Get documents about "Tárcoles River Basin Costa Rica
Document Sample
Tárcoles River Basin
Costa Rica
Background Paper
Maureen Ballestero
July 2003
This paper is a product of the study, “Integrated River Basin Management and the Principle of
Managing Water Resources at the Lowest Appropriate Level – When and Why Does It (Not)
Work in Practice?” The Research Support Budget of the World Bank provided major funding.
The project was carried out by the Agriculture and Rural Development Department at the World
Bank. The Water Resources Management Group and the South Asia Social and Environment
Unit at the World Bank have provided additional support. The study core team includes Karin
Kemper and Ariel Dinar (Co-Task Team Leaders, World Bank), William Blomquist and Anjali
Bhat (consultants, Indiana University), and Michele Diez (World Bank), William Fru
(consultant), and Gisèle Sine (International Network of Basin Organizations). Basin case study
consultants include Maureen Ballestero (Tárcoles - Costa Rica), Ken Calbick and David
Marshall (Fraser - Canada), Rosa Formiga (Alto Tietê and Jaguaribe - Brazil), Consuelo
Giansante (Guadalquivir - Spain), Brian Haisman (Murray Darling - Australia), Kikkeri Ramu
and Trie Mulat Sunaryo (Brantas - Indonesia), and Andrzej Tonderski (Warta - Poland). The
views expressed in this paper are those of the author and should not be attributed to the World
Bank.
ACRONYMS
AyA Costa Rica Institute for Aqueducts and Sewers
ABT ABT Associates, Inc.
ALIDES Alliance for Sustainable Development
ARESEP Public Service Regulatory Agency
ASOTEM Association for the Management of the Tempisque River Basin
CATIE Center for Tropical Agronomic Research and Education
CCAD Central American Environmental and Development Commission
CEDARENA Center for Environmental Law and Natural Resources
CNFL National Power and Light Company
CNP National Production Council
COMCURE Revantazón River Basin Management Commission
Conservation Area
CRAC Regional Committees for Conservation Areas
CRGT Coordinating Commission for the Grande de Tárcoles River Basin
ESPH Public Service Company of Heredia
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
FECON Costa Rican Federation of Environmental Groups
FONAFIFO National Fund for Forestry Financing
FUDEU Foundation for Urban Development
FUNDECOR Foundation for the Development of the Central Volcanic
ICE Costa Rican Institute of Electricity
ICT Costa Rican Tourism Institute
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IFAM Institute for Municipal Promotion and Consultancy
ITCR Technological Institute of Costa Rica
INEC National Statistics and Census Institute
INVU National Housing and Urbanization Institute
JICA Japanese International Cooperation Agency
MAG Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock
MIDEPLAN Ministry of Planning
MINAE Ministry of Environment and Energy
MINSA Ministry of Public Health
MIRENEM Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines
ONG Non-Governmental Organization
PIB (GDP) Gross Domestic Product
PLAMA VIRILLA Improvement Plan for the Virilla River Basin
PLAMAGAM Environmental Improvement Plan for the Greater Metropolitan Area
SENARA National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service
SETENA National Environmental Technical Service
SINAC National System of Conservation Areas
SNE National Electricity Service (defunct)
UCR University of Costa Rica
UNA National University of Costa Rica
ii
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................1
1. NATIONAL INFORMATION .....................................................................................................................3
1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT................................................................................................................3
1.2 BRIEF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................5
1.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT .....................................................................................7
1.4. SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT............................................................................................................10
2. CONTEXT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION...............................................................12
2.1 THE DECENTRALIZATION IN THE COUNTRY .............................................................................12
2.2 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF TERRITORIAL REGULATIONS .....................13
2.3 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN WATER RESOURCE MATTERS ...............................................14
2.3.1 The County Water Inspector ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.4 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF POLLUTION .....................................................15
2.5 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF PROTECTION ...................................................15
3. THE CONDITION AND GENERAL PROBLEMS OF WATER RESOURCES IN COSTA RICA ...17
3.1 WATER AVAILABILITY ......................................................................................................................17
3.2 WATER DEMAND ................................................................................................................................18
3.2.1 Human Consumption ........................................................................................................................................ 18
3.2.2 Hydroelectricity ................................................................................................................................................ 22
3.2.3 Irrigation ........................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3 PRINCIPAL WATER USERS ...............................................................................................................25
3.4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT REGULATES WATER MANAGEMENT ........................................26
3.5 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ......................................................................................................29
3.6 RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT..........................................................................................................31
3.6.1 Efforts To Establish River Basin Management And/Or River Basin Institutions............................................ 31
3.6.2 Origin Of The Efforts To Form River Basin Organizations ............................................................................ 39
3.7 CONTEXT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES............................................42
3.7.1 Decentralization Efforts Of Natural Resources Developed In The Country...................................................... 42
3.7.2 The Payment For Environmental Services ........................................................................................................ 44
3.7.3 Decoupling Payments For The Water Environmental Component From Other Forest Environmental Service 45
4. GRANDE DE TÁRCOLES RIVER BASIN ..............................................................................................49
4.1 GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT.............................................................................................................49
4.2 INTERNAL PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF THE RIVER BASIN ......................................................51
4.2.1 Upper Basin .................................................................................................................................................... 52
4.2.2. Middle River Basin ......................................................................................................................................... 54
4.2.3 Lower River Basin .......................................................................................................................................... 55
4.3 CITIES AND PROVINCES LOCATED IN THE RIVER BASIN.......................................................56
4.4 HYDROLOGICAL REGIME ...............................................................................................................58
4.4.1. Description Of Aquifers.................................................................................................................................. 59
4.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT ..........................................................................................................63
4.6 LAND USE .............................................................................................................................................65
4.7 CAPACITY OF LAND USE IN THE GRANDE DE TÁRCOLES RIVER BASIN ............................67
4.8 AVAILABILITY AND DEMAND FOR WATER IN THE RIVER BASIN.........................................68
4.8.1 Use For Human Consumption........................................................................................................................... 70
4.8.2 Hydroelectric Uses............................................................................................................................................ 71
4.8.3 Use For Tourism And Recreation ................................................................................................................... 73
4.8.4 Industrial Use .................................................................................................................................................... 74
4.8.5 Agricultural Use................................................................................................................................................ 75
4.9 CONFLICTS OVER WATER USE.......................................................................................................75
4.10 PROBLEMS WITH WATER QUALITY, SOURCES AND EXPANSION OF THE DEGRADATION
IN WATER QUALITY .................................................................................................................................76
4.10.1 Urban Pollution ............................................................................................................................................... 77
4.10.2 Industrial Pollution.......................................................................................................................................... 81
4.11 SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION...............................................................................82
4.12 RESERVOIRS CONSTRUCTED TO CONTROL RIVERS OR WATER RESERVES OF NATURAL
LAKES WITHIN THE RIVER BASIN.......................................................................................................85
iii
5. RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT ..............................................................................................................86
5.1 PERIOD PRIOR TO DECENTRALIZATION ....................................................................................86
5.2 THE REFORM PROCESS TOWARD DECENTRALIZATION.........................................................87
5.3 EVOLUTION OF A RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION ......................................................................91
5.3.1 Constitution (Awareness-Raising, Creation Of Capacities And Generation Of Information) ........................... 91
5.3.2 Strengthening Of The Organization (Execution Of Programs And Projects).................................................... 91
5.3.3 Invisibilization: Gradual Diminution Of Functions.......................................................................................... 94
5.4 DEVELOPMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE TÁRCOLES RIVER BASIN
WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CRGT................................................................................96
5.4.1 Plan For The Environmental Improvement Of The Upper Part Of The Virilla River Basin (PLAMA-Virilla).96
5.4.2 El Plama-Mora .................................................................................................................................................. 96
5.4.3 Commission For The Rehabilitation Of The Ciruelas River ............................................................................. 96
5.4.4 Commission For The Rehabilitation Of The Segundo River............................................................................. 97
5.4.5 Commission For The Foothills Of Monte Sur................................................................................................... 97
BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................................................................................99
iv
Figures & Tables
Figure 1 Map Of Costa Rica .......................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2 Costa Rica: River Basins, By Slopes............................................................................... 5
Figure 3 Costa Rica Domestic Waste Water Disposition 1999 ................................................... 21
Figure 4 Costa Rica Energy Production By Sector, 2002............................................................ 22
Figure 5 Electricity Production From Fossil Fuels In Central America ...................................... 24
Figure 6 Costa Rica: Map Of Basins And Conservation Areas Of MINAE ............................... 38
Figure 7 Costa Rica: Conservation Areas Of MINAE. 2002....................................................... 43
Figure 8 Costa Rica: Location Of The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin................................... 49
Figure 9 Map Of The Watersheds Of The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin .............................. 51
Figure 10 Participation Of The Watersheds Within The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin ........ 52
Figure 11 Tarcoles River Basin: Number Of Canton Within Basin ............................................ 57
Figure 12 Map Of Cantons In The Río Grande De Tárcoles River ............................................. 58
Figure 13 Rain System In The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin ................................................ 59
Figure 14 Potential Of The Aquifers In The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin........................... 60
Figure 15 Current Land Use ........................................................................................................ 66
Figure 16 Composition of the Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin Coordinating Commission. 89
Figure 17 Current Design Of The Ecological Banner ................................................................. 93
Table 1 Estimated Population In Central America In 2002............................................................ 8
Table 2 Population Growth In Costa Rica From 1984 To 2000 Census ....................................... 8
Table 3 Contribution Of The Main Sectors Of Economic Activity To Employment And
Production: 1992 And 2000 ................................................................................................... 9
Table 4 Costa Rica: Principal Economic Variables..................................................................... 10
Table 5 Potential Water Availability In Costa Rica..................................................................... 17
Table 6 Availability And Utilization Of Water ........................................................................... 18
Table 7 Water Extraction Indicators, Per Capita ......................................................................... 18
Table 8 Water Coverage For Human Consumption By Type Of Administrator......................... 19
Table 9 Treatment, Purification And Water Quality In Aqueducts In Costa Rica, According To
Operating Agencies, 2000-2001 ........................................................................................... 20
Table 10 Domestic Sewage Services, By The Administrative Agency 1995 - 1998 .................. 21
Table 11 Hydroelectric Capacity In MW (2002)......................................................................... 22
Table 12 Agriculture Under Irrigation......................................................................................... 24
Table 13 Principal Laws And Decrees That Regulate The Use Of Water Resources ................. 28
Table 14 Tariffs In Colons By Usage Canon, July 2003 ............................................................. 31
Table 15 Costa Rica: Protected Areas By Management Category, 2000 ................................... 42
Table 16 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Most Important Protected Areas. 2003.................. 50
Table 17 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Characteristics Of Its Watersheds ......................... 56
Table 18 Distribution Of Cantons In The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin, By Province ......... 57
Table 19 Principle Governmental Users Of Groundwater In Grande De Tárcoles River Basin . 61
Table 20 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Water Use In Barva Aquifer By Category Of Use 62
Table 21 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Water Use in La Libertad and Colima Aquifers by
Category of Use .................................................................................................................... 62
Table 22 Tárcoles River Basin: Population Density By Watershed ............................................ 64
Table 23 Tárcoles River Basin: Land Use In 1992 And 2000.................................................... 66
Table 24 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Classes Of Capacity For Land Use........................ 67
v
Table 25 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Kind Of Land Use ................................................. 68
Table 26 Availability And Demand For Water In The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin (Millions
Of M3 Annually) ................................................................................................................... 69
Table 27 Percentage Of Distribution For Consumption Measured By Type Of User For Some
Water Supply Systems Within The River Basin................................................................... 71
Table 28 Tárcoles River Basin: Situation Of Hydroelectric Generation .................................... 73
Table 29 Tourism Offer In The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin Region.................................. 74
Table 30 Tarcoles River Basin: Domestic Waste Disposal: Estimate Of BOD, Nitrogen And
Phosforous Load By Watershed, 1997.................................................................................. 78
Table 31 Tarcoles River Basin: Estimated Load of Pollution by Urban Runoff*in Kg/ day. ..... 80
Table 32 Tarcoles River Basin: Estimate of Pollution from Coffee Processing.......................... 81
Table 33 Tarcoles River Basin: Estimate of Industry Pollution .................................................. 82
Table 34 Estimate of the Nutrient Load and BOD Dumped in the Environment Agricultural
Activities ............................................................................................................................... 83
Table 35 Estimate of Herbicides and Fungicides Applied to Coffee and Sugar Cane Crops
(kg/year)................................................................................................................................ 84
vi
INTRODUCTION
The four million people who live in Costa Rica enjoy a stable democracy. This democracy,
which developed during a long period of transition, has a presidential form of government, with
a highly centralized government, a strong judicial system, a stable electoral system, a bi-party
political system and the institutional protection of the rights and freedoms of its citizens.
For many years the Costa Rican state has been dedicated to transforming its structure and
composition in an effort to respond to complaints from many sectors about the need to
decentralize governmental functions, as well as to achieve the participation of local government
(municipalities, regional environmental councils, and others) in the decision-making process.
However, these attempts have not resulted in a state policy over time but have been characterized
by isolated or transitory efforts. The need to advance toward decentralization in such a small
country has been questioned; the country is only 464 km at its longest point and 199 km wide at
its narrowest point, between the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
Costa Rica has achieved significant advances in environmental sustainability and is recognized
as a pioneer in many areas, such as the sale of certificates for carbon dioxide exchange, payment
of environmental services, and the protection of natural heritage sites. A series of regulations
and norms have been put into effect, and a diversity of institutions have been created to protect
natural resources, particularly those that traditionally have been considered basic to life, such as
water, air, trees, and soil. Thus, water resources have been given great importance in the last
decade, bringing about changes in laws and institutionalism that have affected the direct or
indirect management of the resource. It is fair to say that water is playing a bigger role on the
political agenda of the country with every passing day.
An unprecedented water crisis exists in Costa Rica. Among the causes are: chaotic growth and
lack of city planning, particularly in the Greater Metropolitan Area; increased pollution in
aquifers and rivers; increase of migratory tendencies from rural areas to the city; penetration of a
development model whose production is based on unsustainable methods of water utilization; in
addition to a complex and disarticulated judicial-institutional framework that has not taken into
consideration mechanisms for effective management or prevention that avoid water resource
depletion and general environmental degradation.
At the international level, the Johannesburg World Summit Meeting on Environment and
Development, the World Water Forums, the accords of the Central American Presidents
(ALIDES; the XIX, XX and XXI Central American Presidential Summit Meetings), and
international treaties and conventions, among others, have defined new guidelines, focal points,
and even commitments on which Costa Rica should base the adoption of new strategies that will
resolve the serious water situation that has been created. Among these strategies, one stands out:
1
the management of water starting with the water basin, which seeks a form of management based
in local agencies as a model that is efficient, equitable and sustainable. Although this principle
seems simple and logical at first glance, its implementation has made little or no progress, not
only in Costa Rica but in the rest of Central America as well. In this context, analyzing specific
situations related to establishing the principle of integrated water management and extracting the
lessons learned becomes vitally important in the development of new water management
programs to achieve a more sustainable development model for the country.
Included in these experiences is the need to evaluate the political measures, projects, and
activities developed in Costa Rica to conduct integrated water management of a particular river
basin. Creating the Coordinated Commission of the Río Grande de Tárcoles was the country’s
first attempt to form a structure for river basin management, and it typefies the successes and
failures of the process.
This analysis seeks to make it possible for the new institutional reform attempts to create judicial
frameworks and policies to be implemented in the country, to rectify the limitations and
deficiencies of previous actions, and to reinforce the positive results that are achieved in this
river basin.
Recognizing that the Río Grande de Tárcoles experience reflects, in large measure, the situation
that exists in the other Central American countries, the following analysis deals with not only the
national context but extrapolates some information to the Central American regional level, in
order to create an added value to this case study.
2
1. NATIONAL INFORMATION
1.1 GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT
Costa Rica is located in the Central American isthmus in a tropical zone of the northern
hemisphere. It has a land area of approximately 51,100 km2, with a mountainous topography. It
is bordered on the north by the Republic of Nicaragua, on the east by the Caribbean Sea, on the
southeast by the Republic of Panama, and on the west by the Pacific Ocean (see Map 2). The
marine territory of Costa Rica (its oceanic patrimony), including part of the Caribbean Sea,
covers more than 573,000 km2, which is more than ten times its land territory (MIDEPLAN,
1999).
Figure 1 Map of Costa Rica
Costa Rica has a humid tropical climate with average temperatures between 18º and 27ºC during
the entire year throughout the various zones of the country. The average rainfall ranges between
1,200 and 7,500 mm a year, which places Costa Rica among the countries with the largest
availability of fresh water in the world (Ballestero, et al, 2002).
3
The distribution of precipitation in the atmosphere varies between the two seasons, one rainy and
the other dry. The rainy season is from May to November and is interrupted by a short dry
period that usually occurs in July, but that varies according to changing patterns in the macro-
climate, such as the phenomena known as “El Niño” and “La Niña.” There are very different
climate zones in the country, from the tropical dry forest to the cloud forest, as well as a variety
of local climates due to the different altitudes and the width of the territory, which makes it very
vulnerable to the influence of oceanic systems.
The country is divided into 34 river basins, with well-defined characteristics that are associated
with rain systems (see Figure No.2 and annex No 1). The Tarcoles River basin is number 24 in
this classification.
The presence of the Caribbean and Pacific slopes allows water to drain into both oceans. The
Caribbean slope river basins have longer rivers with abundant flows throughout most of the year,
so there is usually no water shortage.
In the Pacific slope river basins there is a marked reduction in the river flow during the dry
season; these rivers are short and have small basins that reach the coast abruptly. These
characteristics make it difficult to capture water for human use, and there is a high level of loss
from surface run-off. The lower areas of the Pacific basins are susceptible to flooding when
there is heavy rainfall in the higher areas of the watershed. Some of the water from the rivers in
the northeast of the country drains toward the San Juan River or the northern slope (Ballestero, et
al, 2002).
Despite living in a region blessed with so much rain, the Costa Rican population is beginning to
experience pressure on its water resource. For many years there was abundant rainfall during six
or more months of the year, and there was confidence that the streams and rivers would provide
this resource during the entire year.
However, in recent decades Costa Rica experienced an accelerated process of agricultural
expansion, in which a great deal of forest land was converted to agricultural and livestock use,
which caused a transformation in the natural environment that broke the basic environmental
balance. This has generated another series of problems, such as erosion, loss of ecosystems, and
a reduction in the capacity of the soil to retain water, making it susceptible to floods during the
rainy season and to a loss of water flow during the dry season.
4
Figure 2 Costa Rica: River Basins, By Slopes.
1.2 BRIEF HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
Costa Rica’s development has been different from that of the other Central American countries
since the middle of the 20th century. Its economic growth has been accompanied by a stable
political system and by significant social advances, thanks to continued investment in educating
the population (State of the Nation, 1999). From the middle of the 19th century until 1950, Costa
Rica had the typical characteristics of an underdeveloped country: an out-of-date productive
structure; little diversification (almost exclusively coffee and banana exports); and a weak,
limited industrialization that was based on the craft industry. The internal market was meager
and not very dynamic. The distribution of income and property was markedly unequal, with
little possibility for social mobility, and in addition, there was high unemployment and low
salaries. Up until 1940, the average infant mortality rate was 132/1000, and Costa Rican life
expectancy was only 47 years (Garnier and Hidalgo, 1991).
Liberal democracy operated in a restricted manner, both as a consequence of economic and
social inequalities and because of the limitations of its institutionalization. For example, women
did not have a right to vote or to be elected, the black population did not have the right to free
exercise of citizenship, and the electoral processes were usually marked by fraud.
5
In 1948, with a population of only 800,875 and with extreme socio-economic backwardness, a
civil war broke out that resulted in the breakdown of the old, worn-out Liberal State and the
emergence of the so-called Second Republic with a social-democratic character, through which
was consolidated a developmental and interventionist state. A representative democracy was
institutionalized, and a process of change was initiated, with economic, social and political
reforms, such as abolishing the army, nationalizing the banking system, and creating institutions
like the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE), the National Production Council (CNP), and the
University of Costa Rica (UCR), among others.
The economy grew strongly from 1950 to 1980, helped by the post-war economic boom. The
productive transformation was one of the pillars on which this growth phase was constructed,
based on four main principals: a) financial demand for investments; b) improvement of the
productive infrastructure (transportation and communication), c) human capital and, d)
expansion of the domestic market.
Between 1950 and 1980 GDP grew at an average rate of 6.5% in real terms, and its dynamism
surpassed the average growth of developing countries as well as industrialized countries. These
years were distinguished by expanding health and sanitation services throughout the country, by
making primary education available to everyone, and by increasing access to secondary and
university education, and by high social mobility, which created a largely middle-class
population (Garnier and Hidalgo, 1991).
According to the Citizens Audit (2001), the main occurrence of the last quarter of the 20th
Century was the country’s economic recession between 1979 and 1982, during which : GDP
dropped by nearly 15% in real terms; the external situation worsened rapidly; the terms of
exchange decreased by more than 20% between 1980 and 1982—exports not only stopped
growing but decreased; the government indiscriminately resorted to foreign funds to maintain
levels of internal expenditure and consumption; inflation reached 82%; and the fiscal deficit
absorbed nearly 70% of the export income. It is estimated that the number of families living in
poverty conditions rose from 15% to 37%. Those years of crisis originated in the accumulated
and growing trade imbalance and in the petroleum crisis of the 1970s.
From 1982 until 1990 there was a gradual and broad economic adjustment program, with fiscal,
monetary, and tariff measures that tended to expand exports. An economic stabilization program
was carried out with a minimal social cost, but which showed that the development model
followed since the 1950s was exhausted and created distortions in the current period. The
country’s narrow economic base was no longer able to sustain its development model.
Costa Rica entered the 1990s with economic policies oriented toward a new development
strategy based on liberalizing markets, reducing the size of the state and of its functions,
6
promoting nontraditional exports, and liberalizing the economy. This new strategy promoted a
reform of the interventionist state that had been created in previous decades, a reduction of
public expenditures and payroll, and the break up or privatization of state monopolies. Between
1985 and 1995 the country signed three Structural Adjustment Programs with the World Bank.
What stands out in this process is that, in less than 60 years, Costa Rica systematically reduced
its poverty level, nearly doubled its life expectancy rate (in 2000 it was 77.49 for both men and
women), reduced infant mortality by ten times (10.2/1000 in 2000), saw its population grow by
500%, increased real GDP per person by four times, and constructed a democratic state of law
that has helped the country has live in peace, even in times of acute conflict and war in the rest of
the Central America.
1.3 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The change process that has taken place in Costa Rica and in the rest of Central America
(countries with a majority rural population), one of being transformed into growing urban
societies (60% of the Costa Rican population), is one of the most relevant socioeconomic
phenomena in the region. This influences the design of all development policies, both in the area
of growth as well as in environmental themes, particularly as related to sustainable use of water
resources in the region, given that this tendency of change in the area of economic activity and in
the population is irreversible and will become more accentuated in the next five-year period.
It is expected that by the year 2015, 65% of the population in Central America will live in urban
areas (Central American Commission on Environment and Development—CCAD, April 2003).
The following table shows the situation of the seven Central American countries.
The Costa Rican population has increased nearly 500% in the last 50 years, from 800,875
inhabitants in 1950 to 3,824,593 in 2000 (INEC, 2000 Census). The population growth rates of
men and women were not significantly different. The Census shows a 2.8% annual growth rate
and confirms the process of urbanization in the central region of the country, as well as an
increase in the intermediate cities. With the majority of Costa Rica’s population concentrated in
the Central Valley’s four provinces, 60% of the total population is urbanized. In addition, it
indicates that the concentration of population in Costa Rican urban areas is related to the
difference in employment opportunities and in the access to social and educational services
compared to the surrounding areas of the country (i.e., rural areas). The agricultural and fishing
crises have contributed to this situation.
7
Table 1 Estimated Population in Central America in 2002
2
Area km Population Inhabitants Urban Metropolitan Metropolitan Population
2
2002 per km Population Population as a % of
COUNTRY Urban Total
Population Population
Guatemala 108,889 11,916,324 109 5,243,182 2,979,081 57 25
El Salvador 20,935 6,486,873 310 3,762,386 1,946,062 52 30
Honduras 112,088 6,783,894 61 4,070,336 1,017,584 25 15
Nicaragua 139,000 5,319,870 38 3,298,319 1,489,564 45 28
Costa Rica 51,100 3,824,593 75 1,912,297 1,147,378 60 30
Panamá 78,200 2,839,177 38 1,589,939 1,388,358 87 49
Belize 23,963 240,204 10 115,298 53,549 46 22
TOTAL 533,057 7,681,287 71 20,126,933 10,102,680 50 27
Source: Estimates of the Central American Population Center for April 2002. For Belize and Costa Rica the statistics are from the 2000 Census.
Table 2 Population Growth in Costa Rica from 1984 to 2000 Census
Province 1984 2000 Difference (%)
San José 890,434 1,356,442 52.3
Alajuela 427,962 716,935 67.5
Cartago 271,671 432,923 59.4
Heredia 197,575 354,926 79.6
Guanacaste 195,208 264,474 35.5
Puntarenas 265,883 358,137 34.7
Limón 168,076 340,756 102.7
Total 2,416,809 3,824,593 58.2
Source: INEC, 2000
Historically, the Costa Rican economy has been based development on the agricultural sector,
particularly coffee, bananas, sugar cane, and cattle. However, a sustained process of change has
occurred in the economic structure of the Central American countries, including Costa Rica,
because of a growing lack of relative importance of the agricultural sector in generating the
GDP.
In 1960, the agricultural sector generated 25% of the GDP, followed by the business sector with
20%, the service sector with 19%, and the industrial sector with only 14%. In 1970 the industrial
sector surpassed the service sector, and in 1980 it became the most important GDP sector. This
8
situation remained the same until the 1990s and was consolidated in 2000, when it produced 24%
of the GDP (State of the Nation 2001 Report and INEC: 2000).
Beginning in the 1980s, a process of diversification of exports was fomented, and in the 1990s
policies were developed to strengthen the sectors that created wealth, tourism, and micro-
electronic components (Intel began operations in the country in 1997).
