Agua/Aqua, Climate Change, Corruption, Disasters, Economy, El Salvador Government, Environment, Food Security, Water/Agua

El Conflicto por el Agua en El Salvador


El 22 de diciembre de 1992 la Asamblea General de Las Naciones Unidas decretó que cada 22 de marzo se celebraría el Día Mundial del Agua, fecha importante porque constituye una oportunidad para aprender sobre el agua y valorar su importancia en la naturaleza y en la sociedad.

En países como El Salvador el Día Mundial del Agua también es una fecha para inspirar la lucha de la sociedad civil por el derecho humano al agua, considerando que se enfrenta una profunda crisis hídrica. Según el Fondo Ambiental de El Salvador, FONAES, es el único país en la región centroamericana que se encuentra cercano a una situación de estrés hídrico, lo que lo sitúa entre los países de Latinoamérica y el Caribe con más baja disponibilidad de agua por habitante.

La principal causa es la destrucción del bosque y la biodiversidad; la tala de zonas boscosas ha sido una práctica sistemática, muchos lugares que producían agua limpia y aire fresco ahora son gruesas capas de asfalto y concreto. Las pocas áreas forestales de El Salvador apenas constituyen el 1% del bosque centroamericano.

Otra causa de la crisis hídrica es la contaminación de los ríos y en general de las fuentes superficiales de agua. Este nivel de degradación de las fuentes, tanto subterráneas como superficiales, tiene que ver con procesos históricos de sobreexplotación de los bienes naturales con fines de acumulación de capital, facilitados por la complicidad o negligencia del Estado.

En la actualidad el agua es motivo de conflicto, porque la poca agua existente la disputan las empresas y las comunidades, tal es el caso del municipio de Nejapa que posee uno de los principales acuíferos del país y que por esta razón empresas como la Coca Cola se ha instalado en el lugar, según la investigadora y activista ambiental Marta Muños la empresa Coca Cola extrae el 15% de toda el agua del municipio, sin pagar ningún tipo de impuesto, lo más lamentable de este caso es que mientras dicha empresa comete este abuso, cientos de familias aledañas a la fabrica embotelladora, no tienen acceso al agua.

Similar situación ocurre con los cultivadores de caña de azúcar en la costa salvadoreña, que instalan potentes motores para extraer del subsuelo cantidades exorbitantes de agua para riego de grandes extensiones del monocultivo, al mismo tiempo que los agricultores carecen de agua para sus pequeñas parcelas.

Esta realidad podría ser diferente de aprobarse una Ley General de Aguas que durante los últimos 15 años diversas organizaciones de la sociedad civil han venido proponiendo y exigiendo; una ley que asegure que la prioridad en el uso del agua sea el consumo de la población y no el negocio de las grandes empresas, pues el acceso al agua es un derecho humano básico, lo que requiere que las decisiones de cómo se gestionan y asignan los bienes hídricos deben ser tomadas por el Estado, teniendo como prioridad el consumo humano y garantizando que aún aquellos que son incapaces de pagar tienen el agua que necesitan para vivir con dignidad.

No obstante, Por mucho tiempo la derecha legislativa y empresarial han maniobrado para promulgar una ley que entregue la gestión del agua a una entidad controlada por intereses privados, lo que equivale a convertir el agua en una mercancía o en todo caso, a designar su uso a medida y conveniencia de la gran empresa privada.
Aunque existen expectativas que los nuevos actores políticos en la Asamblea Legislativa aprueben la Ley General de Aguas, está claro que los grupos de poder no van a desistir de su interés de privatizar el agua. Le corresponde al pueblo estar prevenido y no permitir, que intereses privados se apropien del control del agua.

Según el Foro del Agua existen cinco principios fundamentales que debe comprender una Ley General de Aguas: Garantía del derecho humano al agua; prioridad para el consumo humano y no de las empresas; gestión pública del agua; gestión sustentable de las cuencas hidrográficas; y un régimen económico justo y equitativo.


Conflict over Water in El Salvador


On December 22, 1992, the United Nations General Assembly decreed that every March 22 would be celebrated World Water Day, an important date because it constitutes an opportunity to raise awareness about water and its importance in nature and in society.

In countries like El Salvador, World Water Day is also a date that inspires the civil society to fight for the human right to water, considering that it we are facing a profound water crisis. According to the Environmental Fund of El Salvador (FONAES), this is the only country in the Central American region that is close to a situation of water stress, placing it among the countries in Latin American and Caribbean with the lowest availability of water per inhabitant.

The main cause of this dilema is the destruction of the forest and biodiversity. Because logging has become such a systematic practice, many places that produced clean water and fresh air are now thick layers of asphalt and concrete. The few forest areas in El Salvador make up only 1% of the Central American forest.

