Friday, June 26, 2009
Cambio Climático y Agua
Labels: Cambio climático
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Experiencias de Foros Mundiales del Agua de México a Estambul
Gracias a todas las personas que hicieron posible este 2do Foro Nacional e Internacional "Agua y Medio Ambiente", particularmente a SINTRAEMSDES. Es un gusto y un honor estar aquí.
Me han solicitado hablar un poco acerca de los Foros Mundiales del Agua, particularmente de los últimos dos que ocurrieron en México en 2006 y en Estambul en 2009. Pero antes me gustaría comentar brevemente la situación del agua en México pues me parece necesaria la contextualización.
• Luchas de agua en México
Solamente para dar una idea muy general, me referiré a tres ejemplos de conflictos relacionados con el agua que se viven actualmente en México; desafortunadamente, hay muchos otros ejemplos de conflictos del agua en México.
Ciudad de México – Compañeras Mazahuas
Con más de 20 millones de habitantes, la ciudad de México se surte con agua tanto subterránea como de otras cuencas. Parte del agua que viene a la ciudad proviene de la zona mazahua, donde muchas comunidades todavía carecen de acceso al agua. Las compañeras mazahuas luchan por su derecho al agua, al tiempo que en la ciudad de México, colonias que reciben agua subterránea de pozos sobreexplotados, no sólo la reciben esporádicamente, sino además con serios problemas de calidad incluso perceptibles a simple vista por el color café del agua. En ambos lugares son las mujeres las que sufren en mayor medida la falta de acceso.
Río Santiago
El río Santiago está terriblemente contaminado. El Salto y Juanacatlán, poblados que están cerca de Guadalajara, Jalisco, reciben la combinación del drenaje crudo de la ciudad y los drenajes de un corredor industrial importante. La incidencia de diversos tipos de cáncer en estas poblaciones está muy por encima de lo es el promedio de país. “El nuevo cementerio ya está lleno” manifiestan los habitantes. Hace un año y medio, un niño, Miguel Ángel, cayó al río accidentalmente; rápidamente salió, pero pocas horas después tuvo que ser internado por envenenamiento por arsénico, cayó en coma y unos días después falleció.
Xoxocotla, Morelos
En todo el país se está empujando una política de vivienda a través de inmobiliarias poderosas que están construyendo casitas de pésima calidad, en zonas de recarga, totalmente desarticuladas de las ciudades y con serias carencias de servicios. En la zona de recarga de los manantiales que surten de agua a la comunidad de Xoxocotla se están empujando proyectos de esta clase. La comunidad de Xoxocotla, que tiene una tradición de autogestión y defensa del agua, está luchando por conservar estas zonas de recarga.
• Foros Mundiales del Agua
A la fecha, ha habido cinco Foros Mundiales del Agua en las siguientes ciudades: Marrakech, La Haya, Kyoto, Ciudad de México y Estambul. Estos eventos son organizados por el Consejo Mundial del Agua el cual tiene una agenda que de manera evidente busca promover e imponer la privatización del agua en sus diversas formas. A pesar de que busca tener la apariencia de una conferencia convocada por la ONU, no es así. El Consejo Mundial del Agua es una entidad que básicamente representa los intereses de corporaciones trasnacionales que buscan controlar las políticas del agua. Los Foros Mundiales del Agua, tanto en su preparación como en su realización, buscan aparentar ser participativos, cuando en realidad sus mecanismos son pésimos y la evidencia nos muestra que no están dispuestos a escuchar voces disidentes. Sin embargo, estos foros cuentan con importante presencia mediática e impactan la política del agua alrededor del mundo, por lo que resulta importante cuestionar públicamente la agenda que empujan.
• 4to FMA, Ciudad de México, 2006
En México el IV Foro Mundial del Agua fue organizado por Comisión Nacional del Agua junto con el Consejo Mundial del Agua. Desde el inicio estas instituciones mostraron evidente desprecio por las organizaciones civiles y sociales durante el proceso de preparación. Los mecanismos de “participación” que presentaban resultaban incomprensibles e insuficientes. Por esta razón, la mayoría de las organizaciones mexicanas decidimos no participar en el evento oficial.
• Jornadas en Defensa del Agua
Sin embargo, reconocimos que el contexto nos presentaba una oportunidad única para articularnos en torno a un tema, que, como ilustran los ejemplos presentados, resulta urgente para la población. Algunas organizaciones de movimientos populares, derechos humanos, género, ambiente, contra libre comercio, contra las represas, decidimos colaborar en la Coalición de Organizaciones Mexicanas por el Derecho al Agua.
