Claudia Campero Arena

Las turbias aguas de la privatización en México

2011-07-06T11:22:00.002-05:00

“Las turbias aguas de la privatización en México” surge de la preocupación de actualizar el diagnóstico de la situación de la gestión del agua que se vive en algunas ciudades de México. El propósito es aportar información y análisis desde una perspectiva crítica de las organizaciones de la sociedad civil frente al manejo del agua que busca profundizar la privatización. La expectativa es que esta síntesis sea útil para difundir la realidad y facilitar la defensa del derecho humano al agua.

Las secciones de esta publicación incluyen una discusión de las diferentes formas de privatización del agua y los estudios de tres casos: Saltillo, Guadalajara y el Distrito Federal.

La Coalición de Organizaciones Mexicanas por el Derecho al Agua, el Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario, Food and Water Watch y Council of Canadians invitan a conocer “Las turbias aguas de la privatización en México”.

Autoras: Claudia Campero Arena y Cindy McCulligh

La revista está disponible en su versión electrónica en:

http://www.comda.org.mx/files/REVISTACOMDA.pdf

Se extiende la privatización del agua en todo el país: Campero

2011-04-12T18:08:00.001-05:00

Descontaminar, un jugoso negocio de las plantas tratadoras, que alienta Conagua
Desde hace años el cobro del servicio lo hacen particulares, política impulsada en el DF
Una empresa se encargará de manejar por 20 años un acueducto en el lago de Chapala

La escasez de agua siempre ha provocado protestas, como muestra esta imagen de archivo que captó el bloqueo en Iztapalapa para exigir que las pipas llenaran los contenedores. Foto Alfredo Domínguez

Angélica Enciso L.

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2011/04/11/index.php?section=sociedad&article=047n1soc

Periódico La Jornada

Lunes 11 de abril de 2011, p. 47

La privatización del agua se extiende en el país mediante al menos cinco rubros que van desde los servicios municipales de agua potable y la edificación de plantas de tratamiento de residuales hasta la expansiva construcción de presas, indica Claudia Campero, investigadora de Food and Water Watch Blue Planet Project.

Detalla que la línea de ceder al sector privado la extracción, distribución y cobro del líquido potable va en retroceso en el mundo, debido a las malas experiencias que ha dejado a las empresas en países como Bolivia y Argentina; sin embargo, en la ciudad de México, donde los cobros del servicio desde hace años los hacen empresas privadas, se impulsa esta política.

La venta de agua embotellada es otro camino de privatización y, de acuerdo con datos del organismo internacional Beverage Marketing Corporation, hasta 2010 México ocupaba el primer lugar a escala mundial, con un consumo per cápita anual de 234 litros, 20 por ciento más que los italianos, quienes se situaban en segundo lugar, con 191 litros.

Campero indica que hay otras formas menos evidentes de la apropiación de particulares del líquido, pero igual de graves, como la contaminación, ya que en los hechos ese recurso no lo puede usar nadie más, al menos para uso domiciliario, y afecta a las comunidades que viven alrededor de los cuerpos de agua contaminados.

En este caso se “convierte en un gran negocio descontaminar y crecen los proyectos de plantas tratadoras de aguas residuales, política que impulsa la Comisión Nacional del Agua (Conagua)”.

Por ejemplo, está en construcción “la planta de tratamiento de aguas residuales más grande del país”, según la Conagua, planeada en el municipio de Atotonilco de Tula, Hidalgo, con capacidad para tratar 23 metros cúbicos por segundo durante el estiaje y en época de lluvias 12 metros cúbicos por segundo adicionales.

La analista sostiene en entrevista que el formato que se impulsa en los diferentes proyectos de esas plantas es de contrato, operación y transferencia, modalidad que denominan participación pública-privada.

Asimismo, destaca que el erario pierde, “porque los particulares construyen, ganan de la venta del agua tratada y transfieren las plantas a entidades públicas una vez que la vida útil de la infraestructura está por terminar o se acaba”.

Agrega que lo mismo pasa con las represas, también construidas por el sector privado, que funcionan con contratos de operación y transferencia. “Es el caso de Zapotillo: las empresas que se llevan el contrato tienen el control del agua 25 o 30 años; después se la pasan al gobierno”.

Campero considera que es la apropiación de un recurso vital por entes privados, ya que en el análisis de la participación de estas empresas se ha encontrado que “cada vez les interesan menos los formatos de concesión de un municipio, que tiene altos riesgos y sigue siendo problemático; Argentina y Bolivia, donde las protestas llevaron a los gobiernos a cancelar los contratos, son un ejemplo”.

Experiencias de privatización de servicios de agua en México

En las 16 delegaciones del Distrito Federal son empresas privadas, como Gutsa o Suez, las que con el membrete de Sistema de Aguas de la Ciudad de México desde hace varios años emiten las boletas para el cobro por consumo de agua.

En Aguascalientes, el municipio concesionó por 30 años –vence en 2023– a una empresa subsidiaria de Vivendi la cobranza, administración, trabajos de rehabilitación y operación de las tuberías de agua potable. Ésta fue la primera experiencia a escala nacional de privatización integral del servicio de agua potable. En la primera década de la concesión un estudio detectó problemas como aumento en la tarifa –que iniciaron antes de la concesión de los servicios, pero que fueron más significativos y constantes a partir de ésta–, y una fuerte presión para disciplinar a los usuarios mediante el pago por el servicio o suspensión del mismo, indica el estudio El acceso a los servicios de agua potable en México: el caso de la ciudad de Aguascalientes, de Fernando Saavedra. de la Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales.

Agrega que allí se mantenían problemas operativos del sistema como tandeos –un corte en el suministro de agua como mecanismo para equilibrar la extracción de agua con su regeneración–, pero no son equitativos entre los usuarios; también fugas en la conducción, con desperdicio del agua de 45 por ciento. Entre los logros de la empresa están aumentar el número de medidores en los hogares para hacer más eficiente el sistema comercial y una cobertura de agua dentro de la vivienda del 95, indica.

“Sin embargo, subsisten las pérdidas, el tema del financiamiento para el crecimiento del sistema no se ha resuelto, al cual se agrega el problema de las tarifas (…) la sobrexplotación de los acuíferos se mantiene, y la sustentabilidad ambiental sigue comprometida no sólo por la extracción de agua, sino también por falta de tratamiento de las aguas vertidas.”

En Saltillo el manejo del servicio de agua potable lo hace una empresa mixta, en la que actualmente el municipio tiene 54 por ciento de las acciones y el resto Aguas de Barcelona, que pasó a ser parte del consorcio de la francesa Suez. Aquí se aprobaron incrementos a las tarifas de acuerdo con la inflación, “pero esto no se respeta y se han hecho cobros indebidos; a la población se le corta el servicio con frecuencia y deben pagar una cuota por reconexión que resulta costosa”, indica Cindi McCulligh, del Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario, quien agrega que además se ha privatizado el sistema de riego de parques y jardines; los colonos deben hacer un contrato con Aguas de Saltillo para que se encargue del servicio de esas áreas públicas.

Menciona, por último, que en Guadalajara se ha dado un proceso de privatización del líquido mediante obras de infraestructura, entre las que ahora se prevé la construcción de un acueducto en lago de Chapala con una empresa privada que se haría cargo de su manejo durante 20 años. Y en Cancún opera la compañía Desarrollos Hidráulicos bajo concesión desde 1993 y por 30 años para el manejo de agua potable, saneamiento y tratamiento de residuales.

Zapotillo dam needs our attention!

2011-03-30T22:28:00.003-06:00

Claudia Campero

Mexico City-based Blue Planet Project

Council of Canadians

Last Monday morning people from Temacapulín, Jalisco and allies occupied the construction site of the Zapotillo dam. This was a desperate measure after having done everything else to try to stop its construction. There have been multiple legal actions; the state commission for human rights has done recommendations; there have been demonstrations and consultations that have proved the majority of the population is against this dam. In February, we shared the good news that a judge had ordered to suspend the construction. Unfortunately, this has not happened. The construction of the dam has continued illegally.

Photo: 'We do not want the dam, we want to live in peace' Photo by Marco Von Borstel

Yesterday, government officials menaced the demonstrators accusing them of kidnapping and other offences. They have announced they will take legal action against the people blocking the access to the construction site. Yet we wonder why they speak of “legal actions” when they themselves have ignored the law.

We urgently need your support disseminating this information, sending letters to the Mexican Embassy and letting them know you are watching!

For further information:

Press release http://www.internationalrivers.org/en/2011-3-29/temacapul%C3%ADn-community-takes-over-el-zapotillo-dam-site-call-cancellation-project

Background http://www.canadians.org/campaignblog/?p=6348

Solidarity post (in Spanish) http://claudiacampero.blogspot.com/2011/03/temacapulin-permanecera.html

Action alert (in Spanish) http://www.redtdt.org.mx/d_acciones/d_visual.php?id_accion=125

Temacapulín permanecerá.

2011-03-28T23:01:00.004-06:00

Claudia Campero

Tuve la fortuna de ir a Temaca (como se le dice de cariño a Temacapulín) por primera vez para el V Encuentro del Movimiento Mexicano de Afectados por las Presas y en Defensa de los Ríos (MAPDER) en junio de 2008. Ya me habían contado que era un pueblo hermoso, pero fue hasta ir personalmente que pude constatar lo verdaderamente encantador que es.

Al llegar inmediatamente sientes la paz de una comunidad que vive feliz. ¿Cómo? ¿Todavía hay lugares así en México? Y sí, ahí está Temaca. Sin embargo, los últimos años no han sido fáciles. Temaca está sufriendo porque buscan inundarlo para hacer la presa El Zapotillo.


"Estamos bien ubicados, no queremos su nuevo centro de población"	Foto: Marco Von Borstel

Las grandes presas han sido criticadas por sus impactos sociales y ambientales, por provocar grandes desastres, por ser mucho más caras de lo que dicen ser y mucho menos eficientes de lo que prometieron. Sin embargo, se siguen construyendo. ¿Por qué? ¡Porque es un negociazo!

Imagínense nomás cuántas horas de consultoría, cuántos kilos de cemento, cuánto dinero se mueve por las presas… el financiamiento al que se tiene acceso para construirlas.

Pero la gente afectada por las presas la pasa fatal. Un buen día se entera, normalmente por medios de comunicación, no por oficiales de gobierno, que su pueblo está amenazado con desaparecer. Así, simplemente en un futuro no muy lejano inundarán las tierras que guardan sus recuerdos. Ése es el sufrimiento que hoy tiene Temaca.

Lo que me impresiona es que siendo un pueblo muy tranquilo, donde predomina gente mayor, desde hace años se ha transformado en un pueblo combativo. Lo hacen con un estilo muy propio: para evitar que pasen funcionarios a hacerles trampas, bloquean la carretera celebrando el “día del padre”. Honestamente no he escuchado algo similar.

Sólo me gustaría decir una cosa más. Desde aquel junio del 2008 en que me enamoré de Temaca, me entró una seguridad que a mí misma me desconcierta: la seguridad de que Temacapulín no se va a inundar. La certidumbre de que ese pueblo mágico permanecerá. Hoy, con la lucha que está llevando a cabo la gente, me queda todavía más claro.

¡Ríos libres, ríos vivos! ¡Temaca vive, la lucha sigue!

Boletín: Temacapulín detiene la obra en El Zapotillo para cancelar definitivamente la construcción de la Presa.

2011-03-28T12:53:00.001-06:00

· Temacapulín detiene la obra en El Zapotillo para cancelar definitivamente la construcción de la Presa.

· El MAPDER se presenta en El Zapotillo para instalar sesión extraordinaria con aliados de todo el país en solidaridad con la acción contundente de Temacapulín.

· Llamamos a grupos ciudadanos, instituciones y organismos internacionales a que monitoreen que no seamos víctimas de hostigamiento o represión policiaca por parte del aparato estatal, grupos de choque, paramilitares o cualquier grupo armado en la zona alteña.

A las 9 de la noche tras sostener asamblea comunitaria de emergencia en Temacapulín, se hicieron sonar las campanas s de la Basílica de la Virgen de los Remedios para convocar a todo el pueblo a agruparse de manera organizada junto con los aliados de Chiapas, Nayarit, DF, Colima, Oaxaca, Guanajuato, Guerrero y Guadalajara y bajar a la zona donde CONAGUA, CEA y los gobiernos de Jalisco y Guanajuato construyen ilegalmente la cortina de la presa El Zapotillo. El objetivo: detener definitiva e indefinidamente las obras en tanto las autoridades involucradas no acaten los fallos judiciales, la oposición bien fundamentada de los pueblos amenazados de inundación por el macro-proyecto y se establezca un imperante diálogo entre las autoridades involucradas y nuestro pueblo.

En una acción pacífica y legítima, con la razón como bandera y las alternativas como opción, 200 personas ingresaron a la obra donde CONAGUA, CEA y los gobiernos de Jalisco y Guanajuato en contubernio edifican la Presa Zapotillo, pese a no contar con el cambio de uso de suelo y por tanto el permiso del Ayuntamiento de Cañadas de Obregón para levantar una cortina de 105 metros, haberles dirigido la CEDHJ la Recomendación 35/2009 donde se denuncia la violación a todas luces a los derechos humanos y garantías constitucionales que han perpetrado contra quienes radicamos en Temacapulín, aunado a que el 98% de los nacidos, descendientes y vecinos del poblado confirmamos que NO QUEREMOS LA PRESA, más los exhortos emitidos por legisladores a nivel estatal y federal, la sentencia de desacato girada a la PGJ contra el Gobierno de Jalisco, CEA, SEDEUR, IPROVIPE y el Ayuntamiento de Cañadas por construir sin permiso el mal llamado “Nuevo Centro de Población” y, desde luego, el más reciente amparo otorgado por el Juzgado Auxiliar de Distrito en el expediente 2245/2008 y su acumulado 2262/2008 que nos concede la razón y dicta instrucciones para que se cancele la obra.