Table 3 Contribution of The Main Sectors of Economic Activity to Employment and Production:
1992 and 2000
Activity Percentage of the population Percentage of the GDP
occupied
1992 2000 1992 2000
Agriculture, hunting and fishing 24.1 20.4 11.7 10.7
Industry 18.9 14.4 21.3 24.0
Commerce 16.6 20.2 18.7 18.2
Social, community and 24.1 25.6 11.7 10.5
personal services
Transportation, warehousing and 4.7 6.0 7.6 9.4
communications
TOTAL 88.4 86.6 71.0 72.8
Sources: Statistics from INEC and the Central Bank. 2002.
The results of the Costa Rican economic analysis in 2000 are shown in Table 3, and a review of
figures for that year shows that the increase was not sufficient to compensate for population
growth, even though the GDP grew by 1.7% compared to 1999, which resulted in a reduction of
per capita GDP. Economic growth in Costa Rica was the lowest in Central America, and it is
worth pointing out that in the 1990s the GDP growth averaged 6% in Costa Rica. This was a
product of lower economic growth worldwide and of a drastic reduction in the price of
commodities, which adversely affected exports, as well as of the high local interest rates, which
had limited internal demand.
Although the unemployment rate decreased, the change was not enough to counteract the
decrease in disposable national income per capita (-2.3% compared to 1999). The economically
active population is nearly 1.4 million people.
Growth in the external sector has tended to stagnate in recent years, precisely when there has
been a proliferation of trade agreements (free trade agreements with Mexico, Chile, Canada, and
the Dominican Republic), which were supposed to improve access to those respective markets.
The Costa Rican economy is facing serious obstacles in the supply of products to take advantage
of these negotiations. Currently, the country is participating in negotiations for a free trade
agreement between Central America and the United States, which is the main market for its
national products (56% of exports).
9
Table 4 Costa Rica: Principal Economic Variables
Variables 1990 1999 2000
GDP (millions of colons 1991) 876,910 1,400,538 1,423,834
GDP per capita (colons 1991) 278,898 363,192 361,085
GDP per capita in dollars (US$) 2,284 4,079 4,028
Real growth in disposable national 5.7 -3.7 -2.3
income per person (%)
Export growth in current dollars 31.2 19.4 -11.71
Annual inflation rate (%) 27.3 10.1 10.2
Open unemployment rate (%) 4.6 6.0 5.2
Source: State of the Nation 2001 Report.
1.4. SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
Costa Rica is a free, sovereign, and independent republic. Its political system is a representative
democracy, with a division of powers (legislative, executive, judicial), and which exercises a
system of checks and balances.
Every four years during the last five decades, executive branch, legislative branch, and municipal
representatives have been elected in an open process.
Costa Rica is a highly centralized state, characteristic of its 19th century governments. The
executive branch is composed of the president and his cabinet. The president is directly elected
every four years, and he appoints the cabinet members (ministers). There are currently 16
cabinet (ministerial) positions.
Autonomous institutions, which provide the majority of public services, are part of the central
government and have functional and budgetary autonomy. Their functions are of a sectoral
nature and there is little coordination between them and between the institutions and the
ministries. The Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) and the Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers
(AyA) are two of the most important institutions.
The legislative branch is a very complex body, composed of the Legislative Assembly and two
auxiliary institutions—the General Accounting Office of the Republic, and the Ombudsman
Office, which provide quality control for the democracy.
The legislative assembly has the power to legislate; it has one chamber, with 57 legislators who
represent the seven provinces and are elected every four years in a general election. Their
functions include the approval of laws and naming the members of the judicial branch and the
controllers for governmental agencies.
The judicial branch interprets the Constitution and the law. It is responsible for all matters
relating to the administration of justice. The judiciary is organized into chambers, tribunals, and
10
lower courts (one judge, territorial). There are four chambers: Chamber 1, civil and
administrative matters; Chamber 2, criminal matters; Chamber 3, labor and family matters;
Chamber 4, constitutional matters. The tribunals and lower courts are decentralized and are
located in regions throughout the country.
The political forces in the country are organized into various political parties, which participate
in democratic national elections. After the Civil War of 1948 and until 1962, there was a
transition and consolidation process toward representative democracy in the political system.
From 1962 until 1986, there was a long march toward political pluralism and a bipartisan
political system. From 1986 forward, bipartisan politics were in full operation, with centrist
ideological tendencies, which means the two parties were not far apart (Rovira, 2001).
On one side there is the National Liberation Party (PLN), “the historical party,” with a social
democratic ideology, to which the majority of economic and social reforms are attributed during
this period and which has governed the most since 1948. On the other side is the Social
Christian Unity Party (PUSC), created in 1983, with Christian democratic tendencies, formed by
an array of parties that had previously opposed the PLN.
The PLN governments (1948, 1953, 1962, 1970, 1974, 1982, 1986, 1994) were characterized as
being directed toward institutional and social reforms, and greater state investment in education,
health, housing, and social infrastructure. In 1974 the first national park was created and a
process of buying land for protected and conservation areas was initiated, which has become
what is today the national System of Conservation Areas. In the last PLN government, its actions
were strongly directed toward introducing the model of sustainable development in the country.
The PUSC governments (1990, 1998, 2002) have been directed toward seeking economic
growth, fiscal balance, and the reduction of public sector participation in governmental
management and provision of services. In recent years, however, there has been a tendency
toward reducing the differences that have existed between both parties. This has been noticed by
the population, above all in the execution of proposals for structural adjustment from
international financial organizations, public sector investment, and open market policies.
According to Rovira and Leimbach (2001), creating a two-party system has guaranteed stability
to Costa Rican society. However, the degree of satisfaction with the political system, its
performance and its institutions has been deteriorating, which has been made clear at the level of
electoral politics. Voter abstention has increased from 30% in the 1998 elections to 39% in
2002, and the number of political parties represented in the legislative assembly has also
increased.
11
2. CONTEXT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION
2.1 THE DECENTRALIZATION IN THE COUNTRY
Costa Rica is divided into seven provinces, and each province is divided into counties, of which
there are a total of 81 throughout the country. The Constitution establishes a municipal regimen
and local governments exercise jurisdiction in the cantons. Currently, there is no government
authority at the provincial or regional levels.
In conformity with Article 169 of the Constitution, the municipalities are autonomous from every
other state agency and have complete authority to administer their territory as well as their local
interests and services. However, the political reality is that the municipalities have been
relegated to a secondary level, historically, as a product of the centralized model that was
established in the country.
The country’s 81 counties are far from homogenous, and their diversity is, without a doubt, one
of the greatest challenges of decentralization. This diversity is reflected in the territorial
differences (three cantons have less than 10 km2 of territory, and sixteen of them have less than
50 km2), in population density, in their fiscal base, and in the level of human development
(Gutiérrez, et al, 2001).
Due to Costa Rica’s degree of centralization, the municipalities face major limitations in
exercising their duties since the responsibilities given to them have not been accompanied by
fiscal mechanisms and, above all, by the finances to implement them. By the beginning of the
21st century, Costa Rica had experienced nearly 20 years of formal discussion about the
processes of decentralization and strengthening local governments, including various legislative
proposals that were presented in the Legislative Assembly.
Recently these discussions have resulted in small achievements, such as the establishment of a
new Municipal Code in 1998, which, among other things, provided for the direct election of
mayors, something that occurred for the first time in December 2002. In January 2001 a reform
to Constitutional Article 170 was approved, which assigned 10% of the regular budget revenue
to the municipalities.
It is important to point out that until 2002 the income of the municipalities represented less than
1% of GDP and less than 2% of total public expenditure, despite the importance that they were
given by the legal ordinances. These reforms can be seen as an advance in the process of the
long-term strengthening of local governments.
12
However, this is clearly an unfinished process that needs more thorough reforms than those made
so far by the central government and its political actors. In the short term the following
challenges exist: specifying the transfer of resources and powers (tributary, fiscal,
administrative, financial, and electoral) to the municipalities; putting into practice the
constitutional reform mentioned above; and developing a decentralization proposal for the Costa
Rica.
The Constitutional Court has issued a series of resolutions reinforcing this view:
“Municipal autonomy, as provided for in the Constitution, essentially originates in the
representative character of local government (the only decentralized territory in the
country), responsible for administering the local interests, so that the municipalities can
define their development policies (plan and agree on programs), in an independent
manner and in exclusion of any other state institution, a power that carries with it the
ability to determine its own budget. This political autonomy implies, of course, that of
issuing internal regulations, as well as regulations for providing public services. This is
why it has been said, in local theory, that this deals with a true decentralization of the
public operation in local matters” (Volio, 1996).
As Volio points out, constitutional jurisprudence has been the instrument that has clarified in
each concrete case the limits of this autonomy and, currently, it can be affirmed that Costa Rica
is in “an intermediate state between the unitary state and the Spanish state of regional autonomy,
which recognizes municipalities as having originating and exclusive powers in the area of
taxation and urban planning, as inseparable elements of local life.”
The Constitution and the Municipal Code assign some services and powers to local governments
in matters of territorial management in its cantons, through which they can intervene in all
aspects and themes that are of local interest. Additionally, other norms give specific
responsibilities and attributes to the municipalities in environmental matters, such as the Organic
Environmental Law, Forestry Law and its regulations, the Highway Law, the Water Law, the
Coastal Area Law, and the General Health Law.
The provisions contained in some of these norms will be analyzed in this study.
2.2 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF TERRITORIAL
REGULATIONS
Municipal jurisdiction in terretorial regulation matters is one of the most complex subjects in the
area of municipal powers: on one hand, because of the diversity of standards that regulate
municipalities and, on the other hand, because of the inexperience and lack of ability in the
majority of local governments in this area.
13
Municipalities have exclusive powers urban planning and regulating land use in the counties, but
at the national level, the authority of the national agencies prevails, in this case, that of the
National Institute of Housing and Urbanization (INVU). The mechanism used to plan and
control urban development within its terretorial boundaries is the introduction of regulatory plans
in which zoning, among many other aspects, can be determined for housing, commerce, industry,
education, recreation, public use, and whatever other relevant use. The Constitution provides for
urban planning to be carried out by the municipalities.
Because the law authorizes INVU to prepare these plans in case the municipalities do not, it has
assumed this function, claiming that the municipalities lack the technical or financial capacity to
do so.
The 1995 Organic Environmental Law, No. 7554, deals with the land use regulations and
includes an environmental variable that should be considered when defining policies and
programs.
2.3 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN WATER RESOURCE MATTERS
Article 41 of the General Water Law (1942) establishes the possibility that the municipalities
manage the “actual water supply system for the population”. Additionally, Article 70 states that
local governments are required to supervise and control concessions to exploit materials (sand,
rock, gravel, and others) from rivers, beaches, and deposits of public domain, as well as to
demand that the concessionaire provide documentation that authorizes the respective concession
or license.
In Costa Rica, many water supply systems that supply drinking water, especially in the country’s
outlying areas, are in the hands of the municipality. However, there has been a tendency toward
the centralization of the service in AyA, because of the poor service provided by the
municipalities, which became evident when there were serious contamination accidents, service
interruptions, leaks, and little infrastructure development.
2.3.1 The County Water Inspector
A water inspector is an important figure that could be converted into an instrument to collaborate
with the municipalities in water management. According to the reform introduced to the Water
Law when the Public Service Regulating Authority (ARESEP) was created, the water inspector
should be named by the Water Department of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE)
from a list of candidates presented by the municipality (Article 194). However, the marked
centralist bias of the Law can be appreciated, given that municipalities name their own water
inspector without intervention from the central government.
14
The water inspector has interesting functions, since in addition to watching over the conservation
and appropriate use of the resource, the inspector intervenes in the administrative resolution of
differences and conflicts regarding water use that arise between individuals. The inspector’s
resolutions, of a preventive and conciliatory nature, are in force until they are revoked or
modified judicially or by the corresponding MINAE authority.
Currently, inspectors have been named in 62 of the 81 municipalities; however, in very few do
they adequately perform their functions. The actions of the county inspectors vary considerably.
Some are very proactive and participate in analyzing water problems, resolving conflicts, and
raising awareness in the canton; this is true of the inspector in the municipality of Alajuela. In
others, the functions are minimal, such as in the municipality of Alfaro Ruíz. This might be a
matter of financial recognition for their services; in some municipalities they do not receive any
payment for their services. In a few municipalities their services are remunerated, or the
functionaries are salaried, as is the case of the municipality of Grecia. In some of the
municipalities an inspector has not been named because they are unaware that this possibility
exists, which is the case in the municipality of Liberia.
2.4 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF POLLUTION
Municipal jurisdiction over pollution matters traditionally has been limited to the collection of
solid waste. However, Article 60 of the Organic Environmental Law broadens these functions
by establishing that the municipalities must prevent and control pollution, giving priority, among
other things, to the establishment and operation of adequate services in the basic areas of
environmental health, such as drinking water supply, solid and liquid waste disposal, waste
collection and management, and controlling atmospheric pollution, among others. These
services will be provided by involving the population.
2.5 MUNICIPAL JURISDICTION IN MATTERS OF PROTECTION
The Municipal Code that was repealed gave power to the municipalities to “protect the natural
resources of all kinds, joining forces with national actions relating to forestry matters, in order to
protect the water sources, forests and wildlife through founding or promoting national parks,
forestry reserves and animal shelters.” The new Code eliminated all reference to that clause, an
action that was completely unwarranted since the limitations of the ministries to provide
adequate protection are well known. However, this does not mean that the municipality cannot
establish some measures of protection for natural resources in its territory or in those that are
under its administration.
To summarize this section on local jurisdiction, it is important to emphasize that the degree of
municipal autonomy and the exclusivity of municipal jurisdiction in matters of urban planning
and land use regulation should be important management mechanisms used by municipalities,
15
which could potentially exercise a great influence in river basin management. However, some
municipalities do not take advantage of this authority, exercising it only partially or ceding their
rights to national agencie. The lack of technical ability to generate such plans and a lack of
efficiency to put them into practice is often the cause. In addition to this deficiency, the
regulatory plans that are in effect have not incorporated variables of river basin management, and
some do not even include water management as a secondary theme (Mora, 2001).
16
3. THE CONDITION AND GENERAL PROBLEMS OF WATER
RESOURCES IN COSTA RICA
3.1 WATER AVAILABILITY
Costa Rica continues to have enviable water availability; however, there is more pressure every
day for water to satisfy diverse demands. The country does not have an up-to-date National
Water Assessment; the last one was done at the beginning of 1990. In addition, there is no water
budget that facilitates disbursement of the resource. The majority of the conflicts arise from
questions of authority to access the resource and a lack of knowledge about the real availability
of water, a situation that becomes more serious in the case of groundwater (Chacón, J., 2002).
The eighth report on the State of the Nation (2001) identifies Costa Rica’s greatest
environmental concern as the vulnerability of its water resources and water quality. It
emphasizes that 75% of the available sources are rated as highly vulnerable, especially rivers,
lakes, and springs. There is also a total lack of control over the use of groundwater, which is
extracted through wells for use in agricultural irrigation, agribusiness activities, industry,
tourism, and for local consumption, which places the most important aquifers that supply water
to the main population centers at serious risk.
As shown in the following table, Costa Rica receives between 169 and 172 km3 of rainfall
annually. Of this, 75 km3 runs off the land into rivers, 37 km3 recharges the aquifers, and about a
third of the rain returns to the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration.
Table 5 Potential Water Availability in Costa Rica
Parameter Measurement km3 Percentage
Rainfall 169.0 -172.0 100
Evaporation/transpiration 59.60 35.6
POTENTIAL AVAILABILITY km3
Surface run-off 75.1 44.9
Aquifer Recharge 37.3 22.3
Source: Reynolds, Evaluation of Water Resources: Availability and Utilization, 1997
As a result of the above, it is estimated that there is potential annual water availability in Costa
Rican soil of 112.4 km3. As a result of that potential, each inhabitant has a water capital of
29,973 m3.
The variables in the national precipitation patterns, in addition to meteorological phenomena
such as El Niño and La Niña, affect the annual water availability in some regions. Likewise, the
available water is reduced by the deforestation that has taken place in the country, by pollution of
surface and groundwater, by domestic and industrial waste, and by agricultural chemicals.
17
3.2 WATER DEMAND
Of the total water utilized in different human activities, 93.8% comes from lakes and rivers. Most
of this water is used for electrical energy production (82%), irrigation (8.3%), drinking water
supply (6.3%), industry and recreation (3.4%) as can be observed in the following charts:
Table 6 Availability and Utilization of Water
Use Thousands of m3 per year
Groundwater Surface Water Subtotal
Human 391,983 235,250 627,233
Agricultural 82,150 734,176 816,326
Industrial 122,889 212,640 335,529
Electrical energy NA 8,085,020 8,085,020
Other 14,786 18,180 32,966
TOTAL 611,808 9,285,266 9,897,074
Source: Evaluation of Water Resources in Costa Rica: Availability and Utilization, CCT-CINPE, 1997.
Table 7 Water Extraction Indicators, Per Capita
QUANTIFICATION OF THE EXTRACTION
Year of Extrac-
the tion per Domestic Industrial Tourism Agricultural Hydroelectric
extrac- capita
tion per year % m3/p/ % m3/p/ % m3/p/ % m3/p/ % m3/p/
(m3/p/yr) year year year year year
2002 6,896.2 2.6 157.95 1.3 76.4 0.5 2,802. 19.4 1,187.2 76.3 4,682.4
0
Source: Evaluation of Water Resources in Costa Rica: Availability and Utilization, CCT-CINPE, 1997.
3.2.1 Human Consumption
In terms of human consumption, 97.4% of Costa Ricans had access to water in 2001. AyA
provides water to 43.2% of the population, 24.4% by rural water supply systems and users
associations, 17.1% is provided by municipalities, 4.7% by Public Services of Heredia (ESPH),
and 9% from private wells or communal sources, as shown in table 8.
18
Table 8 Water Coverage for Human Consumption by Type of Administrator
Operator Population Covered Drinking Water Coverage
2000 % 2001 % 2000 % 2001 % %
increase
AyA 1,659,781 43.4 1,717,160 43.2 1,545,754 40.4 1,670,092 42.0 1.6
Municipalities 653,713 17.1 637,668 16.1 419,684 11.0 419,323 10.6 -0.4
*
ESPH 180,000 4.7 185,726 4.7 180,000 4.7 185,726 4.7 0.0
CAAR-s/ASADAS** 1,098,496 28.7 963,376 24.4 560,000 14.6 535,999 13.5 -1.1
Private+easy 136,013 3.5 358,137 9.0 69,367 1.81 198,050 5.0 3.2
access
Subtotal/Covered 3,728,003 97.4 3,868,068 97.4
No covered 96,590 2.6 103,254 2.6 - - - - -
Totals 3,824,593 100 3,971,322 100 3,009,190 72.5 3,971,322 75.8 3.3
* ESPH: Empresa de Servicios Públicos de Heredia.
** CAAR/ASADAS: Comités de Acueductos Rurales /Asociaciones de Usuarios.
Source: Water Laboratory, AyA (2002).
Despite the country’s excellent water provision coverage, challenges remain in the areas of water
quality and quality of service provided by some water supply systems administrators. The 2001
AyA report states that nearly 25% of the population (nearly one million inhabitants) depends on
1,005 water supply systems that still do not have safe drinking water, as shown in table 8, which
shows that although the drinking water coverage increased favorably (from 72.5% to 75.8% from
2000 to 2001), the percentage of coverage is still low. This is one of the major tasks confronting
AyA and other water providers. The provinces with the lowest coverage of quality drinking
water are Cartago, Puntarenas and Alajuela. Of the water coverage in the country, 41.7% is not
subject to any quality control. Although, in general, the country’s water sources have few
physiochemical problems, approximately 31.1% of the population receives untreated water. This
is considered to be a health risk for the users. Of all these administrative agencies, only ESPH
provides 100% of its population with drinking water.
Table 9 shows that although only 46.9% of the 2,058 water supply systems registered in the
country provide drinking water, these cover the majority of the population and are mainly
located in the Greater Metropolitan Area and in urban centers. Only 19% of the water supply
systems receive treated (chlorinated) water; 88.2% of the population receives water from
supervised programs; and 51.5% receive water that is not of adequate quality. AyA has
intervened in the administration and operation of many municipal water supply systems;
however, there are still approximately 1,600 small rural and communal water supply systems that
are directed by associations called ASADAS, which are administered independently, under the
supervision of AyA. A large number of these are in the sectors of the population that receive
water of poor quality (see table 9). From the point of view of public services and public health,
the prevalence of these systems without quality control and/or quality supervision is a cause for
19
concern. In general, the management and financial capacity of the ASADAS to pay for
improving the infrastructure in order to improve the water quality and service is questionable.
Table 9 Treatment, Purification and Water Quality in Aqueducts in Costa Rica, According to
Operating Agencies, 2000-2001
Operator Total % With % With % Potable %
Aqueducts treatment1 purification2
AyA 171 8.3 23 1.1 135 6.6 133 6.5
Municipalities 252 12.2 4 0.2 60 2.9 114 5.5
ESPH 6 0.3 0 0.0 6 0.3 6 0.3
CAAR 1629 79.2 12 0.6 204 9.9 713 34.6
Totals 2058 100 39 1.9 405 19,7 966 46.9
(1) Treatment: refers to a combination of physical, chemical, and biological processes conducted to improve the quality of the
water to which it is applied.
(2) Purification: elimination of infectious agents; chlorine is the most common disinfectant in the world; it has a relatively low
cost, is effective, and is easily measured.
Source: State of the Nation #8, 2001.
The search for new water sources to meet the demands of the population is being expanded to
new areas that are farther from the population centers, which implies enormous distribution and
maintenance costs combined with the need for more expensive treatment methods because of the
contamination process.
The situation with wastewater varies significantly and is one of the greatest challenges the
country faces. Table 10 below gives an overview of the sewage and drainage system from 1995
to 1998. Although services increased by 3.5%, the percentage of the population served
decreased from 23.9% to 21.1%.
According to the National Water Laboratories of AyA, the principal urban inner cities of the
country have simple sewerage systems, which reach 21.1 % of the served population. 16.1% of
the waste water is untreated and just 5% is treated. The non-treated wastewater is channeled
through the sewer system to the rivers without any kind of treatment.
The Greater Metropolitan Area (GAM), specifically, is characterized by the absence of sewer
systems; this is why septic tanks are widely used (68.5%). The remainder of the population uses
latrines (8.6%) or has “no sanitary service” (1.9%).
20
Table 10 Domestic Sewage Services, by Administrative Agency 1995-1998
ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY 1995 1998 AVERAGE
GROWTH %
AyA (rural and urban) 144,773 157,717 2.98
CAAR1 5,399 6,402 6.19
Urban Municipality 7,451 8,846 6.24
ESPH Urban 10,011 12,364 7.83
Private Urban 36 36 0
TOTAL SERVICES 167,670 185,365 3.52
Population Served (%) 23.9% 21.1% -2.80
(1). Administrative Committees for Rural Water Supply Systems
Source: Department of Systems Operations of AyA, 1999.
Figure 3 Costa Rica Domestic Waste Water Disposal 1999
Costa Rica: Domestic wastewater
disposition.1999.
Tanque séptico
Alcantarillado
simple
Pozo o letrina
Alcantarilado
sanitario
Sin servicio
In summary, Costa Rica does not have adequate waste treatment plants and, therefore, a great
quantity of wastewater is deposited directly into rivers. On the other hand, the extensive use of
septic tanks might be a factor that contributes to the pollution of the groundwater, the main
source of water supply in the GAM.
21
3.2.2 Hydroelectricity
Costa Rica has great hydroelectric potential. Its theoretical potential is 25,500 MW, but
exploitation of this large potential is not totally possible for infrastructure, economic, and
technical reasons. Most of the target projects are situated in protected areas such as national
parks. Because of this, the hydroelectric potential that is economically, technically, and
environmentally viable has been estimated by the Costarrican Institute of Electricity (ICE) to be
approximately 8,185 MW.
In 2002, the country’s installed electrical capacity was 1,756 MW, of which 1,247 MW (71%)
came from water generation, as is shown in the chart below. Of that, ICE has installed 81% of
the hydroelectric infrastructure, the private sector 12,4%, and the remainder was installed by the
CNFL, a company that belongs, nearly totally, to ICE.
Table 11 Hydroelectric Capacity In Costa Rica (in MW) (2002)
Total Electrical Capacity installed 1,756
Hydroelectrical Capacity installed 1,247
Hydroelectrical Capacity Installed by ICE 81.0%
Private generators (including rural electricity cooperatives) 12.4%
CNFL 6.6%
Source: National Development Plan 2002-2006
Figure 4 Costa Rica Energy Production By Sector,
2002
Costa Rica: energy production, by sector. 2002. Porcent.
4% 1%
8%
Hydroelectric
16%
Conventional Thermic
Geothermic
Eolian
Biomass
71%
Source: ICE.2002.
There are hydroelectric projects in 13 of the country’s 24 river basins, belonging either to ICE,
CNFL, or to private generators. This sector represents the major demand on water at the national
level, although it is not consumptive use.
22
General Water Law No. 276 of August 26, 1942, which modified the first regulation of 1884,
regulates water resources. The objective was to regulate ownership and utilization. At present,
ICE is constructing the Cote hydroelectric project, which will generate 6 MW. In addition, ICE
plans to construct a series of projects between now and 2010 that will provide approximately 400
MW to the electricity system.
It should be highlighted that the 1,247 MW of installed capacity that is water generated
represents only 15.2% of the 8,185 MW of potential hydroelectric energy that could be utilized
in the country. This shows that the country could further develop its hydroelectric infrastructure
and also demonstrates the possibility for the country to generate electricity for export to the
Central American market. This will be possible due to the existence and operation of the
Interconnection System between the countries in the region that is to begin in 2006.
The present structure of electricity production in each Central American country depends on two
major sources: hydropower and fossil fuels. Hydropower is well developed in Central America
and has been made possible thanks to the richness of the rainfall and easy accessibility to
sizeable hydro resources in the region. However, fossil fuels are imported (gas, charcoal, and oil)
and becoming more important sources of electricity production due to a long period of cheap oil
prices and first evidence of changes in rainfall patterns and other climatic events (Castro and
Cordero, forthcoming).
