grow.

This bill will not achieve its goals because it acts upon a misdiagnosis. Crime and low tradables productivity are not the reasons that El Salvador fails to attract FDI. Neighbouring countries with similar economic profiles and violence rates, such as Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua, receive far more FDI than El Salvador (as shown in Figure 3.) The graph shows that in 2010 – the most recent year for which data is available – El Salvador’s net FDI went into the red. Foreign investors withdrew 5.56 million USD from the country while increasing investment in El Salvador’s neighbours.

El Salvador cannot attract FDI because the national economy is not growing, and a stagnant economy is not attractive to foreign investors. The economy is not growing for three reasons:

1)     Salaries are low, which depresses purchasing power;

2)     The government has limited cash flow, and;

3)     El Salvador’s population has not grown since 1992 due to emigration (Villalona, 2012).

By our analysis, the bill has got it backwards. It is trying to increase FDI to grow the economy, when in reality the economy has to grow before El Salvador can attract FDI. In its current form, the bill will weaken Salvadoran sovereignty and drive up the cost of services.

Based on interviews with economists and political experts, and on our own research, the following would be the ideal and most prudent action to be taken by Legislative Assembly regarding the P3 Bill so as to increase El Salvador’s market:

1)     The P3 bill should not be approved by the Legislative Assembly.

2)     Instead of focusing on attracting FDI, the government should focus on decreasing income inequality. This would increase individual and family purchasing power.

3)     Increases in individual and family purchasing power should be achieved through tax reform and wealth redistribution. Increases to the minimum wage should be considered.

4)     Diversify El Salvador’s trade partners and forge alliances with key MERCOSUR countries. For example, Brazil and Argentina would make excellent trading partners, with large markets and a familiarity with the Latin American economic context.

In the event that the P3 Bill receives approval from the Legislative Assembly, we make the following recommendations to reduce the harm it will cause to the population and economy:

1)     Remove the requirement in Article 3 that makes P3s mandatory for state contracting institutions undertaking infrastructure projects and replace with language that says government parties should consider using P3s on a case-by-case basis for 10-15% of infrastructure projects, as appropriate. Alternatively, make it mandatory for state contracting institutions to consider P3s for infrastructure projects, without imposing a positive obligation to undertake a P3 should the conditions be deemed unsuitable.

2)     Create a government body (such as PROESA) to provide procurement and management advice to levels of government considering entering into a P3. It is crucial that this regulatory body and all P3 deals should be subject to strict, transparent oversight by a public interest watchdog. Require that all employees involved in oversight complete a training program to ensure that they are aware of the necessary conditions for P3s to be successful.

3)     The initial analysis of the comparative merits of traditional procurement versus a P3 should be measure the total social costs of the two projects, a more complete indicator than the value for money analysis. If a value for money analysis is used, the discount rate should be low to reflect the project’s true cost.

4)     Stipulate that contracts cannot exceed twenty years in length (current concessions are 40 years).

5)     Remove the requirement that the government create a special fund to provide loans to foreign investors.

6)     Remove the requirement that the government pay 1% of the bidding price to unsuccessful bidders. The benefits of any economic incentives to increase bids are outweighed by the significant unnecessary financial burden this will place on government finances, particularly for very large, long-term concessions.

7)     Guarantee that the companies don’t cut jobs when they take over a public business.

8)     Regulate user fees to protect the poor.

9)     Explicitly and permanently prohibit the use of P3s for service provision in the sectors of health, water provision, social security, public security (policing, corrections, national defence), and formal education.

Eating for two

I'm tired, nauseous, and eating for two. I know, dear reader, that you are wracked with worry and confusion, wondering what has befallen me. Am I pregnant, you ask? No, definitely not. How did this happen then? How did a young, strong, attractive law student hardened by a rugged life in the mountains of British Columbia get thrown on the mat? You guessed it, I have a parasite! It's actually not all that exciting.

I'll spare you the details - I already had to describe all my symptoms, tests, diagnosis, and treatment regime with my doctor dad. Suffice it to say that last weekend when my friends were hiking a volcano, I was shivering under three shirts at the first rest stop getting acquainted with the outhouse.

I've been on medication for three days and I'm almost done my course, so I should be 100% by this weekend. Thank god too, because we're going to spend 5 hours on a bus going to Antigua, Guatemala!

I've posted my friends' photos of the hike up volcan Santa Ana so that you can see what I missed.

