Best Practices

Results of the field investigation suggest that much of the basin—perhaps because of its history of hurricanes, drought and flooding—does relatively well during emergencies created by extreme events of climate variability. Exceptions occur, of course, but because of this history, coping strategies at the household and community levels are in place to the degree that all but the most extreme events are handled well.

Exceptions to this occur in the poorer communities, but this is especially so in communities of the rural poor where not only do events like flooding and drought create problems because their water sources are more precarious and less protected, but also because they lack the transportation and health infrastructure that tend to make disasters less extreme. For the rural poor, coping includes two major strategies almost exclusively: migration, and receiving assistance from others.

More specifically for the purposes of IS/DWC, the field investigation can make suggestions from that part of the SJRB that is most populated and, in many ways, most at risk. It is the more arid regions (Zone I and the southern portion of Zone II) where “best practices” at the household and community level are most evident:

• The use of storage tanks, cisterns and water harvesting is common.
• Chlorination of these is extensively used—staff at health centers is trained and the necessary chemicals are available.
• Wells can be drilled far deeper than those dug by hand. Consequently, the water source is more reliable and less likely to be contaminated.
• Drilled wells are sealed rather than open, and the wellhead is raised above normal flood levels making contamination less likely.
• Wells are sited to avoid sources of contamination such as latrines and corrals.
• Ranchers have access to properties in the mountains with more forage and water where they move livestock during intense drought.
• Farmers use drought resistant and/or flood resistant varieties, and adjust planting cycles according to meteorological predictions.
• The relationships between forest management and the volume and quality of the water source are becoming more evident. As a result, more and more households and communities are undertaking reforestation and forest protection measures to protect their water sources.
• Likewise, the relationships between clean water and health are better understood. Consequently, schools and community service organizations are “adopting” sections of streams and rivers and work to conserve the riparian vegetation, keeping them clean of trash, garbage, etc.
• Communities have realized the value of efforts to attend to their own needs. With varying degrees of success, they have formed community and municipal water commissions to deal with the problems of water quality and quantity.
• Industry, be it slaughter houses, dairy and citrus processing plants or tourist hotels, have their own drilled wells and storage tanks that will take them through most droughts.
• Much of the population in the SJRB is concentrated in semi-urbanized groupings,⁵ where government institutions are charged with providing them with potable water.
• These institutions distribute potable water by tank truck if a drought is severe enough to create supply problems thereby lessening the chance that parts of the community will use contaminated low flowing rivers and streams and ponded water as a potable water source.
• These institutions can and do ration water during extreme drought.
• These institutions have the budget and personnel to protect its water sources in terms of site maintenance, reforestation and forest conservation.
• An organized institution providing health services is better able to handle the chores of water monitoring, chlorination, fumigation and other extension services required in emergencies; and,
• These institutions also have local and communal emergency commissions that help to prevent and react to emergencies.

Many official institutions active in the SJRB become involved in the emergencies brought on by drought, flooding, or hurricanes. In addition to the two ministries of environment (MINAE and MARENA), the water supply companies (AA in Costa Rica and ENACAL in Nicaragua) and the health organizations (SILAIS in Nicaragua and EBAIS in Costa Rica) all fulfill important roles in preventing and mitigating emergencies created by climate variability. Until fairly recently, however, few of the activities of these and other public and private institutions could be as proactive as possible or as organized and coordinated during an emergency as needed. Things changed for the better after the tragedies created by the El Niño episode of 1997-98 and Hurricane Mitch in 1998.

For example, the National Emergency Commission (CNE) of Costa Rica is the basic mechanism for dealing with emergencies in that country. Its board of directors includes representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, the Ministry of Health, MINAE, and the Ministry of Transport and Public Works. Before the 1997-1998 El Niño, however, it was legally confined only to react to an emergency, rather than to prepare for an emergency even if it were known that one was eminent. After the 1997-98 El Niño, CNE can be proactive and, to a large extent, it does so through the creation of regional, and local emergency commissions that are mandated to undertake activities to prevent, mitigate, prepare, and respond to disasters.

Likewise, INETER, the national institute of territorial studies for Nicaragua, is a meteorological institute that watches for, and evaluates possible emergencies caused by climate variability. INETER works with DCN, the National Directorate of Civil Defense, to prevent and mitigate such disasters. Nicaragua has a National System for Disaster Prevention, Mitigation and Relief.

Of relevance here is that each of the local emergency commissions or committees would:

• Actively participate in the activities of the national and regional commissions.
• Elaborate an emergency plan consistent with a response to the dangers extant in the zone covered by the local commission.
• Activate the plan during an event that would require coordinated work.
• Control and monitor all local operations and request the support of CNE if the situation became more than could be handled at the local level.
• Support the work needed to evaluate damages.
• Coordinate specialized work groups made up of representatives of public and private agencies and institutions active in the zone.
• Organize work groups in the following suggested areas of need:
• Temporary shelter
• Communication
• Training and education
• Evacuation and rescue
• Health
• Security
• Supplies and Transportation
• Technical Support
• Volunteer Support
• Support organization of community emergency commissions that would do the following:
• Cooperate in mapping the community
• Identify and map existing threats to the community
• Promote community activities to reduce threats
• Be able to offer first aid
• Identify, map and advertise evacuation routes and shelters
• Participate in vigilance and monitoring
• Support rescue efforts
• Locate, map, and “harden” wells, other sources of potable water, and distribution systems
• Locate and warehouse emergency supplies
• Help design, fund and maintain alert systems
• Make collaborative arrangements with neighboring (including cross-border) committees and governmental and non-governmental institutions
• Train an emergency cadre of local volunteers
• Help design, fund and implement a program of community protection (hurricane straps, shelters, storage tanks, protection dikes, zoning, etc.)
• Organize mandatory and voluntary community work programs to protect water sources and distribution systems to include reforestation, fencing, cleaning and maintenance.

5 - These centers are to the west and southwest of Lake Nicaragua in Zone I and south of the San Juan River in Zone II.