Figure 5 below shows the percentage of electricity production in Central America based on fossil
fuels. The figure clearly shows that between 1994 and 1998 there was significant growth in
fossil fuel dependence, particularly in Nicaragua, Panama, El Salvador, and Honduras. Most of
the oil used in Central America is imported. For example, net oil imports as a percentage of
commercial energy use have increased in Panama from 69% to 73%, in Nicaragua from 35% to
45%, and in Honduras from 38% to 43%. Only in Costa Rica and, on occasion Guatemala, has
the reverse occurred, with net oil imports for electricity use diminishing. Costa Rican policy is
based on favoring renewable sources based on the assumption that increasing dependence on oil
for the supply of electricity and other uses is not the best economic bet for Central America
considering the unreliability of supply, long term oil price volatility and the uncertainty this
situation causes for the final cost of electricity.
It is expected that by the year 2006 the emerging regional electricity market will be fully
operative and will include a second transmission line making electricity exchanges more reliable.
As a result, the Costa Rican electricity surplus could be exported to other countries in the region
(Table 11). Costa Rica’s current plans estimate that by 2007 annual exports will be around 358
GWh (see Table 11) primarily to El Salvador, Panama, and Honduras (countries that are
expected to be net importers). On the other hand, these plans show Nicaragua and Guatemala as
net exporters of electricity, the former based on fossil fuels and the latter using a mix of sources.
23
Figure 5 Electricity Production from Fossil Fuels in Central America
E le ctric ity p ro d u c tio n fro m fo s s il fu e ls in C e n tra l A m e ric a
(% o f to ta l)
80
70
60
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Y e a rs
C o sta R ica G u a te m a la H o n d u ra s Panam a E l S a lva d o r N ica ra g u a
Source: World Bank. World Development Indicators Database, 2000.
3.2.3 Irrigation
It is estimated that there are nearly 525,000 ha of irrigable land in Costa Rica; however, only
17.5% of that land has some type of infrastructure and is currently irrigated. It is estimated that
418,802 ha were used for agricultural activities, which means that the production achieved by
using irrigation covered 21.9% of the agricultural land (Astorga, 2002).
Table 12 Agriculture under Irrigation
Area irrigated % total area Number of Intensity
(ha) irrigated properties of
planting
Irrigation systems in participation with 22,172 24.1 1974 75%
the public sector
Communal irrigation systems 98 0.1 56 90%
(associations/cooperatives)
Private irrigation systems 69,730 75.8 ND 90%
TOTAL 92,000 100
Sources: Department of Operations of Groundwater and PRAT Department. 1998.
The majority of the irrigation systems operate using gravity and are inefficient. There are no
instruments to measure water flow in the canals or in the pipelines at the plots. The water billing
is based on the area irrigated, rather than on the volume of water used, which tends to cause a
high demand and little efficiency.
24
3.3 PRINCIPAL WATER USERS
Among the principal users are state institutions that provide various public services related to
water use, from providing drinking water to electricity to irrigation, namely:
The Costa Rican Water Supply and Sewerage Company (AyA)
Created by Law No. 2766 on April 14, 1961, its objective is to set policies, establish standards,
and conduct and promote planning, financing, administration and operation of water supply and
sewer systems, in addition to regulating rainwater drainage in urban areaa. This law gives AyA
the right to design, operate, and maintain water supply systems created after 1961. It is
responsible for the San José metropolitan area and those systems for which it has financial
responsibility. It can delegate the administration of the systems to mixed administration boards,
such as rural water supply systems, and may intervene and assume the operation of inefficient or
irregular systems.
One interesting aspect is that, historically, AyA has been both the supervisory and operating
agency (because the agency that was assigned this function by the Law was deficient).
Overseeing and controlling its activities has been difficult, to the point that the institute currently
represents one of the major pollution sources in the Río Grande de Tárcoles river basin due to the
deficient wastewater treatment of its sewage system.
The Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE)
ICE was created on April 8, 1949 by Law No. 449, to develop, in a rational manner, the
country’s energy sources, in particular its hydraulic resources. It did not request a concession
from the state and did not register the water sources to be used to generate electricity.
The National Groundwater, Irrigation, and Drainage Service (SENARA)
This agency is regulated by Law No. 6877 (July 4, 1983) and later reforms. It was created to
foment agricultural development through the establishment and operation of irrigation, drainage,
and flood control systems, in order to achieve optimum and equitable utilization of surface and
groundwater resources. It requested a concession for water use in order to comply with the goals
of the Law.
Municipalities
The municipalities are responsible for the administration of the water supply systems under their
authority that existed prior to the creation of AyA, as long as they maintain a minimum level of
quality and efficient service. The municipal water supply systems that existed before AyA was
25
formed can be administrated independently but are under the control and supervision of that
institution. They are required to solicit a concession to use water for their purposes.
The Public Service Company of Heredia, S.A. (ESPH)
This company was created in 1976 by Law No. 5889, which was reformed in 1996. It is a
private company that provides the public service of water and electricity. It has jurisdiction over
the central canton and other neighboring cantons in the province of Heredia. It must request a
concession for water use.
The Public Service Administrative Board of Cartago (JASEC)
This board was created to provide electricity to the cantons in Cartago Province. It must request
a concession to use the water resources.
Some cooperatives provide the public service of electricity in some of the country’s regions and
must request a concession to utilize water to generate electricity.
Finally, every individual and every company is a potential water user and, as such, must request
a concession to use water for any permitted use in conformity with the Water Law in force.
3.4 LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT REGULATES WATER MANAGEMENT
Legal rights in Costa Rica are observed according to a hierarchical order: the Constitution,
international agreements, laws, and regulations. In regard to environmental matters, general
legal principles are recognized as the primary source of law. Apart from the Constitution and
international treaties, there are two kinds of judicial norms that protect water resources: laws
(Legislative Branch) and executive decrees and regulations (Executive Branch).
Water resources are regulated by General Water Law No. 276 of August 26, 1942, which
modified the first norm of 1884. The objective was to regulate the domain, utilization, and
supervision of water. It gave directives for granting concessions for hydroelectric,
transportation, irrigation, and other uses. It also defined two forms of water domain, public and
private.
Laws governing other sectors regulate the public services of water, such as the AyA law relating
to the provision of water for human consumption, the law that created ICE regarding
hydroelectric generation, and the law that created the National Groundwater, Irrigation, and
Drainage Service (SENARA), which is the institution responsible for everything that relates to
irrigation and drainage.
26
With the publication of the 1982 Mining Code, all water resources were declared to be under
public domain, and with the exception of AyA and ICE, all individuals and public or private
companies must obtain a concession from the state through MINAE’s Department of Water for
temporary water use. The current legislation sets a maximum term of 30 years for the
concessions, which cannot be extended, although it is possible to extend its use through a new
concession. Despite the stipulated term, the state of Costa Rica has not given concessions for
terms longer than 20 years. The standard utilized by the Water Department is that for
hydroelectric projects and for human consumption, the term for utilization of the resource is 20
years. For other uses (such as irrigation, tourism, fish-farming) the terms have been for 10 years.
In 2003, for the first time, and in a river basin with serious allocation problems, such as the
Tempisque River, the state defined concession terms of only three years.
27
Table 13 Principal Laws and Decrees That Regulate the Use of Water Resources
Administration and Uses (surface and groundwater)
General Water Law (No. 276), 1942
General Law for Drinking Water (No. 1634), 1953
Law that Created the National Aqueduct and Sewer Institute (No. 2726), 1961
General Health Law (No. 5395), 1973
Law that Created the National Groundwater, Irrigation and Drainage Service (No. 6877)
1983
Law of the Regulatory Authority of Public Services (No. 7593), 1996 when this was
transferred the water rectory to MINAE.
Decree (No. 26237), 1997: Functions of the Water Department of MINAE and creation
of the Advisory Body
Regulatory Decree for the Quality of Drinking Water (25991-S), 1997
Regulatory Decree for Drilling and Exploitation of Groundwater, 1988.
Hydroelectricity and Public Services
Law that Created the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (No. 449), 1949
Law that Created the Public Service Company of Heredia (No. 5889), 1976 and1996
Law for Co-Generation of Electricity (No. 7200/ No. 7508), 1990 and 1996
Law of the Regulatory Authority for Public Services (No. 7593), 1996
Municipal Code (No. 7794), 1982
Land Use Regulations, River Basins, Protection and Impact
Organic Law of the National Institute of Housing and Urbanization (No. 1788), 1954
Urban Planning Law (No. 4240), 1968
Coastal Zone Law (No. 6043), 1977
Mining Code (No. 6797), 1982
Wildlife Conservation Law 1994, (Article 132)
Organic Environmental Law (No. 7554), 1995
MIRENEM Decree (24652), Creation of the National System of Conservation Areas
Forestry Law (No. 7575), 1996
Law of Conservation, Management and Soil Use (No. 7779), 1998
Decree (No. 26042), Waste Disposal and Reutilization of Waste Water, 1997
Biodiversity Law (No. 7788), 1998
Law to Regulate and Manage the upper Reventazón River Basin (No. 8023), 2000
Source: Ballestero, 2003
The obsolescence of the Water Law has provoked the emergence of numerous regulations and
norms that intend to resolve its deficiencies. There is a tendency toward what is called
“normative pollution,” which hinders development, causes atrophy in institutional management
systems, and becomes a real obstacle in developing economic activities.
The principal laws that regulate water resources are presented inTable 13. This shows that the
main legal changes that directly affect the administration, use, and protection of water resources
were made in the period 1995 to 2000. That period coincides with the increase in the creation of
structures to manage river basins.
28
3.5 INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The current situation in the administration of Costa Rican water resources are characterized by
fragmentation and dispersion of responsibilities in a large number of institutions that have a
centralized form of operation (see Annex 3).
At least 15 agencies are involved in local and national water administration as a result of the
large variety of legal and judicial instruments listed above. As a result, there are serious
problems in the distribution of responsibilities, with overlaps in some areas and vacuums in
others. There is no coordination between these institutions and, in addition, their administrative
systems are decentralized or widely distributed.
These agencies were created to fulfill a specific objective in water use (irrigation, drinking water
supply, hydroelectric generation, sanitation, etc.) and lack an outlook that envisions an integral
approach to water resource management.
It is clear that the main factors that contribute to this fragmentation are the absence of a
supervisory agency and a national water resource policy. Even though the law designates the
supervision of this resource to MINAE,1 this agency limits its responsibility to granting
concessions, to giving permits to exploit surface and groundwater, and to establishing and
collecting fees for such use.
MINAE was created in 1986 as the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy, and Mines
(MIRENEM) and was transformed into the Ministry of Environment and Energy in 1995 by the
Organic Environmental Law (Law 7594). From its creation until 1996, its activity related to
water resources was limited to promoting conservation projects and the protection of rivers, areas
of recharge, and springs through the Department of River Basins and Forest Reserves. That was
first handled through the Forestry Department and later by the National System of Conservation
Areas (SINAC). It also granted permits to extract materials from rivers.
When Law 7593 was approved in 1996 and created the Regulatory Authority of Public Services
(ARESEP), the Water Department of the old National Electricity Service (SNE) was transferred
to MINAE. That agency was, and continues to be, in charge of defining national policy for water
resources; it exercises water control and management, processes concession and drilling permits,
and is also responsible for control and supervision. However, at present the country does not
have a National Water Policy or a Water Assessment that would make it possible to make the
best decisions.
1
General Water Law, Organic Environmental Law, Regulatory Law for Public Services, Biodiversity Law, Regulation of
Procedures of SETENA, Forestry Law 7575.
29
If the Water Department was a small agency for its purposes while part of SNE, with a deficient
level of capacities, technology, and efficiency, one could say that the transfer to MINAE gave it
another dimension and placed it at the national level, with some improvement in the exercise of
its functions. However, it continues to have insufficient personnel and instruments for
management and control, and it has not been able to exercise political control over other agencies
relating to water because of its leadership vacuum. Its limited financial resources mainly come
from the National Budget and the collection of usage “canon”. The charge of this “canon” is set
by the permit or concession granted by the state to the concessionaires for the utilization of the
resource, according to the different uses of the resource. However, this charge clearly does not
correspond to the real value of the resource and does not permit covering the cost for an
efficiently operated administrative system. By 2003, it is estimated that the total amount that will
be collected by the state, through the Water Department, for water use by private citizens will be
about 200 million colones2.
Despite the fact that MINAE is responsible for supervising water resources, in 2002 the National
Water Council was formed by Executive Decree No. 30653-S-MAG-MINAE-MEIC, and
charged with the “harmonization of water legislation and the coordination of research, uses,
development, utilization, and conservation of water in the different departments and institutions
of the state.” The Ministry of Public Health, an agency with responsibility for water quality,
pollution, and health3, was appointed to coordinate this Council, which has created distortions
and overlapping roles for both ministries. The Council’s formation is a political problem and a
product of the leadership vacuum created by MINAE as the supervisory agency. However, this
is not the solution to having an adequate institutional framework for integrated water resource
management and is only one more temporary measure.
One key factor is the application of adequate economic instruments that would give an economic
value to water, and thereby give an incentive for efficient use, or for activities that conserve the
resource. Also, the application of economic instruments can generate enough financial resources
to permit reinvestment in and strengthen operation and administration of the national or local
system.
As we pointed out previously, the usage canon that is currently charged is extremely low and
does not reflect the real cost of operation and administration, much less provide the resources
needed to control, monitor, research, and decentralize water services. Table 14 shows the amount
of the canon for usage that is currently collected.
2
Rate of exchange: US$1.00 per ¢394 (colones)
3
General Health Law, Wildlife Conservation Law.
30
Table 14 Tariffs in Colons by Usage Canon, July 2003
Surface Water Groundwater
Type of Activity Colons/ m3 Colons/ m3
Domestic use 0.5 0.7187
Population use1 0.0088 0.0109
Hydroelectricity use2 0.001 n.a.
Irrigation use 0.017 0.1304
Industrial use 0.025 0.1928
Other uses 0.0075 0.3224
1. Refers to the charge to companies that provide drinking water: municipalities, ESPH, JASEC. AYA does not pay for the value
of the water it uses.
2. Refers to private cogenerators: ESPH, JASEC and CNFL. ICE does not pay for the value of the water it uses.
Source: Water Department. MINAE, 2003
Hoping to increase its financial resources, MINAE began 2003 by promoting a process to
implement an environmental canon for waste disposal and an adjustment in the usage canon.
One of the matrixes in the Appendix describes the principal agencies with responsibilities for
water resources as well as their legal attributes, in order to illustrate the existing level of
dispersion.
The national institutional framework for water resources is characterized by:
absence of supervision
absence of a national policy
structural and operational centralization
emphasis on subsectoral work
uncoordinated institutions, fragmented roles that are isolated from the context of river basins
lack of information needed to make decisions
3.6 RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
3.6.1 Efforts To Establish River Basin Management And/Or River Basin Institutions
In Costa Rica the regulatory judicial framework for water management is centralized in the
Ministry of Environment and Energy, in the Ministry of Health, and in some autonomous state
institutions.
The Water Law of 1942 did not contemplate the formation of any regional structure for river
basin management. Costa Rica’s characteristics in those years, with a population of less than
500,000 and only slight development in the rural areas, made this unnecessary. It was not until
31
nearly 30 years later that some activity for river basin management began. In those 30 years we
can identify four stages:
Stage One
In the 1970s the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG) formed the General Forestry Department
because of the need to regulate massive deforestation, to detain or reverse the drastic changes in
land use, and to improve conditions for those living in poverty in rural areas.
This led to initiating several actions with area farmers to regulate land use and soil management,
and to setting up activities within the geographic area of a micro basin. With the cooperation of
the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the first project of
“management and regulation of river basins” was executed in 1974 in the Uruca River (Central
Valley).
By 1976 this concept had broadened, and with generous funding from the U.S. Agency of
International Development (USAID), Program 032 was initiated in rural micro basins. These
were determined to be priorities particularly because of the level of poverty, productive
marginalization, and degradation (deforestation, soil erosion, and loss of fertility). In general,
the communities were not consulted about the objectives and components of the projects that
were executed in a centralized manner by MAG (top down), with little involvement by the
beneficiaries.
While it is true that the focus was soil management within a river basin, with practices of soil
conservation, crop rotation, and farm planning, it can also be said that these first actions tended
to create an awareness of the importance of the river basin as a planning unit. Within Program
032 the two river basins where most of the resources were invested were the Parrita River basin
and the Nosara River basin. In both of these a Management and Resource Regulation Plan was
developed (Solórzano, R., 2003, personal communication).
In 1979 the Unit of River Basins was created in AyA. A broad search and survey of hydro-
environmental information it needed to fulfill its mission of providing high-quality drinking
water to the country was initiated by AyA. This information included basic hydrologic
information and a study that refers to the main drainage areas at the national level, and was
needed in order to determine the potential sources of drinking water, recharge areas, watersheds
that must be protected, and points for measurement of pollution in some of the river basins,
among other variables. The information has been compiled for a limited number of the river
basins or microregions that AyA has prioritized.
Stage Two
32
In the 1980s several variables appeared that influenced a transformation from the initial period.
First, the environmental movement gained importance in Latin America, and Costa Rica was not
an exception,. Secondly, in 1986 MIRENEM was created, and the Forestry Department was
transferred to it. Within it the Department of River Basins was created. Likewise, a number of
non-governmental organizations (national and local) emerged that were interested in
environmental issues.
Due to the crisis that the country was experiencing during those years, poverty increased, the
disparity between development in rural areas and cities grew, and a change in the productive
structure left many farmers without alternatives. This meant that environmental degradation
continued and in some regions, such as the Atlantic, it increased.
In the face of this, the government promoted “Projects of Integral Rural Development,” and
within those were included components that gave attention to “Integrated River Basin
Development” and “River Basin Conservation.” The investment projects and programs are
negotiated with donors and cooperating agencies by government agencies that need a great deal
of support in training, strategic planning, transfer of productive technology and conservation, for
application at the level of farms, microbasins, watersheds, and river basins.
While the focus was on promoting the application of agricultural practices of soil conservation
and dependent resources, as well as agricultural diversification, environmental variables were
also included, such as the protection of springs and recharge areas and reforestation, for which
the state offered economic and fiscal incentives (Certificates for Forestry Payment).
Although these initiatives were promoted by the government there was an increased level of
participation by the beneficiaries, and some opportunity for their participation was created within
the projects (Local Councils).
In 1988 the Ministry of Agriculture issued a decree that established an inter-institutional
agreement for river basin management, which was signed by MAG, MIRENEM (MINAE), AyA,
SNE, SENARA, and CATIE. The objective was to form a coordinating group among all the
public agencies involved in water resources to define, promote, and direct policies and actions
directed towards the integrated management of priority river basins that were of interest to the
country; to elaborate regulatory plans for these river basins; and to seek financial resources. In
practice, this agreement was not implemented, and the executive group functioned for only a
very short time.
33
Stage Three
Without a doubt, this was the most active period. Because of the influence of external factors
such as the Río Summit, the Dublin Conference, the Central American Alliance for Sustainable
Development (ALIDES), in the 1990s Costa Rica began to implement policies that would lead to
a model of sustainable development.
It was in that decade that environmental NGOs, and even some communities and municipalities,
demanded opportunities for greater participation, and several steps toward deconcentration in
public management were taken. In the last half of the decade the principal legal changes of the
last 30 years were made in environmental matters, for water resources and for strengthening
local governments—changes, however, that were not able to modify the old law of 1942.
The vision followed to that point was transformed, and a focus of “integrated management of
natural resources” was promoted, using the river basin as the central theme. Within these
“resources,” water was included as an important, but not central, factor. This approach to
management created, in some cases, organizations (forums for discussion) in the river basins or
microbasins, under the modality of committees, associations, or commissions.
It should be understood that these were not real organizations for river basin management, but
rather spaces for discussion and meeting together to analyze and seek solutions to environmental
problems or natural resource management; and its action did not specifically refer to integrated
water resource management. There was no budget assigned to these organizations, and when
they had any funding it was primarily from international cooperation agencies. Another
important element is that these participative structures did not assign responsibilities or concrete
powers for decision-making about management in their territories.
Likewise, public institutions such as ICE, AyA, CNFL, and MINAE began to invest resources
and to develop projects or programs of “sustainable management of natural resources” in specific
river basins: Virilla, Tempisque, Arenal, and Bananito, among others. These actions were taken
because of the presence of specific problems in sectoral areas of action (generation, supply,
sanitation, protection, and conservation). Clear examples are sedimentation, changes in river
flow into dams for hydroelectricity generation, lack of drinking water sources, and pollution in
rivers and aquifers.
An executory structure was created for these institutional projects, and other actors working in
river basin issues became involved; the inclusion of these actors also validated the policies of
those institutions. Those actors usually worked with other public institutions, a few NGOs,
municipalities, and the academic world. A common denominator in all these groups is the
limited participation of direct water users (irrigators, industry, service companies, etc.).
34
A few interesting experiences emerged at the local level. One of the first was the Coordinating
Commission of the Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin, which was created in 1992. This
commission emerged within the municipality of San José and had a marked interest in
environmental management activities, especially in the first few years. Also, there was a case of
a local organization that worked in the middle and upper basin of the Quebradas River in San
Isidro de Pérez Zeledón.
Major advances were made between 1994 and 1998 when the Minister of the Environment at the
time became strongly interested in this theme, and connected it to a series of reforms in the
environmental regulatory framework. There was progress toward institutional modernization
and an active interest in establishing participative organizations to discuss and define policies
and activities in some river basins. This was a part of the national decentralization process that
was slowly, but progressively, being implemented.
That decision was reflected in various policy measures: Executive Decree No. 26635-MINAE,
which divided the country into five watersheds and created a favorable atmosphere for the
deconcentration of services in them; a decree to form organizations in the Tempisque, Bananito
and Savegre rivers as well as providing technical, financial, and logistical resources for the
operations of some of those organizations, among which was the Coordinating Commission of
the Tárcoles River Basin.
Also, in 1995 by Executive Decree 30077-MINAE, the River Basin Program was created as part
of the National System of Conservation Areas to determine guidelines for MINAE regulations
regarding river basins and to formulate national policies for river basins. Another objective of
the decree was to elaborate a Master Plan for River Basins and to approve an order of priorities
by river basin region for water use by public sector organizations, which was oriented to the
integrated and rational utilization of the resource. However, despite the apparent importance of
the responsibilities and functions assigned to that program, it never played the role that would
have been expected.
Stage Four
The last stage began five years ago and continues to the present. This stage is characterized by a
lack of interest of the supervisory institution, MINAE, in giving decisive upport to the creation
or strengthening of river basin organizations.
The great proliferation of distinct river basin organizations that took place in the previous stage
ended and many either disappeared or were minimized when they lost government support; they
were unable to achieve financial sustainability. There is now discussion about whether or not the
management of water resources should be decentralized in a country as small as Costa Rica,
35
while in the previous stage this principle was not questioned. Likewise, there is discussion about
whether river basins should be considered as a basic unit for work or if other operational
systems, such as the System of Conservation Areas, should be used.
In this context and on the framework of the FAO-sponsored Latin American River Basin
Network, the Nation River Basin Network was created by MINAE decree number 29238 on
November 20, 2000, with the following objectives: provide policy guidelines within the
framework of river basin management; identify the needs for cooperation according to priority
levels; promote the creation of a database and information exchange at the national and regional
levels; and encourage activities directed to raising awareness in civil society about the
importance of conservation the protection of river basins, among other things. This network is
integrated by representatives from the following agencies: CATIE, CEDARENA, CNFL, Costa
Rican Federation of Environmental Groups (FECON), AyA, ICE, IFAM, ITCR, MAG, MINAE,
MIDEPLAN, Ministry of Health, SENARA, UCR, and UNA.
Most of the actors believe that until now actions in the use and management of water and river
basins have been uncoordinated and only for taking care of immediate situations, and that the
country should change that paradigm to one of integrated resource management. This modifies
the operation of several of the river basin structures formed in the previous period, including that
of the Commission of the Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin.
The ineffectiveness of creating this kind of structure without a solid legal basis and financial
support was assessed and, consequently, in 2000 a law was issued creating the first river basin
organization: Commission for the Regulation and Management of the Río Reventazón River
Basin.
There is a consensus that it is necessary to have a legal framework to regulate water, and in 1998
a process was begun, and promoted by diverse sectors, to approve a new General Water Law.
Different actors (MINAE, Ombudsman’s Office and others) have presented various proposals for
this law to the Legislative Assembly; and all of these included, to varying degrees and with
various approaches, the decentralization of water administration and the formation of local
structures. Currently, there is a single text in discussion by the current legislature.
Even though these changes are recent, they are being felt. They were born out of the heavy
pressure placed on water resources, which motivated adjustments in water management, to find a
balance between conservation and development. And last, but not least, there has been strong
promotion of the “integrated water management in river basins” approach by various
organizations and cooperating agencies.
36
An evaluation of these four stages shows a slight advance toward integrated river basin
management. Even though there has been concern about the subject, it has not been crystallized
into a model of river basin management. In general, the population, municipalities, and
governmental agencies do not have a concept of the relevance of river basins, and these are not
recognized as units of work and planning in natural resources, or of water resources, which
continues to be conducted based on administrative criteria that does not coincide with river
basins. This situation is aggravated because the state agencies that participate in these structures
have different administrative divisions, which makes coordination difficult in areas that do not
correspond to those divisions.
For example, SINAC has divided the country into eleven Conservation Areas to implement their
objectives, but these do not coincide with the river basin boundaries or with the provincial
divisions. When MINAE was restructured and the Conservation Areas were defined, the
possibility of setting the borders of those areas based on the borders of the main river basins was
suggested, but that did not happen because of a lack of consensus among the political actors at
that time. Figure 6 shows the country's division in terms of Conservation Areas and Main River
Basins; note that they do not match one another.
37
Figure 6 Costa Rica: Map of Basins and Conservation Areas of MINAE
Source: MINAE, 2003.
Another example is the drinking water sector, which AyA operates with six administrative
regions (Metropolitan, Huetar Atlantic, Chorotega, Central, Brunca and Central Pacific) with no
connection to the river basins or other administrative divisions.
Lastly, the Ministry of Health (MINSA) and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG)
have their own administrative divisions and regional agencies that do not coincide with the
previous divisions or with the river basins.
38
3.6.2 Origin Of The Efforts To Form River Basin Organizations
As has already been shown, the experiences of creating river basin organizations (committees,
commissions, councils, etc.) in the country are not the fruit of an organized decentralization
process promoted by the central government, but a product of independent actions taken under
dissimilar parameters, some by public institutions and others by civil society (particularly
NGOs). The direct users did not show interest in either case, although once the agencies were
formed, they did participate.