A partir de la formación del colectivo decidimos hacer una convocatoria más amplia y abierta a discutir el contexto y estrategia frente al FMA. Esto nos permitió articularnos con una diversidad todavía mayor de organizaciones. Nos integramos en lo que más adelante se llamaría la Asamblea Nacional en Defensa del Agua y de la Tierra y en contra de su privatización y nos comprometimos a compartir información y preocupaciones, reconocer y respetar las diferencias y trabajar colectivamente para hacer no una actividad alternativa al FMA, sino unas jornadas que reflejaran la diversidad de iniciativas del 21 enero al 22 marzo de 2006. Durante las jornadas hubieron movilizaciones, talleres y seminarios, actividades culturales, conferencias de prensa, etc.
Al mismo tiempo, se estaba en constante comunicación y trabajo colaborativo con un comité internacional, que también agrupaba a una diversidad de organizaciones que buscaban igualmente cuestionar la agenda del Foro Mundial del Agua junto con las organizaciones mexicanas. Este comité se encargó de difundir lo que sucedía, involucrar a más organizaciones, conseguir fondos para las actividades y la participación internacional y organización general, como diseño de páneles y apoyo logístico.
El 16 de marzo de 2006, día de la inauguración del 4to Foro Mundial del Agua, realizamos la Gran Movilización en Defensa del Agua en la Ciudad de México que ha sido la más grande movilización del agua con 25,000 personas de comunidades de todo el país.
Mientras tanto, en el foro oficial, las trasnacionales hacían su trabajo para influir en las políticas del agua en el mundo. La muestra más contundente de que esta agenda no está a favor de la población en general es que el derecho humano al agua queda desechado de la declaración ministerial. Uno de los invitados de honor del foro fue Carlos Slim que representa de manera elocuente la visión de quienes promueven este evento: “El agua es un derecho, pero hay que pagarlo”. Curiosamente, 3 años después en el Foro Mundial del Agua en Estambul, José Luis Luege, representante del gobierno mexicano y director de la Comisión Nacional del Agua, afirmaba exactamente la misma consigna.
Sin embargo, cuatro países – Bolivia, Venezuela, Uruguay y Cuba – firmaron una declaración complementaria donde afirmaban su compromiso con el derecho humano al agua, la preocupación de los efectos de los tratados de libre comercio en su manejo y la necesidad de que sean los gobiernos y los pueblos los que convoquen en torno al agua.
En las Jornadas en Defensa del Agua, en contraste con el foro oficial, se elaboraba una Declaración Conjunta de los Movimientos en Defensa del Agua donde se afirma:
“El agua en todas sus formas es un bien común y su acceso es un derecho humano fundamental e inalienable. ... El agua no es mercancía. Por eso rechazamos todas las formas de privatización…”
Además, el movimiento se compromete a “una actividad global, común y simultánea entre septiembre y octubre del 2006.” Así, nace Octubre Azul en el que más de 30 países han participado desde hace 3 años, cada uno preparando actividades específicas a su contexto. El movimiento internacional del agua se une a pesar de las distancias durante un mes de actividades en defensa del agua.
• 5to FMA, Estambul, 2009
El proceso de preparación desde los movimientos hacia Turquía logró sumar más diversidad de países incluyendo África y Asia, además de Europa y América. Las organizaciones de Turquía prepararon diversas actividades para oponerse a las políticas que impulsa el foro. Éstas dieron la oportunidad de discutir temas y puntos de vista que al interior del foro eran callados.
La declaratoria del movimiento reafirma el contenido de México 2006 a la vez que nos comprometemos a una visión integral del agua trabajando los temas y con los movimientos de territorio, clima y alimentación.
Era tal el control al interior del foro oficial que a dos compañeras que desplegaron una manta que decía “No a las represas” y gritaron la consigna las deportaron. Además la policía reprimió brutalmente a las personas que se manifestaron afuera del foro.
Muchas organizaciones han decidido no participar al interior del foro, sin embargo reconocemos lo importante que este trabajo es. Además de colocar otra dimensión del debate en las mesas de discusión, en este foro hubo un proceso muy relevante de incidencia con gobiernos. Uruguay, Bolivia y Venezuela empujaron la iniciativa de integrar el derecho humano al agua en la declaración oficial, pero cuando las puertas se cerraron contundentemente, trabajaron con muchos países para firmar una declaración complementaria. Al final fueron 25 países de todos los continentes los que reconocieron el derecho humano al agua. Además, 10 países firmaron también que se convoque un foro global del agua en la estructura de las Naciones Unidas con principios de democracia, equidad, transparencia y participación.
