Abstract:The authors would like to thank the Bartolomé de Las Casas Andean Studies Centre (CBC) for their support during fieldwork and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments. This research is part of the International Water Justice alliance and funded by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO/WOTRO).
“…The emission of land titles was necessary for the Misicuni Company to obtain official property rights. Therefore, families' land titles were to be formally registered and then transferred to the Misicuni Company (for the politics and complexities of such formalization, see [41]). A university consultancy unit contracted by the Misicuni Company realized the valuation of the land, identifying several categories of land quality and their respective values [38].…”
The Misicuni multipurpose hydraulic project was designed to transfer water from a neighboring watershed to the Cochabamba Valley in the center of Bolivia for domestic, hydropower, and agricultural use. The project involved the construction of a 120 m high large dam and a 19 km transfer tunnel, which negatively affected the rural indigenous host communities that were deprived of productive lands, houses, and livelihoods. This article critically analyzes the process to compensate for harmful effects, demonstrating the existence of divergent knowledge systems, interpretations, and valuing of what was affected and how the impacts had to be compensated. The analysis shows that the compensation was fundamentally a process of negotiation about the meaning and the contested commensuration that was implemented in a context of unequal power relations between state institutions and the indigenous population. This led to unfavorable arrangements for the affected communities. The article details the discussions about impacts, knowledge, and values of key elements of the compensation process and highlights how “compensation” was embedded in the wider struggle over territorial control and natural resource governance. The unreliability of the state institutions worsened the negative impacts for the rural communities because the negotiated outcomes were not always materialized.
“…The emission of land titles was necessary for the Misicuni Company to obtain official property rights. Therefore, families' land titles were to be formally registered and then transferred to the Misicuni Company (for the politics and complexities of such formalization, see [41]). A university consultancy unit contracted by the Misicuni Company realized the valuation of the land, identifying several categories of land quality and their respective values [38].…”
The Misicuni multipurpose hydraulic project was designed to transfer water from a neighboring watershed to the Cochabamba Valley in the center of Bolivia for domestic, hydropower, and agricultural use. The project involved the construction of a 120 m high large dam and a 19 km transfer tunnel, which negatively affected the rural indigenous host communities that were deprived of productive lands, houses, and livelihoods. This article critically analyzes the process to compensate for harmful effects, demonstrating the existence of divergent knowledge systems, interpretations, and valuing of what was affected and how the impacts had to be compensated. The analysis shows that the compensation was fundamentally a process of negotiation about the meaning and the contested commensuration that was implemented in a context of unequal power relations between state institutions and the indigenous population. This led to unfavorable arrangements for the affected communities. The article details the discussions about impacts, knowledge, and values of key elements of the compensation process and highlights how “compensation” was embedded in the wider struggle over territorial control and natural resource governance. The unreliability of the state institutions worsened the negative impacts for the rural communities because the negotiated outcomes were not always materialized.
“…The Water Code formalized as private rights the numerous water rights in the lands claimed by Indigenous peoples (Prieto, ). Although Chile's Ley Indigena establishes a presumption of “ownership and use” (Macpherson, ), Boelens et al () state that it is a weak legal tool:“The fact that it is a ‘special law’ only applicable for (and within) a ‘special group of the national population’ (called a ‘minority’), and the costly and time‐consuming procedures has left most of the indigenous claims unanswered” (p. 106; see also Babidge, ).Boelens () highlights the weaknesses of other Andean water laws, providing cases in which Indigenous communities must seek official accreditation before they are recognized, as does Sosa et al () in relation to Peru's water resources statute of 2009. In Peru, formalizing customary use has been shown to be unpopular because it is both “cumbersome and expensive” (Sosa et al, , p. 221).…”