In the case of the Coordinating Commission for the Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin, the
initiative came from the municipality of San José in 1992, with involvement of other
municipalities and some NGOs. It was not until after that process had begun in 1994 that it was
accepted and encouraged by MIRENEM, which today is MINAE. More information about that
is below.
In 1995, after several protests by communities in Guanacaste about the improper use of water
from the Tempisque River and its tributaries by the agricultural sector, the extraction of materials
from the river, and several episodes of pollution and deforestation in the upper part of the river,
MINAE decided to establish an Executory Unit. This was financed by the Government of the
Netherlands for the purpose of implementing a “project for the sustainable management of the
Río Tempisque River Basin” and a partnership was formed with a local NGO (ASOTEM) for
this purpose. An Action Plan defined priorities for intervention in the river basin and for
funding.
A “Civil Council for the Río Tempisque River Basin” was created by Executive Decree No.
24767 to be a permanent deliberative agency to serve the public, and oriented to formulating
policies, promoting activities, supporting public and private institutions that develop plans,
programs, and projects for sustainable development in the river basin. The decree did not
provide for an administrative organization or define who would compose the Council, which was
established by the Executory Unit of the project. It also did not define a method of financial
sustainability, which meant that the Council was dependent on funds distributed by the
Executory Unit.
This Council operated effectively for three years and then disappeared, after which the Executory
Unit was completely taken over by ASOTEM since MINAE decided not to continue supporting
the initiative. ASOTEM has continued to carry out projects in the river basin, with support from
agencies of international cooperation and the sale of services.
Another experience emerged in 1995 at the local level in San Isidro de Pérez Zeledón. In the
middle of the river basin in the upper part of the Quebradas River, the community and a local
NGO named FUDEBIOL initiated activities in a watershed to attempt to protect the water
39
resources. They involved AyA, the municipality, and CARE Costa Rica; conducted basic studies
of the river basin; bought land with local funds to protect water sources; and carried out
environmental education.
In 1996, MINAE, with the support of the Canadian Agency for Cooperation (CIDA) and the
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), developed a Management Plan for the Lake Arenal
River basin. There was already an interest in trying to resolve stability problems in the river
basin, deforestation, and possible early sedimentation in the lake. Lake Arenal is the largest
reservoir in the country (8,300 ha) and was created to produce energy and supply water for
irrigation. To implement the Management Plan a “Commission for the Sustainable Management
of the Lake Arenal River Basin” was created in 1977.
There was an attempt made to bring together all of the interested parties: MINAE, ICE,
SENARA, AyA, a local NGO, and a priest who represented the community. However, there
were deficiencies in the legislation because of the lack of participation by the producers or local
development associations and the omission of a financial mechanism to keep the commission
operating (Echeverría, 2002).
In the upper basin of the Reventazón River hydroelectric energy is generated by a waterfall.
There are three plants operating in that system, which produces 32% of the country’s
hydroelectric energy (a total of 397 MW). The plants in operation are Río Macho (120 Mw),
Cachí (100 Mw), and the newest, Angostura (177 Mw), which was inaugurated in December
2000 (IDB US$300 million). From the El Llano reservoir, which was built to generate
hydroelectricity (Río Macho), water is diverted to the Río Grande de Tárcoles, to which
approximately 2.5 m3/s is transferred to supply the city of San José, the capital of the country.
The initiative to create the Commission for the Regulation and Management of the Reventazón
River Basin (COMCURE) initially came from ICE, an entity that was interested in protecting the
hydroelectric investments in the high and medium river basin because of water and wind erosion
in the agricultural area, and together with landslides, takes about one million tons of sediment
into the Cachí reservoir and 1.5 to 2 million tons into Angostura every year. In addition to soil,
the erosion also drags along fertilizers and pesticides, converting the sediment into polluted
material.
COMCURE is the only river basin organization that has been created by Law (No. 8023,
September 13, 2000), against the wishes of the Minister of Environment at that time. The
arguments brandished by the opposition were based on the fear that laws would begin to appear
for different river basins in the country, which would have generated legal chaos for the country.
The alternative, which avoided the Minister of Environment’s opposition, was to consider that
40
law to be a pilot project, which would permit the passing of a framework law for the
management of the country’s river basins; it has been considered in that way ever since.
The Law defines COMCURE as a very deconcentrated body within MINAE, with instrumental
legal representation; it is composed of institutions, municipalities, academic institutions, users,
and civil society representatives.
COMCURE’s principal objective is to plan, execute, and control water conservation activities,
both of quality and quantity, as well as the rest of the natural resources of the the Reventazón
River’s upper basin. However, even with a legal framework, COMCURE has not managed to
become a true river basin organization, primarily because the initiative and leadership have been
held by one institution (ICE), which has not allowed the rest of the members to internalize river
basin management as an activity that gives financial benefits and the degree of responsibility
expected by their participation. Representation in COMCURE has been very institutionalized,
and there has not been opportunity for participation by other users. Because of this COMCURE
has not been able to obtain financing to improve its technical and operational capacity and has to
depend on the resources distributed by ICE.
Other experiences in forming smaller river basin structures (Siquirres, Banano, Bananito,
Barranca, etc.) have been the result of institutional programs, such as the Environmental
Monitoring Program in Recharge Areas of the above-mentioned river basins that were promoted
by AyA. From that program, organized groups emerged and were formed by other sectors,
including NGOs and local community organizations. However, with the lack of financial
resources to operate and with so little management capacity, the majority of those groups are
inactive.
An evaluation of these experiences points to various common aspects that they have impeded the
establishment of these organizations:
Because of the lack of a legal framework, these agencies were created without being oriented to
their functions and responsibilities.
There is not a clear will on the part of the public institutions to decentralize functions and
responsibilities in these agencies.
They do not define a mechanism to fund their operation.
There is a lack of identification and participation of all the actors located in the river basin, and
there is a bias toward the institutional sector.
The key actors were not involved from the conception of the idea to create an organization; neither
are they involved in the elaboration of the River Basin Management Plan.
There is not a vision of integrated water management.
41
3.7 CONTEXT FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
3.7.1 Decentralization Efforts Of Natural Resources Developed In The Country
As can be observed in the following table, 25.3% of Costa Rica’s territory is under some
category of protection. For an undeveloped country, the appropriate administration of the natural
capital is an enormous challenge. Until 1995 the protected areas were managed independently,
under the Department of National Parks and with a concept of pure protection. There was no tie
to the other departments of Wildlife or Forestry. They all operated as part of MINAE, as
administrative islands, with the further problem that they were centered in offices in San José.
Table 15 Costa Rica: Protected Areas By Management Category, 2000
Management Category Quantity Land Area (Ha) Percentage of the
National Territory
National Parks 25 624,098 12.2
Biological Reserves 8 21,674 0.4
Protected Areas 32 155,829 3.0
Forest Reserves 11 227,834 4.5
Wildlife Reserves 56 178,189 3.5
Wetlands 14 66,359 1.3
Others 1 13 17,306 0.3
TOTAL 2 159 1,291,289 25.3
(1) Includes absolute natural reserves, natural monuments and farms outside of protected areas
that were purchased to protect conservation. (2). Protected Marine Areas are not included.
Source: MINAE/SINAC, 2001.
In 1995, by Executive Decree 24652-MIRENEM, the National System of Conservation Areas
(SINAC) was created as a department of MINAE; this integrated the old Forestry Department,
Wildlife Department and National Parks. In April 1998, the publication of the Biodiversity Law,
No. 7788, gave a maximum degree of deconcentration to SINAC and broadened its powers and
responsibilities. However, the previous Minister of Environment moved that this was
unconstitutional, and this law is awaiting a judicial resolution before taking effect.
SINAC is composed of a Superior Department of Natural Resources, and there are Regional
Departments in each of the Conservation Areas, which are defined as territorial units for the
management of natural resources through the interaction of the protected and unprotected areas.
Included in the functions of the Conservation Areas are: integrated and holistic execution of its
territorial responsibilities, all actions needed to comply with its constitutional orders, and
international agreements and laws of the Republic to foment sustainable development of the
natural resources in the respective Conservation Areas. Currently, the country is divided into 11
Conservation Areas (see Figure 7).
42
A general assessment of SINAC’s performance shows ups and downs. The system has managed
to operate a high percentage of the national territory that is protected and has used innovative
environmental management methods, both in terms of use and knowledge as well as in such
activities as bioprospecting and payment of environmental services. However, incongruities and
a lack of policies exist that hold back consolidation of the system. It is clear that, even though
the country has an excellent network of public and private protected areas, these are not the
result of an explicit policy of territorial regulation, but on the contrary in many cases, they were
designated as protected areas because of expediency and opportunity.
Figure 7 Costa Rica: Conservation Areas of MINAE. 2002
To date SINAC has not achieved a real administrative decentralization of environmental
management and has only achieved a partial administrative deconcentration, which causes
43
problems of financial sustainability in some of the Conservation Areas. By not being totally
deconcentrated, the income generated by these Areas goes into the National Treasury. Then the
Areas have a problem getting these funds returned.
The Conservation Areas are not recognized judicially and have had to resort to the creation of
specific NGOs that act as their “financial arms,” for example, FUNDACA for the Arenal
Conservation Area; FUNDECOR for the Central Volcanic Mountain Range; and National Park
Foundation for the Guanacaste Conservation Area.
3.7.2 The Payment For Environmental Services
Since 1996 a series of efforts to preserve water have been implemented. For example, the
country’s new forestry law recognized the application of the forests’ hydro-environmental
services (HES) for the proprietors. This service includes water catchments, protection, and
recovery of the water resources.
Originally, the function of the forest in protecting water catchment areas was not well understood
but still was included in the law as certain; hence the measures taken to reduce deforestation
were also assumed to protect water resources.
More recently, in 1999, a charge recognizing the value of the water itself was approved, based on
an initiative of a small utility in the Heredia Province (ESPH, the Spanish acronym). This
initiative included the value of water as a production input that can be applied for by the
communities from which it comes and which could possibly use it in their productive processes.
(See Annex 2.)
In 1997, the national program of payments for Forest Environmental Services (FES) officially
started. Costa Rican forestry law defines environmental services as those provided by the natural
forest and forest plantations that directly impinge on the protection and improvement of the
environment. Even though the Costa Rican legislation identified four environmental services
that may be compensated, the mechanism that prevails in the country is primarily based on
forestry criteria, which do not guarantee the protection of water (Castro, René, 2003)
From 1995 to 2001, the FES funds came mainly from one-third of a fuel tax (according to article
69 of Forestry Law No. 7575). Usually the Ministry of Finance, citing fiscal constraint, disbursed
less. In 2000, the Ministry of Finance collected more than 15 billion colones for the FES but
transferred only about 4 billion colones4 (US$10.4 million). As expected, the Ministry of
4
In 2000, FONAFIFO received from the Ministry of Finance 2.09 billion colones for the new forest environmental
payments and 1.3 billion colones for pending disbursements for the last group of subsidized reforestation projects.
The 1996 forestry law allotted ten years for small farmers (with 300 ha or less) to move from a subsidized system to
fully market-based commercial reforestation and logging practices and established that after that period all money
will go to FES.
44
Finance introduced a special clause in the last law for fiscal reform in 2001 (Law No. 8114)
reducing the FES transfers to 3.5% of the fuels sales tax. In 2002 the money collected and
transferred totaled approximately US$11.4 million (FONAFIFO personal communication). The
second source of funds comes from selling global services such as emission reduction credits5
(e.g., US$2.0 million from Norway in 1997) and GEF payments for biodiversity conservation
(e.g., US$1.8 million per year for five years from GEF).
Additionally, in 1997, FUNDECOR, FONAFIFO, and a private hydroelectric company signed
an agreement stating that the private company would pay for the protection and conservation of
the forests in the watershed that supplies the hydroelectric project. The agreement, although
small in magnitude, set a precedent for other voluntary accords with private companies for
payment of environmental services attempting to preserve the Water Environmental Component
(WEC).
3.7.3 Decoupling Payments For The Water Environmental Component From Other Forest
Environmental Service
Initially, from 1948 to 1996, the National Electricity Service (Servicio Nacional de Electricidad,
SNE), the predecessor of the regulatory agency, was in charge both of approving permits to
exploit water resources and setting prices at each level of consumption. The new regulatory
agency that was created in 1996, ARESEP, is in charge only of approving the different fees for
the use of water resources, and the other responsibilities were transferred to MINAE. It is
important to mention that the Law on the Regulatory Agency for Public Services (No. 7593,
1996) allows environmental considerations (values) to be included in estimating water fees that
will be charged for the different uses of the resource.
Currently, ARESEP recognizes payment for a WEC may actually come from two sources:
concessionaires and those who use water as an intermediate good, and final users. Among the
concessionaires are the municipalities, ESPH (the Public Utility of Heredia), SENARA (Servicio
Nacional de Aguas, Riego y Avenamiento), and in general all those that provide water services.
Among the final users are the beverage companies like Coca-Cola and the beer company
Cervecería Costa Rica.
As late as February 2003, the Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MINAE) has pressured
ARESEP and public and private utilities to include some sort of environmental payment for other
water uses such as bottling water, used water going to rivers, and water to produce energy for
5
Costa Rica was a leader during the pilot phase that ended in 2000, after that expectations of collecting money from
these services were sharply reduced when the successive conferences of the parties (COPs) , the governing body, of
the United Nations Climate Change Convention failed to set clear rules for emissions transactions especially for
those emissions reductions based on forestry and changes in the use of land. Moreover, the 8th COP, held in India in
2002, did not resolve the forest debate and it is still pending issue.
45
both domestic and regional use. One early result of this pressure expanded the number and the
area subject to volunteer agreements that are already benefiting some Costa Rica’s watershed
owners, both public and private. They are beginning to be rewarded for providing water,
whether for drinking or for generating electricity.
Since 1998, the pioneer Biodiversity Law (No. 7788) authorized the SINAC that now encompass
all other forms of protection such as coasts and wetlands, to charge consumers a rate (added to
their water bill) for the environmental services received. This law was constitutionally
challenged. In February 2003 the constitutional body (in Spanish known as Sala IV) rejected the
challenge, and it will become effective6. Meanwhile, MINAE issued a decree that established a
user's fee for private fresh water concessions that included only direct administrative costs. It is
currently under consideration to be updated and include some form of WEC payments (Castro,
René, personal communication).
Local Instances of Participation for Natural Resource Management
Parallel to these partial efforts of administrative decentralization in natural resource
management, a process to achieve greater citizen participation from the ground level has been
put into motion in the analysis and discussion of the policies that affect natural resources in the
country’s different regions, while seeking to adapt to the transformation tendencies of the state
and to valid, efficient management methods.
The kinds of formal citizen participation in natural resource management that have been
identified during the last 10 years in Costa Rica are:
Local Environmental Councils: These were the first forms of participation established in the
country in the early 1990s, and responded to a model of organization in which SINAC did not
yet exist and, therefore, they had a very limited outreach.
Regional Environmental Councils: These were established in the first years of SINAC (1966-
1998). They were structures created by the Organic Environmental Law, but with a limited
framework of action for their operations and with very little possibility to make decisions. Later,
the Forestry Law of 1996, No. 757, broadened some of their powers and assigned them an
“active” participation in conceptualizing and formulating regional policies to encourage
reforestation, follow up on the advance and compliance of regional policies for forestry
development, and recommend priorities in the conservation areas to benefit from forestry
incentives and conservation.
6
Vote #2003-01113, file # 98-06524-0007-CO
46
The functions that were given to the Regional Environmental Councils included: promotion to
achieve greater citizen participation in the analysis and discussion of environmental policies that
affect the region through activities, programs, and projects; attention to complaints about
environmental matters; the possibility of negotiating with relevant organizations about their
respective activities; the development of educational activities to foment a new attitude toward
environmental problems; and the establishment of a foundation on which to build an
environmental culture.
Regional Councils in the Conservation Areas (CRAC): These were created through the
Biodiversity Law issued in 1998. They replaced the previous councils and had broader attributes
and representation.
The new structure represented a qualitative difference with respect to the previous one; it gave
them important decision-making powers. The new law designated these councils as the principal
administrative bodies in the Conservation Areas. Their functions include: supervising the
integration of the communal needs for planning and activities in the Conservation Areas;
encouraging participation of the various sectors in the Areas for analysis, discussion and seeking
solutions to regional problems related to natural resources and the environment; and approving
budgets and work plans for the Conservation Areas.
There are 10 CRAC operating to date, at various levels of development. The only area without a
CRAC is Coco Island.
Management Committees in Protected Areas: These are established parallel to the two previous
councils and work only in areas where there is some level of protection.
There are four areas where management committees are working with varying degrees of
development:
Management Committee of Cahuita National Park
Management Committee of the Gandoca-Manzanillo Wildlife Refuge
Marino Ballena Park Association
Manuel Antonio National Park Trust Fund
Volunteer Programs: One of the most important programs is the Natural Resource Vigilance
Committees (COVIRENAS), which respond at the local level to accusations of disrespect for
environmental law; the volunteers work as guards to protect and restore natural resources.
COVIRENAS began in 1992, as a result of a norm stipulated in Wildlife Law No. 7317. They
were created to support the state’s work to protect and conserve natural resources, with people
who want to voluntarily collaborate in these committees. The experience during these years
indicates that the success or failure of these committees depends on the motivation of the
47
members and in their accompaniment by the official agencies. The geographic area of action
varies a great deal; in some cases it is in small areas, in others it is in sectors bordering protected
areas, and in others wider areas are covered, such as administrative districts.
An assessment of these first experiences shows some positive results for both the communities
and the state: fewer conflicts, a decrease in illegal hunting and the felling of trees in protected
areas, community support for control and protection endeavors, incorporation of social variables
in the definition of environmental agendas, and creation of opportunities for meetings between
civil society and the state so that they can work together to determine community activities.
However, the transfer of power, responsibilities, and decision-making about distinct
environmental matters is just beginning, and this has not been accompanied by a sufficient
transfer of technical and financial resources or the legal and political recognition as legitimate
decision-making structures.
Last, but not least important, is that no uniform state policy exists that makes it possible to
clearly define the scope of the different kinds of citizen participation in environmental
management. On the contrary, depending on the correlation of powers present in the
government, to a greater or lesser degree, citizen participation is accepted or rejected as a new
form of state management. For example, between 1994 and 1998 the national political
authorities believed it was important to support the process of civil society participation in
environmental matters and transferred responsibilities to that sector. The Biodiversity Law
issued in 1998 demonstrated that political interest and gave legal backing to SINAC and to
CRAC.
However, in that same year (1998), the opposition party won national elections, and changed
environmental authorities. Those new authorities believed, contrary to the former government,
that the government should return to the traditional system of state management (without citizen
participation) to define policies relating to the environment and natural resources, as well as to
reclaim its exclusive authority and responsibility over the use of public funds. Thus, among
other actions, they introduced a lawsuit in the Constitutional Court claiming that the Biodiversity
Law is unconstitutional, eliminated the decree that allowed indigenous communities to manage
the forestry resources in their territories, and modified the Forestry Law to eliminate municipal
authority in forestry matters.
Everything seems to indicate that the government that took power in 2002 expects to continue
efforts to consolidate the Conservation Areas and CRAC.
These are the main deficiencies in the current management plan for natural resources in Costa
Rica. There is a long way to go to consolidate a real form of decentralized management.
48
4. GRANDE DE TÁRCOLES RIVER BASIN
4.1 GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT
The Grande de Tárcoles River basin is located in the west-central sector of Costa Rica’s central
valley and extends to the Pacific Coast. Five of Costa Rica’s seven provinces are located in this
river basin: San José, Alajuela, Heredia, Cartago, and Puntarenas. The northeastern part the
river basin is bordered by the central volcanic mountain range, where the volcanic cones of
Irazu, Poas, and Barva stand out.
The river basin has a total area of 2,155.5 km2, which represents 4.2% of the national territory.
The river basin is relatively small, with a maximum length of 88 km and a maximum width of 36
km. Due to the river basin’s large area, it has a wide variety of climates; this is because of the
different altitudes that vary from zero meters were it flows into the Pacific Ocean, to 3,062
meters above sea level in the central volcanic mountain range. The median altitude of the river
basin is 1,038 meters.
The temperatures in the river basin range between 15ºC and 33ºC, with an annual average of
27ºC. These variations are due to the changes in altitude and not to seasonal changes, which
represent no more than 5ºC.
Figure 8 Costa Rica: Location of the Grande De Tárcoles River Basin
49
Geomorphologically, most of the river basin is a vast depression that includes the entire western
section of the Central Valley. Costa Rica’s two main watersheds (the Virilla and the Río Grande)
are located in this river basin. There are numerous rivers, most of them begin in the south slope
of the volcanic quaternary of the central mountain range. The river basin slopes slightly to the
southeast, which originates a subparallel drainage connection in that area, while in the rest of the
river basin there are dendritic drainage patterns.
This river basin displays a great natural beauty, which is characterized by mountain and volcano
systems in the high area and by coastal plains in the low area. Due to the biodiversity of the
region, several areas that are protected by SINAC and MINAE are found in the river basin.
These areas are relatively small with extremely valuable ecological ecosystems such as the
Carara National Park, which protects the dry transition forest, swamps in the coast zone, and
sections of cloud and rain forest ecosystems, which are located in the high parts of the volcanic
cones.
According to the information provided by MINAE, the majority of Costa Rica’s protected areas
are located around the periphery of the river basin, mainly in the upper river basin area, of the
central volcanic mountain range, although there are also areas of ecological importance in the
lower river basin. The most important protected areas located in the river basin are shown in the
following table.
Table 16 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Most Important Protected Areas. 2003
Protected Area Size Comments
(Ha)
NP1 Poás Volcano 5599 Predominately cloud forest.
NP Braulio Carrillo 44099 Contains 5 ecological zones, only a fraction is in the river basin.
BR2 Carara 4700 Humid forest (44%) and transition to PM and BPM.
3
PZ El Rodeo 2350 Premontaine Humid Forest. Founded in 1976.
PZ La Carpintera . 2000 Located in SO. Founded in 1976.
PZ Río Grande-Atenas 2200 Río Grande (1,500 Has) and Atenas (700 Ha). Founded in 1976.
PZ Tiribí 650 Founded in1976.
PZ Escazú Hills 7060 Founded in 1976 with 3,600 Ha, increased to 7,060 in 1983.
PZ Turrubares Hills 161 Founded in 1983.
PZ Quitirrizí N.A. Founded in 1982. Indigenous zone.
1. National Park 2. Biological Reserve 3. Protected Zone
Source: ABT, 1998
50
4.2 INTERNAL PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF THE RIVER BASIN
The Río Grande de Tárcoles River basin has a land surface of 2,121 km2, which is 4.6% of the
national territory. The river basin is formed by the confluence of the Virilla and Grande rivers
that forms the Río Grande de Tárcoles, which is 111 km long.
The northeast border of the river basin is the central volcanic mountain range where the Irazú,
Poás, and Barva volcanoes stand out. The highest point is on Irazú Volcano at 3,062 meters
above sea level, going down to zero meters where it flows into the Pacific Ocean. The average
altitude in the river basin is 1,038 meters above sea level.
Figure 9 Map Of The Watersheds Of The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin
Source: ABT, 1997
The river basin is subdivided in the following manner:
Upper Basin: This area corresponds entirely to the Virilla River watershed, which extends to the
middle of the river basin. It is 40% of the total river basin area and is the watershed where 80% of
the country’s population lives.
51
Middle Basin: This corresponds to the Rio Grande watershed, which covers 34% of the total river
basin area. It is primarily a semi-rural area with secondary population centers.
Lower Basin: This corresponds to the Río Grande de Tárcoles watershed and is principally a rural
area; its land surface covers 26% of the river basin.
Figure 10 Participation of the Watersheds within the Grande De Tárcoles River Basin
Tárcoles River Basin:
Percentage of Total Area
40
30
20
10
0
Upper Basin Middle Lower Basin
basin
Source: ABT, 1998
4.2.1 Upper Basin
Beginning at the connection formed by the Virilla River, the area is divided into two watersheds:
the south watershed, formed by the rivers that drain the borders of the Talamanca mountain
range and the foothills of the Irazú Volcano, and the north watershed, which drains the hillsides
of the central volcanic mountain range.
Southern Sector of the Upper Basin
The southern sector is located between the canyon of the Virilla River and the Talamanca
mountains. The hills that divide the waters extend between Irazú Volcano and the hills of Alto
de Ochomogo and Carpintera toward the east and southeast, and to the hills of Tablazo and
Cedral in the south, and the Alto de las Palomas on the west of the river basin.
The country’s major cities are located in this area, among them San José (the capital of the
country), Desamparados, La Union, Curridabat, San Pedro, Moravia, and Guadalupe. It is
characterized by dendritic drainage system that flows east to west, with permanent important
rivers (ABT, 1998).
Some of the most important rivers in the southern upper basin are:
52
Virilla River
This river begins in the foothills of Irazú Volcano in the Coronado canton and extends for 25 km
in an east-to-west direction throughout the central valley, and is the natural border that separates
the provinces of San José and Heredia.
It is marked by a deep river in the form of a gorge, which makes urban development along its
borders difficult. This facilitates the dumping of rubbish and waste products, making it one of
the most polluted rivers in the basin, and therefore the country, because of its high flow rate and
because it is the river into which the three hydrographic systems of the upper basin flow.
Due to the extent of its course, the Virilla River is rich in biodiversity, which is characterized in
the upper river basin by the presence of single cell organisms and plankton, in addition to insect
larvae and amphibians that begin the nutrition chain in that ecosystem. This biodiversity tends to
diminish as the waters flow downstream.
María Aguilar River
With a length of 25 km this river is purely urban (despite the fact that it begins in the central
volcanic mountain range). It has serious pollution problems because of urban development along
its course and the nearly total elimination of trees. Some tributaries such as the Ocloro River
have even been channeled through pipes in different areas of San José.
Torres River
This river is very similar to the previous one in that it originates in the foothills of Irazú Volcano
and is also about 25 km long. This river cuts across the northern part of the capital city, from
east to west. Because this river flows through a highly industrialized and urbanized region, it is
extremely polluted by industrial and domestic waste, and there is very little biodiversity in its
water. The zone is characterized by large neighborhoods of low-income and shanty towns in
very deteriorated environmental and socioeconomic conditions.