Volcan Izalco, a perfect cinder cone right next to Volcan Santa Ana. It only stopped erupting in the 1960s

Before

After

Sulfurous crater at the summit of Santa Ana

Santa Ana from the first rest stop

Monsenor Romero and Canadian democracy

The long promised and eagerly anticipated post about Monsenor Romero.

Monsenor Romero was a Salvadoran archbishop who defended the poor and spoke out publicly against the military repression under which he and his people lived. In 1980, at the age of 63, he was killed by assassins paid for by the right-wing military government. His murder sparked the civil war that tore the country apart for twelve years.

He wasn't always radical. In fact, Romero was chosen to be the Archbishop of San Salvador because of his conservative views. He didn't start speaking out until three years before his death when government hit-squads assassinated his friend, the progressive Jesuit priest Rutilio Grande. Romero surprised everyone by taking up Grande's cause. He became an outspoken government critic and mobilized people to protest the poverty, social injustice, assassinations, and torture that characterized the country at the time.

Portrait of Monsenor Oscar Romero (1917-1980)

On March 24th, 1980, the government came for him. It was Easter and he was giving a Mass in which he had called upon the government to honour human rights and stop its tactics of repression. Hired guns crashed through the doors of his church. Romero was standing at the altar, arms raised, the body of Christ in one hand and the blood in the other. They aimed over the crowd and fired into his heart. They chose to kill him that way because the people called him the heart of the popular movement. 

The clothes he was wearing on March 24th, 1980

The altar where he gave Mass

The door the assassins entered by

Romero's funeral drew unprecedented crowds to mourn and protest government repression. The police fired on them, and that was the beginning of the civil war.  


Romero led a movement, defended the vulnerable, and dared to speak out against the policies of his government. What happened to him was an extreme example of a government silencing its critics, repressing democracy, and violating human rights. As I write this post, I can't help but think that there are some parallels to what's happening in Canada. Not in terms of state-sanctioned violence, but in terms of the silencing of criticism, the repression of democratic values, and the erosion of our human rights infrastructure. 


Harper's latest budget attacks so many things Canadians hold dear. Gender equality, human rights, free speech, compassionate healthcare, and wilderness have all suffered funding cuts. You can't tell me that Canadians don't care about human rights, or healthcare for refugees, or nature. We're proud of our history as peacekeepers, of our healthcare system, and of our country's striking natural beauty. Our clean rivers, majestic forests, towering mountains and sweeping plains define us to the world just as much as our historical commitment to multilateralism and freedom of speech that Harper's government has done so much to destroy. The Tories say that it's inappropriate for the government to fund groups that disagree with it. They are wrong. Canadians want to know that their government hears every point of view, especially the points of view of the +60% of people who didn't vote for them. It IS appropriate for government to fund groups that disagree with its policies - that's the sign of a mature, stable democracy. 


Clearly the federal Tories have neither of those attributes. Consider their embarrassing reaction to the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, or their decision to audit charities that engage in "political activity" and receive American funding. They can't abide internal criticism and they have an even stronger, disturbingly xenophobic aversion to critical outsiders. Why shouldn't Canada be held to a higher food security standard than Ethiopia? Why shouldn't Americans care about the state of our policies? We care about the state of theirs. If the Harper government were honest it would add the Fraser Institute, an unabashedly political conservative think tank in BC that receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Koch brothers, to the list of organizations up for audit. Instead, the government's targeting environmental and human rights based charities that dare to criticize its policies.


How long can a democratically-elected government attack the systems and values of democracy before the people throws them out?

Playa El Tunco

There wasn't much to report last week. Leah and I worked on our report and we discovered that our office, which was formerly a storage space, is filled with noxious dust, so we're working from home more. And then we went to the beach with some new Salvadoran friends!

Playa El Tunco is El Salvador's most popular surfing town. It's a small town strung along a stretch of black sand on the Pacific. It has a laid-back, surfer-chic kind of style with wall-less, thatched roof restaurants and funky clothing stores. There were so many gringos that I could just fade into the crowd (except for that time when I found myself surrounded by ripped, tanned surfers with '80s hair. I definitely didn't fit in with them). The food and lodging are reasonably priced, so it's not just gringos. Lots of Salvadorans come here to surf. El Tunco also has vicious rip currents, jagged rocks, and an amazing right point break. A right point break means that you surf to your right when you catch a wave. Remember that, it'll come up again later.