El golpe para el Consejo Mundial del Agua ha sido tan fuerte que ya hay rumores de que está intentando deshacerse del proceso ministerial para el siguiente foro, pero continuando con la convocatoria del foro mismo.
Pero los foros mundiales no son más que momentos. Sabemos que lo relevante es el trabajo cotidiano de organización, de movilización. Estos foros lo que sí nos permiten son oportunidades de articulación. Así sucedió en México con los movimientos del país y del mundo.
Resulta incluso impertinente para mí hablarle a l@s colombian@s de articulación ya que el proceso del Referendo por el Agua ha significado un ejemplo que en verdad inspira. 2 millones de firmas se dicen fácil pero el esfuerzo organizativo y educativo fue inmenso.
Es verdaderamente inconcebible ver el atropello que está sucediendo ahora con las modificaciones que el congreso está empujando, totalmente contrarias al espíritu del texto original[1].
Sin embargo, ante este escenario que nos entristece y nos llena de rabia, no debemos olvidar que el proceso organizativo que se ha motivado alrededor del referendo es un triunfo en sí mismo y ese logro no lo puede tocar nadie.
El reto es mantener en la agenda la defensa del agua y el apoyo a las comunidades que sufren conflictos alrededor del tema.
Para mis herman@s colombian@s toda mi admiración y solidaridad.
[1] Esta exposición fue el 21 de mayo de 2009. Días después la apelación del Comité Promotor del Referendo fue aceptada por la Cámara de Representantes, reconociendo que efectivamente los cambios al texto original propuesto eran sustanciales.
Labels: Foro Mundial del Agua
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Organising Resistance in the context of the Forth World Water Forum in Mexico 2006
Claudia Campero
Brenda Rodríguez
Coalición de Organizaciones Mexicanas por el Derecho al Agua (COMDA)
Water struggles in Mexico, as in the rest of the world, have been ongoing for decades. Although water was very much at the centre of these, they were seen as environmental, human rights, land or community problems separately. This hindered the possibility of seeing the relationships and commonalities of these struggles. It has not been until recently that social and civil organizations have got together to discuss them as water struggles that bring together environmental and social justice issues.
When diverse organisations started to find out about the Forth World Water Forum (4th WWF) that was going to take place in our country, the widespread water crisis – manifested in numerous local conflicts related to access, damn building, urbanisation of catchment areas, pollution and privatisation – and the need to organise to face it became evident. These very diverse organisations around the country started to arrange workshops, conferences, d
emonstrations and publications relative to water issues. Communication among these actors existed to some extent, but it was not continuous nor complete. At the same time international organisations started to communicate with many groups to collaborate in opposing the 4th WWF.
Coalition formation
A group of nongovernmental organisations and community base organisations, started to share information and view points in a more continuous basis. It was clear to us that the context of hosting an event of this nature could be very problematic for the policies and practices it promoted, but also because it could provoke tensions among civil society organisations. We decided first to discuss common principles about water and water management that could allow us to work in the defence of water before, during and after the 4th WWF. Through this process we built COMDA – Coalition of Mexican Organisations for the Right to Water – committing ourselves to work towards four topics: the right to water, against water privatisation and for public and community management, for sustainability and democratic control. It was until October 2005 that we decided we would engage in the organisation of a forum that would show opposition to the 4th WWF.
Building a larger group
With all these water related activities, it became clear to many that there were a great amount organisations, besides COMDA, planning to oppose the 4th WWF. The diversity was tremendous: ecologists, human rights advocates, students, union workers, indigenous groups, urban popular movements, different NGOs, etc. We decided to get together to discuss what lied ahead. After an initial discussion it was clear that we had different ways to view water issues, different organisational logics and tactics, but we had one thing in common: We were all convinced that the 4th WWF did not represent us, we strongly disagreed on its agenda and we were all against water privatisation. We all wanted to do activities to show our point of view in contrast with the forum, but we acknowledged that advocating for “one” alternative activity would divide us and would not represent the whole. This whole entity later became know as the Assembly in Defence of Water and Land and Against Privatisation (Asamblea for short in Spanish) which was the first collective event organised by this alliance.
We were clear that in order to oppose this huge event we needed at least to maintain a dialog and coordinate what we were planning. We knew that the diversity among us could be a strength as long as we committed to respect one another. It was not easy, but we needed to engage in different committees to coordinate media reach, popular education, finances, logistical matters and political issues. With this commitment of respect and understanding we decided that the issue about inside vs. outside strategy – which started as a heated debate – should be left for individual organisations and not to the whole group. This was a big step towards allowing the diversity of approaches coexist as long as the basic principles were there. All this work was being done simultaneously with the international organisations and things came back and forth to make it as participatory as possible.
