ECLAC: An Assessment of the Drought that Hit
Central America in 2001

The United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD) carried out an assessment of the drought that hit the Isthmus in 2001, as requested by the Central American authorities. The following is a summary of this assessment, based on the figures compiled during a field trip and their analysis based on an internationally accepted assessment methodology.1 An estimate is produced of the damage and losses caused by the drought as well as those sectors and geographical areas that were most affected. Finally, a proposal for future action is presented.

Between May and August 2001, an abnormal hydrometeorological phenomenon hit Central America, causing precipitation levels to drop well below historic averages and severely affecting both the population as a whole and the production and provision of sometimes vital goods and services.
Normally, the trade winds in the area begin to fall off around April, making it possible for the winds from the Pacific to bring in increased humidity and precipitation. In 2001, this did not happen. The anomaly was linked to planet-wide atmospheric events that were, in spite of initial fears, unrelated to the El Niño phenomenon.

Growing vulnerability

The drought affected the Central American population in different ways and to varying degrees.

• Those who suffered the most, lost their very sustenance: subsistence farmers who required food assistance, as well as commercial farmers who lost their source of income.
• The second most severely affected group comprised those whose access to basic services such as drinking water was curtailed or entirely interrupted, not only causing them considerable inconvenience but, far more importantly, increasing the threat of falling prey to communicable diseases.
• In third place were those—essentially, close to the entire population of the subregion—who were forced to pay higher electric bills as a result of the need to supplement insufficient hydroelectric power with petroleum-based electric generation.
  

The total number of people affected in one way or another by the drought was estimated at 23.6 million, or 70% of the inhabitants of the subregion.

The largest impact was on agriculture, as anyone could have foreseen given the ominous links between drought, desertification, soil erosion, and lower crop outputs. Since agriculture tends to provide employment for the most vulnerable sectors of society—those with the lowest levels of education, income, and access to other vital services—it was precisely those who could least afford it who were the hardest hit.

The Damage

The Great Central American Drought of 2001, as it will no doubt be remembered, compounded two pre-existing situations, magnifying their impact and that of the drought itself. One was the economic crisis caused by the international drop in coffee prices; the other, the increased vulnerability as a result of a succession of adverse climate phenomena over the previous five years.

Total losses in the subregion were estimated at US$189 million: 125.5 million (or 66%) in agricultural and industrial losses, 50.1 million (26.5%) in higher costs for all productive sectors as well as lost revenue by the water and electricity utilities. The remaining 7%—13.4 million—accounts for the costs of responding to the emergency.

Tables 1. and 2. illustrate the economic impact on each of the countries in the subregion.

Table 1. – Variation in the GDP as a result of the drought in Central America

Source: ECLAC, based on official figures.
a/ – Preliminary figures
b/ – Estimated figures

For the subregion as a whole, the implications on GDP and the external sector can be appreciated in Table 2.

In short, when the losses are viewed in the context of the economy of each country and the subregion as a whole, they do not appear to be high. One might even assert that, in normal vulnerability conditions, the subregion would have been able to absorb these losses without too much difficulty. This can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3.
Comparison of total losses caused by the drought,
with some macroeconomic variables

Source: ECLAC (2001), Balance preliminary de las economías de América Latina y el Caribe, Santiago de Chile, December

Strategic Framework for Drought Mitigation and Prevention

The effects of the 2001 drought cannot be understood systemically—holistically, as some might say—without taking into account the feedback loops linking negative environmental and socio-economic developments in the subregion, and their impact on vulnerability. (See Flow Chart 1.) Vulnerability leads to disasters, but disasters also increase vulnerability—and the Central American Isthmus has suffered from a highly unfortunate streak of disasters in recent years, including El Niño, Hurricane Mitch, and other storms, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. From this point of view, drought is the result of the interactions between climatic variations and human activities.

A strategic framework for drought mitigation and prevention is clearly needed to help Central America respond to future extreme natural events and reduce their socio-economic and environmental impact. This calls for a SWOT approach.2 What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the subregion in this area?

Such a strategic framework must be cross-sectoral and interdisciplinary if it is going to deal effectively with the full complexity of the phenomenon. A purely environmental, say, or socioeconomic approach would hardly meet current needs—much less an approach that focused entirely on responding to unfolding events. The framework should be comprehensive and serve as a guide for the further development of sectoral strategies—rather, “sub-strategies”—by specialized institutions. Even this, however, will not be enough unless civil society is vigorously encouraged to participate in the effort.

From Analysis to Action

The ECLAC/CCAD Assessment proposes a series of actions that might prove useful for decision-makers, both in the technical and policy fields. In fact, the study stresses the advisability of building on the foundations of previous expressions of political will by subregional leaders who agreed to promote a development model that is socially, economically and environmentally sustainable.

The frame of reference, in this case, would be the Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES), established in 1994.Any mitigation and prevention strategy must also be linked to the various international and regional initiatives aimed at vulnerability reduction, such as the United Nations Convention on Climate Change and Desertification.3
Other efforts include the Strategic Framework for Vulnerability and Disaster Reduction agreed during the 1999 Central American Presidential Summit,4 the Central American Five-Year Plan for Vulnerability and Disaster Impact Reduction spearheaded by the Center for Natural Disaster Prevention in Central America and Panama (CEPREDENAC), and the environmental commitments by subregional leaders such as the Environmental Plan for the Central American Region (PARCA).

For more information please contact:
Ricardo Zapata
United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Mexico
rzapata@un.org.mx

1. This methodology can be reviewed at ECLAC’s Mexican Website (http://cepal.org.mx/) and the following World Bank Web site:http://www.proventionconsortium.org/toolkit.htm. While the methodology is under constant review and improvement —an updated version will be published this year —it is considered effective in providing a prompt, comprehensive and impartial view of the socio-economic and environmental consequences of any given disaster. It employs internationally recognized criteria and can help countries perfect their own more detailed assessments as well as formulate reconstruction strategies and disaster prevention, mitigation and reduction policies.
2. Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Also known as SWOC (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges—or Constraints).
3. The Sixth Regional Meeting on the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) was held in San Salvador on 16-19 October 2000. An assessment was then presented of the social, economic and environmental impact of desertification and drought in Central America. This meeting was not the only one at the international and regional level to underscore the need to take advantage of existing synergies between the Desertification, Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions in order to sharpen the focus of current efforts and available resources.
4. Presidents of Central America (1999), Guatemala II Declaration, 19 October.