Es importante señalar a ustedes los medios de comunicación y la opinión pública, que esta acción vigorosa y definitiva responde al alto nivel de hartazgo y desesperación en que las comunidades afectadas por represas y macro-proyectos antidemocráticos en México se encuentra.

A Temacapulín se le ha concedido la razón jurídica, social y mediática.

Nos hemos apegado al derecho, hemos recurrido a instancias locales, estatales, federales, intentado interlocución con los promotores de la obra, manifestado nuestro rechazo tras auto-informarnos e investigar por nuestra cuenta el tipo de proyecto que pretende desplazarnos y anularnos como pueblo, la insostenibilidad de una construcción como una represa que dura solo 25 años; hemos acudido a comparecencias de los responsables del genocidio que insiste en inundar 16 siglos de historia, hemos interpuesto –y ganado- todos los recursos jurídicos dándonos la razón el Tribunal de lo Administrativo del Estado respecto a lo improcedente que es y sigue siendo la construcción de un nuevo pueblo sin aprobación y autorización nuestra en Talicoyunque, así como fallado por el Juzgado Primero de Distrito Auxiliar que nos ampara y protege ordenando a SEMARNAT, CONAGUA y CEA la cancelación inmediata del proyecto.

¿Por qué insisten los tres órdenes de gobierno involucrados en el proyecto en plasmar su autoritarismo ante nosotros, la sociedad jalisciense y leonesa?

Temacapulín hoy alza la voz y su fuerza, junto a los aliados que vienen de diferentes rincones del país, este país tan lastimado por la burocracia y el engaño con el que se pactan acuerdos, refrendando el llamado que hicimos en noviembre pasado a la Revolución del Agua en México, para que toda la sociedad civil se una a esta revolución que no responde sólo a las necesidades y padecimientos por las que atravesamos nosotros, sino al estado de emergencia en que se encuentran lo problemas en general en nuestro país. Y apelamos al legítimo derecho que tenemos de no callarnos y activar lo que sea necesario, para evitar nos desdibujen del pasado, presente y futuro con políticas públicas llenas de alevosía que favorecen solo a una minoría. ¡Queremos seguir siendo pueblos vivos!

No más retórica: 2 millones de beneficiarios en León, Gto. no valen 16 siglos de historia.

Por todo lo anterior le exigimos al Gobierno Mexicano CANCELE DE MANERA DEFINITIVA LA PRESA EL ZAPOTILLO, respete nuestra posición y oposición, acepte que no siguió los protocolos mínimos democráticos para realizar este proyecto, que tiene alternativas para el abastecimiento de agua al campo y las ciudades, sin atropellar a una inmensa mayoría en sus derechos constitucionales que ha comprobado lo insustentable del proyecto.

Llamamos a las personas que directa e indirectamente son afectadas por este problema a que se solidaricen con nosotros, que vengan a reforzar nuestra acción, nos apoyen enviándonos víveres e insumos para sobrellevar esta estancia, monitoreen que no se violen nuestros derechos, que vigilen no seamos sujetos de vejaciones, hostigamiento y represión policiaca por parte del gobierno estatal, grupos de choque, filtrados, paramilitares o cualquier agrupación similar porque es nuestro derecho protestar y defender nuestra tierra por encima de los jugosos negocios y privilegios que recibirán multinacionales y gremios empresariales.

Desmentimos de nuevo las declaraciones irresponsables que dan a los medios de comunicación los funcionarios que gestionan este proyecto: si hay personas que ya negociaron es su derecho rectificar y obligación irrenunciable de los funcionarios respetar su palabra y oposición, sobre todo, porque no queremos ser cómplices de otro robo y engaño para Jalisco porque el agua del Río Verde como lo señalan sus proyectos: no abastecerá de líquido a Los Altos y a la ZMG.

¡Ríos Sin Presas, Pueblos Vivos!

¡NO A LA PRESA EL ZAPOTILLO!

MAPDER - COMITÉ SALVEMOS TEMACAPULÍN, ACASICO Y PALMAREJO

Info:

noalzapotillo@gmail.com / www.temacajalisco.com.mx / www.temaca.com.mx

Tw: @RevodelAgua

Face: Los Ojos del Mundo están puestos en Temaca

Centro de Acopio para víveres: El Colectivo (López Cotilla y Luis Pérez Verdía)

Voceros: 01200 124 76 21, 01200 124 7623 y 378 100 23 71

Fotos de Temacapulín

2011-03-28T12:30:00.002-06:00

Fotos: Marco Von Borstel

Organizaciones civiles y sociales advierten sobre la propuesta del Jefe de Gobierno de incrementar de la participación privada en el servicio de agua en la Ciudad de México

2011-03-01T10:18:00.000-06:00

México D.F., a 1 de marzo de 2011

BOLETIN DE PRENSA

Demandan que se difunda y se abra un amplio debate sobre la iniciativa de Ley para descentralizar el Sistema de Aguas de la Ciudad de México que incluye la intervención del sector privado en el suministro y dotación de agua potable.
Denuncian mínimos avances en la implementación del Programa de Derechos Humanos del D.F. en lo relativo al derecho humano al agua.
Reiteran exigencia de información precisa y una evaluación sobre los contratos con empresas privadas desde 1993 antes de volver a firmar convenios con las mismas.

El pasado 24 de febrero, se publicó una nota informando que: “El jefe de Gobierno del Distrito Federal, Marcelo Ebrard, envió a la Asamblea Legislativa una iniciativa de ley para descentralizar el Sistema de Aguas de la Ciudad de México (SACM), en la que se plantea la intervención del sector privado en el suministro y dotación de agua potable.”

Ya en agosto de 2009 Ebrard había hecho pública su intención de ampliar la participación privada en el manejo del agua en el Distrito Federal. La Coalición de Organizaciones Mexicanas por el Derecho al Agua solicitó mayor información y un debate público al respecto. En el foro público “La privatización del agua y sus impactos” el 26 de octubre de 2009, el Lic. Miguel Ricaño reiteró que no existía una propuesta formal y que no había intención de privatizar los servicios del agua en la Ciudad. Esta misma respuesta también se recibió por escrito a través de solicitud de información[1].

En el contexto de la grave crisis hídrica de la Cuenca del Valle de México, que se agudiza año con año, es imperativo plantear alternativas integrales, bien estructuradas y ampliamente consensadas con todos los actores sociales y con la población. Es evidente que la participación del estado y su rol como garante de los derechos humanos y, en particular, del derecho humano al agua amerita ser claramente definido. Por ello, no debe menospreciarse el esfuerzo realizado en el marco del Programa de Derechos Humanos del Distrito Federal (PDHDF)[2]. Lanzar una iniciativa sin considerar las líneas de acción a las que se ha comprometido el gobierno de la Ciudad en dicho Programa plantea una ambivalencia y da un mensaje contradictorio a la ciudadanía.

A más de un año de aprobado este Programa no hay avances en las líneas de acción relacionadas con las empresas que participan en el manejo de agua y las tarifas, aún en aquéllas que no requieren de mayor esfuerzo por parte del SACM. En este instrumento se establece que se debe hacer pública y accesible toda la información relativa a las empresas concesionarias que operan en el DF; también se debe promover un amplio proceso de participación para aportar a una nueva evaluación de los contratos de 1993 a 2009 que sirva de base para la toma de decisiones relativa a la renovación o celebración de otros contratos. Asimismo, se debe conformar un espacio amplio de reflexión y discusión sobre la reestructuración de las tarifas de agua, asegurando que ésta se haga de conformidad con los instrumentos internacionales de derechos humanos[3]. Estos compromisos implican únicamente el cumplimiento de las disposiciones sobre acceso a la información pública, la transparencia y la rendición de cuentas.

Además, resulta preocupante que el Gobierno del Distrito Federal ignore las repetidas demostraciones, en México y en el mundo, del fracaso de la participación privada en los servicios de agua potable y saneamiento. Las dos premisas principales por las cuales se promueve la participación privada – una supuesta mayor eficiencia e inversión – han sido desmentidas por estudios realizados tanto por académicos como por organizaciones de la sociedad civil. Incluso el Banco Mundial, una agencia promotora de la participación privada en el manejo del agua, admite que la experiencia demuestra que no ha habido mayores logros en inversiones. En Cochabamba – Bolivia, Dar es Salaam – Tanzania y Yakarta – Indonesia, se han sufrido las consecuencias de demandas millonarias de las empresas a los gobiernos, servicios que empeoran, cobros indebidos y tarifas impagables. En Aguascalientes la empresa liderada por Vivendi se fue a la banca rota y fue “rescatada” por el gobierno, lo que significó un subsidio a la empresa con dinero público cuyo monto se mantuvo en secreto.

Desde 1993, el Distrito Federal tiene contratos de servicios de agua con cuatro empresas que progresivamente han realizado funciones de levantamiento del padrón de usuarios, lectura de consumos, emisión de boletas y recepción de pagos. Ahora el ejecutivo local propone profundizar la participación de la iniciativa privada sin antes publicar una evaluación imparcial del desempeño que estas empresas han tenido hasta la fecha y un documento claro que muestre porqué esta propuesta pudiera ayudar a mejorar la gestión del agua en la ciudad.

Demandamos congruencia del Gobierno de la Ciudad de México que proclama públicamente un fuerte compromiso con el medio ambiente y los derechos humanos, incluso a nivel internacional, mientras que en los hechos promueve la participación privada en la gestión del agua por encima de la participación pública, no ofrece información e impulsa numerosos megaproyectos que ponen en serio riesgo las pocas zonas de recargas que han quedado en la Cuenca del Valle de México.

Coalición de Organizaciones Mexicanas por el Derecho al Agua:

- Agua, Trabajo, Servicio y Vida A.C.

- Alianza Mexicana por la Autodeterminación de los Pueblos (AMAP)

- Asistencia Legal por los Derechos Humanos A.C. (ASILEGAL)

- Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental, A.C. (CEMDA)

- Centro Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria, O.P.”, A.C.

- Centro de Servicios Municipales “Heriberto Jara, A.C.”(CESEM)

- Centro Operacional de Vivienda y Poblamiento, A.C. (COPEVI)

- Colectivo Radar

- Comunidades Campesinas y Urbanas Solidarias con Alternativas (COMCAUSA A.C.)

- Consejo de Ejidos y Comunidades Opositores a la Presa La Parota (CECOP)

- Desarrollo, Educación y Cultura Autogestionarios, Equipo Pueblo

- Enlace Rural Regional, A.C. (ERRAC)

- Espacio DESC

- Food First Information and Action Network- México (FIAN-México)

- Guardianes de los Volcanes, A.C.

- Instituto Mexicano para el Desarrollo Comunitario, A.C. (IMDEC)

- Movimiento Mexicano de Afectados por las Presas y en Defensa de los Ríos (MAPDER)

- Otros Mundos, A.C.

- Red de Género y Medio Ambiente (REGEMA)

- Red Mexicana de Acción frente al Libre Comercio (RMALC)

- Unión Popular Revolucionaria Emiliano Zapata (UPREZ)

Aliado internacional:

- Oficina para América Latina de la Coalición Internacional para el Hábitat (HIC-AL)

Para mayor información:

Claudia Campero 044 55 30 15 63 66 claucampero@yahoo.com

Brenda Rodríguez Herrera 044 55 29 36 79 85 brendtzu27@yahoo.com.mx

[1] Solicitud de información con número de folio 0324000033810

[2] La Jefatura de Gobierno publicó el 26 de agosto de 2009 en la Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal, el Acuerdo por el que se establece la obligatoriedad del PDHDF para las Dependencias, Órganos Desconcentrados, Delegaciones y Entidades del Distrito Federal. Además el 24 de febrero del presente se promulgó la Ley del PDHDF.

[3] Ver las líneas de acción 776, 777, 779 y 761 completas en el PDHDF disponible en: http://www.derechoshumanosdf.org/portal/

H2Órale nuevo horario

2009-12-08T08:35:00.004-06:00

A partir de este 8 de diciembre, continúa escuchándonos por internet:

Martes 12:30 pm
Ciudad de México
www.ecoyvoz.org
Información actualizada y crítica acerca de los problemas ambientales y sociales relacionados con el tema del agua que permita repensar ideas preconcebidas.

Puedes también ver el resumen y escuchar programas anteriores. Si tienes sugerencias de contenido puedes escribir a h2orale@ecoyvoz.org o buscarme por facebook con esta dirección de correo electrónico.

***El último programa de H2Órale se transmitió el 23 de febrero de 2010. Gracias a quienes apoyaron este proyecto.

The Story of Cap & Trade

2009-11-30T22:47:00.003-06:00

The Story of Stuff is one of the best videos I have ever seen to explain our current environmental crisis.

The creators of this video have now made this new one you shouldn't miss.

The Story of Cap & Trade is a fast-paced, fact-filled look at the leading climate solution being discussed at Copenhagen and on Capitol Hill. Host Annie Leonard introduces the energy traders and Wall Street financiers at the heart of this scheme and reveals the "devils in the details" in current cap and trade proposals: free permits to big polluters, fake offsets and distraction from what’s really required to tackle the climate crisis. If you’ve heard about Cap & Trade, but aren’t sure how it works (or who benefits), this is the film is for you.