Tiribirí River
This river is 30 km long and flows from the hillsides of Irazú Volcano through secondary
population areas in the southeast sector of the GAM, through Aserrí, La Unión, Tirrases, Paso
Ancho, Alajuelita, and Desamparados. The latter two have a large population density of mostly
middle-low and low income families. This is one of the most polluted rivers in the basin. The
three main pollutants are: fecal coliform from cattle that are still in the river basin area; rubbish
and waste produced by coffee processing; and domestic waste. This situation presents many of
53
the parameters of the most serious pollution in the river basin, as will be analyzed below in the
section relating to that matter.
Northern Sector of the Upper River Basin
This zone shows very marked differences from the south. It is mainly a rural area, and until very
recently there was little urban development, but this has been increasing in the last few years.
On the mountain slopes there are still remnants of primary forest.
There are three main rivers in this sector:
Bermúdez River
This river begins in the northern part of the Central Valley, near Monte de la Cruz in the
province of Heredia, and runs to the south. This region is traditionally a dairy farm area
However it is currently being converted into an important center for tourism development.
Several hotels, guesthouses, and restaurants have been built to take advantage of the
extraordinary beautiful scenery in the area.
Segundo River
This river originates in Barva Volcano, flowing to the south through the province of Heredia,
crossing the cantons of Barva and San Joaquín to San Rafael of Alajuela where it finally joins
the Virilla River. During its course it picks up a great amount of pollution that is produced by
agricultural and livestock activities as well as by domestic waste.
Ciruelas River
This river also flows into the Virilla. It runs parallel to the Segundo River but closer to the city
of Alajuela. It also suffers serious pollution problems, mainly because of domestic waste.
4.2.2. Middle River Basin
The two principal rivers in this basin are the Alajuela and the Grande. They extend from the
western sector of the river basin, from the hillsides of Poás and Barva volcanoes, until they join
the Virilla River in the area of Atenas, Alajuela, at which time the Río Grande de Tárcoles is
formed.
In the upper area of this watershed some of the most important national parks of the country are
located, such as Poás and the Barva sector of Braulio Carillo. Its principal rivers are:
54
Alajuela River
This river has maintained its course even under a system of rural development. It does not,
however, present features similar to the rivers in the upper basin. There are low pollution levels
from domestic waste, but the levels are high from agricultural pollution given the coffee
production on its borders.
Grande River
This river originates in the foothills of Poás Volcano and is formed by the confluence of several
tributaries. There has been low-intensity rural development in the area, although there are some
secondary population centers of relative importance such as Grecia, Naranjo, Sarchí, San Ramón,
and Palmares, all in the province of Alajuela.
Despite limited urban development, the intensive agricultural activity has brought about the
disappearance of the forest cover, with only remnants of forest in what are now the protected
areas in Grecia, Caraigres, and Turrubares.
4.2.3 Lower River Basin
The lower Grande de Tárcoles River basin is characterized by the presence of a large number of
rivers and intermittent streams, due to the effects of droughts in this zone during the dry season.
The low, coastal land is alluvial and colluvial. These have few problems with pollution because
of the low population density.
Near the mouth of the Grande de Tárcoles River, between the Tárcoles and Playa Azul beaches,
there are high levels of pollution because the rivers from the upper and middle basins drain into
that area.
The principal characteristics of the above watersheds are described in the following table.
55
Table 17 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Characteristics of Its Watersheds
River/ Area Tributary/ Area Length* Median Median
Watershed km2 Watershed km2 km2 Incline of the Incline of the
Watershed (%) River (m/km)
Virilla 914.2 Virilla 110.8 60.7 21.3 35.1
Tiribí 221.2 45.0 22.1 45.6
Picagres 37.7 10.5 28.0 75.2
Jaris 30.2 12.0 31.8 74.2
Quebrada Honda 33.8 11.0 31.6 80.0
Uruca 55.4 14.0 29.5 75.0
Ciruelas 90.2 38.0 18.1 60.8
Segundo 72.2 35.0 14.4 51.4
Bermúdez 76.5 26.5 11.3 43.4
Tibás 45.3 17.0 24.1 55.9
Para 27.8 7.0 18.2 80.0
Macho 27.4 12.5 24.3 91.2
Torres 44.2
María Aguliar 41.4
Grande 722.5 Grande 148.7 59.8 23.2 28.6
Poás 212.8 28.5 23.3 60.7
Colorado 165.5 17.0 29.4 66.5
Cacao 59.4 12.5 25.7 48.8
Rosales 46.2 22.5 25.2 87.1
Alajuela 54.8 29.0 11.3 49.0
Tizate 18.5 16.5 13.1 33.9
Valverde 16.6 8.0 17.0 47.5
Tárcoles 454.7 Tárcoles / Carara 210.5 51.0 /16.5 30.9 / 38.2 5,3 84.2
Turrubares 204.8 29.0 24.4 38.8
Río Grande de Tárcoles 2,121 111.7 24.1 21.5
Source: ABT, 1998.
4.3 CITIES AND PROVINCES LOCATED IN THE RIVER BASIN
There are 36 municipalities in the river basin’s five provinces mentioned previously (San José,
Alajuela, Heredia, Cartago, and Puntarenas). Their distribution among the provinces is described
in figure 11 and table 18.
56
Figure 11 Tarcoles River Basin: Number of Cantons within Basin
15
San José
10 Alajuela
Heredia
Cartago
5
Puntarenas
0
Table 18 Distribution of Cantons in the Grande De Tárcoles River Basin, by Province
SAN JOSÉ ALAJUELA HEREDIA CARTAGO PUNTARENAS
San José Alajuela Heredia La Unión Garabito
Aserrí Orotina San Rafael
Montes de Oca San Antonio de Belén Santo Domingo
Santa Ana Atenas Barva
Curridabat San Mateo San Joaquín de Flores
Escazú Poás Santa Bárbara
Mora San Ramón San Isidro
Puriscal Palmares San Pablo
Coronado Naranjo
Alajuelita Grecia
Turrubares Valverde Vega
Moravia
Tibás
Goicoechea
Desamparados
Source: ABT, 1998
The previous table shows the principal population centers that are found in the Río Grande de
Tárcoles River Basin, which correspond to the provinces of San José, Alajuela, andHeredia;
incidentally, these are the three provinces where the majority of the country’s population lives.
The following map shows the distribution of counties in the Río Grande de Tárcoles River basin:
57
Figure 12 Map of Cantons in the Río Grande De Tárcoles River
Source: ABT, 1998
4.4 HYDROLOGICAL REGIME
The hydrological regime of the Grande de Tárcoles River basin is characteristic of the Pacific
slope. There are two clearly defined seasons: a dry period that lasts from December to April,
and a rainy period between May and mid-November, which is characterized predominantly by
convective rain. In general, the greatest rainfall is in September, and the driest month is
February.
The river basin has an annual precipitation rate of 2,363.88 mm, with a standard deviation of
446.1 mm. The range of rain varies from 948 mm to 5,409 mm annually. Total water availability
in the Tarcoles river basin is calculated to be 5,093.3 million cubic meters a year.
Of the total runoff, the expected hydrologic recharge is of 352.37 million m3 of water a year, or,
less than 1.0 million m3 of water a day. This will be analyzed in more detail in the section about
availability and demand. 7
7
Annual precipitation rate, total water availability, hydrologic recharge have been calculated by Barrantes, et al,
2002.
58
SENARA has calculated the annual volume of recharge in the Colima aquifer in the Central
Valley to be about 0.17 km3, a figure that was modified by Tahal in 1990 to about 0.26 km3
(8200 l/s).
Figure 13 Precipitation Pattern in the Grande De Tárcoles River Basin
Source: ABT, 1998
For this and the other river basins in the country, few detailed studies exist about the specific
flows in the distinct rivers that conform the river basins. The existing information concentrates
on the rivers in which ICE has conducted studies for hydroelectric generation projects.
4.4.1. Description Of Aquifers
The country’s most important aquifer layers are located in the river basin’s upper part. This is
also the area of major utilization of groundwater.
There are two very important aquifer systems in this river basin with high potential, known as
the Barva Aquifer and the Colima Aquifer. The Barva Aquifer is subdivided into the Bermúdez,
59
Bambinos and Los Angeles Aquifers the latter two being the smallest. This group of aquifers is
located on the slopes of the Barva Volcano. Underneath these is the Colima aquifer system,
composed by three aquifers called La Libertad, Upper Colima and Lower Colima.
Below is a map that shows the potential of the aquifers in the river basin, the Barva and Colima
aquifers are emphasized in black.
Figure 14 Potential of the Aquifers in the Grande De Tárcoles River Basin
Source: ABT, 1998
The Colima and Barva aquifers are the most urbanized in the country and supply more than 66%
of the population concentrated in the GAM. Water is drawn from the resources of the Barva,
Libertad and Upper Colima aquifers to supply the population. The Lower Colima aquifer is
considered by AyA as a reserve that will provide drinking water to the Central Valley population
in the future.
60
Sixty-four percent of the groundwater extracted in the Grande de Tárcoles River basin comes
from the Barva and Colima aquifers. Ten years ago the rate of extraction was estimated to be
2,600 l/s. However, the State of the Nation Report, No. 7, points out that the current demand is
higher than the estimates and is expected to reach between 5.5 and 6.0 m3/s by 2001. Of this,
80% is destined for human consumption, 15% for industry, and 5% for irrigation.
This estimate could be low if the ABT statistics shown in its 1998 Diagnostic of the River Basin
are analyzed. Those show a domestic and non-domestic consumption of groundwater, which is
offered by governmental agencies, determining an average flow of groundwater utilized annually
only by those agencies, of approximately 5.585 l/s, of which 60% corresponds to water directly
extracted from natural springs and the remaining 40% drawn from wells (ABT, 1998).
Table 19 Principle Governmental Users Of Groundwater In Grande De Tárcoles River Basin
Average Flow l/s
AyA 3,504
ESPH 900
Municipality of Alajuela 353
Municipality of Santa Bárbara 119
Municipality of Flores 59
Municipality of Barva 129
Municipality of Santo Domingo 94
Municipality of de La Unión 131
Municipality of de Naranjo 51
Municipality of Valverde Vega 45
Municipality of Grecia 40
Municipality of Poás 82
Municipality of Belén 78
TOTAL 5,585
Source: ABT, 1998
Some other more specific studies conducted by the National University (Reynolds, 1997) about
the Barva, La Libertad, and Colima aquifers, located in the Virilla River watershed have
demonstrated the percentages of the groundwater flow utilized by the various human activities.
The table below shows the extraction from these aquifers, according to the public supply,
domestic use, irrigation, and industrial uses. It also shows that the majority of water is provided
for human and industrial use, with irrigation and direct domestic use representing less utilization.
61
Table 20 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Water Use in the Barva Aquifer By Category Of Use
CATEGORY OF USE FLOW L/S % OF TOTAL
Public Supply 88.7 51.6
Domestic Use 7.4 4.3
Irrigation 14.1 8.2
Industrial 61.8 35.9
TOTAL 172 100
Source: J. Reynolds, 1997.
Table 21 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Water Use In La Libertad & Colima Aquifers By
Category Of Use
CATEGORY OF USE FLOW L/S % OF TOTAL
Public Supply 2,370.0 84.0
Domestic Use 30.0 1.1
Irrigation 120.0 4.3
Industrial 300.0 10.6
TOTAL 2,820.0 100
Source: J. Reynolds, 1997.
At the beginning of the 1990s the effect of the impermeability on the land in the GAM was
studied in relation to the diminishing capacity of recharge in the aquifers in the river basin. At
that time it was concluded that an increase in urban occupation of 100% with respect to the
previous decade would produce a reduction of the recharge in the aquifers of 2.8 m3/s. To look
at lower numbers, if 60% of the area becomes impermeable, a deficit of 819 l/s will result, which
could mean that all the private wells and some of the public supply would be out of operation
(National Report on Costa Rica, 1991, quoted by Barrantes, 2002).
Although the groundwater pollution is not as critical as in the case of surface water, strong
nitrate content has been found in some wells and springs in the Virilla watershed. This is
principally due to: intensified use of nitrogenous fertilizers in coffee and sugar cane production,
with concentrations of over 50 mg/l, when the established norm is a maximum of 19 mg/l;
massive installation of septic tanks because of the lack of sanitation drainage systems throughout
the area; poor condition of the older septic tanks, leading to leaks and filtration; and entrance of
contaminated surface water into the groundwater (Reynolds, 1998).
The Barva aquifer contains the largest concentration of nitrates because of its superficial
character and because more than a half-million people live above it. With an extension of 180
km2, there are currently 1,700 wells in operation, of which only 500 are duly registered in the
Water Department of MINAE. The 80% of the population located over this aquifer and its
62
recharge zones do not have sewer drainage but use septic tanks; filtration from these tanks is a
serious threat to the wells (Reynolds, 2003).
It has been determined that the Colima aquifer is less affected by bacteriological contamination
than the Barva aquifer, which has problems with fecal coliform that makes the water undrinkable
in some areas. This theme will be dealt with in more detail in the section on water quality in the
river basin.
4.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT
Most of the country’s population and the principal productive and economic activities are
concentrated in the Grande de Tárcoles River basin. About 1.8 million people live throughout
the river basin, which represents nearly 50% of the national population. In addition, 80% of the
country’s industry, commerce, and services are located there, and 80% of the country’s vehicular
traffic circulates there. More than 50% of the coffee production is processed in the river basin,
and the agricultural and cattle activity is the most important per unit of area (Rodríguez, 1992).
The Grande de Tárcoles River basin sustains socio-productive development of great importance
for Costa Rica in general. It has a dense highway network that connects it with the other regions
of the country and those regions to each other. There are a large number of industries
concentrated in the river basin, which for the past five years has included high-technology
industries such as Intel; industries for drinks, chemicals, agribusiness, metallurgy; the principal
international airport; the greatest number of tourist visits; participation in hydroelectric
generation; and other activities that make this the productive center of the country.
The population is concentrated in the middle part of the river basin, in the west-central sector,
especially in the watersheds of the Tiribí, María Aguilar, Bermúdez, Torres, and Virilla rivers.
The most highly populated counties of the country are located in a land area that equals 9% of
the river basin: San José with 309,672 inhabitants, Desamparados with 193,478 and Goicoechea
with 117,532, for a total of 620,682 inhabitants.
The following table shows the density of the population by watershed. The table’s population
information is from 1996, when the total population was 1,642,000. The population growth
projections were added to that and are shown in the chart, ending in 2005. For the current year
the population in the river basin is expected to be nearly 2.0 million people. Although a National
Census was conducted in 2000, with statistics shown by district and canton, those boundaries do
not coincide with those of the river basin.
63
Table 22 Tárcoles River Basin: Population Density By Watershed
Watershed Population Population Population Total Population
Density Increase Increase by Watershed
1996 1984-1996 1996-2005 (1996)
Alajuela 737 10,929 7,720 40,387.6
Bermúdez 2,013 39,616 83,212 153,994.5
Cacao 207 2,827 2,236 119,572.2
Carara 11 273 165 763.4
Ciruelas 895 22,447 25,401 823.4
Colorado 274 12,530 (1,106) 45,347.0
Jarí 139 1,231 1,074 5,240.3
María Aguilar 5,435 55,003 8,319 225,009.0
Macho 62 574 (143) 1,698.8
Para 285 2,084 2,239 7,923.0
Picagres 145 1,509 85 5,394.0
Poás 296 17,176 5,017 62,988.8
Quebrada Honda 165 1,659 1,503 5,577.0
Quebrada 736 3,287 (1,821) 1,221.76
Valverde
Río Grande 454 18,367 15,307 67,509.8
Rosales 310 3,767 (1,811) 14,322.0
Río Segundo 650 12,736 24,054 46,930.0
Tárcoles 69 3,416 2,481 14,524.5
Tibás 422 4,313 16,597 19,116.6
Tiribí 1,894 118,361 146,146 418,952.8
Tizate 364 1,942 2,096 6,734.0
Torres 3,843 46,477 53,335 169,860.6
Turrubares 36 1,921 357 7,372.8
Uruca 447 6,792 23,763 24,763.8
Virilla 1,593 29,267 80,208 176,504.4
TOTAL 766 418,502 496,434 1,642,532.06
Source: ABT, 1998
In the colonial period, the first human settlements of any importance were established in the
middle part of the river basin, known as the Central Valley. This was due to a number of
ecological conditions such as the fertility of the soil, the good health conditions relative to the
rest of the country, the agreeable climate, and the abundance and quality of the water resources.
When coffee cultivation began in the early part of the 19th century, with a stable economy, the
Central Valley became the most attractive place for human settlements in the country, thus,
forming the principal cities: San José, Heredia, Alajuela, and Cartago.
Due to the development of coffee cultivation, a series of highways that connected the different
sectors of the river basin were built, usually converging in San José, which converted this into
the country’s main urban center.
With the opening of international commerce, in addition to the infrastructure in the Central
Valley, connecting roads were built between San José and the ports of Puntarenas in the Pacific
64
and Limón in the Atlantic, forming a hub of rail and auto transportation between Puntarenas-San
José-Limón.
In the middle of the 19th century, the Inter-American Highway was built, which connected San
José and the Central Valley with the borders of Nicaragua and Panama and, therefore, with the
rest of Central America. This created not only an incentive for human development in the
middle part of the river basin, but also pushed the growth of urban expansion toward the lower
river basin (populations such as Atenas, San Mateo, Orotina, and others emerged throughout the
river basin, from San José to the Pacific Ocean) and the same occurred toward the east and west
of the river basin.
The cities in the Central Valley showed a tendency to forming one single urban conglomeration
with a fast growth rate and without any kind of planning or regulation, which has caused great
imbalance in the location of these activities: for example, the concentration of business and
services in the center of San José that causes permanent traffic congestion, the location of large
residential communities on the periphery of the city that are dependent on services, and a
general, spontaneous occupation of land area.
The GAM urban structure forms a spoked wheel, radiating outward from a single center. This
structure has a number of negative social, economic, and urban implications, such as the huge
territorial imbalance with respect to service provision, work opportunities, and areas for
recreation. This has led to the formation of large poverty zones around the major cities.
4.6 LAND USE
According to existing information and the digital map generated by FUNDECOR and CATIE,
the actual land use in the river basin shows a notable reduction of forests, which declined from
66,096 ha in 1992 to only 38,384 ha in 2000; this includes the categories of “natural, intervened,
and secondary” in 1992. These 27,712 ha are greater than the difference between criteria used in
the classification of what was considered to be a forest between one year and another. The
combination of pastures and trees grew by 30,000 ha, while the cultivation and pastures
diminished in a 15,000 ha area in order to make way for urban development. The urban areas
increased land use from a rate of 6.4% in 1992 to 13.1% in 2000. In percentage terms, the
pasture land represents 28.7% of the total river basin land and the forests another 17.8%. There
are implications of competition for the forest areas and the potential effect on the water resources
in the recharge areas, for quantity as well as quality. It is necessary, therefore, to define policies
to achieve the conservation of the existing forest and the restoration of important forest areas that
have been degraded.
65
Table 23 Tárcoles River Basin: Land Use In 1992 And 2000
1992 2000 Percentage of the
Category of land use river basin
Primary forest 26,132 12.1
Secondary forest 66,096 12,252 5.7
Pasture and trees 31,992 61,848 28.7
Crops and pasture 95,563 80,362 37.3
Scrubland 6,883 42 0.0
Open land (urban) 13,789 28,270 13.1
Bodies of water n.d 404 0.2
Reforestation and recuperation n.d 3,449 1.6
Clouds and shadows 0 2,699 1.3
Others 1,107 6 0
TOTAL 215,430 215.464 100
Source: Barrantes, et al., with information from FUNDECOR and CATIE, 2000
Figure 15 Current Land Use
Source: ABT, 1998
66
4.7 CAPACITY OF LAND USE IN THE GRANDE DE TÁRCOLES RIVER
BASIN
A classification of the capacity for land use is established in Costa Rica by Decree No. 23214
MAG-MIRENEM, 1995, which consists of eight classes in which a progressive increase in
limitations for the development of agricultural, livestock, and forestry activities is presented.
Classes I, II, and III permit the development of any kind of activity, including the production of
annual crops, depending on the selection of socioeconomic criteria. In Classes IV, V, and VI use
is restricted to development of semi-permanent and permanent crops, with exception of Class IV,
which permits the occasional development of annual crops. Class VII has such strict limitations
as only permitting the management of natural primary and secondary forests. Class VIII is
dedicated to the protection of the ecosystem and its services.
Upon applying this methodology to the Grande de Tárcoles River basin, the results show a high
percentage of Classes II, II and IV (65.7% of the total), which demonstrates that this river basin
has excellent conditions for agricultural development. Class V is not represented. Class VI
covers 11.4% of the river basin, and the areas with the most restricted forestry capacity cover
15.0%, which is primarily distributed on the sides of the mountains and hills.
Table 24 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Classes Of Capacity For Land Use
Classes of Capacity for Use Hectares Percentage
ASP no information 17,110 7.9
Class II 2,668 1.2
Class III 49,867 23.1
Class IV 89,306 41.4
Class VI 24,552 11.4
Class VII 10,319 4.8
Class VIII 21,729 10.1
Total 215,551 100%
Source: Acón and Associates, 1984, quoted by Barrantes, 2002
Conflict about land use in the river basin occurs when the land is used for purposes that the land,
climate, and vegetation together cannot support without suffering a considerable amount of
deterioration. The result can be seen when comparing the map showing the classification of uses
and the conflicts of use (Barrantes: 2002).
From table 25 below it is clear that there are conflicts of use in nearly one-fourth of the river
basin (51,455 ha), presenting activities on the land that it cannot withstand or endure, mainly
because of the limitations caused by being on a slope, by erosion, or by its effective capacity.
This overuse mainly refers to cattle, which extend toward steep areas with fragile soil.
67
Table 25 Grande De Tárcoles River Basin: Kind of Land Use
Type of use Hectares Percentage
To capacity 129,929 60.3
Over use 51,455 23.9
Under used 14,871 6.9
No information 19,296 8.8
TOTAL 215,551 100
Source: Barrantes, 2002
4.8 AVAILABILITY AND DEMAND FOR WATER IN THE RIVER BASIN
Because the Grande de Tárcoles River basin is the region where the country’s principal
economic and productive activity are concentrated, the development model historically promoted
in Costa Rica has been intimately linked to the utilization of water in the river basin for all
possible uses, from population supply and irrigation of agriculture to hydroelectric generation,
recreation, and tourism. However, one of the main uses that has been made of the river basin’s
water has been to dump rubbish and industrial, agricultural, and domestic waste. The untreated
wastewater obstructs an increase of the availability and reduces the use of surface water in the
lower part of the river basin.
The inadequate or inexistent environmental sanitation systems that have characterized the
development in Costa Rica’s central region, and generally in the entire country, cause the
concentration of great quantities of solid waste that not only upsets the physiochemical
composition of the water and spoils the scenery, but also forms real barriers that hinder natural
drainage, which cause serious flooding problems.
Agricultural, agribusiness, and industrial activity, and to a lesser degree, tourism activities, are
responsible for the biggest part of GDP. Activities such as sugar cane, coffee, and vegetable
cultivation and dairy farms require the use of large water flows for their development, and have
modified the flow system of the Tárcoles River.
The total water availability in the river basin is the quantity of available water for the
hydrological cycle by means of rain. The water availability refers to the inclusion in the total
availability of variables such as evapotranspiration, surface draining or run-off, and aquifer
recharge.
The water demand in a river basin refers to the quantity of water that is used in the different
economic and human activities in general. This demand is for consumption, which depends in
part on population growth and the growth and dynamism of the economy.
Table 26 below shows the relationship between the water availability in the river basin and the
total current demand (Barrantes, 2002). To calculate the availability, the median precipitation
68
was estimated at 2,363.88 mm, projected over all the area in the river basin, which establishes a
total availability of 5,093.3 million m3 a year and an evapotranspiration of 2,405.53 million m3
annually. In addition, the volume of water supplied by the transfer of water from the Reventazón
River basin is added, which supplies a good part of the population located in the Central Valley.
For the demand, the factor of evapotranspiration is also considered, as is the water consumed by
the different sectors of the economy, obtained by the concessions requested from MINAE and
the available information in SENARA.
Of the volume of water demanded, 96% is taken from surface water and 6% from groundwater.
In September 2002, the Water Department of MINAE had 1,157 wells registered in the Tárcoles
River basin, while SENARA had an additional 3,460 wells registered, which represents 52% of
the total number of wells registered in the country. The water extracted from these wells goes
directly to supplying the population and to industry and tourism activities. The flows assigned by
the Water Department of MINAE for the wells varies from a range of 0.01 l/s to 72.4 l/s, with an
average flow of 2.27 l/s (Barrantes, 2002). There are a large number of wells that are not
registered by either MINAE or SENARA that operate illegally, and the exact amount of water
they extract is unknown. The results obtained are shown in table 26.
As shown in the table below, demand for surface water exceeds the water availability of 103.12
million m3 of water a year, showing the overexploitation that exists.. Despite the apparent gain
in groundwater, the estimate is not accurate due to lack of information on the large amount of
illegally extracted water.
Table 26 Availability and Demand for Water in the Grande De Tárcoles River Basin
(Millions of M3 Annually)
Volume
Millions m3/year
Total Availability 5150.1
Available* 2744.55
Surface Water 2390.24
Natural Surface 2335.41
Transfer from Orosi 56.76
Potential Recharge 352.37
Total Demand 5150.1
Evapotranspiration 2405.53
Human Activity 2643.83
Surface Water 2493.36
Groundwater 150.47
Surplus Available** 100.72
Source: Barrantes, et al., 2002
(*) Water Availability: from precipitation, transfer from Orosí, potential recharge
(**) Surplus available: the difference between the water availability and the use for human activities.
69
As can be seen, the current demand is estimated at 2,643 million m3 a year, which equals 8.4
m3/s (Barrantes: 2003), but with the unfortunate circumstance that approximately half of the
water that is distributed through the drainage systems is not accounted for. Additionally, the
projections for the demand in 2005 are for 10 m3/s, which considers a reduction of water not
accounted for in accordance with the current projections.
The demand for 10 m3/s could be supplied with the capacity of the Barva and Colima aquifers
with a known potential of up to 8m3/s and the Orosí water supply system that supplies 1.8 m3/s.