The contamination of rivers and in general of surface water sources is another cause of the water crisis. This level of degradation of the few groundwater and surface sources left, has to do with historical processes of overexploitation of natural assets for capital accumulation purposes, facilitated by the complicity or negligence of the State.

Currently, water is a source of conflict in El Salvador because the small amounts of usable water that is left is being disputed by companies and communities. Such is the case of the municipality of Nejapa, which hosts one of the main aquifers in the country and because of this companies such as Coca-Cola have installed their factory there. According to the researcher and environmental activist Marta Muños, the Coca-Cola company extracts 15% of all potable water in the municipality, without paying any type of tax, and yet the most unfortunate thing about this case is that while said company commits this abuse, hundreds of families surrounding the bottling factory don’t have access to water.

A similar situation occurs with industrial sugarcane growers on the Salvadoran coast, who install powerful motors to extract exorbitant amounts of water from the subsoil to irrigate large tracts of monoculture, while at the same time making it impossible for local farmers to maintain their small plots.

This reality could be different however, if the General Water Law, which various civil society organizations have been proposing and demanding over the last 15 years, was approved. This law ensures that the consumption of water by the normal population has priority over the water consumption of large companies. Since access to water is a basic human right, it requires the State to make strategic decisions on how to manage and assign water assets and ensuring that even those who are unable to pay have the water they need to live with dignity.

Unfortunately for normal Salvadorans, for a long time the legislative and business right have maneuvered to enact a law that hands over water management to an entity controlled by private interests, which is equivalent to converting water into a commodity or, in any case, to restrict its use. to measure and convenience of the large private company.

Although there are expectations that the new political actors in the Legislative Assembly will approve the General Water Law, it is clear that their are powerful entities behind the scenes that are not going to give up their interest in privatizing water easily. It is the responsibility of the people to be forewarned and to not allow private interests to take control of the water.

According to the Water Forum, there are five fundamental principles that a General Water Law must include: Ensuring the human right to water; Prioritizing water for human consumption and not for companies; Proper public water management; Sustainable management of hydrographic basins; and a fair and equitable economic regime.

El Salvador Government, Organized Crime, violence

The Issue of Forced Internal Displacement in El Salvador

Today, Cristosal held a public forum where they presented their most recent report intitled “Visibilize the Invisible, Footprints Conceal Violence, Report of ineternal displacement forced by violence in El Salvador in 2017.”

The report is a recollection and analysis of cases of forced displacement due to violence registered by the CRISTOSAL Foundation with the help of Foundation Quetzalcoatl in 2017 on El Salvador. They also had significant support from The Salvaodran Women’s Institue (ISDEMU) and the Salvaodran Human Rights Ombudsman(PPDH)

The report can be found online HERE and you can find the report they published last year on the same subject HERE. As Celia Medrano, CRISTOSAL’s chief program officer stated in her opening remarks, that “while it important to create an multi-setor response, this phenomena must be an immediate priority for the Salvadoran government.

Below is a graphic taken from the report

In 2017, 701 cases were recorded by both CRISTOAL and Fondation Quetzalcoatl. The majority of victims were women, with two or more children to care for, and hailing from the paracentral region of the country, specifically San Salvador and Soyapango; two regions ravaged by activity.

Reasons for displacement vary but the report has identified the three major motivators in El Salvador to be direct threats, homicides and attempted.

It is important to note that the this report, while extensive, doesn’t 100% coincide with the much lower figures represented by the Salvadoran Government and more specifically the national civil police (PNC). The government representative today said that while they defend their method of analysis, they recognize their lack of awareness on such a “multifaceted phenomenon.”

Many instances of forced displacenmtn are not recorded due to fear of retaliation or lack of confidence in the governments abilities to protect them. The report describes how the majority of these victims wish to stay not only in El Salvador, but in the same states, as to not loose their occupations and support systems. Still, the United National Refugee Agency (ACNUR) has reported a significant increase in Salvadoran asylum seekers, as seen below.

The report calls upon civil society, national and international organizations and especially national and municipal governments to create “an intergrated system that focuses on prevention, mobilization and policies that protect victims and their families.”



The Water Crisis in El Salvador

Versión Español








Crisis de Agua en El Salvador








Climate Change, El Salvador Government, Environment

Durban, El Salvador and Climate Change

Since Tropical Storm 12-E poured 55 inches of rain on El Salvador just two months ago, high-ranking government officials have jointed communities in the Lower Lempa region of Jiquilisco in speaking out against climate change. Unfortunately, the principal emitters of the greenhouse gases responsible for climate change do not seem to be listening.