Información para la participación ciudadana y la mejor gobernanza en el agua

2009-11-19T23:44:00.004-06:00

Claudia Campero Arena

12 de noviembre de 2009

Presentación en el Seminario Cátedra UNESCO - IMTA

En primera instancia cuál es el objetivo final de una mesa como ésta, que lleva el nombre de “Información para la gestión y gobernabilidad del agua”. Desde mi perspectiva es contribuir de manera modesta a dar elementos para mejorar la gestión para que sea más equitativa socialmente y ambientalmente más sustentable. Finalmente se trata de que se mejore el acceso de las personas cuyo derecho al agua no es satisfecho en su totalidad (ya sea por falta de cantidad, calidad, accesibilidad o todas las anteriores). Y cuando desglosamos estos aspectos de exigencia para satisfacer el derecho encontramos que son mucho más de los 11 millones de mexican@s que normalmente se manejan los que no gozamos plenamente del derecho humano al agua. Justamente la definición del derecho humano al agua manejada por la ONU incluye, dentro del aspecto de accesibilidad, el derecho de solicitar, recibir y difundir información sobre las cuestiones del agua.

Es en este contexto que hemos ido buscando colocar en las mesas de discusiones con funcionarios públicos que el tema del agua no es un tema exclusivamente para técnicos y expertos, es un tema para la sociedad en su conjunto pues tod@s nos vemos afectad@s por las decisiones que se tomen al respecto. Para formar parte de los procesos de decisión necesitamos información accesible, comprensible y actualizada.

Importancia de la información para la gobernanza
Prefiero usar la palabra gobernanza porque más de una vez he escuchado que la palabra gobernabilidad se entiende como la buena comunicación e interacción entre diferentes entidades y niveles de gobierno. Entendida así la gobernabilidad es muy importante pero es insuficiente.
Definición gobernanza– Según Healey, los sistemas de gobernanza de una sociedad o comunidad se refieren a los procesos a través de los cuales se manejan los asuntos colectivos. Gobernanza incluye la articulación de las reglas de comportamiento y los principios para asignar recursos al interior de la comunidad. Si hablamos de las reglas o reglamentación entra en el panorama la pregunta de quiénes son los que definen estas reglas y su aplicación.

Entonces si la gobernanza se refiere a cómo diferentes actores en la sociedad interactúan para formular reglas que determinan, entre otras cosas, la asignación de recursos, podemos reconocer que esto es un proceso eminentemente político. Esta interacción entre los actores será necesariamente afectada por relaciones inequitativas de poder.

Sin embargo, se reconoce ampliamente que para tener una buena gobernanza se requiere de una participación significativa de la sociedad en los temas de interés público. Para que esta participación sea real se necesita buscar maneras en que las inequidades de alguna manera “se compensen”. La información oportuna y de calidad puede ser una herramienta de empoderamiento que ayude a disminuir un poco esas grandes brechas. Esto mejora la gobernanza e idealmente retribuye en una gestión más democrática y sustentable del agua.

La clave está en que la participación debe ser amplia. La participación no es una tarea sencilla y una condición sine qua non es la transparencia y el acceso a la información. De lo contrario la ciudadanía no tiene herramientas para entrar a la discusión, debate y propuestas acerca de lo que se debe hacer en el tema del agua.

Aquí me interesa hacer una observación acerca de la participación y el conflicto. Creo muchas veces le tenemos miedo al conflicto, sin embargo, comparto la posición de Crawley quien afirma: cuando los procesos participativos no afloran conflictos, están fracasando en cuestionar las relaciones de poder y no pueden argumentar que empoderan.

Información de muchas clases
Resulta útil distinguir que hay diferentes tipos de información referente a la gestión del agua.
Técnica – situación hídrica: información meteorológica – climática, recarga – explotación de cuerpos de agua, contaminación, etc. Ésta es información muy importante para saber la situación en las cuencas.

Presupuestal – dónde ponemos más dinero habla de las prioridades que tenemos. El presupuesto para megaproyectos que tienen importantes impactos sociales y ambiental (como son las presas) en contraste con el presupuesto para proyectos comunitarios da mucha luz de cómo es la política del agua en el país.

Generada por la sociedad civil – puede o no tener los mismos requerimientos técnicos pero su mayor relevancia está en que los grupos interesados recopilan o recogen la información que consideran relevante para ellos. El proceso mismo de generarla involucra más a la gente y les da posibilidad de interesarse más en los procesos que ocurren en su cuenca.

Problemas de la información gubernamental
Actualmente, con todo y ley de acceso a la información, es todo un reto tener acceso a lo que solicitamos como ciudadan@s. Aquí vale la pena reiterar que no es lo mismo transparencia que acceso a la información. Transparencia se refiere a que de forma activa las instituciones gubernamentales publiquen información de interés público. Es decir, que estén en su página web o publicaciones escritas de una manera que sea fácil de encontrar. Acceso a la información se refiere a que a través de una solicitud específica se pida un documento en particular. Ahí nos encontramos con el primer obstáculo ¿cómo formular una solicitud si se desconoce exactamente la terminología que se usa al interior de las instituciones o los documentos que generan?

En el libro “Agenda del Agua” se hace un breve pero muy ilustrativo análisis de los problemas de la información oficial del agua en México y la definen como: confusa, desactualizada, imprecisa y poco sistemática, poco accesible y, lo más revelador, poco utilizada por el propio aparato gubernamental. Por ejemplo, “en cinco ocasiones (entre 1999 y 2007) ha variado la forma y los umbrales con los cuales se evalúa la calidad del agua en el país… no hay forma de saber si con el tiempo la situación ha ido mejorando o empeorando”.

Otro ejemplo a nivel local es el de calidad del agua en el DF. Gracias a la reciente sacudida a raíz de lo que anuncia la COFEPRIS, podemos encontrar ahora un poco más de información en el portal del SACM acerca de calidad del agua. Ya podíamos encontrar en el portal las mediciones de cloro mensuales.

Ahora podemos ver un reporte específico que se elaboró en octubre. Sin embargo, la información presentada no se entiende fácilmente por el público en general y no tiene explicaciones o notas al pie que faciliten su interpretación. Es un esfuerzo pero se queda corto. ¿Qué información le da a un ciudadan@ cuánto cloro tenía cada muestra? Más aún, los datos están agregados por delegación, ¿cómo saber de manera precisa si el agua que llega a mi casa cumplió o no con la norma? Todavía más importante, no hay un mecanismo de aviso a la población cuando, por alguna falla técnica, el agua que se surte no cumple con el parámetro. Aunque este problema se atienda de manera inmediata, la población debiera ser avisada.

Finalmente, los datos de cloración son los únicos que presenta el SACM. Aunque es un dato muy importante no es el único para conocer la calidad del agua.

Información generada por las organizaciones y comunidades
La obligación de levantar información y utilizarla para el buen manejo de cuenca está en diversas instancias gubernamentales y depende de diferentes niveles de legislación. Sin embargo desde la sociedad civil hay mucho que podemos hacer. Levantar y sistematizar información es una oportunidad para la articulación y organización para la acción.

Me gustaría detenerme en un ejemplo de monitoreo ya que recientemente tuve oportunidad de conversar con el biólogo Tadeo Vargas que participó en esta iniciativa.

Se trata un monitoreo ciudadano que se llevó a cabo durante dos años (del 2003 al 2005), en la cuenca del río Sonora (incluyendo el río Sonora y su afluente el río Bacanuchi). Era un proyecto de una organización que se llama la Red Fronteriza de Salud y Ambiente. Este proyecto tenía un presupuesto de 150 mil pesos. Y su objetivo era hacer el diagnóstico ciudadano para generar propuestas de acción comunitaria.

Inicialmente sólo eran chavos de secundaria y preparatoria quienes participaban en el monitoreo orientados por el promotor. Conforme fue pasando el tiempo, las familias enteras se fueron sumando a la actividad. A través del trabajo de monitoreo se fue logrando elaborar propuestas concretas y empujar a actores locales para hacerlas realidad. Por ejemplo, cuando una vaca se le moría a un granjero, la iban a tirar al río. Como la legislación local indicaba una multa, el dueño colocaba la vaca de tal manera que se escondiera su marca de propiedad. La propuesta que se hizo fue que la multa no se dirigiera al dueño sino a la asociación de ganaderos de tal forma que ésta se encargara de pasar la penalización al dueño. Además se obliga a la asociación a retirar la vaca y enterrarla.

Otros logros específicos que tuvo este monitoreo fueron lagunas de oxidación, donde los municipios y los ejidos pusieron una parte de los gastos para hacerlas a una distancia prudente del afluente y con una tecnología anaerobia. Así como rellenos sanitarios, que no existían y después del monitoreo se hicieron en los ocho municipios. Estos rellenos no son la mejor opción, pero antes ni siquiera había un lugar donde se concentrara la basura sino que estaba dispersa. Además hicieron campañas de reforestación en donde se necesitaban alrededor del río.

Creo que este ejemplo muestra de manera muy clara el poder de la información como articulador y herramienta de empoderamiento para el cambio, para mejorar la gobernanza de una cuenca con beneficios claros de manejo sustentable y democrático.

Ahora, consideremos qué se podría hacer si la información gubernamental en el agua fuera de mayor calidad, estuviera disponible de manera comprensible y fuera, incluso en los contextos que lo permiten, generada junto con la comunidad.

Esto nos permitiría aumentar la confianza de la sociedad a los gobiernos, algo que me parece que es urgente. Much@s funcionari@s le tienen miedo a proveer información y a lo que la ciudadanía hará con la misma. No olvidemos que esta información es generada con nuestros impuestos y es un derecho. Efectivamente, a veces la información se usa para exponer las fallas en los gobiernos (ni modo, son gajes del oficio), pero en la medida en que la información sea más accesible y nos permita abrir diálogos también hará una sociedad con mayores elementos y comprensión de los problemas. Esto hace que también se vayan entendiendo las limitaciones que l@s mism@s funcionari@s sufren en su trabajo cotidiano (ya sea por legislación, falta de recursos, problemas de competencia, etc.) y surjan propuestas concretas para sortear los obstáculos.

Está claro que los retos son enormes pero me parece que cada quién, desde nuestro ámbito de acción tenemos ideas de por dónde trabajar para mejorar la información. Luego necesitamos dar el siguiente brinco: el de usarla para empoderar a la sociedad en su conjunto y que podamos participar en la toma de decisiones para mejorar la gobernanza del agua y así tener una gestión sustentable y justa.

Referencias:
Aboites, L. et al, 2008. Agenda del Agua. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias, México.
Crawley, H., 1998, “Living Up to the Empowerment Claim? The Potential of PRA” in I. Guijt and Shah, M.K. (eds) The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development, Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd, London.
Healey, P., 1997, Collaborative Planning. Shaping places in Fragmented Societies, MacMillan Press, London.

H2Órale

2009-10-31T10:17:00.005-06:00

A partir de este 3 de noviembre, te invito a escuchar este nuevo programa de radio por internet:

Martes 11:00 am

www.ecoyvoz.org
Información actualizada y crítica acerca de los problemas ambientales y sociales relacionados con el tema del agua que permita repensar ideas preconcebidas.

***El último programa de H2Órale se transmitió el 23 de febrero de 2010. Gracias a quienes apoyaron este proyecto.

Global actions underway to reclaim public water

2009-10-07T10:46:00.002-05:00

http://www.blueoctobercampaign.org/

Press Release
For Immediate Release
Contact: Anil Naidoo, Blue Planet Project, anaidoo@canadians.org, tel: 613 882 4405

Blue October takes world by storm

Today, international water activists are launching the fourth annual Blue October campaign. Blue October is a month of global grassroots action to challenge corporate control of water and to protect it as a commons, a shared natural resource.

This past year communities around the world have made significant gains in managing water equitably and sustainably. Water bottlers are on the defensive as public water has been proven in many places to be of better quality. It has been banned outright in one Australian community. At the World Water Forum, 24 countries signed a declaration recognizing the right to water. The state of Vermont passed legislation defining ground water as a public trust and requiring permits for large withdrawals. Blue October highlights examples of how communities take control of their water systems.

October was chosen because on October 31, 2004, the people of Uruguay voted to amend their constitution to recognize a fundamental right to water. The Constitution now guarantees that water be available to all Uruguayans, and it bans for-profit corporations from supplying this public good. This September, additional laws were passed in Uruguay to strengthen commitment to public water.

Across the globe, one in 6 people lack access to safe, affordable water, and 2 in 5 lack access to adequate sanitation. The United Nations expects these numbers to dramatically rise--unless actions are taken now. World leaders will meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss climate change. Uncertain water availability and diminished water quality are some of the most dramatic casualties of climate change, key discussion topics at the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks.

An international grassroots movement has been growing to defend water as a commons, a public good and an inalienable right. Citizens have come together in activists networks such as Red Vida, Friends of the Earth International, the European Water Network and the African Water Network.

To celebrate Blue October, communities around the world are drawing attention to water issues in their communities. Issues range from the encroachment of for-profit companies on public water to citizen participation in water management. Activities include local and national events.
These actions are supported by Maude Barlow, former Senior Advisor on Water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly, “We have been working hard with the U.N. to ensure responsible stewardship of our water commons so that water isn’t treated as a commodity to be sold to the highest bidder, but rather that people and nature receive their fair share. But heads of state won’t act without significant pressure from citizen groups. The actions of Blue October are essential.”

For more information on activities in more than 40 countries, please contact Anil Naidoo, Project Organizer of the Blue Planet Project at anaidoo@canadians.org and phone +1 613.882 4405.

Water Privatization Threat in Mexico City

2009-09-18T14:27:00.003-05:00

Published by Food and Water Watch

Mexico is a country facing staggering water problems. Pollution, scarcity, and lack of access to safe water throughout the country have united many Mexicans into a broad movement in recent years. Now, residents of Mexico City, such as myself, are seeing a new challenge to our already compromised access to a reliable supply of clean water.