However, if there is no reduction in the percentage of water not accounted for, the demand could
exceed the 10 m3/s in 2005, which would possibly require seeking other water sources outside of
the Tárcoles River basin (ABT: 1998).
While the following section addresses the demand and type of demand for the river basin’s water
resources by type of use, it is conflicting information, depending on the source, and in some
cases there is no available information.
4.8.1 Use For Human Consumption
ABT’s Diagnostic of the Grande de Tárcoles River Basin find that supply for human
consumption is the principal use for water. This is supplied through a series of water supply
systems administered by AyA, municipalities, and some Associations for Rural Water Supply
Systems (ASADAS). The main water supply system is the Metropolitan Aqueduct of San José,
which has seven more water systems that supply drinking water to the communities located in
the GAM, in the east part of the river basin.
In the other counties, drinking water is supplied through municipal water supply systems and
ASADAS, which experience serious deficiencies, not only in their coverage, but also with the
quality of water and the quality of their infrastructure, which in some cases is old and outdated,
having existed for 40 or 50 years. This is accompanied by the problem of constant leaks, as well
as pollution because of filtration of wastewater and sewage.
The table below shows the coverage of the river basin drinking water supply systems that are
property of AyA; ABT did not have systematized information from the municipalities and
ASADAS.
The table shows the percentage of distribution in each water supply system, between domestic
and non-domestic consumption. The non-domestic consumption refers to all other uses such as
for industry, commerce, and in the institutional sector, which accesses water through pipes.
70
In all AyA water supply systems, domestic consumption exceeds 79%, with the only exception
being that the Metropolitan Aqueduct shows domestic consumption of 73.9% and non-domestic
of 26.1%.
Table 27 Percentage of Distribution for Consumption Measured by Type of User for Some Water
Supply Systems in the River Basin
Water Supply Domestic Use Non domestic
System (Percentage) Use (Percentage)
San José, 73.9 26.1
Metropolitan
Aqueduct
ESPH Water 79.6 20.4
Supply Systems
El Pasito, 89.4 10.6
Alajuela (AyA)
Santiago, 81.4 18.2
Puriscal (AyA)
Atenas (AyA) 88.4 11.6
Ciudad Colon 90.4 9.6
(AyA)
Palmares (AyA) 90.5 9.5
San Ramón 83.3 16.7
(AyA)
Source: ABT, 1998
4.8.2 Hydroelectric Uses
As was indicated in the previous section, one of the principal uses of this river basin’s flows has
been the production of hydroelectric energy, whether by using reservoirs or through plants on the
edge of the water which take advantage of the fall of the river and its flow directly. The
principal users of water for hydroelectricity production are ICE and CNFL, which is a subsidiary
of ICE. Neither agency requests a water concession from the state and, therefore, no concession
is granted or registered in the Water Department of MINAE for its use (non-consumptive).
Within the river basin’s reservoirs the projects are small, many of the plants are at water’s edge,
and they have only reservoirs with the regulations necessary for operation. For this study the
following stand out:
La Garita Plant. Located in the central canton of Alajuela in the districts of Garita and
Turrúcares. A dam was built over the San Ramón River to take advantage of the water from the
71
east and from the Alajuela River. It is 19 meters high and 59 meters long, with water utilization
capacity of 17 m3/s. This plant began operating in 1958 and currently has a total installed capacity
of 30,000 kw.
Virilla River Dam. This dam has a storage capacity of 10,000 m3 of water. It is 10 meters high
and 54 meters long, and supplies the Ventanas plant in Turrúcares with a capacity of 515 GW/h
annually. It is fed by the Virilla and Ciruelas rivers.
San Miguel Reservoir. This reservoir regulates the flows of the Virilla and Ciruelas rivers; it has a
capacity of 600,000 m3, and feeds the Ventanas plant in Garita.
Los Anonos Reservoir Plant. This is located in the central canton of San José and has a maximum
generating capacity of 2.4 MW.
Brasil Reservoir Plant. This is located in the canton of Santa Ana and was built in 1912. It has a
maximum capacity of 3 MW, but beginning in 1996 several improvements and expansions were
made, which increased production to 27 MW. It uses water from the Virilla and Uruca rivers.
The country’s first hydroelectric projects are located in this river basin, where the greatest
installed capacity is concentrated. It currently has 10.8% of the country’s generating capability
and is no longer one of the most important river basins for this activity. In 2000 there were 13
projects operating in this river basin and six more in different stages of study. While ICE has
three projects in operation, which concentrate the largest capacity, the same three have the
largest dimensions. CNFL has seven small hydroelectric plants in operation and one more in
study. The unexploited potential in the Tárcoles River Basin is estimated to be 543.9 MW.
It is important to point out that the publication of Laws No. 7200 and No. 7508 authorized
private generation of electricity in Costa Rica through private companies and cooperatives. They
are allowed to build hydroelectric plants to generate up to 50 MW; the state is required to buy
that energy since it controls the transmission of electricity.
These laws brought about a significant increase in the construction of private hydroelectric
projects in all the country’s river basins, especially in the rivers on the Atlantic slope (San Carlos
and Sarapiquí). There was not a sharp increase in the Tárcoles River Basin where only two of
the 31 private projects in operation are located.
72
Table 28 Tárcoles River Basin: Situation of Hydroelectric Generation
PROJECT LISTING PLANTS POTENCY ENERGY STAGE OWNER
(In operation) MW GWh
Poás 44.3 213.0 Identification ICE
Purires 214.0 918.0 Prefactibility ICE
Virilla 49.0 237.0 Prefactibility ICE
Río Blanco 10.0 43.2 Elegible Private
Piedras Negras 0.6 2.6 Elegible Private
Brasil II 30.7 132.7 Feasible CNFL
Ventanas Garita Ventanas Garita 100.0 456.0 Operation ICE
Garita Garita 30.0 169.0 Operation ICE
Menores Menores 1.5 8.0 Operation ICE
Anonos Anonos 0.5 2.2 Operation CNFL
Río Segundo Río Segundo 0.7 2.8 Operation CNFL
Belén Belén 10.5 45.4 Operation CNFL
Brasil Brasil 27.0 116.7 Operation CNFL
Nuestro Amo Nuestro Amo 8.9 38.5 Operation CNFL
Ventanas Ventanas 7.5 32.4 Operation CNFL
San Rafael 0.3 1.3 Operation Private
Carrillos Carrillos 2.0 20.0 Operation ESPH
Río Segundo 0.7 2.9 Operation Private
Total in Operation 195.3 920.3
Source: Department of Energy Sector, 2003
4.8.3 Use For Tourism And Recreation
The strategy for future tourism includes increasing the number of tourists visiting Costa Rica to
two million international visitors a year (goal for 2010). This will necessitate increased
construction of infrastructure and support services (ICT-JICA, 2000). Water resources play an
important role in tourism, both for consumption as well as for the scenic element that forms a
part of the promotional campaigns of the Costa Rican image.
Water consumption for this kind of development in the Grande de Tárcoles River Basin must
deal with availability for human consumption, swimming, irrigation of gardens, and golf courses.
The latter demands the most water, but does not represent a significant amount of water because
of the conditions of the river basin, rainwater can be counted on during a large part of the year,
and there are few hotel developments with golf courses in the river basin. Most of the tourist
industry development in the capital city and surrounding areas is in the upper basin, on the
hillsides of Poás, Irazú, and Barva volcanoes; there is little tourism development in the middle
river basin, and even less in the lower river basin because of the degree of pollution at the mouth
of the Grande de Tárcoles River, which has impeded that coastal area from developing tourism in
a similar manner to that in Guanacaste Province.
73
However, there are two important tourist projects in the river basin; one is “Punta Leona,” in
Playa Blanca, and the other is “Los Sueños” in Playa Herradura. Even though Playa Tárcoles
and Plaza Azul were two important tourist sites in the 1960s and 1970s, the expansion of other
sites such as Jacó, Parrita, and Quepos, together with the pollution problems already mentioned,
produced a decrease in the tourism industry in those areas.
There are no statistics that show the exact number of tourist installations in the Grande de
Tárcoles River Basin, and there is only slight information available. The following table shows
the type and number of installations located in the central region of the country and surrounding
areas, according to statistics from the Costa Rican Tourism Institute.
Table 29 Tourism Offer In The Grande De Tárcoles River Basin Region
NUMBER NUMBER CITY MOUNTAIN BEACH
ROOMS OR
VEHICLE
HOTELS OFFER 196 10,056 85 28 83
CAR RENTAL AGENCIES 38 2,941 branches 38 branches 5
TRAVEL AGENCIES 180 -0- branches 180 Branch 1
Source: Department of Statistics and Research, ICT.
No information about the implication for the river basin of water usage by this activity was
discovered. There is a lack of specific databases for this activity; on one hand, consumption is
not revealed because the concessions given by the Water Department of MINAE categorizes it as
“human consumption”, or if the water is used to irrigate a golf courses, it is categorized as
“agricultural.” On the other hand, this sector uses different sources (wells, municipal water
supply systems, water supply systems of AyA), which makes it just one more user of the
respective agencies (AyA and municipalities). Lastly, it is important to point out that there is
considerable illegal use of Groundwater.
4.8.4 Industrial Use
As mentioned previously, the greatest number of industries and agribusinesses (about 80%) are
concentrated in the Grande de Tárcoles River Basin and, within that, in the GAM. These are
located either in random form in the rural and urban areas of the river basin, or in industrial
concentrations, or “industrial zones.” The major concentrations of the randomly located
industries in urban areas are mainly in the Virilla, Torres, María Aguilar, and Tiribí watersheds,
with a significant concentration of chemical and alcohol industries (29 of these). On the other
hand, the river basins of the Bermúdez and Grande rivers contain 25% of the 39 coffee
74
processing plants. Included in the industrial activity, the agribusiness companies represent 37%
of the total number of registered businesses (ABT, 1998).
Among the main industries that are located in the river basin are: metal products, wood and
carBODard pulp, slaughter houses, food, mills, soft drinks and alcohol, textile, chemical and
petrochemicals, coffee processing, ceramics, sugar refineries, leather, skins and similar activity,
and electronics. Because of their activities, these industries exert high pressure on water
resources, not only by their demand for a large quantity of water (surface and ground) for the
processes, but also a large quantity of contaminants are thrown into the water in the river basin.
This will be analyzed below in the section on water quality.
It is worth pointing out that industrial activity has created a strong dependence on water use from
aquifers, and even though it is clear how much of the water flow the concessionaires use, it is not
clear how much is really extracted from the aquifers.
4.8.5 Agricultural Use
The land in the watershed of the Virilla and Grande rivers is used for the cultivation of coffee,
sugar cane, fruit trees, vegetables, ornamental plants, and dairy cattle. There are also some steep
areas that are used for beef cattle grazing.
In the watershed of the Tárcoles River, a lot of land is used for dairy farms, fruit trees (mango,
citrus), and annual crops (tubers, corn, beans, rice, etc.). However, a large part of the land is also
used for pastures and is on steep hillsides that are not appropriate for that use.
The main use for water in the agricultural sector is to irrigate crops, and it is one of the activities
that requires the highest water consumption. The principal irrigation system uses gravity, with
little water efficiency. In recent years other more efficient systems have been incorporated such
as irrigation by micro-aspersion and drip irrigation, but the adoption of these systems has been
limited because of the high investment cost. The Water Department estimates that the real
amount of water utilized by this sector in the river basin is 60% (personal communication,
Zeledón). As is the case with other water uses, this sector uses water illegally.
4.9 CONFLICTS OVER WATER USE
Numerous conflicts in the Grande de Tárcoles River basin are directly related to the use of its
water. The fact that the majority of the population as well as the majority of industrial and
productive activity in the country are found in this river basin is an indicator of the serious
challenges that water distribution represents.
These conflicts have to do with the demand caused by the accelerated growth in the GAM as
compared to other users, and because other economic activities are impeded from using the water
75
due to the impacts they cause, not only to the flow of the principal rivers and tributaries of the
middle and lower river basin, but because they began to threaten the underground aquifer layers
and the recharge areas in the upper part of the river basin.
The agricultural expansion and the demand for water in the upper and lower river basins
represent another source of conflict about water use between the agricultural sectors and the
communities, which are demanding better access to drinking water.
The conflicts related to the high concentration of industrial and agricultural activities, as well as
the expansion of urban sprawl, have their greatest impact on the growing infeasibility of water
use for other uses (recreation, fishing, tourism, population supply, etc.).
The main evidence of inappropriate water use in the river basin is the high pollution level in the
water. This is the product of dumping untreated waste (household wastewater and agricultural
and industrial waste) into the rivers; of the sediment that is produced by mining exploration and
carried downstream; and, in general, of the rapid demographic growth and urban expansion and
inadequate land use.
A recent example of this situation occurred in 2001 when the Colima Aquifer that supplies the
San José Metropolitan Aqueduct was polluted by the outflow of Puente Mulas spring (in the
Virilla River), which was seriously affected by filtration.
4.10 PROBLEMS WITH WATER QUALITY, SOURCES, AND EXPANSION OF
THE DEGRADATION IN WATER QUALITY
The Grande de Tárcoles River basin is Costa Rica’s most contaminated basin and receives
approximately 67% of the country’s organic waste. None of the domestic or industrial
wastewater collected is dumped into this basin is treated in any way. Every day, about 250,000
m3 of wastewater are dumped into the Virilla River alone. It takes about 24 hours for that water
to reach the Gulf of Nicoya, where the pollution results in the death of fish populations as well as
the frequent outbreak of a condition called “red tide” (State of the Nation, 2001).
Generally, the most critical river basin situation is that of the surface water; however, it is
estimated that the groundwater is equally threatened by urban and agricultural expansion and is
starting to become polluted, particularly by nitrates from fertilizers used in coffee cultivation, by
the wide use of septic tanks, and by the filtration of polluted water in the aquifer layers. In 2002
a severe episode of contamination took place in a Puente de Mulas area aquifer.
In regard to surface water, high concentrations of fecal coliforms are found that limit the use of
rivers for recreation or other water activities. This type of contamination originates in the
dumping of untreated domestic waste both by companies that clean septic tanks as well as by
76
AyA’s sewage drainage systems. The presence of heavy metal is also notable (BOD, CDO, and
suspended solids) in the majority of the rivers in the basin.
4.10.1 Urban Pollution
The origin of urban pollution can be divided into three main sources: untreated domestic waste,
solid and leached waste, and urban runoff
Liquid Domestic Waste
Untreated liquid domestic waste is one of the biggest pollution problems in the Tárcoles River
basin. The sewage system covers only 37% of the river basin’s population, whose untreated
waste reaches the basin’s rivers. The other 63% (approximately 1,148,000 inhabitants) are
connected to septic tanks, although there may be some direct discharge into the rivers from areas
without sewer drainage.
The following table shows the estimated amount of organic waste and nutrients that are produced
by domestic waste. It is obvious that the major organic burden is in the tributaries of the upper
water basin (the Tiribí, María Aguilar, Torres, and Virilla rivers), which pass through the
principal urban centers of the capital.
77
Table 30 Tarcoles River Basin: Domestic Waste Disposal: Estimate Of BOD, Nitrogen And
Phosphorous Load By Watershed, 1997.
Watershed BOD Nitrogen Phosphorous
(kg/day) (kg/day) (Kg/day)
Alajuela 1,399 106 27
Bermúdez 7,304 570 142
Cacao 462 33 8
Carara 72 2 1
Ciruelas 3,789 294 73
Colorado 1,482 113 28
Jaris 189 11 3
María Aguilar 11,529 541 135
Macho 105 5 1
Para 386 27 7
Picagres 203 12 3
Poás 2,220 171 43
Q. Honda 237 15 4
Q. Valverde 404 28 7
Grande 2,230 172 43
Rosales 513 37 9
Segundo 1,745 134 33
Tárcoles 531 38 10
Tibás 869 65 16
Tiribí 19,552 1532 383
Tizate 284 19 5
Torres 10,736 504 126
Turrubares 267 17 4
Uruca 1,123 85 21
Virilla 7,051 550 138
Total 74,683 5,079 1,270
Source: ABT, 1998
Solid Waste
The lack of an adequate solid waste treatment system is one of the river basin’s main water
pollution sources; the rivers are converted into a deposit for this waste.
Limited resources have hindered the municipalities from employing personnel and constructing
adequate systems to collect the waste in their municipalities, as well as conducting a planning
process for waste management that would resolve the situation in the medium or long-term.
Among the main reasons for the pollution problems caused by waste in the river basin, the
following stand out:
Tariffs inadequate to cover cost of the public service.
Waste transport extremely deficient.
Public awareness about waste management is poor.
Recycling not used by industries or in the home.
78
Urban Runoff
Urban runoff is a major source of pollution in the river basin in its entirety because it carries
contaminated particles and waste. In addition, the hydrological response in these urban areas to
heavy rain is more rapid because they are significantly impermeable. Because of the
impermeability, the volume, and the peak, the runoff is higher and more rapid in the rivers,
which causes erosion and dragging of waste, and the river floods its banks.
Table 31 below shows the estimated pollution load by watershed. These loads have been
calculated by ABT in its diagnostic of the river basin, based on the factors of typical pollution
from urban sources (Novotny and Olem, 1994). These average factors vary according to the
local conditions and types of urban land use (high and medium residential, commercial and
industrial density), and are used here to illustrate the magnitude of the pollution from urban
areas.
79
Table 31 Tarcoles River Basin: Estimated Load of Pollution by Urban Runoff in kg/day
Basin BOD Nitrogen Phosphorous Suspended Cadmium Chrome Copper Mercury Nickel Lead Zinc
Solids
Pollutant
Alajuela 59.918 7.456 2.264 239.671 0.011 0.019 0.033 0.029 0.021 0.1 0.419
Siquiares 348.411 43.358 13.162 1393,644 0.062 0.10X 0.190 0.166 0.124 0.674 2.439
Ciruelas 172.356 21.449 6.511 689.425 0.031 0.054 0.094 0.082 0.061 0.333 1 .206
Macho 0.740 0.092 0.028 2.959 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.005
Para 1.726 0.215 0.065 6.904 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.012
Segundo 52.767 6.567 1.993 211.068 0.009 0.016 0.029 0.025 0.019 0.102 0.369
Tibás 3.699 0.460 0.140 14.795 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.007 0.026
Tizate 4.438 0.552 0.168 17.753 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.009 J.031
María 507.452 63.150 19.170 2029.808 0.090 0.158 0.276 0.242 0.180 0.981 3.552
Aguilar
Tiribí 699.288 87.022 26.418 2797.151 0.124 0.218 0.381 0.334 0.249 1.352 4.895
Torres 398.219 49.556 15.044 1592.877 0.071 0.124 0.217 0.190 0.142 0.77C 2.788
Virilla 344.712 42.898 13.022 1378.849 0.061 0.107 0.188 0,165 0.123 0.666 2.413
Cacao 7.151 0.890 0.270 28.603 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.014 0.050
Colorado 87.288 10.862 3.298 349.151 0.016 0.027 0.048 0.042 0.031 QAK 0.611
Grande 147.452 18.350 5.570 589.808 0.026 0.046 0.080 0.070 0.052 0.28.' 1.032
Poás 36.000 4.480 1.360 144.000 0.006 0.011 0.020 0.017 0.013 0.071 0.252
Q. 37.726 4.695 1.425 150.904 0.007 0.012 0.021 0.018 0.013 0.07: 0.264
Valverde
Rosales 3.699 0.460 0.140 14.795 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.001 o.oo: 0.026
Jaris 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 o.txx 0.000
Picagres 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.OOÍ 0.000
Q. Honda 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Om 0.000
U ruca 13.315 1.657 0.503 53.260 0.(K)2 0.004 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.026 0.093
Carara 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00( 0.000
Tárcoles 16.274 2.025 0.615 65.096 0.003 0.005 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.031 0.114
Turrubares 1.726 0.215 0.065 6.904 O.(XK) 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.00? 0.012
Total 2944.4 366.4 111.2 11777.4247 0.5234 0.9160 1.6030 1 .4067 -1.0469 5.6924 20,610
(kg/day)
Source: ABT, 1998
80
4.10.2 Industrial Pollution
One of the most significant sources of pollution in the Tárcoles River Basin is industrial
contamination. Despite the current legislation that requires the treatment of industrial waste, the
majority of the industries still do not have primary treatment facilities at their installations.
Coffee Processing
By comparing the registry of pollution between the PLAMAGAM studies (1989) and those of
Geotechnic (1997), an obvious reduction in the contamination caused by coffee processing is
observed due to: the Voluntary Plans promoted, initially by the municipality of San José and the
Chamber of Industries in 1992; the technological changes in the industrial process (less
biological load in the water); reduction in the use of water; recirculation and reutilization of
water in the different process; and installation of wastewater treatment plants.
Table 32 Tarcoles River Basin: Estimate of Pollution from Coffee Processing
Watershed BOD Nitrogen
(kg/day) (kg/day)
Alajuela 636 16
Bermúdez 5,163 133
Cacao 2,270 58
Colorado 11,403 294
Grande 6,665 172
María Aguilar 1,248 32
Poás 3,103 80
Q. Valverde 3,074 79
Segundo 5,215 134
Tiribí 5,119 132
Virilla 6,031 155
Total 49,926 1,286
Source: ABT, 1998
Despite this, the industry continues to be one of the river basin’s main pollution sources,
currently contributing about 45% of the total industrial waste dumped there. In 1989 the
potential pollution of coffee processing was 77% of the total in the river basin.
The previous table illustrates the amount of pollution dumped by the coffee processors, taking
into consideration two parameters (BOD and nitrogen), which shows results of 49,926 kg of
BOD and 1,286 kg of nitrogen daily, a figure that continues to be very high.
81
Other Industrial Liquid Waste
The statistics regarding the most significant industries outside of coffee processing refer to
agribusiness (sugar mills), the chemical industry, and the food processing industries. There is no
measurement or monitoring of these wastes in the diagnostic produced by ABT, and the
available data are not current.
Table 33 Tarcoles River Basin: Estimate of Industry Pollution
Watershed BOD Nitrogen Phosphorous
(kg/day) (kg/day) (kg/day)
Alajuela 854 73 113
Bermúdez 5,281 113
Ciruelas 2,297 552 18
Colorado 16,098 1,410 47
María Aguilar 2,755 207 7
Q. Valverde 158 0 21
Rosales 2,483 218 17
Poás 7,249 635
Segundo 1,445 13 4
Tibás 14,946 1,285 43
Torres 1,599 62 4
Virilla 247 20 1
Total 55,412 4,588 275
Source: ABT, 1998.
4.11 SOURCES OF AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION
Pollution caused by agricultural activities comes from three main sources:
Mistreatment of waste that results from productive, cattle, swine, and poultry activity.
Excessive application of agrochemicals (fertilizer and pesticide).
Erosion produced by various activities.
Table 34 below shows an estimate of the nutrient and BOD loads dumped in the Río Grande de
Tárcoles river basin caused by agricultural activities. The activities included are coffee and sugar
cane production, pigs, dairy and beef cattle, and poultry and the estimate of pesticides applied to
coffee and sugar cane crops.
Subsequently, the information in table 34 reinforces what was indicated by showing the quantity
of agrochemicals (herbicides and fungicides) that were applied to the two main crops planted in
the Tárcoles River river basin: coffee and sugar cane. It should be made clear that this is an
estimate, based on the recommended technological packets, but it is even possible that these
values could be substantially increased.
82
Table 34 Estimate of the Nutrient Load and BOD Dumped in the Environment by Agricultural
Activities
Annual Crops* Animal Waste**
Nitrogen Phosphorous BOD*** Nitrogen Phosphorous
Watershed kg/day Kg/day kg/day kg/day Kg/day
Alajuela 682 116 1418 301 73
Bermúdez 1,480 149 343 76 18
Cacao 811 81 109 25 90
C arara 2 0 1,227 220 61
Ciruelas 1,537 203 1,589 337 83
Colorado 3,911 641 940 222 145
Grande 4,038 448 1,275 278 65
Jaris 34 3 350 67 19
Macho 6 1 38 12 85
María Aguilar 249 25 0 0 0
Para 184 18 2,973 766 136
Picagres 87 39 482 88 136
Poás 3,868 792 2,711 577 141
Q. Honda 38 4 393 75 22
Q. Valverde 207 82 26 6 163
Rosales 589 22 70 16 5
Segundo 1,596 169 459 95 25
Tárcoles 744 95 1,294 238 30
Tibás 705 70 7,846 2,021 359
Tiribí 2,081 208 112 25 8
Tizate 222 39 491 104 367
Torres 47 5 56 13 4
Turrubares • 221 111 3649 655 183
Única 242 24 754 144 187
Virilla 700 95 1,069 224 58
24,281 3,647 29,674 6,585 2,464
*Nitrogen=300 kg/ha/year, Phosphorous=205kg/ha/year
**Nitrogen: 73 kg/animal-milk/year, 45 kg/animal-meat/year, 10 kg/pig/year, 0.4 kg/poultry/year; Phosphorous= 13 kg/animal-
milk/year, 13kg/animal-meat/year, 3kg/pig/year, 0.l kg/poultry/year (Department of Agriculture of the United States, 1992).