Rallies in the Defence of Water (Jornadas en Defensa del Agua)
The Rallies in the Defence of Water were an umbrella of activities that aimed to construct spaces of reflexion and citizen awareness around water issues; to discuss water policies, and the social, cultural and spiritual significance of water, as well as sustainable, just, equitable and democratic management. Eventually, organisations and people from 27 Mexican states and 40 countries participated in these rallies.
Once we decided we needed a variety of activities to show the diversity of the group, but also to build up momentum, we determined to start two months before the 4th WWF with a key event: the Assembly in Defence of Water and Land and Against Privatisation. We made a call for all movements in water issues, particularly grassroots organisations, to join in a space where water struggles would be heard and proposals for future activism would be put forth. People from all over the country came to this call and for the very first time in Mexico indigenous groups, academics, women groups, urban popular movement, ecologists, human rights activists and so on, came together to discuss water issues. Two of several important resolutions were to challenge the 4th WWF and to meet weekly to organise this with a now even larger group of organisations.
Several activities followed: workshops, demonstrations, seminars, indigenous ceremonies, book presentations, ecological technologies construction, and indigenous people, utility workers and damn resistance fora. Most were concentrated during the week the 4th WWF started. Also we needed a space for people that came from other parts of Mexico to stay, so we did a campsite with an effort of sustainability. This became also a place for alternative water cultural activities and a cultural market.
A key consensus, that took a lot of effort, was organising the march called Mobilisation in the Defence of Water. We were all concerned about maintaining it peaceful, but strong. We discussed everything openly: the route, speakers, security, even the title it would have! This effort was not in vain. The day the 4th WWF started 25,000 people marched in Mexico City in the defence of water! This has been the largest mobilisation of its kind to date.
Finally, in cooperation with international friends, we organised the International Forum in the Defence of Water which gave voice to people from all over Mexico and the world. It was a three day forum discussing: the right to water, water privatisation, public and community democratic alternatives and sustainability. Most importantly we decided to set some space and time to arrange for strategy meetings about the future of the international water movement. As a result, we made several commitments to defend water from privatisation and pollution and also to unite in a simultaneous global activity called Blue October which has celebrated now its second year of existence.
The activities in resistance to the 4th WWF changed the International Water Justice Movement, and it also allowed for the construction of the Mexican Water Movement. The process required a lot of work and patience, but the results were magnificent. The success was thanks to the attitude of all who participated in the process. It allowed grassroots movements and NGOs to work together and activities reflected the true diversity. It clearly contested the 4th WWF discourse with worthy arguments and gave space for an alternative to view and manage our water differently.
Labels: Foro Mundial del Agua
Monday, June 08, 2009
Bienvenid@s / Welcome
This Blog is a place for some texts related to water and housing issues with a focus on social justice, governance and environmental sustainability. Thank you for your comments.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Norwegian Organisations Question Water Law
The background for this proposed law is a Parliamentary decree of April 3, in which “The Parliament asks the Government to make a proposal on a change of the existing set of laws to secure complete public ownership of water and sewage infrastructure. The law must make exceptions from public ownership for water and sewage facilities which are organised as non-commercial private cooperatives owned by water users, so that the existing organisation of ownership can be continued”.
Summary:
We agree to what we perceive as the intention behind the original proposal, namely to secure water as a common good. However if this intention is to be fulfilled, our opinion is there must be another form of organization than municipal ownership with the possibility of outsourcing, as proposed by the Ministry. The proposed law also lacks a clause against commercialisation. The organisations listed below deem it necessary to make an explicit ban against commercialisation.
Background
We dispute the claim that municipal water and sewage plants are in fact owned by municipalities. The so-called “municipal facilities” are owned by the water users, but are operated by the municipalities. In this sense it is impossible to talk about ensuring that water and sewage infrastructure remains completely in the public sector The “public” water- and sewage plants” are non-commercial private cooperatives owned by the water users. A widespread misunderstanding amongst politicians has made it possible to reorganize certain “municipal” water and sewage plants into separate entities, owned by the municipalities. This is a serious legal mistake.
Water and sewage plants are owned by the water users, not municipalities.
Transferring ownership to the municipalities, as the proposed law suggests, must be considered a violation against the social structure that the water and sewage sector has had until today. Earlier generations have made huge contributions to water and sewage treatment, without thoughts of profit-making. Investments have been made with a 100-year perspective. Divesting the ownership of water and sewage plants from the water users would be tantamount to theft. Not least it would have consequences for future generations.