Water scarcity has been in Mexico City’s headlines for several months. Since January of this year, there have been increasing scheduled cutoffs from the Cutzamala system, one of the most important supplies of drinking water for the city. The Cutzamala system is a huge complex of dams, pumps and pipelines that transports 16,000 liters of water per second 1,100 meters up and over the mountains and then 90 miles to the taps of Mexico City.

The main rationale for the scheduled cutoffs is extremely low rainfall in 2008 and now in 2009. In an attempt to raise awareness of the need for water rationing, the city government has launched an extensive campaign in the subway, radio and newspapers that announces: “February 2010: The city may be left without water. Mexico City is living its worst drought in its history. There is water left only for the next 6 months. It is not a warning, it is a reality.” This is, of course, a very serious statement. But the City’s response to date has merely served to increase inequities in water service without addressing the heart of the matter.

Since the alarm has been repeatedly sounded, the “progressive” government of Mexico City has proposed some solutions to manage this crisis, but most of the proposed solutions fail to address the larger problem -- massive mismanagement of the city’s water.

The first proposed solution is the water cutoffs. Many poor neighborhoods now receive water only at certain times of the day, some only every other day or even once a week. It is not only the poor who are affected; increasingly, the rationing is spreading to new areas, including middle class neighborhoods.

The second solution is a wide-spread campaign targeting citizens to “save water,” by practicing conservation in the home. Naturally, water should be used wisely; but if you consider that many people do not have enough water already, the demand to use even less adds insult to injury.

The third solution put forward by the local government is a proposed increase in water tariffs, which will soon come before the city’s legislature for approval.

On a positive note, there are some proposals around rainwater harvesting and repairing leaks. These would be crucial elements in any plan to manage the crisis, given that Mexico City’s pipes suffer a leakage rate between 35 and 40 percent, and the amount of rainwater that is currently collected is next to none.

However, the final proposal is the most disturbing: the recent announcement to increase private participation in the city’s water management.

Since 1993, four companies have held service contracts in water management in four sections of the Federal District. Each of these companies is made up of 51 percent Mexican companies and 49 percent multinationals, such as Veolia Water and Suez Environment. The contracts include responsibility for user registration, metering and billing.

On August 20th, Mexico City Mayor Marcelo Ebrard announced that there will be further private participation in water management. Although he didn’t provide details, we know that the proposal includes giving bulk water to private companies to distribute and that in addition to their previous responsibilities of metering and billing, the companies will now be responsible for repairing pipes and reducing leakage. However, not all the city’s delegaciones (regional areas that make up the city) will participate in this scheme. The five with the biggest technical and social challenges (most populated, with issues around quality and quantity, subsiding soil, etc.) will remain under the authority of the city government.

What worries water activists most is: 1) the lack of precise information about this proposal, and 2) the empirical experiences in Mexico and the rest of the world that prove that private water management does not bring the promised efficiency. In fact, these companies have been repeatedly incapable of complying with their contracts. Even when companies fail to meet contract obligations, examples from Buenos Aires to Paris to Dar es Salam, Tanzania show that remunicipalization is an incredibly difficult process.

The Coalition of Mexican Organizations for the Right to Water (COMDA) has expressed its concerns regarding this proposal. The many failures of private water management, both national and international, cannot be ignored. Every water struggle is unique, and the struggle here will be complicated by the city’s severe crisis of human-provoked scarcity; but residents of Mexico City need to learn from experiences elsewhere to demand that the local government take real responsibility for meeting the demands of its citizens.

–Claudia Campero

Entre la escasez y la abundancia

2009-07-02T21:03:00.006-05:00

Claudia Campero

L@s habitantes de la ciudad se rascan la cabeza y se preguntan “¿La ciudad de México sufre de escasez de agua o de abundancia?” Las noticias de hoy 2 de julio nos dicen, por un lado, que las represas que surten a la ciudad no han recuperado los niveles de agua necesarios para nuestra tranquilidad y, por el otro, nos dicen de las inundaciones aquí y allá.

Cualquiera puede hacerse esta pregunta “¿escasez o exceso?” y sentir que no tiene la respuesta. Y es que la respuesta es una contradicción (incluso parece ser un insulto al sentido común): la ciudad de México sufre de las dos. No se trata de sufrir de ambos problemas dependiendo de la temporada del año, hoy incluso, se sufre de ambos males al mismo tiempo.

Lo que l@s ciudadan@s de la capital necesitamos saber es que la locura no está en esta contradicción. La locura está en los años, incluso siglos, de manejo irracional y necio de una cuenca. Tengo ganas de preguntarle a alguna maestra de historia de primaria qué es lo que dicen l@s niñ@s cuando les platican de la gran Tenochtitlán. De vez en cuándo habrá algun@ que pregunte ¿dónde están aquellos lagos?

Los ingenieros actuales, al igual que los anteriores, se han empeñado de una manera sorprendente en contradecir pendientes y distancias para trasladar agua limpia y sucia al servicio de la ciudad. Y el agua, siempre bondadosa, muchas veces necia, nos recuerda constantemente que no está a nuestro servicio.

Cuando se les pregunta a estos ingenieros ¿qué no sería prudente aprovechar el agua de lluvia en vez de intentar desalojarla? Responden con gran seguridad: es muy caro y además haría poca diferencia en el problema.

¿Y qué no resulta carísima la sobreexplotación del agua subterránea? Actualmente, esta sobreexplotación significa que el agua cada vez es de menor calidad teniendo que invertir más y más en su potabilización. Además, los hundimientos que sufre la ciudad están directamente relacionados con esta sobreexplotación. Estos hundimientos generan costos tanto en infraestructura pública (las tuberías se rompen y pierden pendiente, las calles se abren) como en casas particulares. Por si esto fuera poco, ya han costado vidas humanas las cuales son imposibles de incorporar en las ecuaciones ingenieriles.

¿Cuándo entenderemos que tenemos que repensar nuestro modelo de ciudad? ¿Cuándo nos daremos cuenta que si no cambiamos este paradigma de manejo cada vez saldrá más caro y cada vez sufrirán más personas? ¿Cuándo nos daremos cuenta que las grandes infraestructuras tienen grandes limitaciones? Necesitamos remitirnos a lo más simple: ¿cómo reestablecemos, en la medida de lo posible, el ciclo natural del agua?

Cambio Climático y Agua

2009-06-26T11:43:00.003-05:00

Claudia Campero

Cuando escuchamos "es el reto ambiental más difícil de nuestros tiempos", a veces se refieren al tema del agua, a veces al tema del cambio climático. No considero que haya una competencia entre estos dos graves problemas pues resulta que en realidad están íntimamente ligados. Los dos están íntimamente relacionados con los problemas de deforestación y degradación de los ecosistemas, con las crecientes sequías provocadas por la humanidad, con los huracanes y las inundaciones, con el modelo agrícola, industrial y urbano predominante. En resumen, ambos problemas son producto de un modelo de desarrollo insostenible no sólo por sus impactos ambientales sino también por la inconcebible inequidad que provoca.

Resulta una obligación para cada un@ de nosotr@s involucrarnos en entender estos problemas, ver sus relaciones y actuar con responsabilidad. La Tierra es un sistema donde lo que sucede en un lugar tiene consecuencias en otros lugares que pueden ser muy distantes. Es por esto que surgen movimientos como el de justicia climática, pues las consecuencias del cambio climático van a tener su mayor impacto en las poblaciones más pobres del planeta. Aquellas que de por sí sufren por no tener agua segura, vivienda digna, acceso a la salud y la educación. Así como las crisis económicas afectan más a las personas con menor ingreso económico, las crisis ambientales también afectan en mucho mayor medida a l@s agricultores y pezcadores de subsistencia, a las comunidades marginadas que con su trabajo le dan viabilidad a los centros turísticos de playa, a l@s indígenas que dependen directamente de su entorno inmediato.

Hay mucho qué hacer. Creamos en y construyamos los otros mundos que queremos. Éstas son dos iniciativas a las que nos podemos sumar:

Píntale la raya al cambio climático

Firma y da a conocer la petición

350 México

¡Participa en la marcha virtual mandando tus fotos!

Experiencias de Foros Mundiales del Agua de México a Estambul

2009-06-16T10:53:00.006-05:00

Claudia Campero

Mayo 2009

Bogotá, Colombia

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.

Organising Resistance in the context of the Forth World Water Forum in Mexico 2006

2009-06-10T23:15:00.001-05:00

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 (4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th WWF discourse with worthy arguments and gave space for an alternative to view and manage our water differently.

Bienvenid@s / Welcome

2009-06-08T12:48:00.001-05:00

Este blog publica trabajos e ideas acerca de: agua y vivienda con un enfoque de justicia social y sustentabilidad ambiental. Gracias por sus comentarios.

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.

Norwegian Organisations Question Water Law

2009-06-07T20:41:00.000-05:00

STATEMENT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON

“PROPOSED LAW ON MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP AND MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWAGE FEES”

(STATUTE MAKING ON MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP OF WATER AND SEWAGE PLANTS)

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

Curriculum Vitae

2009-03-25T12:42:00.002-06:00

Claudia Campero Arena
Correo electrónico: claucampero@yahoo.com
Edad: 30 años. Nacionalidad: Mexicana.

Grados Obtenidos.

University College London
Development Planning Unit
2003–2004
Maestría en Ciencias en Desarrollo y Planeación Urbana con Especialidad en Vivienda. El título de tesina: “Gobernanza, conflicto y justicia social en el manejo y distribución del agua en la Ciudad de México”.

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras
Colegio de Geografía
1997–2002
Licenciatura en Geografía.
Título de tesis: “Estructura urbana de la delegación Cuajimalpa” dentro del proyecto de Reestructuración Urbana y Mercado Inmobiliario en la ciudad de México.
Mención Honorífica.

Otros estudios.
University of Texas at Austin
Enero–mayo 2001
Programa de intercambio de la UNAM, séptimo semestre de Geografía.

Conocimientos y habilidades técnicas.
Idiomas: Inglés: TOEFL 637 en junio de 2000, IELTS 7.0 en septiembre 2002.
Paquetería manejada: Office y nociones de AutoCAD y ArcView. Para páginas electrónicas - WordPress

Experiencia profesional.

Food and Water Watch
Blue Planet Project

Diciembre 2008 a la fecha

Consultora

Apoyo en la comunicación de diversas redes del agua para la organización al interior del movimiento internacional en defensa del agua. Participación en el comité internacional para la organización de las actividades alternas al 5to Foro Mundial del Agua.

http://www.peopleswaterforum.org/

Investigación acerca del proceso de privatización del agua en México

Fundación Heinrich Böll

Marzo 2008 - diciembre 2008

Coordinadora de Encuentro

Coordinación general: contenidos, metodología y logística del Encuentro "Cambios políticos en Latinoamérica, ¿Nuevas políticas del agua?" que se celebró en la ciudad de México del 26 al 28 de noviembre de 2008. Pariciparon especialistas en el tema del agua de diversos países de la región incluyendo representantes gubernamentales, académicos y representantes de la sociedad civil.

Consultoría Independiente
Septiembre 2007 - diciembre 2007
Elaboración participativa y redacción de proyecto de agua y género en el Distrito Federal.

British Council, México
Julio 2006 - agosto 2007
Education Collaboration Manager
Responsable de la comunicación regional (Latinoamérica y el Caribe) para el proyecto "Liderazgo Escolar y Nuevas Herramientas para el Aprendizaje" que busca promover capacidades de liderazgo en directivos de escuelas públicas. Además coordinación del proyecto de Global Gateway México.

Coalición de Organizaciones
Mexicanas por el Derecho al Agua (COMDA)
Mayo 2005 a Junio 2006
Coordinadora
Responsable de mantener la comunicación entre las 17 organizaciones civiles y sociales que componen la coalición y la comunicación desde la coalición hacia otras organizaciones internacionales interesadas en el tema.

Julio 2006 a la fecha
Integrante y promotora de la Campaña por el Derecho Humano al Agua a la Constitución
De manera voluntaria me mantengo involucrada en las actividades de COMDA. Además soy parte del Comité de Enlace de la Red VIDA.

Consultoría Independiente
Junio a septiembre 2005
Como Consultora Independiente trabajé en el proyecto: "El agua en México: Lo que tod@s debemos saber" para Presencia Ciudadana. Fui responsable de una tercera parte de los contenidos de esta guía, así como de realizar consultas para incluir las preocupaciones de diferentes personas interesadas.

Presencia Ciudadana Mexicana, A.C.
Zacatecas 206 – PH, Col. Roma
Enero- mayo 2005
Coordinadora de proyectos: Agua
Guía: El agua en México: “Lo que tod@s debemos saber”. Nueva Cultura del Agua en México, educación ambiental y métodos participativos. Acceso a la información, participación social y justicia ambiental. Facilitadora de la Red Ciudadana del Agua.
Edición del Boletín Azul publicación electrónica mensual informando eventos y novedades de agua en el ámbito nacional e internacional.

Colegio de México
Dra. María Eugenia Negrete
Diciembre-abril 2005
Becaria de investigación, formulación de la línea de investigación: “Migración internacional y ciudad” para guiar investigaciones a realizar en el impacto que migrantes mexicanos tienen en la ciudad de Nueva York.

Sistema de Aguas de la Ciudad de México
(antigua Comisión de Aguas del Distrito Federal)
Izazaga 89, piso 8, Col. Centro
Director General: Germán Martínez
Agosto 2002– julio 2003
Becaria en la Comisión de Aguas realicé múltiples investigaciones principalmente acerca de estructuras tarifarias para el Director General, participé en reuniones en donde se expusieron diferentes temas relacionados con el manejo y administración del agua. Asistí a sesiones de la Asamblea Legislativa del D.F. donde se discutía los problemas principalmente de cobranza y sustentabilidad financiera del sector.