***BOD= 0.77kg/aniinal-milk/day, 0.7 kg/animal-meat/day, 0.12 kg/pig/day, 0.006 kg/poultry/year
Source: ABT, 1998
83
Table 35 Estimate of Herbicides and Fungicides Applied to Coffee and Sugar Cane Crops
(kg/year)
Watershed 2-4-D Paraquat Glifosfate Oxyflu Terbutil- Diuron Hexa- oper Triazol
orfen azine riona Oxide
Alajuela 3,230 5,640 5,640 5,640 5,640 820 820 5,640 5,640
Bermúdez 6,686 13,356 13,356 13,356 13,356 16 16 13,356 13,356
Ciruelas 7,096 13,360 13,360 13,360 13,360 832 832 13,360 13,360
Macho 28 56 56 56 56 0 0 56 56
Para 828 1,656 1,656 1,656 1,656 0 0 1,656 1,656
Segundo 7,236 14,304 14,304 14,304 14,304 168 168 14,304 14,304
Tibás 3,182 6.364 6,364 6,364 6,364 0 0 6,364 6,364
Tizate 1,056 1,824 1,824 1,824 1,824 288 288 1,824 1,824
María Aguilar 1,124 2,248 2,248 2,248 2,248 0 0 2,248 2,248
Tiribí 9,400 18,800 18,800 18,800 18,800 0 0 18,800 18,800
Torres 214 428 428 428 428 0 0 428 428
Virilla 3,236 6,056 6,056 6,056 6,056 416 416 6,056 6,056
Cacao 3,662 7,324 7,324 7,324 7,324 0 0 7,324 7,324
Colorado 18,440 32,624 32,624 32,624 32,624 4,256 4,256 32,624 32,624
Grande 18,374 35,992 35,992 35,992 35,992 756 756 35,992 35,992
Poás 18,732 30,556 30,556 30,556 30,556 6,908 6,908 30,556 30,556
Q. Valverde 1,124 1,208 1,208 1,208 1,208 1,040 1,040 1,208 1,208
Rosales 3,186 3,496 3,496 3,496 3,496 2,876 2,876 3,496 3,496
Jaris 152 304 304 304 304 0 0 304 304
Picagres 488 456 456 456 456 520 520 456 456
Q. Honda 172 344 344 344 344 0 0 344 344
Única 1,092 2,184 2,184 2,184 2,184 0 0 2,184 2,184
Carara 10 20 20 20 20 0 0 20 20
Tárcoles 3,426 6,504 6,504 6,504 6,504 348 348 6,504 6,504
Turrubares 1,274 1,036 1,036 1,036 1,036 1,512 1,512 1,036 1,036
Total 113,448 206,140 206,140 206,140 206,140 20,756 20,756 206,140 206,140
Source: ABT, 1998
84
In summary, analysis of the above information shows that the waste disposal from domestic and
industrial water use represents the major cause of pollution in the river basin.
As one way to resolve this situation, MINAE has designed and initiated the practice of taxing for
rubbish disposal, to be applied in all points that are a source of pollution, and initiating its
application in the Tárcoles River basin. The Decree that created this economic regulatory
instrument was signed by the Minister of MINAE and the President of the Republic, and put in
force in 2004.
In conformity with Article 4 of this Decree, an environmental tax for waste disposal as an
economic regulatory instrument founded on the principle of “whoever contaminates pays” has
the social objective of achieving a healthy environment that is ecologically balanced, as provided
for in Article 50 of the Constitution. This will be funded by charging a tax to compensate for the
use of environmental services or water bodies, even of public domain, for transportation,
dilution, or elimination of liquid waste originating in the specific dumping, which can generate
harmful effects on water resources and their related ecosystems, human health, and productive
activities.
For the application of this tax, two parameters of pollution have been taken into account, which
are calculated by kilogram of contaminant load dumped of chemical demand for oxygen (CDO)
and of total suspended solids (SST), the parameters for selected pollutants, taking into account
the following elements:
The equivalent cost to remove a kilogram of the parameters utilized by using the appropriate
technology available.
The cost of damage associated with water pollution, calculated by the economic assessment
techniques defined by MINAE.
This decree has set a tax amount of US$0.22, or the equivalent in colons, for a period of six
years, for every kilogram of CDO that is dumped, and of US$0.19, or its equivalent in colons, for
every kilogram of SST dumped.
4.12 RESERVOIRS CONSTRUCTED TO CONTROL RIVERS OR WATER
RESERVES OF NATURAL LAKES WITHIN THE RIVER BASIN
No large artificial lakes or reservoirs have been built in the Grande de Tárcoles River basin to
control the water flow or reserves. In general, the infrastructure constructed in different rivers
has been for the production of hydroelectric energy or small reserves for water storage in
agricultural businesses.
85
Both the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) and the National Power and Light Company
(state institutions) have constructed a series of reservoirs to develop projects for hydroelectric
generation in various rivers in the basin. However, it should be pointed out that ICE’s principal
mega-projects are being developed outside of the Grande de Tárcoles River basin.
5. RIVER BASIN MANAGEMENT
5.1 PERIOD PRIOR TO DECENTRALIZATION
As was indicated previously, water resource management in Costa Rica has been centralized
through a series of agencies with different responsibilities. The Tárcoles River basin and the
management of its water has not been an exception.
The actions promoted in the country relating to the creation of the Coordinating Commission of
the Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin (CRGT) set the guidelines for the development process
to follow. This included a series of initiatives intended to improve resource management at the
national level and, above all, permitted the identification of possible elements that the new model
should contain in order to facilitate a new model for management that focuses on river basins.
Before CRGT’s creation in 1993 and until 1996, water management was the responsibility of the
National Electricity Service (SNE) by authority given in the Water Law. When that Law was
passed in 1942, hydroelectric generation was the principal economically significant utilization of
water in the country; and, therefore, it was believed that water management should be under the
responsibility of that sector.
Although the reality was changing, there was no reform in that administration until SNE became
the Public Service Regulatory Authority, and it was decided that all matters relating to water
resources should be transferred to MINAE, while continuing to maintain a concentrated and
centralized management plan.
SNE’s operations that related to water matters were very limited, restricted to granting
concessions for utilization of water, some control over its use, mainly in regard to accusations,
and conflict resolution. It never established a water policy at the national level, had supervisory
responsibilities, or coordinated relevant activities.
When the municipality of San José decided to tackle the theme of river basins and water
resources, it received no opposition or support. However, it did have to break a stereotype about
the work of municipalities because it was unusual for municipalities to enter that field.
86
5.2 THE REFORM PROCESS TOWARD DECENTRALIZATION
Even though the country had made some effort to carry out actions in the sphere of river basins,
those analyzed in section 3.7.1, these were not well formulated and did not follow a
governmental policy designed to strengthen decentralization mechanisms. Instead, these
activities have concentrated on formulating programs and projects developed because of the
perceived need for land use regulations.
In 1991 the municipality of the Central Canton of San José—the strongest municipality in the
country—began to pay attention to the serious environmental problems that were apparent in the
capital city, particularly in reference to: water quality; the use of rivers as a partial solution to
solid and liquid waste produced in the urban centers; industrial and agricultural activities; and the
continuous problem of rivers and streams overflowing their banks, which has often caused
serious tragedies.
To follow through with that interest, the municipality of San José carried out a series of actions
seeking to play a more active role in water resource management. Among those actions, the
following stand out:
In 1991 it proposed, in the framework of the CIUDAGUA Program, the Recuperation of Río
Torres Project (the river cuts through the northern part of the capital city).
In the same year, in an unusual activity for a municipality, a municipal accord was issued that gave
the industries located in the canton 24 months to begin treating their liquid waste.
As a result of that accord, a pilot plan was initiated between the municipality and the Chamber of
Industry with a group of businesses, which, according to AyA studies, were the primary polluters.
This plan terminated in 1994 with a significant reduction in industrial waste (Rodríguez, 1997).
There is a consensus that because of this action Article No. 132 was included in the Wildlife Law.
In 1992, the municipality of San José designed and carried out an Urban Control Plan for the
purpose of regulating land use and the city growth, which contemplated a series of environmental
variables that were designed to protect the aquifers, recharge areas and surface water.
By that time the municipality had recognized that the problems could not be resolved by actions
in only one canton and that it had to approach the situation with a broader vision; therefore, it
determined that the Tárcoles River basin would be the area of focus. Visits were made to each of
the other 35 municipalities in the river basin area to promote the participation of each local
government and to set priorities.
In August 1992, the municipality of San José organized a seminar, entitled “The Río Grande de
Tárcoles River Basin: Looking Toward the Future,” in which a huge audience discussed the
aspects related to the theme and defined the basic guidelines for coordination to confront the
immense task of recuperating the river basin. But the most important achievement was being
87
able to involve other actors, including many of the municipalities, institutions, and private
businesses.
After the seminar, with continual, strong support from the municipality of San José, negotiations
regarding the conditions for forming the CRGT were begun. The Commission finally became
official on April 29, 1993 by Executive Decree No. 22156-MIRENEM.
The original members of the commission were:
A representative from each of the following municipalities: San José, Heredia, San Rafael de
Heredia, Orotina, Alajuela, and Curridabat.
A representative from each of the following ministries: MINAE, National Planning and Economic
Policy, Health, and Science and Technology.
A representative from each of the following autonomous agencies: National Power and Light
Company, ICE, and AyA.
A university representative.
A representative from the following private sector agencies: Chamber of Industry, Costa Rica
Chamber of Agriculture and Agribusiness, and the Federation of Livestock Chambers.
Later, in December 1993, Decree No. 22712-MIRENEM was published, which incorporated as
permanent members the Municipal Institute for Promotion and Consultancy (IFAM) and the
Foundation for Urban Development (FUDEU). With these additions, the commission had 19
members, of which five were non-governmental agencies and six were municipalities (Figure
16).
One of the special features of the CRGT is its formation, which from the beginning had an
interinstitutional, interdisciplinary, and participative character. This can be observed in figure 16
below, which shows the attempt to connect the most important actors in water resource matters,
but which has a series of deficiencies that will be discussed later.
88
Figure 16 Composition of the Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin Coordinating Commission
COMPOSICION DE LA COMISION DE CUENCA DEL RIO TARCOLES
COMISION DE CUENCA
RIO TARCOLES
INSTITUCIONES INSTITUCIONES ORGANIZACIONES ORGANIZACIONES GOBIERNOS
GUBERNAMENTALES AUTONOMAS DE LA EMPRESA NO GUBERNA- LOCALES
PRIVADA MENTALES
MINAE ICAA INDUSTRIALES FUDEU ALAJUELA/OROTINA
MIDEPLAN ICE/CNFL GANADEROS FECON HEREDIA/SAN RAFAEL
MIN. SALUD UCR AGRICULTORES CEDARENA SAN JOSE
IFAM CURRIDABAT
In conformity with its operating regulations, the CRGT has a General Assembly, which
comprises all of the members, and a coordinator, assistant coordinator, secretary and treasurer,
who are elected to serve two-year periods and can be reelected. There is also a technical support
committee, which has an inter-institutional character but is not permanent.
A number of weaknesses and incongruities in the decree that created the CRGT and its operating
regulations became a burden to the commission after it began to function. The most important of
these are:
These was a gap between the objectives for which CRGT was created and the structure that was
set up to reach those objectives. The structure did not provide the needed flexibility and vision for
the future. Because of this, the CRGT found it necessary to operate through an executor, which
meant that it was unable to consolidate institutionally.
CRGT’s constitution, did not define the responsibilities, functions, and roles of the various
agencies that compose CRGT. Irregular support by public and private officials was the result, and
to a large measure, the commission depended on their good will. Likewise, the representatives of
the public sector did not have decision-making power and could not make major commitments.
The representation was not the most appropriate. For example, by determining that one permanent
position from the NGO sector would be permanently occupied by FUDEU and that six
representatives (always the same people) would represent the 36 municipalities, without any
rotation or election of those representatives, a lack of interest, distrust, and criticism ensued in the
rest of the municipalities and NGOs. For example, the Neotropical Foundation, the International
Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the Tropical Science Center, and many other
89
organizations established in the river basin could have been incorporated on a rotational basis,
which would have guaranteed their technical contributions and a higher level of commitment by a
significant number of NGOs. Likewise, the municipalities that were not incorporated in CRGT’s
constitution did not internalize the activities that were conducted or did not know about them. It is
important to point out that municipalities such as San Antonio de Belén, which have been pioneers
in environmental actions and particularly in water themes, never knew about the projects that were
being conducted by the CRGT and in an isolated or independent manner have developed
integrated water activities that could have been included in the CRGT’s program. In addition,
according to the ABT evaluation (1998), there were no, and are no, channels for feedback or
adequate coordination with the municipalities and NGOs that did not have representation, with this
being the region of the country with the largest number of such organizations. This meant that
many actors, although they were aware that there was a commission, did not become a part of the
process.
CRGT’s legal character does not respond to the ambitious objectives defined at the time of its
creation; the decree defined it as a “support agency of MIRENEM” (now MINAE). Since it lacks
legal capacity, it cannot officiate at any kind of legal ceremony or sign contracts in its own name,
and it cannot directly manage its resources. This reduces its autonomy, as well as its operational
capability, and seriously limits its scope as a river basin organization.
To resolve these deficiencies, CRGT has had to count on an “executory arm” that gives it greater
operational capability, such as the search for and channeling of resources and the execution of
projects. Two NGOs close to the commission have given that support. The first is
ASOCUENCAS, an association consisting of members of the commission, and since 1996,
FUDEU.
The Decree does not set a budget for the commission’s operations and does not define any other
method of funding or of providing resources. This becomes a major obstacle to assuming a leading
role in river basin management.
The Decree, by being an instrument of lower rank than a law, cannot confer management
responsibilities to CRGT. In practice, CRGT constitutes a space for meeting and discussion to
coordinate the actions that different institutions and social sectors are conducting in the river basin.
From the time it was created in 1993 until the beginning of 1999, the CRGT had one coordinator,
which permitted continuity for the process but at the same time hindered the organization’s
evolution and growth by incorporating new actors. Many of the interested actors believed that
CRGT decision-making was excessively centralized, and that it was extremely difficult to
influence the definition of policies.
90
5.3 EVOLUTION OF A RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATION
The evolution that CRGT has followed can be detailed in the following phases:
5.3.1 Constitution (Raising Awareness, Creating Capacity, And Generating Information)
During this phase the most relevant actor was the municipality of San José, which created and
promoted the CRGT’s operation. From the time it began until 1994, CRGT began an awareness-
raising campaign about river basin management. There were motivational activities in the
municipalities and with contacts in private business to involve them in the process.
A project was conducted for Local Participation to Control Liquid and Solid Contaminants in the
Río Grande de Tárcoles River basin, which was sponsored by the Government of the
Netherlands.
A series of events were organized (seminars, workshops, meetings) that guaranteed substantial
participation by municipalities, NGOs, and private and public sectors. These were held to create
a framework for debate about common themes and were an endeavor to give clear information to
all the actors. Some of the activities were:
A Seminar: “Towards Integrated Management in the Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin” in
March 1993.
A Seminar: “Institutional Tasks in the Río Grande de Tárcoles Bain” in October 1993.
A Workshop: “Legislation and Water” in March 1994.
A Seminar: “The Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin: In Search of Sustainable Development” in
August 1994.
A Workshop: “Protected Areas in the Río Tárcoles River Basin” in May 1997.
Likewise, the necessary institutional arrangements were made to make the CRGT operational. In
those two years, it was physically located in the offices of the municipality of San José, where it
was assigned the basic personnel to be able to work. CRGT members and executive personnel
participated in training activities.
Information related to water quality and the precise sources of pollution in the river basin, studies
referring to the characteristics of the river basin, and institutional and legal analyses were
compiled and systematized.
5.3.2 Strengthening The Organization (Executing Programs And Projects)
CRGT was consolidated in 1994 and began conducting activities in the river basin. That was its
most productive phase and, coincidentally, there was wide support from MINAE for this and
other river basin structures. MINAE, in addition to logistical and economic support, gave CRGT
91
a number of functions that were usually performed by other centralized agencies of MINAE.
Therefore, MINAE’s predominant role was its support of the executory agencies.
CRGT’s headquarters were transferred to installations offered by MINAE, which were shared
by other dependencies of that ministry.
During this phase the CRGT was very active and demonstrated great leadership on the national
and international (regional) levels; it became a management “model” to be reproduced. CRGT
was incorporated as a founding member of the International Network of River Basin
Organizations in France in 1994, and into the Latin American Network of River Basin
Organizations in Brazil in 1997. With the support of IDB and Government of France, the First
Meeting on River Basin Organizations in Central America and the Caribbean was organized on
May 1, 1997.
There were four main programs executed during that stage:
The Volunteer Plan Program
This was formed in the context of the approval of the Wildlife Conservation Law in October
1992, particularly of Article 132, which prohibits throwing contaminated substances into bodies
of water and set a 24-month deadline (December 1994) for all “polluters” to comply. That
program invited businesses to present a voluntary plan to establish a waste treatment system, in
search of a framework for coordination with the businesses through agreements with different
business sectors. Those agreements endeavored to establish action plans for the industrial and
agribusiness sectors. The biggest success was with coffee processors, sugar cane mills, and pig
farms.
It is important to mention that, in this context, Executive Decree No. 24156 MIRENEM-SALUD
was issued, which established for the first time in the country, maximum and minimum
parameters for throwing contaminated substances into bodies of water. That Decree was revised
and updated, and a new version was presented on June 19, 1997 (Executive Decree No. 26042
SALUD-MINAE).
The Program for Volunteer Plans was born in CRGT and grew beyond its expectations—about
100 businesses joined the program. Because of the extent and national projection, the program
was taken up again by MINAE, to be executed by them, in 1988. However, the MINAE has not
been able to maintain the initial interest. At this time, the program is operating at its lowest
level.
92
The Ecological Banner Program
The Ecological Banner Program was established by CRGT in 1994, first to stimulate volunteer
work in the communities and then to recognize the efforts of manufacturing companies, service
agencies, or public institutions that were developing activities to protect and rescue natural
resources in the Río Grande de Tárcoles River basin.
CRGT began to recognize the efforts of private businesses in preserving the environment and
controlling pollution when it decided to give this award for the first time, in February 1995, to
companies that had successfully completed the pilot plan, which was developed in the
municipality of San José and the Chamber of Industry in July 1991. Very soon, the initiative
went beyond the borders of the river basin and acquired national coverage. However, it was
momentarily paralyzed in 1996 because of a lack of resources and technical equipment to follow
up on its work.
By 1997, with the support of the Dutch government, it was decided to change the Ecological
Banner into a “seal of environmental quality.” After four years of operation, MINAE transferred
the program to the Office of Civil Society in the same ministry, which is currently the entity in
charge of the program’s administration, application, and operation in the entire country and is
responsible for its operation.
Figure 17 Current Design of the Ecological Banner
Reforestation Programs
CRGT determined its priority to be the need to promote the protection of riverbanks, streams,
springs, and forest land that are being threatened by landslides or erosion. It conducted
promotion and awareness-raising programs in elementary and high schools, in community
93
organizations, and with environmentalists in the different cantons that have jurisdiction in the
Tárcoles River basin.
The program—as it was originally proposed—is divided into three stages: cleanup,
reforestation, and maintenance. They were able to plant more than 150,000 trees. It is important
to mention that the program uses native species that are produced in a tree nursery that belongs
to ICE, which has an agreement with CRGT for the donation of trees for the program.
Currently, the Reforestation Program is being taken up by the municipality of San José through
the Program to Rescue the María Aguilar River Basin, where a recreational park has been
constructed that, among other things, has a butterfly farm and a nursery of native Costa Rican
tree species, which serves not only as an open classroom for environmental education, but also as
a reproduction area for trees to be planted in reforestation programs.
Other entities that form a part of CRGT have developed, and are currently developing,
reforestation programs in various watersheds. That is the case of the National Energy Company
and of some municipalities.
Program for Integrated Management of Natural Resources in the Río Grande De Tárcoles River
Basin
CRGT elaborated and presented to IDB for funding a program for Integrated Management of
Natural Resources in the Río Grande de Tárcoles River Basin, with the special feature that even
though the proposal was approved by MINAE and the Ministry of Planning, it was presented to
IDB by the CRGT in 1994, and not directly by a governmental agency.
In addition, in the process of negotiation—that lasted nearly three years—the CRGT was
selected to be the national counterpart, which was the first time that IDB in Costa Rica worked
with an agency of this kind. IDB gave to CRGT the responsibility to supervise and use US$1.0
million to design the “concept” of the program and to fund the development of feasibility studies.
Those studies were elaborated by the North American company, ABT Associates, Inc. together
with its local partners, CATIE, the Neotropical Foundation, and the COSESA Group. This
began in October 1997 and concluded at the end of 1998.
5.3.3 Invisibilization: Gradual Diminution Of Functions
At the beginning of 1999, a number of factors converged that began to make the normal
operation of CRGT difficult. On one hand, immediate situations such as the policies made by
MINAE, particularly by the Minister at the time, directly interfered in CRGT’s coordination and
decisions, and above all, did not want to support the process that had been undertaken. For
example, a new president was named “without consultation,” primarily because he was the
94
MINAE representative, and without having any previous involvement in the CRGT or familiarity
with similar processes. His appointment was thus primarily political.
When Mr. Salas left the presidency of CRGT, it was assumed by the representative of the Union
of Local Governments, Mr. Luis Fernando Chacón, who had been providing some leadership in
CRGT activities. In late 2001, MINAE again decided to take control of CRGT and named Ms.
María Guzmán, an MINAE official as president, again, without any kind of consultation with the
Assembly. Ms. Guzmán is the National Environmental Director, and since that time, in addition
to her functions and without any additional resources, she has filled the presidency and has, with
great effort, kept the CRGT alive, making it clear that it is functioning at a minimum level. In the
name of the CRGT, some research and actions with a nod toward the implementation of
economic instruments and pollution control measures have been performed, but the members
themselves do not know that these are actions of the CRGT.
On the other hand, structural matters, such as the mistakes made when creating CRGT’s internal
structure, led to its exhaustion and its loss of credibility and the lack of commitment by other
actors. Lastly, the lack of a legal and institutional framework hindered effective decentralization
and, therefore, the formation of real structures for river basin management.
In addition, the obstacles encountered by attempts to decentralize during 1998-2002 were
debilitating to CRGT’s position as one of the principal actors in the river basin. That debilitation
was obvious from the moment that CRGT was excluded from following up with IDB for the
Program of Integrated Management of Natural Resources in the Río Grande de Tárcoles River
Basin. Even though the CRGT did not approve the study, the financial agency decided to
approve the study and completed payment to the consulting company without CRGT’s approval.
After that study was completed, which as mentioned above, had an investment of US$1.0
million, there was no interest by MINAE or of any other institution in following up on the study
or initiating its implementation, even partially.
Currently, there are new conditions to reverse the debilitating process: first, an ongoing process
to reform the legal and institutional water framework in the country; second, the weaknesses and
strengths of the organization are well known, as are their failures and successes; third, the
different actors have accumulated experience in water resource management and can encourage a
process of integrated management in this river basin.
For its part, the Office for Scientific and Technical Cooperation of the Ministry of Foreign
Relations of France has fully supported the CRGT’s activities, which has made it possible for the
it to disseminate the experience internationally and to join the river basin networks mentioned
above.
95
The German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GtZ) also provided financial assistance, and the
Dutch government financed some of the workshops and other activities.
Undoubtedly, the strongest international cooperation was from IDB, which chose this Central
American initiative to receive its backing, possibly because it believed that this experience would
be duplicated in other river basins in Central America.
5.4 DEVELOPMENT OF WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IN THE
TÁRCOLES RIVER BASIN WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF THE CRGT
Parallel to the activities developed by CRGT and recognizing the limitations that made CRGT’s
work difficult, many entities that participated in the it, and some others that did not, developed a
series of plans, programs, and projects related to water resources, but only in watersheds,
microbasins, and sections of the basin rather than in the entire river basin. CRGT did not assume
a leadership role in the entire river basin.
Many of these projects and programs are nearly as old as the CRGT itself. Among the more
outstanding programs are:
5.4.1 Plan For The Environmental Improvement Of The Upper Part Of The Virilla River
Basin (PLAMA-Virilla).
The idea of the PLAMA-Virilla program began in 1991, but it was actually founded three years
later as the “Project for the Improvement of Water Quality in the Virilla River.” A decentralized
structure was not developed nor was there wide participation (Committee, Council, etc.). This
program was designed and promoted by CNFL to improve the environmental quality in the upper
part of that watershed through the involvement of communities and the other public institutions
in the area. Specifically, the program developed in the microbasins of the Durazno Villa rivers,
the Macho River, and the Pará-Paracito rivers and has three main components: reforestation and
protection of forests; environmental education, and management of solid waste.
5.4.2 El Plama-Mora
By 1996, through the initiative of CNFL, the PLAMA-Virilla program had extended to the
watersheds of the Quebrada Honda, Jarís, and Picagres rivers, tributaries of the Virilla located
near Mora canton. By an agreement between CNFL and the University for Peace, the PLAMA-
Mora program was established in an area of 162 km2. As in the case of PLAMA-Virilla, an
agency for river basin management was not created. Three areas of work were defined:
Program for Natural Resource Management, Program for Clean Technology, and Program for
Communication Regarding Sustainable Development.
5.4.3 Commission For The Rehabilitation Of The Ciruelas River
96
This commission was created in 1995 at the request of the regional offices of MINAE and the
Health Ministry in the area of Santa Barbara of Heredia for the purpose of rehabilitating the
Ciruelas River basin, where about 45,000 people live. Later, representatives of the Agriculture
and Education ministries joined the commission.
The commission designed its work around three lines of action: Environmental Education; Legal
Aspects (checking out accusations, control and supervision); and Foment a Private Sector
Awareness through specific projects on pig and dairy farms where waste treatment plants have
been installed.
The Ciruelas River Commission had some contact with CRGT; however, it was decided that they
were different parallel processes and were never integrated. The Ciruelas experience developed
from its own bases while the Tarcóles program resulted from institutional arrangements.
5.4.4 Commission for the Rehabilitation of the Segundo River
This commission was created for the purpose of rehabilitating the upper basin of the Segundo
River, a tributary of the Virilla River. The communities of Barva and San Rafael of Heredia
participate in the commission, which is coordinated by the National University.
Among its objectives is to facilitate the incorporation of civil society groups in the rehabilitation
of the river basin, to train community leaders in themes related to the management of river
basins, and to formulate, promote, and execute community action plans. This is one of the oldest
programs in the river basin; its first phase began in 1987 and lasted until 2001. In 1995 it was
taken over by an initiative of the Barva municipality.
It has three areas of action: educating children on environmental issues, through workshops
given in schools of the area and taught by personnel from the National University; generating
information, beginning with research projects by the students and professors; and funding
projects directed to promoting environmental management, from small engineering works to
campaigns for education and environmental awareness-raising.
5.4.5 Commission for the Foothills of Monte Sur
This commission emerged from the initiative of the Central Volcanic Conservation Area of
MINAE to create a space for coordination and cooperation between the programs and projects
that were developing in the northeast area of the Monte Sur mountain range. Later, other public
agencies and civil society organizations were integrated. In addition to the state institutions such
as MINAE, MAG, INVU, and ARESEP, the Ciruelas River Commission and the Segundo River
Commission are members.