President Funes recently stated, “Climate change has harmful effects on societies, and particularly our country.” Minister of the Environment Herman Rosa Chávez said in the days after the flooding, “El Salvador is one place on earth that is already suffering from climate change.” Communities in the Lower Lempa held a forum earlier in the year in which residents discussed how climate change was already affecting their lives, including extreme droughts and flooding, as has been the pattern for the last few years.

Climate change has also been in the news because of the recent United Nations Climate Change Conference, which was held November 28 to December 11 in Durban, South Africa. For those in the Lower Lempa who are still recovering from the October floods AND trying to prepare for future extreme weather events, there was a lot at stake in the Durban negotiations. Climate change is a reality in their communities and if the global community does not agree to cut emissions, Tropical Storm 12-E will become a way of life.

The Economist summarized the Durban agreement as “a quid pro quo between the European Union and big developing-country polluters, especially China and India.” The agreement failed to consider the demands and pleas from smaller economies (and smaller emitters) such as El Salvador. The deal requires that EU countries continue reducing emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for climate change under the existing Kyoto protocol. The U.S. never signed on to Kyoto and Canada just dropped out, so the Durban agreement did not affect their current emissions-status. The main provisions of Kyoto were set to expire in 2012, but under the agreement they will be extended. In the meantime, developed and developing countries will work together to produce a new agreement by 2015 that will be implemented by 2020. The Kyoto protocol does not require developing or poor countries to reduce emissions, and under the Durban compromise they will remain exempt until the new agreement goes into affect.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) maintains a database of CO2 emissions for each country. Based purely on output, China emits the most greenhouse gases – 7,707 million metric tons of CO2 (2009). The U.S emits the second highest levels of greenhouse gases – 5,425 million metric tons of CO2 (2009). China, however, emits only 5.83 metric tons of CO2/capita, while the U.S. emits 17.67 metric tons of CO2/capita. India emits the 3rd highest levels of greenhouse gases – 1,591 million metric tons of CO2 (2009), which is only 1.38 tons/capita. El Salvador, in comparison, emitted only 5.93 million metric tons of CO2 (2009), which is 0.98 tons of CO2/capita.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, analyzing EIA figures from 2008, concluded,

“The picture from these figures is one where…. developed countries and major emerging economy nations lead in total carbon dioxide emissions. Developed nations typically have high carbon dioxide emissions per capita, while some developing countries lead in the growth rate of carbon dioxide emissions. Obviously, these uneven contributions to the climate problem are at the core of the challenges the world community faces in finding effective and equitable solutions.”

This was the tension at Durban. Larger emerging markets –China and India – are not bound by the Kyoto protocol and did not want to be bound under a new agreement. Their argument is that per capita, they emit far less than developed countries and limits on emissions would hinder their ability to develop and lift their populations out of poverty. This argument was more promulgated by India – China, which has fairly high levels of per capita emissions appears to realize that they need to take steps to cut emissions by developing clean energy sources.

Similarly, developed nations don’t want to put themselves at a “competitive disadvantage” with such large economies as China and India by agreeing to expensive emission reductions that developing countries don’t have to worry about. Many other countries participating in the Durban Conference are like El Salvador –small economies with relatively low emissions that are suffering the effects of climate change, but lack the economic or political capital to force the larger countries to cut their emissions.

As the Economist points out, the U.S. should be pleased with the outcome of the Durban Conference. The U.S. never ratified the Kyoto protocol because it did not require developing nations to cut emissions. The Durban agreement, however, lays the groundwork for requiring that all nations cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but puts it off until 2020.

This past Monday, Amy Goodman on Democracy Now dedicated her entire broadcast to the Durban Conference.  Kate Horner, who is a policy analyst for Friends of the Earth International, said on Monday’s show,

“The outcome of the talks here in Durban is, unfortunately, a very weak agreement that lacks in ambition, equity and justice. The Kyoto protocol… will continue only as an empty shell. Several countries – namely, Canada, Russia, and Japan – have refused to put new targets on the table, and the countries that have signed up have only offered really shockingly low levels of ambition… The United States has weaseled out of every promise that it has made, including to take on comparable action to other developed countries in line with its historic responsibility for contributing to this problem.”

She also said the Durban Platform, “is really not the important milestone in building a climate regime that many have called it, including the United States and the European Union… the most damaging part of it is it’s an attempt to shift the burden of this problem on developing countries who have contributed less.”

Salvadoran Environmental Minister Herman Rosa Chávez spoke at the conference, highlighting the effects of climate change on Central America. He called for the Conference to address three essential issues: fund the Green Climate Fund, expansion of adaption efforts, and serious mitigation commitments from developed and principal emitters.

This week, Salvadoran environmental groups held a forum in San Salvador to discuss the Durban Conference. In a statement released after the forum, the environmentalists criticized the international community and Salvadoran government for failing to take appropriate action to address climate change. Pointing out that international studies have identified El Salvador as one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, participants emphasized that if polluters don’t cut emissions, average temperatures in El Salvador will rise 6 degrees Celsius.

The Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the Central American Integration System (SICA) met yesterday in San Salvador in advance of the SICA summit that begins today. The purpose of their meeting in advance of the summit was for the Consultative Group for the Reconstruction of Central America to create an action plan for helping the region adapt to climate change. Addressing the meeting on Wednesday, President Funes said,

“The proposal of the meeting with the Consultative Group is not to get resources, its to put the Central American region and particularly El Salvador on the international agenda, and that the impact that climate change is having is more visible.”

What is clear post-Durban is that the countries that are responsible for emitting the most greenhouse gases that is causing climate change are more motivated to protect their short-term economic development than preventing long-term disaster. It is also apparent that countries like El Salvador that emit low levels of greenhouse gases but are experiencing the extreme weather patterns associated with climate change have little influence over the discussions. As Tropical Storm 12-E showed Central Americans, doing nothing to prevent climate change is not really an option. But it seems that’s exactly what the principal emitters are doing – nothing.


Advocacy, Equality, violence, Womens issues

Women in El Salvador and the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

For some, it was a day of turkey feasts and family gatherings, but for many more, November 25th was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.  Designated by the United Nations back in 1999, it now marks the beginning of a 16-day campaign of activism that culminates in Human Rights Day (December 10).  According to the United Nations Population Fund, November 25th marks the start of 16 days of activism against gender violence by highlighting 16 forms of gender violence and proposing 16 ways to stop it (read more here on UNFPA’s page and on Rutgers’ official campaign page).

In El Salvador, Contrapunto prefaced the holiday by featuring two articles addressing the status of women in the region.  One article, “The ‘sin’ of being a women in a machista country,” highlighted the high level of violence women in the country face, pointing out that El Salvador has the world’s highest “femicide” or homicide rate for women of 129.46 per million women.  The article denounces not only the physical violence women face, but also the sexual violence, and recounts a recent case where evangelical pastor Antonio Moreno was arrested and charged in the rape of 13 female minors and two male minors.  The author also decries El Salvador’s 197% increase in violence against women from 1999 to 2009, according to United Nations Development Program representative Richard Barath.

Violence against women comes in many forms, some of which are less obvious to a largely patriarchal society in which male abuse of women can be considered “normal,” the author states.  The Instituto Salvadoreño para el Desarrollo de la Mujer (ISDEMU) (Salvadoran Institute for Women’s Development) gathered data this year for its Second National Report on the Situation of Violence Against Women in El Salvador and reported that from January 1 to November 5, 2010, the institute handled 6,320 cases of violence against women.  The National Civil Police (PNC) gave equally alarming figures, stating that there were 477 women murdered from January to October 2010, with 193 of those murders occurring in the capital city alone.  Ima Guirola of the Instituto de Estudios de la Mujer “Norma Virginia Girola de Herrera” (CEMUJER) summarized the figures differently:  in 2010, a woman is murdered every 13 hours.  85% of reported cases involve a perpetrator known to the women, and 76% of women who have suffered sexual abuse faced that abuse when they were younger than 19.  Both institutes have denounced what they consider to be cultural legitimization of violence against women coupled with a lack of strong institutions for criminal prosecution.

Another article in the same publication, entitled “Discrimination against women is latent,” focused on the November 17-19 visit of Commissioner Luz Patricia Mejía Guerrero, Rapporteur on the Rights of Women from the Organization of American States’ (OAS) Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) (see IACHR press release here).  Mejía Guerrero acknowledged that there was political will to see an end to violence and discrimination against women, but stressed that the government needed to take more steps to improve the situation on many levels, with special attention to the weaknesses in the justice system.  Mejía Guerrero judged El Salvador’s judicial system to be weak due to the large number of cases of violence against women that go unpunished because of “a lack of tools that facilitate the investigation process and victim’s compensation.”  According to the Attorney General’s Office, of the 6,803 cases of sexual crimes against women that took place between 2008 and 2009, only 436 have obtained convictions.  Mejía Guerrero stated that the problem is also a regional one, which encompasses a wide range of discrimination against women, including economic, social, and cultural rights.  According to a 2009 report by Consejo por la Igualdad y la Equidad (CIE), El Salvador has a 14% gap in salary between men and women, with women also reporting numerous labor violations such as unfair dismissal, sexual harassment, and exploitation.

Given these troubling statistics, the situation women face in El Salvador is as unacceptable as it is worrisome, and merits serious attention by the Funes administration.  Given the government’s pro-life crackdown and constitutional amendments that go to extreme lengths in order to preserve a life beginning at the point of conception, it is puzzling why the government has not done more to advance and protect the rights of women once they are indeed born.