Centro de Investigación y Estudios de Posgrado
Facultad de Arquitectura, UNAM
Directora de proyecto: Carmen Valverde
Junio 2001– agosto 2002
Becaria del proyecto de Reestructuración Urbana y Mercado Inmobiliario realicé trabajo de campo para obtener información de usos del suelo en diversas delegaciones de la ciudad y construí mapas con la información obtenida de la delegación Cuajimalpa. Lo anterior con el objetivo de entender la dinámica de la estructura urbana paso previo necesario para la planeación de la ciudad.

Colegio Williams
Octubre 2001– julio 2002
Impartí clases de Geografía a dos grupos de segundo de secundaria.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática
Enero– marzo 2000
Jefe de Entrevistadores en el XII Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000.

Escuela Secundaria y Preparatoria de la Ciudad de México
Campos Elíseos 139, Polanco
1998– 1999
Impartí la materia Sistemas Ambientales en el Programa de Bachillerato Internacional durante un año escolar.

Trabajo voluntario.

Campaña Octubre Azul
Julio - noviembre 2006 y 2007
He formado parte del equipo de coordinación internacional que ha promovido la Campaña del Octubre Azul en todos los continentes para promever actividades locales en defensa del agua logrando la participación de 36 países. Durante la campaña de 2007 además fui responsable de la página electrónica.

Fundación Pro Niños de la Calle, I.A.P.
Zaragoza 277, Col. Guerrero
Tel. 55 83 86 15
En el verano de 1997 trabajé de manera voluntaria en un proyecto de coordinación de la adquisición para el "Centro de Día" de esta Institución de mobiliario e instrumentos necesarios para cumplir con su misión: acompañar a los niños que viven en la calle a un proceso gradual que les permita elegir otra opción de vida.
También de manera voluntaria, he trabajado en varias ocasiones en la organización del Evento Anual de la Institución.

Colonias de Vacaciones, I.A.P.
Plaza Mariscal Sucre 46–32, Col. del Valle
Tel. 56 69 21 95
Desde 1996 he participado en numerosas ocasiones como animadora, jefa, directora y asesora en campamentos para llevar a niñas/os de escasos recursos de vacaciones. Estas actividades me han ayudado a desarrollar cualidades como: trabajo en equipo, competencias organizacionales, vocación de servicio y liderazgo.

Reconocimientos

Reconocimiento de la UNAM por mejor promedio a nivel preparatoria de las escuelas del sistema incorporado.

Medalla Gabino Barreda por la Licenciatura en Geografía

Beca Chevening por la Embajada Británica para estudiar la maestría.

Beca Complemento por la Secretaría de Educación Pública para auxiliar en los gastos de la maestría.

Cursos, talleres y conferencias impartidas

Struggling for sustainability and democratic control over water. Featured speaker. Symposium "Water and Civilization: The Challenge of the Future", Hanover College. March, 2009.

Working together against the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Keynote speach, Council of Canadians 22nd AGM, October 26, 2007.

Water Governance and Social Justice: A Mexican Voice Agaist Privatization. Conferencia durante "Water Week" en la Universidad de Lethbridge, Canadá, 23 de enero de 2007

Water for life: A Mexican Voice Against Privatization. Vancouver, 6 de noviembre de 2006. Evento organizado por Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Council of Canadians, Oxfam Canada and Co-Development Canada.

Taller "Water Movement in Mexico" durante la conferencia "Our Water, Our Future". Qualicum, Vancouver, 4 de noviembre de 2006.

Ponencia "No a la Privatización del Agua", que se puede leer en esta página, en el Foro: "En Defensa del Agua" La privatización del Agua en México y su repercusión en el Pueblo. Cámara de Diputados, 12 de agosto de 2005.

Encuentro de la Sociedad Civil en Acción por el Agua. Como parte de mis responsabilidades dentro del proyecto "El agua en México: Lo que tod@s debemos saber" para Presencia Ciudadana organizamos un encuentro en Guadalajara (abril 2005) y otro en Tuxtla Gutiérrez (julio 2005). En ambos eventos expuse la iniciativa de la Nueva Cultura del Agua y recibimos retroalimentación acerca del progreso de la guía ciudadana.

Ponencia "Agua y cultura: consumo y manejo del agua", en la Cátedra "El Derecho al Agua, un Derecho Humano" del Centro de Derechos Humanos “Fray Francisco de Vitoria, O.P.”, A.C., 18 de mayo 2005.

Cursos de capacitación para Colonias de Vacaciones, I.A.P. A partir de 2001, he impartido diversos cursos para capacitar voluntarias/os de esta organización. He tenido progresivamente mayores responsabilidades instructora, jefa y directora. Los cursos han sido (1) para capacitar a adultos en el trabajo con niñas/os de escasos recursos, (2) para el aprovechamiento de los recursos materiales y logística de los campamentos, (3) cursos para jóvenes de introducción al servicio social, y (4) cursos para desempeñarse como asesoras/es de jefas/es y directoras/es.

Firmas por el Derecho al Agua, Octubre Azul 2006

2007-09-10T12:39:00.000-05:00

Memoria del Foro Internacional en Defensa del Agua

2007-02-07T18:45:00.001-06:00

Recomiendo la lectura de la Memoria del Foro Internacional en Defensa del Agua que compila las intervenciones durante este importante evento que sucedió en marzo de 2006 como una alternativa y crítica al IV Foro Mundial del Agua.

Report of the International Forum in the Defense of Water

2007-02-07T18:34:00.001-06:00

I recommend to read the Report of the International Forum in the Defense of Water. This important event took place in March 2006 as an alternative to the much questioned 4th World Water Forum.

No a la Privatización del Agua

2005-08-16T17:55:00.000-05:00

Ponencia expuesta en:
“Foro en Defensa del Agua”
Cámara de Diputados
12 agosto 2005

Agradezco mucho la invitación que me hicieron para participar en este evento. Me siento muy alagada y espero poder cumplir con las expectativas que los han traído aquí.

Me gustaría compartir con ustedes algunas reflexiones generales acerca del tema de la privatización del agua.

Primero veamos que dicen los que abogan por la participación privada en los servicios de agua potable y alcantarillado.

Según la CNA (2003)[1] “comúnmente se considera que la participación de las empresas privadas en el sector puede ser útil por diversas razones, entre ellas las siguientes:
· Se constituye en una fuente adicional de recursos financieros.
· Aporta recursos técnicos, administrativos y operativos que contribuyen al incremento de la eficiencia global.
· Permite agilidad en la toma de decisiones y la asignación de recursos.
· Proporciona continuidad en la gestión.
· Permite la separación explícita de las funciones de autoridad y operación”.

Al reflexionar en cada afirmación por separado podemos dar contra-argumentos para cada una:

· Se constituye en una fuente adicional de recursos financieros.
o Se ha visto a través de la experiencia que la iniciativa privada no está dispuesta a invertir grandes cantidades de dinero si considera que hay riesgos importantes. Esto significa que no invertirá en extender las redes de agua o drenaje a zonas donde los “clientes”[2] no tengan ingresos que garanticen un pago por los servicios que haga atractiva la inversión con una recuperación de los costos a corto plazo. Si consideramos que donde más hace falta inversión es justamente donde la gente es más pobre entonces podemos ver que la iniciativa privada no nos traerá la solución del problema de financiamiento.
o Es interesante ver que justo la iniciativa privada se interesa en operar sistemas que ya han tenido fuertes inversiones donde las redes ya están. Ejemplo: Ciudada de México, Aguascalientes, Cancún

· Aporta recursos técnicos, administrativos y operativos que contribuyen al incremento de la eficiencia global.
o Esto puede ser parcialmente cierto, que tengan conocimientos administrativos y técnicos que los operadores municipales no tengan. Sin embargo, ¿la única manera de obtener estos conocimientos es mediante la privatización del servicio? O ¿más bien nos hace falta invertir en la capacitación de la gente que trabaja en los organismos municipales?
o Sin embargo, existen estudios que muestran cómo la eficiencia prometida por las empresas de agua no ha sido alcanzada en repetidas ocasiones[3].

· Permite agilidad en la toma de decisiones y la asignación de recursos.
o Más adelante hablaré de los riesgos de que la toma de decisiones recaiga en los directivos de una empresa y no responda a los intereses de los ciudadanos.
o Ciertamente, es un defecto de muchos organismos gubernamentales ser lentos en la toma de decisiones por excesos en trámites y papeleos. Pero un organismo público es perfectamente capaz de reorganizarse para ser más eficiente en la toma de decisiones.

· Proporciona continuidad en la gestión.
o Evidentemente que la continuidad en la gestión del agua es necesaria. Ésta puede darse al fomentar un servicio civil de carrera donde los directivos al frente de los organismos operadores no estén ahí por ser primos o amigos del Presidente Municipal sino por ser profesionales con años de experiencia en el sector.

· Permite la separación explícita de las funciones de autoridad y operación.
o Es curioso que la CNA hable de esta separación dado que una de las críticas más importantes a este organismo es que es juez y parte de las políticas hídricas del país. Es decir, busca promover en los municipios algo que no hace a nivel federal.
o Es importante considerar el poder desigual que tiene un municipio frente a una transnacional, esto significa que la organización que busca ser la autoridad se encuentra en franca desventaja frente a la organización que debiera de vigilar y de obligar a cumplir acuerdos.

¿Por qué decimos NO a la privatización del agua?

Existen muchas razones por las cuales decir no a la privatización de los servicios de agua, la mayoría de ellos se relacionan con la lógica de lucro que tiene la iniciativa privada. No es que esté mal que inversionistas busquen generar ganancias pero el problema es que esto se trate de hacer con un bien público y estratégico. Los problemas que voy a mencionar se han presentado en repetidas ocasiones en diferentes partes del mundo. Se basan principalmente mas no exclusivamente en dos publicaciones una de Public Citizen[4] y otra de David Hall[5].

1. Las empresas responden a los accionistas, no a los ciudadanos

Son los accionistas los que realmente tienen el poder de decisión de qué cambios puede tener el servicio. Pero cualquier empresario nos dirá que la lógica empresarial dice “el cliente siempre tiene la razón”, es decir busca la satisfacción del cliente. Sin embargo, cuando se trata de un monopolio la frase deja de tener significado.

El servicio de agua y alcantarillado es un monopolio natural de un bien indispensable para la vida, la calidad de vida y el desarrollo económico. Por lo tanto, los ciudadanos no pueden castigar a una empresa que provea el servicio si éste es insatisfactorio.

2. La privatización trae incrementos en las tarifas

Volviendo a la lógica de lucro, que es la motivación de las empresas, una manera que se pueden aumentar sus ganancias es naturalmente a través del incremento de tarifas. Finalmente la empresa tiene que cubrir ciertas exigencias financieras de dividendos para los propietarios.

Las tarifas de agua aumentaron con la privatización en Saltillo y Aguascalientes

Los gobiernos municipales han puesto en venta sus servicios de agua y alcantarillado al mejor postor para mejorar sus finanzas sin necesariamente buscar que estas empresas pongan precios accesibles al servicio. Ejemplo, Budapest donde se dio la concesión a el consorcio que ofrecía más dinero para el municipio, no menores tarifas para los usuarios.

3. Con la privatización decrece la calidad del servicio y del agua

Otra manera de generar mayores ganancias es ahorrarse gastos. Esto sigue una racionalidad económica muy natural. Sin embargo, los ciudadanos se pueden ver fuertemente afectados por estos ahorros en cuestiones clave para mantener la calidad del servicio y el agua.

En el caso de EU la asociación que representa los intereses de las empresas del agua continuamente insiste al congreso que evite adoptar medidas que pidan estándares mayores de calidad y que los reglamentos federales se basen en análisis de costo beneficio lo cual compromete la salud pública en pro de mayores ganancias.

En el caso de Puerto Rico, un contrato de administración con Vivendi tuvo observaciones de un contralor detectando: fallas en el mantenimiento, reparación, administración y funcionamiento de acueductos y alcantarillas, informes financieros retrazados o no entregados, quejas de clientes sin respuesta, equipos de trabajo que no ubicaban válvulas.

4. La privatización facilita a la corrupción

Incluso el Banco Mundial, un gran promotor de la privatización, admite que ésta puede incentivar la corrupción: una empresa puede pagar para que se le incluya en la lista de licitantes, restringir el número de éstos, obtener una evaluación baja de la propiedad pública a arrendar o liquidar, ser favorecida en el proceso de selección. Además pueden conseguir subsidios, ventajas de monopolio y laxitud de regulación.

5. La privatización reduce el control local y los derechos públicos (poca responsabilidad exigible). Obstaculiza la transparencia

En teoría la reglamentación de las empresas es lo que permite un control sobre sus acciones y favorecen que actúen por el bien de los consumidores. Sin embargo, frecuentemente nos hemos encontrado con ejemplos donde la regulación está muy por detrás de lo necesario para garantizar los derechos de los ciudadanos. Simplemente los gobiernos son incapaces de regular eficazmente la participación del sector privado.

Las empresas abogan por confidencialidad NO por transparencia. Ejemplo de Cochabamba donde el modelo financiero detrás de los aumentos de precios era considerado un secreto comercial.

6. El financiamiento privado resulta más caro que el financiamiento público. Apoyo financiero público al sector privado (rescates)

Se cree equivocadamente que con la privatización los costos del sector serán pagados por la iniciativa privada liberando al sector público y, por lo tanto a los contribuidores, de pagar para mejorar la infraestructura. Lo que en realidad sucede es que los costos los pagan por los “clientes” en sus cuentas mensuales.