97
As with the others, this commission has defined three lines of action, among which is the
developing environmental education programs, defining important physio-geographical areas,
and establishing a database with information about the zone. The active participation in this
commission by municipalities in the region has been impressive; they have shown interest in
participating in the programs that will eventually benefit them.
In general terms, all of these local and subregional initiatives are directed toward promoting
education and an awareness-raising process, most of them through environmental education
programs.
Likewise, they are carrying out reforestation and forest protection programs, as well as
compiling information and generating databases.
However, with the exception of the Ciruelas Commission, programs directed toward installing
waste treatment plants for pig and dairy farms such as PLAMA-Virilla and PLAMA-Mora,
which are focused on clean technology, none of the other initiatives are aimed at directly
improving water quality.
None of these initiatives has been able to go beyond programs that meet immediate needs to the
elaboration of plans for integrated water resource management in the watersheds where they are
working.
This shows the need to generate processes to create watershed organizations where these types of
programs can be coordinated and connected in the function of integrated river basin
management.
98
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abt Consultants. Programa De Manejo De La Cuenca Del Río Tárcoles: Estudio De
Factibilidad, Volume 1. Costa Rica. Abt Consultores, 1998.
Abt Consultants. Programa De Manejo De La Cuenca Del Río Tárcoles: Estudio De
Factibilidad, Volume 2. Costa Rica. Abt Consultores, 1998.
Abt Consultants. Programa De Manejo De La Cuenca Del Río Tárcoles: Estudio De
Factibilidad: Diagnostico Integrado. Costa Rica. Abt Consultores, 1998.
Abt Consultants. Programa De Manejo De La Cuenca Del Río Tárcoles: Estudio De
Factibilidad, Informe De Alternativas. Costa Rica. Abt Consultores, 1998.
Aguilar, Alejandra Et Al. Manual De Regulaciones Jurídicas Para La Gestión Del Recurso
Hídrico En Costa Rica. CEDARENA, 2001.
Ballestero, Maureen. Situación De Los Recursos Hídricos En Los Países Del Istmo
Centroamericano. Costa Rica. Gwp-Centroamérica, 2001.
Castro Córdoba, Rolando. Estudio Diagnóstico Sobre La Legislación De Plaguicidas En Costa
Rica. CEDARENA, 1995.
Castro Salazar, René. The Water: Moving From A Free Good To A Tradable One. Case Study
For Day Of Americas, World Water Forum. Kyoto, Japan. March,2003.
CCAD/PROSIGA. Programa De Modernización De Los Sistemas De Gestión Ambiental En
Centro América: Desarrollo De Una Base Metodológica Para El Cálculo De Un Canon
Ambientalmente Ajustado Por Aprovechamiento De Agua En La Cuenca Del Río Grande
Tárcoles, Final Report. Costa Rica. CCAD/Prosiga, 2002.
Chacón, José Joaquín. Costa Rica: Estimación Del Capital Hídrico Y Su Aprovechamiento.
Costa Rica. CRRH/CNMH, 2002.
Espinoza E. Lisbeth Et Al. Guía De Regulaciones Jurídicas Para La Fiscalización Y Tutela De
Actividades En Las Cuencas Hidrográficas. CEDARENA, 1995.
Garnier, Leonardo. Costa Rica Entre La Ilusión Y La Desesperanza. San José, Costa Rica,
Ediciones Guayacán, 1991.
Gwp-Centroamérica. Régimen Del Recurso Hídrico: El Caso De Costa Rica. Costa Rica.
Gwp-Centroamérica, 2003.
La Cuenca Del Río Tárcoles (1992). Seminario: La Cuenca Del Río Tárcoles, Con Miras
Hacia El Futuro. Lecture 6-8. San José, Costa Rica. La Cuenca Del Tárcoles.
99
López, Alexander. Conflicto Y Cooperación Ambiental En Cuencas Internacionales
Centroamericanas: Repensando La Soberanía Nacional. San José, Costa Rica. Editorial
Funpadem, 2002.
Mora Portuguez, Jorge And Arguedas M. Mercedes. Análisis Jurídico Institucional Del
Funcionamiento De Talleres De Enderezado Y Pintura En El Área Metropolitana De San José.
FUDEU, 2000.
Mora Portuguez, Jorge And Salas V. Seidy. Análisis De La Participación Ciudadana En La
Gestión Del Sinac. FUDEU-MINAE, 2000.
Mora Portuguez, Jorge. “Legal Institutional Analysis Of Environmental Management Of Water
Resources In Costa Rica” In Proyecto Sistemas Integrados De Gestión Y Calidad Ambiental,
Componente Costa Rica. CCAD-SICA, 2000.
Mora Portuguez, Jorge. “Legal Institutional Analysis Of Environmental Management Of Water
Resources In Proyecto Sistemas Integrados De Gestión Y Calidad Ambiental, Componente Costa
Rica. CCAD-SICA, 2000.
Mora Portuguez, Jorge. “Municipal Responsibilities In Environmental Matters” In Gestión
Ambiental Descentralizada. Gobiernos Locales Y Sociedad Civil En La Experiencia Del Área
De Conservación Amistad Caribe. FUDEU, 1999.
Regional Center For Studies In Ecological Economy. Informe Sobre La Situación Actual Del
Uso Y Manejo Del Recurso Hídrico En Costa Rica: Marco Institucional Y Legal Para El Manejo
Integrado De Los Recursos Hídricos En Costa Rica, Phase I. Costa Rica. CRESEE.
Rodríguez, Alejandro. Políticas Institucionales Sobre Cuencas Hidrográficas: Memoria Del I
Encuentro Sobre Organismos De Cuenca De Centro América Y El Caribe. San José De Costa
Rica. Cuenca Del Río Grande De Tárcoles, 1997.
Rovira, Jorge. La Democracia De Costa Rica Ante L Siglo Xxi. San José, Costa Rica. Edit.
Universidad De Costa Rica, 2001.
Salazar Roxana. Marco Jurídico Y Administrativo De La Aguas En Costa Rica. Sinadaes,
Mideplan, 1998.
Salazar Roxana. Normativa Ambiental Sobre La Contaminación De Las Aguas. Ambio, 1993.
Solano, Ronald. La Cuenca Del Río Grande De Tárcoles. Legislación Ambiental, Competencias
Y Autoridad En El Control Ambiental, 1994.
State Of The Nation Project. Informe De La Auditoría Ciudadana Sobre La Calidad De La
Democracia: Volumes 1 And 2. San José, Costa Rica. Proyecto Estado De La Nación, 2001.
100
State Of The Nation Project. Estado De La Nación En Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, Report
5. San José, Costa Rica. Proyecto Estado De La Nación, 1999.
State Of The Nation Project. Estado De La Nación En Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, Report
6. San José, Costa Rica. Proyecto Estado De La Nación, 2000.
State Of The Nation Project. Estado De La Nación En Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, Report
7. San José, Costa Rica. Proyecto Estado De La Nación, 2001.
State Of The Nation Project. Estado De La Nación En Desarrollo Humano Sostenible, Report
8. San José Costa Rica. Proyecto Estado De La Nación, 2002.
System For Central American Integration. Plan Centroamericano Para El Manejo Integrado
Y La Conservación De Los Recursos Del Agua. Guatemala. Sistema De Integración Centro
América, 2000.
Tropical Science Center. Plan De Acción Para La Cuenca Del Río Tempisque: Diagnostico
Funcional, Volume IV. Costa Rica. Tropical Science Center, 1998.
101
ANNEX 1: Some Environmental Characteristics of Costa Rica’s Principal River Basins
ANNEX 2: RECEIPT SHOWING A WATER MONTHLY BILL INCLUDING THE
N° Name Area Precipitation Total Natural Antropical Natural Antropical Other
2
(km ) (mm) Precipitation Coverage Coverage Coverage Coverage (ha)
3
(km ) 1985 1985 1996 1996
(ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)
1 Sixaola 2,260 3,708 8.38 199.570 25,650 139,040 21,371 64,577
Costa Rican
Section
2 La Estrella 1,016 3,733 3.79 82,530 19,010 65,087 12,793 23,428
3 Banano 224 3,825 0.86 18,240 4,190 16,511 2,972 2,938
4 Bananito 178 3,004 0.53 13,240 4,600 11,961 2,120 3,760
and others
5 Moín and 185 3,336 0.62 10,600 7,930 8,906 9,278 260
others
6 Matina 1,665 3,685 6.14 141,590 24,850 130,815 33,860 1,788
7 Madre de 201 3,530 0.71 12,080 7,970 9,034 11,017 0
Dios and
others
8 Pacuare 913 3,703 3.38 70,020 21,370 64,051 27,166 112
9 Reventazón- 2,763 3,318 9.17 148,690 127,710 137,289 135,874 3,236
Parísmina
10 Tortuguero 1,427 4,330 6.18 85,430 56,470 74,515 67,246 309
and others
11 Chirripó 1,900 3,969 7.54 164,150 21,770 117,709 54,402 11,063
12 Sarapiquí 1,992 3,997 7.96 129,980 68,890 110,520 88,197 6,593
13 Cureña 333 3,393 1.13 26,970 5,810 26,003 6,891 0
14 San Carlos 3,055 3,200 9.78 150,760 154,470 125,564 167,665 12,028
15 Pocosol and 1,667 2,201 3.67 107,550 57,530 40,251 95,920 17,159
others
16 Frío 1,643 2,987 4.91 92,620 71,700 10,602 35,584 129,817
17 Zapote and 2,475 2,871 7.11 113,050 133,620 75,469 135,103 35,172
others
18 Nicoya 4,427 2,002 8.86 125,250 312,330 215,258 219,817 1,698
Peninsula
and northern
coast
19 Tempisque 2,967 1,844 5.47 90,760 205,850 90,489 195,700 10,427
20 Bebedero 2,197 1,812 3.98 61,950 157,730 46,100 173,357 303
21 Abangares 1,380 2,209 3.05 41,520 95,440 42,069 93,993 1,041
and others
22 Barranca 493 2,854 1.41 18,610 30,680 4,490 39,050 5,728
23 Jesús María 354 2,574 0.91 10,080 25,210 1,600 33,614 0
24 Tárcoles 2,394 2,381 5.70 45,620 181,810 38,080 186,888 2,460
25 Tusubres 546 2,702 1.48 23,080 42,490 20,330 42,428 3,538
and others
26 Parrita 1,359 2,364 3.21 31,480 104,030 35,639 97,062 3,015
27 Damas and 460 3,647 1.54 19,670 25,140 21,389 21,296 2,678
others
28 Naranjo 324 3,782 1.23 17,780 14,470 17,220 13,616 1,611
29 Savegre 637 3,651 2.33
30 Barú and 540 2,773 1.50 24,770 28,790 11,353 27,827 14,767
ohers
31 Grande de 4,991 3,133 15.64 216,590 280,050 151,542 320,604 25,224
Térraba
32 Osa 1,959 4,007 7.85 146,470 44,400 103,802 56,295 31,349
Peninsula
33 Esquinas 1,834 4,154 7.62 76,000 104,480 67,804 96,474 16,099
and others
34 Changuinola 226 3,168 0.72 22,400 0 293 0 22,257
Costa Rican
Section
102
CHARGE TO PROTECT WATER RESOURCES IN HEREDIA
COUNTIES SERVED BY ESPH
103
ANNEX 3: LEGAL INSTITUTIONAL MATRIX ACCORDING TO DIFFERENT WATER USES DOMESTIC-
RESIDENTIAL USE
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MINAE Define policies and Grant concessions and Fill out application, - Concession can be Water Law No. 276, of See Proposed
WATER administer the water use permits to indicate rivers to be revoked for 1942. Law for Water
DEPARTMENT resources in all the individuals, users used, pay utilization noncompliance or Organic Resources of
national territory. associations and rural tax. dishonesty. Environmental Law, MINAE.
associations. Article 50,51,64-67, of
Grant Concessions and Environmental Impact - Expiration of the the 1995. Law of Soils,
authorizations for Grant authorizations for Study when Concession granted Article 22, of 1998
utilization and discharge. utilization to public determined by according to Article 26 Internal Regulations of
agencies; SENARA, SETENA. of the Water Law. MINAE, 1997 Law of ARESEP,
ESPH and Article 16, 1996.
Municipalities.
Process and authorize
permits to drill wells
and permits for
discharge of water from
human consumption in
rivers under public
domain.
104
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MUNICIPALITIES Administration of - Billing and collection By meter or by Can begin an - Water Law, Art. 41, - Water Law,
municipal water supply for water service. presumption of embargo process for of 1942 Articles 176, 177
systems and municipal volume, some noncompliance; cut off
sewer systems. - Maintenance of the municipalities the water supply. - Law No.1634 - See regulatory
service and its administer their own General Drinking plans if they exist.
infrastructure. water supply systems. Can prohibit certain Water Law of 1953
human activities in and following,
- By means of Some have drainage protected areas.
regulatory plans they and sewer systems - Municipal Code, of
are in charge of and charge for those 1982, Articles 4, 6,
protecting the aquifer services on the 13, 79 and 81
layers. municipal billing.
- Internal Regulations
- Nominate the water Adapt to dispositions of
ARESEP and the Health
inspector of the canton
Ministry.
by means of a
nominating list
presented to ARESEP. Concession from the
Water Department for
a municipal water
supply system.
105
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
COSTA RICA Direct and set policies, Approval of all Presentation of
INSTITUTE establish and apply construction projects, projects related to AyA can cancel - Law to Create the - See General
AQUEDUCTSS AND norms, conduct and reform, expansion of water supply systems permits, set fines and Costa Rican Institute Health Law, 1973,
SEWERS promote planning, funding water supply systems, and sewers to the begin embargo of Aqueducts and Article 289.
and development, and both public and private. Institute for approval processes for Sewers of 1961.
resolve everything related before being sent to noncompliance, and - Law of ARESEP,
to the provision of Administration and the Water Department can cut off the water - Water Law. Of 1942 of 1996, Article
drinking water. operation of water of MINAE. supply. 16.
supply systems and - Law No.1634
Use, take advantage of, sewers in the entire General Drinking
govern or supervise, country. All tariff and rate Water
depending on the projects must be
situation, all the water Make agreements with presented to AyA,
under public domain that local organizations for which it will approve
is related to the provision the administration of or modify before the
of drinking water; these services, with project is published in
collection and disposal of the exception of those the congressional
waste water, the same as located in the record.
the normative aspects of metropolitan area, or
rain drainage. for those that AyA has
financial responsibility.
Elaboration of rates
and tariffs.
106
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MINISTRY OF Quality control of drinking - Monitor the water - Adapt to the The Ministry will General Health Law, Organic
HEALTH water for human quality for human dispositions on dictate special 1973, Article 266. Environmental
consumption. consumption, that it is in structure and measures for anything Law., 1995.
conformity with operation of water from prevention to Regulation for Quality
Control de activities that established regulations supply systems that orders for closure. of Drinking Water,
pollute. for drinking water are set by specific 1953, Articles 7 and 8.
quality. techniques dictated by
the Executive Branch
and by AyA.
- Intervene in drinking
water supply systems if
it presents any danger to
human health.
- Set quality standards
for water.
- Issue norms for waste
dumping.
ARESEP Regulation of water supply - Fix tariffs after - Submit to the needs Fines of up to five to Article 29 of Law 7593 Organic
system and sewer services consulting with the and dispositions ten times the value of of the Regulatory Environmental
in harmony with the interested parties. established by the damage caused, Authority for Public Law, Articles.17-
interests of users and regulations. fines for late payment, Services (ARESEP), 24.
supplies. - Quality control of the revoking the 1996
service, establishing - Adapt to the concession or permit
norms for quality. dispositions of Article (Articles 38 and
14 of the Law of following of Law 7593
- Expert opinions, ARESEP regarding the of ARESEP) Law No. 7593 of
processing complaints, obligations of those ARESEP, 1996
correct anomalies. who provide services.
107
AGRIBUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL USE
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MINAE WATER Process and authorize Fill out application. - Can revoke the Water Law No. 276, See Law Project
Define policies and
DEPARTMENT permits for wells for concession in case of 1942, Articles 16, 29 for Water
administer water resources
water extraction, Pay use tax. incompliance or Resources of
in the entire national
conduct works in rivers dishonesty. Organic MINAE.
territory.
under public domain. Environmental Impact Environmental Law,
Study when required - Charge for harming 1995, Articles 50, 51, Conservation,
Process and authorize by laws or regulations. the environment 64-65-66-67-69. Management and
the discharge from according to Article 98 Use of Soil
Grant Concessions and agricultural and of the Organic Internal Regulations of Law,1998, Article
authorize permits for water
industrial drainage in Environmental Law. MINAE 22.
use or discharge in rivers rivers under public
of public domain. domain.
Collect taxes.
MUNICIPALITIES Management and - Control of activities Present application for Fines and closing of Water Law, 1942 Organic
administration of the that cause pollution in license and patents to businesses or of the Environmental
resource. the canton by granting the Council. respective activity. Municipal Code, 1982 Law, 1995,
business licenses. Articles 50 and
Authorization, control and Deny or cancel Regulatory Plans 99.
regulation of activities - Has authority through business license.
conducted in the area of its regulatory plans to Law of Urban
jurisdiction. protect certain areas Can obstruct certain Planning, 1968
considered as human activities in
protected areas. zones declared as
protected areas.
108
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MINISTRY OF Control of water pollution Supervision of the Application for Permit Cancellation of General Health Law, Law for Wildlife
HEALH prevention and control from the Ministry of authorizations and/or 1973, Articles 275, Conservation,
Quality control of water for of dumping solid and Health, Department for permits. 276, 277, 283, 284, 1994, Article 132.
industrial or agribusiness liquid waste into the Protection of 285, 291-292, 298-
use. national water (in Human Environment. The Ministry dictates 307. Organic
coordination with special measures that Environmental
SINAC and others). Adapt to the can range from Water Law, 1942, Law, 1995,
dispositions, prevention to orders for Article 33. Articles 51-52,60,
Authorize drainage or techniques and closure. 64.
discharge of solid and regulations issued by Regulation for
liquid waste that could the Ministry. Dumping Waste and
pollute surface, ground Reutilization of
or marine waters. Wastewater, Decree
21518 of August 1991.
Authorize reutilization
of wastewater. Regulation for the
Management of
Approve systems of Dangerous Industrial
disposal for excrement Waste, No. 27001 and
and wastewater. Regulation for the
characteristics listed in
Approve installations the Dangerous
for the purification of Industrial Wastes, No.
wastewater and 27000.
industrial waste.
Authorize treatment
plants for wastewater.
Approve use of
techniques for sewage
disposal in the ocean.
109
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MINISTRY OF Aspects related to soil Issue criteria about the Elaborate Art. 52 establishes Law for Soil Use, Coordinate with
AGRICULTURE conservation and impact of water Management Plan for payment for Management and MINAE, according
recuperation. concessions for River Basins. environmental and Conservation. 1998, to Article 7 of the
agricultural use on soil social damage and Articles 6, 19, 21, 28, Law for Soil Use,
resources.. injury. 31 Management and
Application for registry Conservation, and
Dictate measures for and permit to use toxic Art. 51 Refers to Articles 15, 16, 34. with Ministry of
the management of agrochemicals. criminal legislation. Health, according
residues of fertilizers to Articles 28 & 33
and toxic of the Health
agrochemicals. Ministry’s
Regulations,
Design soil 1973.
management plans for
river basins together Article 4,
with MINAE and civil SENARA creation
society. Law. 1983
Control of dangerous Organic
agrochemical products. Environmental
Law, 1995, Art. 6.
Receive and approve Presentation of
AQUEDUCTS Management of reports from generating projects for dumping Fines of between five - Law for Creation of General Health
AND SEWERS wastewater dumped in agencies. waste in sewage and 10 times the value AyA,1961, Articles 21, Law 1973, and the
water bodies or in sewer systems. of the damage caused, 26 Law 132 for
systems. Establish fines for late payment, Wildlife
physiochemical and Presentation of revocation of the - Regulation for Conservation Law
bacteriological operational reports. concession or permit dumping waste and of 1994.
parameters for according to Article 26 reusing wastewater,
wastewater. Adapt to the technical de Law 2726 for the 26042-S-MINAE,
dispositions of AyA creation of AyA. Articles 3, 7, 10, 32,
Establish minimum and the Ministry of 33.
sample frequency. Health.
Establish average
maximum limits.
110
AGRICULTURAL AND IRRIGATION USE
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MINAE Concession for utilization Grant concession to Fill out application, Revocation of Water Law, 1942, Law for Creation of
WATER for irrigation utilize water for indicate river, pay use concession in case of Articles 17-29 SENARA,
DEPARTMENT irrigation. tax, indicate noncompliance. No.6877, of 18-07-
techniques for soil Organic 83, Article 4.
conservation. Environmental Law,
1995, Articles 50 y 51. Law of ARESEP,
1996, Article 5
Law for Soil Use, (paragraph
Management and included in Article
Conservation,1998, 63 of the Law for
Articles 22 and 63 Soil).
MAG Regulate aspects relative Issue criteria about Elaborate a Art.52, Establishes Law for Soil Use, Article 4, Law for
DEPARTMENT to conservation and impact of utilization of management plan for payment for Management & Creation of
OF SOILS recuperation of soil. water on soil. river basins. environmental and Conservation, 1998, SENARA, 1983
social damage and Art. 6, clause (g), Art.
Make soil management injury. 19, clauses (c) & (g)
plans according to river
basin together with Art.51, Refers to Article 21 Organic
MINAE and civil criminal legislation. Environmental
society. Articles 15 and 16,34 Law,1995, Art. 6.
Water Law of 1942,
SENARA Administers supply of Elaborate plans for Must coordinate Law for creation of Organic
water by Irrigation Districts irrigation districts. management, SENARA, 1983, Environmental
in coordination with MAG. conservation and Article 4, clauses (a) Law, 1995,
recuperation of soil and (g). Articles.51, 64-67
activities with MAG. Cancellation of the See: MINAE
Elaborate Irrigation Plan. authorization. Project for Law for
Need MINAE water Water Resources.
concession.
Law for Soil Use,
Management and
Conservation,1998,
Articles 21 and 62.
111
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MINISTRY OF Quality of water for Oversee that the water There are no specific Activity can be closed. General Health Law, Organic
HEALTH irrigation. used for irrigation requirements. 1973, Environmental
meets established Articles 275, 266. Law, 1995, Articles
Initiate punitive action.
quality standards. 25, 50, 51, 64-67
Regulation of
Quality Standards
ARESEP Know irrigation plans of Fix tariffs and approve Law of ARESEP, Law for creation of
SENARA irrigation plans, 1996, Article 5, SENARA, 1983,
through prior clause (e) Article 63.
consultation with the
Approve tariffs to be interested parties. Demand an Close the companies Organic
charged by SENARA for environmental impact that do not provide Article 44. Environmental
its service. Process complaints study for concessions services as agreed. Law, 1995, Articles
about the service. of public services 17-24.
Listen to complaints and granted by the Revoke permits or
claims. responsible agency. concessions of those
Establish irrigation and who provide services Article 41, clauses (j),
drainage as a Public that do not comply (k) and (l)
Service when it is with environmental law
provided by a public or environmental Article 5, clause (e)
agency or by means of impact studies.
a concession or
permit.
Propose nomination for
MUNICIPALITIES Local government that is the Water Inspector of Process information None directly Water Law, 1942, Municipal Code,
responsible for regulation the canton of before ARESEP established for Articles186-198. 1982, Article 3.
of interests and services in ARESEP. irrigation or
the canton. agricultural use.
Design plan for
distribution of water Propose utilization
uses. plans.
Do a census of uses.
Resolve conflicts for
use.
112
HYDROELECTRIC AND HYDRAULIC USE
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC POWERS REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
AGREEMENTS
MINAE Concession to utilize Grant concession to In the case of Cancellation of Articles 227 and 226 See: MINAE
WATER water when it is for private utilize water that is hydroelectricity: concession in the Penal Code Project of Law for
DEPARTAMENT operators to generate indispensable to Request declaration of case of Law of ARESEP, Water Resources.
hydroelectricity or generate hydroelectric eligibility from ICE. noncompliance. 1996 Private generation
hydraulic power. energy or to utilize the Process authorization is currently on hold
hydraulic power of with the Energy Sector in the
water. of MINAE. Constitutional
Process Water with Court, claiming the
Water Department. absence of a
Request concession framework law.
from ARESEP to
generate. Electrical Co
generation Laws
#7200 and #5008
(1990 and 1996)
MINAE National energy planning. Permit for operation. Must present Without authorization Decree 24652- Laws #7200 of
SECTORIAL DE environmental impact from the Energy MIRENEM 1990, and Law
ENERGÍA study and ICE Sector it is impossible And Decree 14434- #5008 of 1996
eligibility. to continue with MIRENEM
processing the
permit/concession.
MINAE Environmental Impact Request environmental Issue specific Not having the Regulation of Organic
SETENA Studies. impact studies. regulations with environmental impact Evaluation Environmental
requirement of study will obstruct Environmental Impact Law, 1995, Articles
environmental impact following through with 17-24.
study and require a the process.
declaration for
eligibility from ICE.
MUNICIPALITIES Municipal license for Charge for municipal If there is a Regulatory No license issued. Organic Law for Urban
private operators. license. Plan in force, must Environmental Law, Planning 1968
observe the zoning 1995, Articles 28-31.
Give license. and regulations of Revocation of
that. Business License. Municipal Code, 1982
113
Give certificate for
agreed use.
RESPONSIBLE CO-
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS SANCTIONS REGULATIONS REQUIREMENTS
POWERS AGREEMENTS
ICE National Energy Plan Does not Issues declaration Impossible to Law # 7200 of Law of ARESEP,
require water of eligibility when operate legally. 1990, 1996, Article 5.
concession requested by Organic Law of
since it has one private parties. ICE #5961
by law. Law #7508 of
1996
Has power to
reserve rivers.
Issue
declarations of
eligibility.
Required to buy
private
electricity.
Regulate aspects Fix tariffs.
ARESEP related to tariffs and Issue specific Law of ARESEP,
conditions for providing Receive regulations for 1996, Article 5,
service. complaints. conditions of clause (a)
providing service.
Establish Revocation of Law of ARESEP, Organic
conditions for Request concession of 1996, Article 41, Environmental Law,
providing Environmental permit. clauses (j), (k) and 1995, Articles 17-
service. Impact Studies. (l) 24.
Article 16
114
Related docs