We got there on Saturday afternoon and went straight to the beach. Saturday night we consumed a responsible and moderate amount of alcohol and went to a chaperoned square dance (hi, Mom). And on Sunday we surfed. I have surfed many times over the years. I have surfed in Tofino, Australia, Ghana, and now El Salvador. And every time, on every continent, it has been a disaster.

I got sick from drinking too much seawater in Ghana, I nearly lost a contact lens in Australia, and I've come close to losing extremities due to hypothermia in Tofino. And I can't - for the life of me - stand up on one of those clunky beginner boards. Point of pride: I did stand up on a surfboard in Australia for like, 5 seconds, but it was a small board we'd borrowed off the neighbours who were semi-pro surfers. If only that meant I was semi-pro and not that I have no upper body strength and can't maneuver the giant beginner boards...

Anyways, this time I outdid myself. I managed to paddle out to the point break without too much trouble, but it's tiring work and when I got there I took a break while our friend Paco, who was teaching me, went to catch a wave. I got seasick while waiting for him. I know what you're going to say, and shut up. I have exquisitely sensitive inner ears, okay? I can feel a cruise ship tilting slightly as it turns starboard at dinner time. But never have I ever gotten seasick ON A SURFBOARD. When you're that close to the wave you should be immune.

So there I was, bobbing in the waves on my giant beginner board and getting greener by the minute. It was a relief when Paco came back and told me it was time to catch a wave. I paddled out and got ready. The wave came. I caught it. And I broke LEFT. You have to understand that on one of the best right point breaks in the world, it takes some serious talent to break left. I had no idea that I was doing something special. I tried to stand up, couldn't, and decided to lie there and enjoy the rest of the ride to shore. Except that the left side of playa El Tunco is covered with jagged, barnacle covered rocks that extend a fair ways under the surf. The fishermen stared at the drenched gringa struggling with a 9 foot board barefoot on jagged rocks, but none moved to help me. One of them finally gave me a push and I made my way to shore. I'm pretty impressed with how little I got cut. I ended up with a small amount of barnacle burn on one shin and a cut on my foot, and that's it. Still, I thought it wise to spend the rest of the day tanning. Better to quit while you're ahead...  

Retraction and Photos

Since my last blog post I have learned that embassies don't have an obligation to let their citizens through their doors. The embassy also isn't Canadian territory. The host country forswears the right to enter foreign embassies on their soil, the people who work at the embassy have diplomatic immunity, and that's as far as it goes. So when the embassy locked me and Leah out last week they weren't denying us a basic right, but they were jerks and showed that they are terrible at PR (like, so terrible at PR). They turned what should have been a non-event into something news-worthy, and then they looked bad on the news later that day while Leah and I gave the anti-mining cause free publicity on the platform they created by locking us out. Maybe I should write them a thank you note and try to deliver it...

I've done a lot of really cool stuff since Wednesday! On Friday I went with Vivian, a FESPAD lawyer, to the informal settlements she works with. They're about thirty minutes to an hour from downtown San Salvador and they're in a very vulnerable position because they don't have running water or electricity and they don't own the land their houses are built on. Vivian is working with them to get them legalized. Until they own their land, the government can evict them at any time and won't help them with any of the problems that they face, whether they be crime or land slides. These people have built their homes from nothing and they are proud of where they live.Their streets are clean, their homes are organized, and they're close enough to the city that they can take the bus in if they need to. Nobody else wants this land and frankly, living on it is dangerous because they're mostly building onto steep, erosion-prone hillsides. They have nowhere else to go.

A home in San Martin

The community's elected leader explaining the dangers they face from landslides

A home in Comunidad Monsenor Romero

This man asked me to take a picture of his garden, which was lovely

On Saturday I chilled and watched a ridiculous amount of West Wing. And today I went with Beth, an American who founded her own environmental NGO down here, to one of the communities she works with that is next to Lago Ilopango, another volcanic crater lake. The community we visited has been there since the early '80s when they moved there to get away from the civil war. I'm sure it worked because that community is really hard to get to. When people are sick they have to boat a doctor in from the larger towns on the side of the lake nearer to San Salvador. When people need to evacuate, it's chaos. We hiked down into the crater on this really steep path that was washed out in some places from yesterday's monsoon rains. Hiking down took slightly over an hour, and hiking back up took slightly under two hours. I was dripping sweat while getting passed by these women in flip flops with bowls of mangoes on their heads. They looked like they had never sweated in their lives.