La concesión de Aguascalientes tuvo apoyos financieros sustanciales que no estaban previstos inicialmente. Es decir, se tuvo que rescatar a la empresa porque su situación financiera era insostenible. Nos surge la duda ¿por qué sí hay dinero para los rescates pero antes de privatizar se decía que no habían recursos?

En el mismo caso de Puerto Rico se necesitó que el Estado concediera subsidios a la empresa para pudiera enfrentar sus problemas financieros pues había aumentado su déficit operativo constantemente. En diferentes ocasiones intervino el Banco Gubernamental de Fomento para dar fondos de emergencia.

7. La privatización trae pérdida de empleos

Frecuentemente al privatizar un servicio vienen despidos masivos pues las compañías una vez más están buscando maximizar ganancias minimizando costos. Estos despidos no sólo son un problema muy serio para los empleados y sus familias sino para la ciudadanía en general que ve una caída en la calidad del servicio.

En Aguascalientes por cada mil tomas de agua la planta laboral se redujo en una proporción de cinco a tres empleados.

8. La privatización es difícil de echar para atrás

Una vez que el gobierno pasa el sistema de agua a manos privadas cancelar contratos es extremadamente difícil. Probar incumplimientos contractuales es difícil y costoso. Los acuerdos multilaterales comerciales dan a las corporaciones poderosos recursos legales. Los tratos con el Banco Mundial para préstamos que ponen la mesa para la privatización dan garantías a las empresas de pagos en efectivo si el gobierno quiere regresar a control público.

9. La privatización obstaculiza el acceso al servicio para los pobres

Esto es debido a dos cosas principalmente: el aumento en tarifas y los precios prohibitivos para ser conectados a la red; y la visión de las empresas de que los barrios de escasos recursos son poco rentables y que presentan riesgos comerciales importantes. Por lo que las empresas evitan o se niegan abiertamente a expandir el servicio a dichas zonas.

10. Es mentira que la privatización promueva la competencia

Una de las ventajas que se argumenta tiene la iniciativa privada es que promueve la competencia en beneficio del consumidor. Esto puede ser parcialmente cierto para algunos productos (aunque podemos pensar en varias transnacionales que tienen prácticas casi monopólicas). Sin embargo, en el caso del agua la competencia se reduce al momento en el que se concursa por un contrato o concesión convirtiéndose en el momento de ser ganadores del concurso en una práctica monopólica garantizada por varios años. Incluso existen concesiones que se han dado sin concurso, por asignación como es el caso de Aguacalientes.

11. Subsidios privados para las empresas transnacionales

Las ganancias de un mecanismo operador pueden reinvertirse en cualquier otro punto del planeta en cualquier otro negocio de la trasnacional. Es decir, el agua que paga una población africana puede servir para un negocio de partes eléctricas en Indonesia. Esto es un problema serio porque las ganancias no necesariamente se reinvierten en el sector al que tanta falta le hacen las inversiones.

[1] CNA, 2003, “La participación privada en la prestación de los servicios de agua y alcantarillado: Conceptos básicos y experiencias”, segunda versión actualizada.
[2] Cuando la iniciativa privada provee de un servicio básico a la población cambia el lenguaje: en vez de tratarse de ciudadanos con derechos nos convertimos en “clientes”.
[3] Castro, J. E. (2004), “Final Report”, in J. E. Castro (Coord.), PRINWASS Project
(European Commission, Framework V – INCO-DEV Project Contract: PL ICA4-2001-
10041), Oxford, University of Oxford, http://users.ox.ac.uk/~prinwass/
[4] Public Citizen, 2004, “Citizen’s Guide to Water Privatization”, www.wateractivist.org
[5] Hall, David, 2001, “El Agua en Manos Públicas” PSIRU, Universidad de Greenwich, Internacional de Servicios Públicos.

Páginas de agua / Water links

2005-08-15T18:18:00.000-05:00

General

Coalición de Organizaciones Mexicanas por el Derecho al Agua: Ejes de lucha, Foro Internacional en Defensa del Agua, documentos y publicaciones de agua en México, organizaciones integrantes de la coalición.

AGUA.org.mx: Agua en México

Derecho Humano al Agua / Human Right to Water

Derecho al Agua: Foro Intersectorial sobre el Derecho al Agua

Privatización / Privatisation

PRINWASS: Barreras y condiciones para la participación de la empresa y el capital privados en los servicios de agua y saneamiento en Latinoamérica y Africa: A la búsqueda de la sustentabilidad económica, social, y ambiental

Public Citizen: Water for all

World Development Movement: Dirty aid, dirty water

Represas / Dams

Ecoportal.net: Impacto y consecuencias de las represas

Guía Ciudadana sobre la Comisión Mundial de Represas

Gobernanza y Agua / Water Governance

Water Governance Facility

Agencias gubernamentales mexicanas del sector / Mexican Government Agencies

SEMARNAT Secretaría Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales

Comisión Nacional del Agua

Sistema de Aguas de la Ciudad de México

Organismos Internacionales / International Organisations

PNUD / UNDP

UNICEF: Water, environment and sanitation

World Water Council

Water Governance, Conflict and Social Justice

2005-07-13T21:42:00.001-05:00

The following text is my dissertation submitted (3/Sep/2004) as a requirement for the MSc in the Development and Planning: Urban Development Planning, University of London, University College London.
This work was supervised by Professor Esteban Castro, PhD

El texto que se presenta a continuación es la tesis que presenté para obtener el grado de Maestra en Ciencias por la Universidad de Londres. Desafortunadamente, este texto sólo está disponible en inglés.

2005-07-13T21:40:00.000-05:00

Acronyms
Introduction

Part 1. Theoretical Framework
Governance
Governance and Conflict
Conflict and Scarcity
Water governance: the roles of different actors
The role of the public sector
The role of the private sector
The role of organised civil society
Social justice in water distribution and management

Part 2. Water in Mexico City
Water governance in Mexico City
Public sector
Private sector
Organised civil society
Social injustice in water issues in Mexico City
Distribution and availability
Distribution and quality
Affordability and price differences

Conclusions

References

Acronyms

2005-07-13T21:36:00.000-05:00

ALDF - Asamblea del Distrito Federal / Legislative Assembly of the Federal District

CADF - Comisión de Aguas del Distrito Federal / Water Commission of the Federal District

CNA - Comisión Nacional del Agua / National Water Commission

DF - Distrito Federal / Federal District

IMF - International Monetary Fund

INEGI - Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática / National Institute for Statistics, Geography, and Informatics

PRD - Partido de la Revolución Democrática / Democratic Revolution Party

PRI - Partido Revolucionario Institucional / Institutional Revolutionary Party

PSP - Private Sector Participation

SACM - Sistema de Aguas de la Ciudad de México / Water System of Mexico City

DGCOH - Dirección General de Construcción y Recursos Hidráulicos / General Direction of Hydraulic Construction

SARH - Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos / Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Resources

SEMARNAT - Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales / Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

WB - World Bank

Introduction

2005-07-13T21:30:00.000-05:00

Claudia Campero Arena

The alarming figures of 1.1 billion people lacking access to safe drinking water and 2.4 billion lacking reasonable access to improved sanitation (WHO and UNICEF, 2000) are repeated again and again in publications that address the ‘water crisis’ we are facing. The explanations for this crisis are somewhat concentrated on natural, technological and financial reasons, sometimes ignoring that political and socioeconomic reasons play a chief part in the problem. The consequences that the deficiencies of these services have on people’s lives are multidimensional because not only their health is affected, but also their livelihoods and overall development. Rising population, urbanization and per capita consumption of water show how the stress on the resource is increasing. Yet these figures need to be contextualised to see the differences between and within geographical regions. While in some places people take water for granted, in others people suffer a daily struggle for water.

This work attempts to address the differences concerning water service within Mexico City. The basic assumption is that problems in the governance system, where the government and the private sector dominate the decision-making process to the disadvantage of a wide sector of the population, are to a certain extent responsible for the socially unjust distribution and management of water. This injustice experienced by some parts of the city turn into conflicts that evidence the governance failure.

The two key questions that guide the discussion are:

How far is the water governance system in Mexico City responsible for a socially unjust distribution and management of the resource? How can civil struggle or conflict help to change governance systems to achieve more socially just results?

To address these questions, the followed methodology takes briefly into consideration some theoretical debates regarding the concepts used in this work. For this purpose literature concerning governance, water governance, conflict and social justice was studied. Also some examples to back the general arguments in the theoretical discussion were included. Next the recent historical background of water provision and governance in Mexico City was examined. Then specific examples of the water governance conflicts and water injustices in the city in recent years were chosen. These examples where found through a variety of sources including specialised literature, newspapers and personal interviews with people highly involved in the sector.

Unfortunately due to information and time constrains this methodology needs more systematization. The different examples of Mexico City to back the argument are drawn from different areas of the city and in different dates. Whether water conflicts have increased or decreased in recent years cannot be precisely defined using this methodology. What can be said is that they are still present and affect a substantial portion of the city’s population.

This work is divided in two sections. The first part, the theoretical framework, introduces the key concepts and debates that will be needed in the discussion of the case of Mexico City. Not only will concept definitions be tackled but an attempt to see the interactions among the different concepts will be made. Thus how governance systems may help to solve but also trigger conflicts will be examined. In addition, how governance systems may undermine or promote social justice is also discussed.

The second part is about water governance and social justice in water services in Mexico City. It starts with an overview of the water authorities at the federal and local levels, how they are organised and what their main problems are. Then the introduction of private participation in the sector and its consequences is addressed. Subsequently the role of the civil society is explored in two dimensions: their participation in the organisations created by the federal authority, contrasted with their ways of organising and demanding attention from the authorities to address their needs. Here we find that conflict plays an important role to obtain the attention of officials that might turn into negotiations for solutions.

Further on various recent examples drawn from the city are given to explore the social injustice of water distribution in the city. Issues of availability, quality and affordability are analysed to prove the inequalities present in the water service in the city. Finally a brief exploration on how the conflicts generated by these inequalities have already had an impact on the local government and parliament is addressed.

A last observation before entering the discussion: conflict is a central theme in this work. This is not to disregard the great importance of cooperation among different actors in addressing water management. But underlying these efforts of cooperation there are conflictive interests that need to be acknowledged. Furthermore when water distribution inequalities are dismissed as financially, technically or naturally conditioned and there is no engagement in dialog and negotiation, cooperation becomes a distant possibility and conflict takes over. I consider this to be the case in Mexico City at present.

Part 1. Theoretical Framework

2005-07-13T21:25:00.000-05:00

Claudia Campero-Arena

In order to answer the questions posed in the introduction, first governance as it will be understood in this work will be defined. Subsequently the links between governance and social justice will be drawn. Then we will explore how governance systems particularly in the water sector can foster or solve social conflicts. Subsequently the roles that different agents – government, private sector and civil society – of governance play in the processes for water distribution and management in a large metropolis will be analysed.

Next the problems in the water sector concerning social justice will be addressed. For this purpose different ways in which a socially just distribution of water may be affected will be identified, referring to issues of unequal availability, quality and affordability. Finally the likelihood of a more socially just distribution as an outcome of conflict and struggle, particularly through citizens organisation to contest the authority in a variety of ways from civil disobedience to mass demonstrations or road blockages, will be discussed.

Governance

In the following paragraphs the meaning of governance will explored. This is central to the subsequent discussion on the roles different actors play in how water is allocated in a city. In turn, understanding the governance systems and the power relations within them can help to understand how social justice problems arise. Further the fact that governance systems change and how different actors – with frequently competing interests – may be involved in this process is pertinent to the discussion of conflicts around water issues.

Governance is defined in very different ways. For some, it is the articulation of different levels of government: local, regional and national. For instance, Asmal (1998) makes reference to South Africa’s constitution viewpoint of the concept – without mentioning civil society – and notes that governance ‘requires all spheres of government, national, provincial and local and all organs of State, to cooperate with each other in mutual trust and good faith by coordinating their actions and legislation with each other’ (p. 98). Yet ongoing research about how governance systems actually work shows that in addition to the traditional forms of government, governance is also the result of the articulation of the power relations among the government, the market and the civil society. This is closer to the way the term will be used in what follows.

A useful definition of governance that will be used in this work is that given by Healey (1997). According to her, ‘the systems of governance of a society or community refer to the processes through which collective affairs are managed. Governance involves the articulation of rules of behaviour with respect to the collective affairs of a political community; and of principles for allocating resources among the community members’ (p. 206).

Healey’s understanding of governance introduces several issues. To begin with, the idea of governance as a process that necessarily involves historic change in the way affairs are viewed and dealt with. Next it draws the relation between governance and institutions – commonly considered as ‘the rules of the game’ (DFID, 2003). Thus the way governance works will define how the rules will be established. More importantly it will also define who is involved in the formulation of these rules. Here the link between governance and social justice arises. As Iris Young argues, social justice is not only defined in terms of distribution but related to the realisation of two values: ‘(1) developing and exercising one’s capacities and expressing one’s experience, and (2) participating in determining one’s action and the conditions of one’s action’ (1990: 37). Thus, a necessary – though not sufficient – condition for a process to be socially just would be that the system of governance acknowledges and enables people to exercise the right to be involved in deciding those things that are important to their lives. Clearly water is an issue of primary importance for sustaining life and maintaining health, improving life quality and economic development. Indeed, 2.2 billion people lack the amount of water required to satisfy only basic domestic needs, which is estimated by Gleick in 50 litres per capita daily (cited in Schmandt, 2004), but defining what basic consumption is becomes controversial.

Thus governance refers to how different actors in a society interact to formulate the rules of behaviour that determine, among other things, resource allocation. This interaction is necessarily affected by unequal power relations among the different actors. Nevertheless it is important to bear in mind that none of the three main actors (public sector, private sector and civil society) are monolithic. There are different interests within each which make understanding governance systems ever more complex.