Water supplies being run by municipalities today were historically established as non-public, directed by the water users themselves. Since then, the municipalities have taken over operations, and in many cases merged several smaller facilities into a larger one. This does not however change the ownership. Exceptions from these cooperatively owned facilities are small private facilities owned by one person. Most, if not the biggest water supplies in Norway, are run by the water users themselves. In addition there are several hundred thousand individual solutions.
We have, in other words, long historic traditions of direct democratic participation in water and sewage management.
The fact that water users own the water and sewage facilities are expressed in water and sewage budgets, which are strictly separated from municipal budgets. Water and sewage are financed by water users through separate fees. The water users also finance the technical division in municipalities that are operating water and sewage.
The international trend amongst those not in favour of commercialisation of water and sewage, is still direct democratic participation. This counts especially for the water supply which is naturally vital for all of us.
There are several reasons for maintaining the water user ownership model in a new law on water and sewage.
There is growing pressure for commercialisation of the public sector, illustrated recently by the “Services Directive” from the EU. But the directive will not include water and sewage as long as these remain owned by the water users themselves.
This form of ownership, when guaranteed by law, is a means to secure the sector against a common pressure for commercialisation. It is also vital to include clauses that prohibit water from becoming a commodity in a market.
Public Commercialisation?
The existing proposal for a law on public ownership of water and sewage facilities has no clause against commercialisation. The fifth paragraph in the law states that municipalities decide the fee, but nothing about the fee only covering actual expenses. This is what “cost recovery” has meant until recently. (The concept of “cost recovery” was redefined in 2003 and currently allows for profit making when stipulating capital costs. “Cost recovery” is therefore no longer synonymous with “non-commercial”). The proposed law appears to open up for public commercialisation. Public ownership of the water supply, made legally binding, could create a commercial system, similar to that in the electricity sector.
The previous Minister of Municipalities and Regions, Erna Solberg, aimed to put in place such a system. She changed the rules regarding stipulation of cost-recovery, introduced benchmarking, and ordered a study on framework financing for water supply management, similar to that implemented for electricity supply. Municipalities can, especially in difficult economic times such as these, be tempted to raise their income from the water and sewage sector. The Federation of Municipalities (KS) put forward such an argument in 2005 (KOU 2005:1).
Outsourcing
The proposed law gives municipalities the right to outsource operations to the private sector. In practice, this means transnational corporations. Companies such as these are naturally interested in operating water and sewage to the extent that this pays off. Outsourcing can in these terms be understood as commercialisation. The Services Directive applies to any commercialised public agency. Whether municipalities themselves make an income from water and sewage or not, outsourcing would make water and sewage subject to the Services Directive. The GATS agreement on international trade within the World Trade Organisation is another supra-national directive that would affect a commercialised water supply.
Outsourcing and commercialisation can be avoided by keeping ownership of water and sewage in the hands of the water users - the citizens – and by strengthening this ownership legally. In addition there should be a law banning the sale of water on terms other than those consistent with the previous definition of cost recovery.
Conclusion
We believe that it is of vital importance that water and sewage facilities, as well as extraction of water for sale, are made subject to direct democratic control. Water and sewage facilities can only be owned by the water users themselves. Water and sewage should not be commercialised. Water is not a commodity!
The above statement is supported by the following organisations. If you wish to add your support please write to watermov@online.no as soon as possible within June 12th:
VANNBEVEGELSEN / WATER MOVEMENT www.vannbevegelsen.no
FIVAS /Organisation for International Water Studies Foreningen for Internasjonale Vannstudier www.fivas.org
SPIRE /Developement found www.utviklingsfondet.no/spire
Internasjonal kvinneliga for fred og frihet IKFF / WILPF Womans International League for Peace and Freedom www.ikff.no
Norges Fredslag / The Norwegian Peace Association www.fredslaget.no
Buskerud Nei til EU / No to the European Union (Buskerud) www.buskerud.neitileu.no
Social Development Group (Norway) www.globenet3.org
STELLA POLARIS www.stella-polaris.com
Zirk Mir www.zirkmir.com
Kystpartiet / Coast party www.kystpartiet.no
Rødt / Red Party www.roedt.no
Miljøpartiet De Grønne / Green Party Norway www.gronne.no
Tverrpolitisk Folkevalgte / Cross Political Peoples Elected www.tvf.no
Sandefjord Pensjonistparti /Pensioners Party (Sandefjord) www.pensjonistpartiet.no