All I wanted to do when I got home was shower. I didn't care that we only had cold water and I didn't care that today was a relatively cold day. But I had forgotten that we only get water pressure in the mornings. There I was, so excited to get clean, but when I turned on the tap the water dribbled pathetically onto my head. For the first time in my life I longed for a Burkinabe bucket shower. When the water is in a bucket in front of you there may be dead flies in it or a thin film of dust on the surface, but you know it won't get turned off at the whim of a capricious water pressure fairy. I got as clean as I could and had a beer. I can get clean tomorrow. The whole experience was totally worth it.

LOCKED OUT OF OUR OWN EMBASSY

This morning Leah and I went to the Canadian embassy with a group of peaceful protesters from communities affected by mining exploration to protest the actions of Pacific Rim, a Canadian mining company that gravitated to El Salvador in 2002 for its gold and silver deposits and lax environmental laws. The community members and NGOs have been trying for weeks drop off a letter asking the embassy to stop publicly supporting Pacific Rim's lawsuit against the government of El Salvador, but the embassy has been refusing to let them enter on the grounds that they are not Canadian citizens. This morning Leah and I went with them. We just wanted to enter the embassy, as is our right, and drop off the letter. They locked us out. When we asked for reasons, they refused to give us any.

This is outrageous treatment. Any citizen of any country is allowed to enter their embassy while traveling abroad - that's what embassies are for. Your political affiliations don't affect this basic right, nor do your stances on controversial issues. The embassy is Canadian territory. As citizens, we have the right to enter our territory. They do not have the right to refuse entry to law-abiding Canadians.

We pointed this out to the security guard, who conferred with her higher ups. She told us that one of us could enter if it was regarding a document problem, otherwise we had to stay outside. There is no justification for allowing one Canadian to enter the embassy and not another. More importantly, the embassy is not allowed to dictate the reasons for which Canadians can enter its premises. We have the right to enter the embassy for peaceful purposes, even if the government of the day disagrees with our opinions and doesn't feel like receiving mail. Their arbitrary refusal to let us enter made the embassy look churlish and fearful. We were two girls with a letter; the most frightening thing we could have done is leave long blonde hairs on their carpets.

A little background...

Pacific Rim Mining Corp. is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada. It began exploring El Salvador's highlands in 2002 through its subsidiary incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Pacific Rim's exploratory actions began to contaminate drinking water, and nearby communities began to protest. Any mine uses vast quantities of water for all parts of its operation. By the end, the highly toxic water is stored in tailings ponds that may not be leak-proof. Just ask the people living downriver from the tar sands how well those tailings ponds do their job in a geologically stable zone. It's worth pointing out that El Salvador is in a seismic zone and has a number of active volcanoes.

When the original protesters learned that there was not one, but twelve possible mining projects slated for the Salvadoran highlands, which is where the country's drinking water comes from, the protest went national. This tiny, densely populated country depends on a single watershed, so any mining activity affects everyone's water supply. The protests slowed Pacific Rim's application for mining permits, and in 2008 the Salvadoran president decreed that no mining activity would take place in the country. His successor after the 2009 election upheld that promise. Pacific Rim has never had a permit to mine in El Salvador.

In answer, Pacific Rim sued the Salvadoran government for 77 million dollars of 'lost profits.' (Question: if Pacific Rim never had permission to mine, how can the profits be considered lost? Indeed, did they ever even have profits?) Pacific Rim launched two law suits against the government of El Salvador, one under the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and one under Salvadoran investment law. Canada isn't a party to CAFTA but the US is, so Pacific Rim reincorporated its Cayman Island subsidiary in Nevada so that it could challenge the Salvadoran government under the CAFTA agreement. Both suits were to be heard by the same tribunal - the World Bank's International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). About two weeks ago, ICSID ruled that it would not hear Pacific Rim's case under CAFTA because Pacific Rim hadn't been incorporated in the US at the relevant time. However, ICSID did rule that it would hear Pacific Rim's suit under Salvadoran law. Without knowing more about CAFTA and Salvadoran law, I have no idea what Pacific Rim's chances of success are and whether they would have been better or worse under CAFTA. What I do know is that this is costing the country millions in legal fees - about $5 million at last count. The people who I was with today want Pacific Rim to drop the law suit and go home so that the government can spend that money on much needed development. Can you blame them?

*I got all my numbers from http://www.miningwatch.ca/blog/pacific-rim-mining-lawsuit-saga-prolonged-costs-mount-company-and-people-el-salvador