Considering the above discussion, how the water resources are allocated will be determined by the governance system. This system may be the result of a wide involvement of community members, but it often is the result of a few powerful interest groups that can impose what is convenient to them on other sectors of the population. Thus how socially just the process of water allocation and management is will be a result to some extent of how the system of governance works and the power balances it manifests. This is because the governance system is a result of the complex political, cultural, historical, spatial, economic and social processes in a society which involve unequal power relations.

Governance and Conflict

Another definition of governance makes us aware of the role it plays in conflict. ‘The concept of governance refers to the complex set of values, norms, processes, and institutions by which society manages its development and resolves conflict, formally and informally’ (Uitto, 1997). This means that one of the main features of a good governance system is that it should aid in conflict resolution in a society.

However there are different degrees of conflict and various manifestations of its presence. Warner (2000) mentions that a conflict may be: ‘a debate or contest; a disagreement, argument, dispute or quarrel; a struggle, battle or confrontation; or a state of unrest, turmoil or chaos’ (p. 14). Accordingly each type of conflict would then need different strategies that lead to a resolution. Furthermore if the governance system allows for adequate channels of communication for conflict resolution the likelihood of escalation and its undesirable consequences would be reduced.

Here it becomes necessary to be aware of the important role of conflict in the reconfiguration of power relations. Conflict is commonly perceived as negative, something to be avoided. Yet conflict is necessary to change the balance of power relations. As Crawley (1998) expresses in the context of participation ‘where participatory approaches do not give rise to conflict, they are failing to challenge existing power relations and therefore cannot claim to empower’ (p.31).

Different levels of governance address different scales of conflict – international, national, regional or local. This does not mean that a conflict at one scale is independent from others. Hence the articulation and interaction of the different levels of governance in order to resolve a conflict are indispensable. For instance, a conflict between two nations that share a river must be resolved through dialog between them and most likely a treaty. Simultaneously, the population affected by the dispute must have local systems of governance that allow them to participate in the debate for the resolution. Thus the need for articulation among the local and the national or international level becomes evident.

It is important to bear in mind that sometimes social conflicts do not end in fulfilling the aims of those who are in a disadvantaged situation and do bring substantial hardship. We need to learn how to transform conflict into a positive outcome. This will only be possible when the view towards conflict is changed. Warner (2000) in this sense argues ‘conflict should be seen as an expression of changing society…not something that can be avoided or suppressed. It needs to be acknowledged, managed and transformed into a force for positive social change’ (p. 14). It is only through dialog and negotiation that the different stakeholders can reach lasting and effective solutions. When mechanisms to resolve conflict that are coherent with the cultural and political context are in place and functioning, we might be getting closer to good governance.

In the case of water, due to its vital character, communities have cooperated as well as fought to manage, distribute and control it. Water conflicts have taken place at all the scales of conflict from international to local. Although much attention is given to international conflicts, Ohlsson (2000) argues ‘that the risk of conflicts within countries in fact is larger, and that the risk of international conflict is derived from the necessity to avoid what is defined as second-order conflicts within countries, caused not by water scarcity itself, but by the institutional change required to adapt to water scarcity’ (p. 213).

Conflict and Scarcity

Scarcity is now brought to our attention because it is commonly considered that the problem of availability of the resource is the root of the conflict. Bennett (1995) makes us aware of how the power issues become important at this point:

‘When there isn’t enough water for all users to consume as much as they want, then water services become an embodiment of the social structure and the social dynamic of the city. Planners and other decision makers decide who gets water and when, and their decisions may reflect the power and relationships of different groups of water users’ (p. 19)

Normally these allocations tend to favour the most politically and economically powerful, and lead to great injustices for the poor. While this remains true, the cause of scarcity is to be questioned too. Scarcity arises because water is not an endless resource, but it is constructed socially. For instance, Ohlsson (2000) talks about the scarcity of social resources to deal with water scarcity. In the specific case of Mexico City, Castro (2003) makes reference to the paradox of scarcity in the city while the provision of water is much above the international recommendations. Furthermore, Swyngedouw et al (2002) warn us how the discourse of scarcity has been instrumental for those aiming to promote the view of water as a commodity, not as a public or social good.

Water provision has become ever more difficult because of the increasing population and per capita demand (Uitto, 1997). Although some conservation progress for reducing water consumption has occurred, this has not halted the rise of per capita consumption due to increasing urbanisation and living standards that make more water consumption possible. Indeed the amount of water available, as well as the way it is available, becomes an issue of quality of life, but is highly related to habits. There is an urgent need for changing policy that tries to manage the supply side for a more sustainable policy that manages the demand, among other things this would mean to change people’s consumption habits. This may not be simple to achieve because the same policies that try to improve access to water – for instance, by increasing in-house connections – increase consumption and stress on the resource. Naturally, a person that has to walk long distances for water will be more careful when using it than a person that only needs to turn the tap. There is no easy answer to this problem.

As scarcity increases so does the competition among different actors according to the use they give to water. In the most general classification, humans use water for two main purposes: for personal use (physical survival and hygiene) and as an input to the production process. Another use of water that is more general to all living things is as part of the ecosystem. In spite of its importance, this last use is not always considered because it is not directly seen as an impact on human beings. Yet increasingly it has been made clear that water extracted from the environment, especially when great volumes are extracted, will create an impact on the flora and fauna and ultimately in the human populations living in the area probably bringing disasters and hardship.

The conflicts generated between actors that give different uses to water are naturally affected by the power they have in a system. It is not uncommon that industries and other important businesses, like hotels, have a more reliable service than households in the vicinity. Considering the competition between domestic and industrial uses, Bennett (1995) gives a detailed explanation of how this created conflict and a water crisis in Monterrey, Mexico in the 1980s.

Governance systems need to address these conflicts. This means proper channels of communication to enable dialog. In order for this dialog to take place, these channels must be trusted by people and acknowledged as adequate for achieving change. Furthermore, bearing in mind that citizens have different ways of showing their dissatisfaction for a service is also necessary. For instance, citizens may use institutional procedures to complain, but when these fail to bring the expected results, citizens often turn to civil disobedience. Governments and government officials should be prepared to expect not only those manifestations which they consider adequate as ‘good citizenship’ (Ward, 1986). Governance systems allowing for conflict manifestation, but also allowing mechanisms for conflict resolution through negotiation and, if possible, consensus building, will be more likely to arrive at more socially just distributions and management of resources than those that dismiss or even repress any kind of complaint that fails to follow institutional procedures.

Water governance: the roles of different actors

According to the UNDP, water governance ‘encompasses the political, economic and social processes and institutions by which governments, civil society, and the private sector make decisions about how best to use, develop and manage water resources’ (2004:10). Although this notion of water governance may seem consensual in the mainstream discourse, it is important to bear in mind that this definition contains concepts such as ‘civil society’ which are defined differently by opposing traditions of thought changing considerably what is understood by ‘governance’ (Castro, 2004).

During the 1980s governments around the globe had to cut spending in order to reduce their budgetary deficits. In the developed world, the combined effect of the end of the convertibility of the dollar to gold and the oil crisis brought an economic recession with high inflation (Midgley, 1997). Governments responded cutting social spending and promoting privatisation. This crisis explains the rebirth of liberal thinking aiming to reduce government interference with the market. The developing countries due to the debt crisis were forced to undertake structural adjustment policies supported by the World Bank (WB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to secure loans. Structural adjustment policies urged governments to undertake macro-economic reforms to encourage private sector development (Wratten, 1995). These policies supported the privatisation of the publicly owned industries (Canak and Swanson, 1998), including utilities.

Contrary to the experience in the developed countries, the governments of the developing countries had not achieved universal coverage in social services (including water). Inefficiency, lack of funding and political unwillingness all combined to make basic service provision something that only some enjoyed. Increasing urbanisation made the service provision gaps more evident in the growing cities and they had to be filled somehow. The most common reaction, promoted and imposed by the international funding agencies, was to consider that the market would, with its competitiveness nature, be a better service provider for the general population than the highly centralised and bureaucratic governments. Although this is still what some believe, many are more sceptical of what the market can achieve in particular for the poor (Barlow and Clarke, 2002 and Ward, 1997). Even the WB admits that private participation has had problems in reaching the poor (WB, 2004). In this context the interrelationships – and specifically the power relations – of the three agents: government, private sector and civil society have become ever more relevant to the service provision and, in general, the development of communities.

Whether water provision should be a responsibility of the government on its own, a shared responsibility with the community, a commodity provided by the private sector or a combination of the three is an ongoing debate that is very likely to continue in the years to come. There is no one single correct answer to the question of who should do what in order to have a good water governance system. Yet it is possible to talk about the recent evolution of these roles and their consequences. Furthermore, it is necessary to be aware of what systems have failed to fulfil the water needs and to attempt to understand why.

The role of the public sector

The predominant model of water provision in western cities in the nineteenth century was of a few private companies serving the wealthiest areas. Due to the growing unsanitary conditions generated by the lack of the service in poorer areas, important health problems appeared affecting the poor as well as the wealthy. This motivated the involvement of the state. Since water provision is central for life and life quality, states eventually became concerned for giving this service while not being concerned with cost recovery. In fact subsidies in water provision became widespread.

Large and costly infrastructure was constructed in order to provide this service, especially in the urban areas where the need for water for industries, commerce and labour reproduction was most evident. Although many of these projects were not without problems, particularly of environmental sustainability and sacrificing some communities for others, they provided large cities with water. Interestingly enough, it was the state that could make these large investments, not the private sector.

In Latin America –during the post-war period and to some extent until today – water, as many other services, has been managed on various occasions as a tool for a ‘clientelist-populist’ way of government (Ward, 1997 and Bennett, 1995). Providing water services in a step by step fashion (from the water truck to the common faucet and finally to the house connection) and as a ‘gift’ given by politicians in exchange for votes has been very frequent.

The role of the private sector

Starting the 1980´s, the budgetary deficits in the welfare states became a growing concern. The answer given was through structural adjustment that involved privatisation of many industries and services previously owned by governments. Privatisation came in many forms varying the degree of private or public control and responsibility. Budds and McGranahan (2003) classify the most common forms of private sector participation in this way: service contract, management contract, lease/affermage, concession, BOT-type and divestiture. They are ordered from the one that involves the least participation of the private sector – the service contract, in the case of the Federal District (DF), Mexico – to the one that gives even asset ownership to the private companies called divestiture, in the case of England and Wales.

Swyngedouw et al (2002) identify the consequences of the worldwide shift in the view of water as a commodity: water becomes another product where profit must be maximised; private agencies gain power in the decisions concerning water management to the detriment of wider citizen involvement. Water management becomes part of the global economy where investment decisions taken elsewhere affect the water provision of a city. Indeed, although the need for investment was one of the reasons for private participation to be encouraged, the concessions granted were for the lowest tariff bid, the results turning out to be sacrificing investment to maximise profits (UN-WWAP, 2003).

Another serious problem with privatisation, most acute in developing countries, is the unequal power relations between the water companies and the local governments. Awarding a concession transfers power previously in public hands to private hands. For this reason, regulatory agencies are central to ensure access and quality, particularly for the poor. Yet these agencies are not always put in place. If they are it is frequently difficult for a new agency to be capable of managing such a great task in front of powerful transnationals (Barlow and Clarke, 2002).

Although not all private participation is in transnational corporations’ hands, huge water companies do have a considerable control. The two biggest companies are Suez (previously Suez-Lyonnaise des Eaux; ONDEO is the brand name for water operations) and Vivendi Universal. Together they control 70 per cent of the world’s water market and the earnings of this industry are calculated to be 40% of that of the oil sector (Barlow and Clarke, 2002). Considering this it becomes obvious that the power of negotiation and knowledge face to face with a local government can be in favour of these water giants.

The role of organised civil society

Today it is widely accepted that in order to achieve good governance meaningful participation of the different sectors of the population is essential. In this context, participation means involvement in the different stages of policy making including decision-making. In this sense Castro emphasises how the governance system is linked to citizenship rights, giving special importance to the right to participate in the water resources management. ‘This involves, among other issues, the existence of institutions ensuring that the management of water and water services is accountable to the citizenry and subject to democratic control’ (Castro, 2003: 7).

Thus key to the discussion is the issue of accountability. It is not so much the problem of whether water services should be public or private, but that whoever manages this resource can be held accountable to the population. Certainly in order for a private company to be accountable there is a need for a good regulation and proper enforcement to protect the citizen. Nonetheless if the government is the provider there is still a need of having the proper channels for citizen demands to be addressed.

Most governments admit the need for participation but the extent and the ways citizen involvement is permitted varies considerably. Participation often is only considered in implementation stages, which is unsatisfactory for those affected. More participatory models include decision-making powers to representative organisms in such issues as planning and tariff approval (UN-WWAP, 2003). Another common problem to claim participation is that of adequate representation of different actors. Due to water’s importance in all aspects of life, it is only natural that competing interests within the civil society arise. For this reason, adequate representation would mean the possibility to engage in dialog and negotiate together.

In this sense, Castro highlights ‘the prevailing model of water governance continues to alienate and exclude rather than including “civil society” … limiting people’s participation to their role of customers. In this regard, the evidence shows that for the prevailing policy models “participation” often means “willingness” to accept decisions already taken with little or no consultation. These policies are creating an imbalance resulting in the weakening of local governments and civil society structures, which have lost any capacities they had acquired in the past to actually exercise democratic control and regulation’ (Castro, 2004: 27).