Section: Approaches To Recognition Representation and Redistributiomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Rather than merit consideration on their own terms, Indigenous systems of water governance are seen as "irrational, ill-defined, and disordered" (Boelens, 2009, p. 307;Boelens et al, 2015). Traditional or customary ways of knowing and managing water are often cast as primitive, inefficient and outdated, even wasteful (Solon, 2006;Sosa, Boelens, & Zwarteveen, 2017), especially in modernist water institutions which privilege scientific hydrological expertise and concentrate control and management of water in state agencies (Linton, 2014;Salmond, 2014). For these reasons, customary systems of allocation and water sharing are threatened and in decline (Boelens et al, 2007).…”
Section: The Water Struggles Of Indigenous Peoplesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…"The fact that it is a 'special law' only applicable for (and within) a 'special group of the national population' (called a 'minority'), and the costly and time-consuming procedures has left most of the indigenous claims unanswered" (p. 106; see also Babidge, 2015). Boelens (2009) highlights the weaknesses of other Andean water laws, providing cases in which Indigenous communities must seek official accreditation before they are recognized, as does Sosa et al (2017) in relation to Peru's water resources statute of 2009. In Peru, formalizing customary use has been shown to be unpopular because it is both "cumbersome and expensive" (Sosa et al, 2017, p. 221).…”
Section: Recognition As a Concept For Advancing Indigenous Strugglesmentioning
Indigenous water rights contests take many forms, manifesting in conflict over water resource development, exclusion from decision‐making, marginalization in regional political economies and opposition to environmental degradation. A growing number of institutional options are available to recognize Indigenous water rights and a diversity of approaches is being taken by governments, courts of law, Indigenous peoples and others in response to historical and contemporary inequities and discrimination in patterns of distribution and participation in the institutions of water governance. Although not the only arena, political action directed towards change in state‐based institutions is a principal focus for Indigenous peoples engaged in water struggles. This article reviews the literature on Indigenous water rights in national frameworks of water governance from a range of disciplines. It describes the leading approaches to recognition, representation, and redistribution that exist under the domestic arrangements of nation‐states to recognize localized norms and rules of water use and custodianship, as well as Indigenous forms of political organization. These include statutory mechanisms to increase water access, treaties and settlements, constitutional protections for collective rights, self‐organized or internal governance models, market‐based approaches and moves in law to recognize reciprocal relationships to water and legitimize custodianship of rivers. Rather than take recognition for granted as an essential condition of or ideal end‐point to Indigenous water rights struggles, the paper critically reflects on the multi‐faceted dimensions of this ambivalent concept, revealing the opportunities as well as tensions and dilemmas in the leading approaches to addressing Indigenous water rights claims.
This article is categorized under:
Human Water > Rights to Water
Human Water > Water Governance
“…Se examina como este conflicto no solo tiene que ver con disputas sobre el acceso a los recursos, sino también con injusticias que subyacen en las normas y las regulaciones locales, nacionales e internacionales, así como con la cuestión de la legitimidad y la autoridad para dar forma a estas reglas. Luego, muestra como se enfrentan discursos divergentes entre las alianzas locales y los actores poderosos que defienden la mina (véase también Peña, 2016;Santacruz De León, 2015;Sosa et al, 2017;Yacoub et al, 2015 El artículo se basa en la investigación de literatura, estudio de archivos y de prensa locales, así como en investigación de campo en las zonas de San Luis Potosí en 2013, 2014 y 2017 (véase también Stoltenborg y Boelens, 2016). Se realizaron entrevistas semiestructuradas con los habitantes locales, funcionarios gubernamentales, representantes de la mina, grupos opuestos a la mina y otros.…”
Este artículo analiza los conflictos por los recursos agua y tierra en Cerro de San Pedro, México, cuando una empresa minera canadiense inició una mina a cielo abierto en este municipio. Examinamos diferentes posiciones en el conflicto entre la mina de oro y los habitantes locales, y cómo ambivalentes regulaciones nacionales y organismos gubernamentales permitieron que una empresa extranjera operara sin los permisos requeridos. Para analizar el conflicto utilizamos el marco de Escalones de Análisis de Derechos, que distingue cuatro capas de disputa: sobre los recursos; el contenido de las normas; el poder de decisión; y los discursos. Discutimos cómo la auto-representación de la empresa extranjera mediante discursos de responsabilidad social empresarial contrasta con las injusticias ambientales, políticas y sociales que infligen a los habitantes locales, exacerbadas por las políticas nacionales y los acuerdos comerciales internacionales. Por último, argumentamos que las alianzas multi-actoras y multi-escalapueden ofrecer oportunidades para fomentar soluciones ambientales y de justicia social.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