Participation has become a fashionable word and the fact that the WB, among others, has it as a prerequisite to approve projects has helped to make it more widespread. Yet the distance between the theory and the practice of how governance frameworks function brings us back to remember that power relations are always at the centre. This means that as long as power in greatly unequal societies remains unmoved, well intentioned regulations that allow for citizen involvement are likely to be unrepresentative and probably fail to achieve more socially just results. Let us now engage on the discussion of social justice in water distribution and management.

Social justice in water distribution and management

Since water is an indispensable element for survival and adequate quality of life, it necessarily becomes strategic. The command over the resource is intrinsically power related. An increase in the power of the private sector in detriment of the civil sector, manifested when the population has no control over the management of the resource, becomes an issue of social justice.

To define social justice is a challenge because there is no consensus of what the term means. David Harvey considers social justice is a set of principles to address conflicts related with social cooperation and individual improvement. He summarises this as ‘a just distribution justly arrived at’ (1988: 98). However Iris Young (1990) argues that social justice is not restrained to distribution but also considers the need of people for expression and participation in their community.

In my view social justice is about the distribution of benefits and responsibilities in a society allowing individuals in that society – regardless of their gender, ideology, ethnicity, ability, age, income or sexual preference – decide upon their future in a participatory and democratic manner that should guarantee an acceptable standard of living. For sure, this definition would be contested by many because the perception of social justice is related to life experiences, beliefs and cultural backgrounds. Nevertheless most of us would agree that having adequate access to water services is an issue of social justice.

When evaluating if the distribution of water is socially just we have to bear in mind not only the availability disparity that different sectors of the population may face. We need to be aware that the complexity is considerable. It is not only about quantity of water. It is about quality, frequency of availability, affordability and equity in the price paid for the resource. Moreover social justice is also about having a say in how the resource is managed: what the priorities are. If the resource is scarce this is even more important. For instance, if the water will be only available at certain times then there must be a negotiation of how these times will be allocated. This also means that the proper channels of communication must be available for the citizens to express their concerns.

Water quality issues, of water for human consumption and of wastewater, are especially a health concern. The number of deaths due to diseases related to inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene are alarming, especially considering that we know about how to prevent them. To give just one example, in 2001, 2 million people died of infectious diarrhoeas, and more than half were children under five (UN-WWAP, 2003). Improving water supply in quantity and quality, sanitation measures, hygiene education and environmental management are all central to improve living conditions and reduce the number of people suffering from these diseases.

The problem of how water is priced is of considerable importance also. It is not only the issue if water is affordable for the population, but what price is paid for what service. The question of affordability is related to what proportion of an income is spent on water and if this allows a family to consume as much water as needed for sanitary and health needs. Naturally a lower income family will spend a higher proportion of their salary on water even when they are paying the same amount as a wealthier family. If this payment affects the capacity of the lower income family to fulfil other basic needs there is an injustice.

Concerning the second issue about what price is paid for what service commonly shows the most insulting injustices. The quality of the service is frequently inversely proportional to the price! Bennett (1995) expresses this by letting us know that ‘poor urban residents in Latin America with the worst water service often pay up to ten times more for their water than wealthy families with the best water services’ (p.22). In the case of Guayaquil, Swyngedouw (1995) explains the terrible situation of people served by tankers who may pay as much as 400 times what people served by the public utility do.

Hence, the issue about the distribution of water involves many things. The most evident is the amount of water available but also important is the frequency of the service, the quality of the water and the service, the way it is available (as a common faucet or an in-house faucet) and the price paid for it. These may all vary according to location. For instance, there are differences between the Federal District (DF) and the State of Mexico , differences within the delegaciones and municipalities of these entities, between the city and the rural areas, and between regular and irregular settlements. These location differences are also much related with variations in income – people in the DF are broadly wealthier and have generally better water services than those in the State of Mexico. Nonetheless, there are considerable differences within the DF which will be addressed further on.

Then the distribution of water service provision varies considerably with space. Generally urban areas are better served than rural areas, and Mexico is no exception. The reason for this is mainly that the dispersion of the population makes it much more expensive to supply rural settlements. Nevertheless, within cities there is also spatial variation in the distribution of the service. In Mexico City Ward notes that areas with significant irregular settlements are more deprived (1986: 90).

Furthermore, differences also become apparent among different users of water: domestic, commercial or industrial. Many industries have the technological and financial capacity to have their own wells and extract water for their production process. These wells are supposed to be metered and the water authority charges the use of this water. Nonetheless, the control becomes difficult for the water authority particularly because the wells are frequently inside the industry’s property. The economic power corporations exercise may ultimately override the rights of other sectors of the population. As mentioned earlier the difference of availability for the industry in Monterrey in the 1980s, sacrificing the lower income population during a drought brought about a furious social response (Bennett, 1995).

In this discussion of the distribution of water services it is important to be aware that the burden of water scarcity is not suffered equally within the household. It is normally women and children who are responsible to fetch water from the common faucets or other sources (Bennett, 1995). The consequences of being responsible for such a task include reduced opportunity for income earning activities, studying or recreation, and permanent skeletal damage for regularly carrying water (UN-WWAP, 2003). This means that above all their participation should be sought when trying to address water issues and improve policy making.

All these possible ways in which the distribution of water is inequitable become a possible source of conflict. According to how widespread and how powerful the actors involved in a conflict are a corresponding response form the authority will take place. At this point we become aware of an important problem: Considering that the power of the actors is central in getting the attention of the authorities to resolve a conflict, it is clear that it might well be that the most marginalized actors may not be heard. The poor in order to have power normally need to be organised. If they are not, they are generally ignored.

When situations turn desperate and the population manages to organise, for example in mass demonstrations or road blockages, the attention of the authorities might be gained. This does not necessarily mean that the problem will be addressed in an integral way. Most commonly fast unarticulated responses are the outcome. Frequently they do not last for long. As Martha Delgado , an independent local parliament member, said in an interview, it is only through demonstrations, road blockages and so on that the authorities pay attention to the citizens’ demands; yet the kind of solutions they give are not for the origin of the problem to be solved but for satisfying the immediate demand (interview with the author, 3/08/04).

A senior official of the water authority in Mexico City, Germán Martínez Santoyo, also considered that the demonstrations and road blockages do not help to arrive at more socially just solutions. He explained that in order to give lasting solutions to citizen demands investment and technology is needed. These infrastructure undertakings should be part of established plans and projects (interview with the author, 23/07/04). Thus if a group of citizens block a road or protest in any other way to call for better water services officials might sit and talk to them but if there is not a particular project for that area already in place, the solution will only be temporary to calm the protesters.

Yet it is difficult to disregard the impact citizen protests can have on policy making. After all if an area is a continuous source of conflict, it will most likely be included when plans and projects are formulated. There are plenty of examples of this process particularly in Latin America (Gilbert, 1998). This may be a long process and will require sustained action from the population to be taken seriously. Moreover it might not bring the desired outcome in the form it was imagined and demanded. Nonetheless it might still be a considerable improvement from the previous situation. In other cases, protesters may sometimes aim and succeed to frustrate plans and projects that they perceive contrary to their interests. Some examples of conflicts and their results in the water sector in Mexico City will be given in the next section.

Bringing things together, water, because of its indispensable character for survival and development, becomes an issue of social justice in the way that it is distributed and in the way it is managed. This in turn creates conflict within the system of governance over what is to happen with the resource.

Part 2. Water in Mexico City

2005-07-13T21:20:00.000-05:00

Claudia Campero Arena

When the Spaniards arrived in Tenochtitlan (today Mexico City) they could not believe their eyes. The city was built on lakes. Starting from an island in the middle, the city extended into the lakes and had canals as roads. The Spaniards progressively desiccated the closed basin draining its water to other rivers. What remains of those lakes makes it difficult to picture what that landscape used to be. Paradoxically, what used to be a city built on water is today a city that suffers problems of water availability. But as it will be argued, these problems do not affect all in the same way.

By the 1950s, due to the high demand for the resource, the rate of extraction exceeded the rate of recharge of the ground waters – the source that amounts for the majority of the water of the city – and water started to be pumped from two other exterior rivers (Lerma and Cutzamala rivers) (CNA, 2000: 74). The overexploitation of the ground waters has caused serious problems to many constructions in the city which are literarily sinking due to the nature of the soil of the desiccated lakes. The lowering of the water table amounts to 1 metre annually (Tortajada, 2003: 125) and over extraction of the groundwater is calculated to be higher than 140 per cent (CNA, 2000:75). Additionally the recharge areas have been substantially reduced owing to the urbanisation of the previous forests.

Mexico City’s sprawl has extended beyond the limits of the Federal District (DF) to the State of Mexico. The Metropolitan Area of Mexico’s Valley (ZMVM) is integrated by the 16 delegaciones of the DF, 58 municipalities of the State of Mexico and one of the state of Hidalgo. The municipalities had 9.7 million inhabitants in 2000 and a population growth rate of 2.41. For this same year the Federal District (DF) had 8.6 million and 0.3 growth rate (SEDUVI, 2001). The built-up area of the city is estimated in 1500 km2, however the metropolitan area comprises 4500 km2 (Ward, 1998). There is no metropolitan authority to carry on policies for the city. As it will be explained further on, for water issues other municipalities with the ZMVM form a hydrological region.

The water provision for the metropolitan area was at the beginning of the 1990s 62 cubic meters per second and for the DF approximately of 35 m3/s. This share of water for the DF has remained the same[1] meaning that to respond to growing demand the solution has been leakage control (Martínez Omaña, 2004). The amount of water lost through leakages in the DF in 1997 was 37%; in 2001 it was of 30% (Libreros Muñoz and Quiñones Castillo, 2004). This is still an expensive inefficiency.

Owing to the nature of Mexico City, being divided into differently organised entities, the DF and the State of Mexico, and for the sake of brevity, some of the following information will only be about the DF. However the fact that a substantial part of the city has sprawled to the State of Mexico and that there are differences in the water service is important and will to some extent be addressed.

Water governance in Mexico City

Considering that governance is the way a society organises its affairs, the way this will be done is related to the perceptions and beliefs prevalent in that society. Water, due to its indispensable character for life, is considered in many societies as a public good, even as ‘sacred’ (Whiteford and Melville, 2002; Shiva, 2002). Not least in the case of Mexico, where the perception of water as a community resource was clearly found in the indigenous Mexicans before the Spanish arrived, in the laws the Spanish brought with them, and was formally established as a public good after the beginning of the twentieth century Revolution and Constitution. Governance systems that perceive water as a public good generally try, at least in principle, to make it available to everybody. Indeed this is the idea of the need to provide universal access to essential services.

Yet in 1992 the legislation was changed. Castro (2003) explains that the process was ‘increasing state control over water resources, while simultaneously transforming the status of water from public to private good, and organizing its governance around market principles’(p.28). The premise was that scarcity problems in Mexico were because water had not been treated as an economic good. The importance of increasing state control was because of the need to regain power over water that was managed by communities so the municipalities would be directly in charge. The municipalities could then involve the private sector in the management of the resource. Since then, private participation in the water sector has increased in several states of the country changing the configuration of the water governance system from one previously dominated by the central government to one where the private sector and the local governments play increasingly an important role. Nevertheless there are important problems in the decentralisation process generating coordination inefficiencies.

In the next paragraphs, the roles of different actors of governance in the water sector in Mexico City will be addressed. Starting by giving a national overview, then the particular case of the Federal District will be introduced. Next the privatisation of water services and some of its consequences in the DF will be briefly tackled. Lastly the role of the organised civil society will be considered.

Public sector
Water management at the federal level

The National Water Commission (CNA) is the federal agency in command of the administration, policy making, custody and allocation of water in Mexico. Created in 1989, this organisation, together with the new law of national waters dictated in 1992, started a new way of management of the resource. It promoted two important things: decentralisation and privatisation (Martínez Omaña, 2004). The CNA is today a deconcentrated organisation of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT).

One of the CNA’s most important activities is to supply bulk water to settlements. It is not its responsibility, though, to distribute within the settlements, and in some cases it is the local government that does the extraction of water. For instance, in the DF the water that is extracted from the underground is the responsibility of the local authority, while that brought from external sources is provided by the CNA. The municipalities and the DF are supposed to pay the CNA for the bulk water it provides, but many municipalities are indebted with this federal authority.

Martinez-Lagunes and Rodriguez-Tirado (1998) identify two important problems that this organisation has. Firstly, although one of the reasons for creating the CNA was to concentrate in a single agency water issues and favour co-ordination, this has not been entirely achieved. Secondly, the activities of CNA have created conflicts of interest within. For example, it is at the same time regulator of water quality and responsible for sewage discharge. The aim is to change this giving the CNA a predominantly normative character, yet maintaining technical support for the local authorities (CNA, 2003).

The CNA has organised water management in 13 hydrological regions. This is of considerable importance because it means that instead of managing the resource according to political divisions, it is managed with a logic that aims to be integrated and ecologically sustainable. Also important to sustainability is that finally water is part of the SEMARNAT, not of the Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Resources (SARH) as it used to be. Notwithstanding these changes in the management of water, the goal of achieving environmental sustainability is still very far from being met.

The hydrological region Mexico City belongs to is called the Mexico’s Valley Region. It includes the DF, 56 municipalities of the State of Mexico, 39 of Hidalgo and 4 of Tlaxcala. The most important problems of the region identified in the National Hydraulic Programme (CNA, 2000:75) are: a) the overexploitation of underground waters, calculated as representing 140 per cent of the recharge capacity; b) water pollution; c) insufficient water delivery; d) significant inefficiency in irrigation systems and urban uses; e) damages due to flooding; f) competition among users for the resource.

Water management in the DF

In 2003, two previous government agencies were merged into the SACM (Water System of Mexico City). Before this merge the DGCOH (General Direction of Hydraulic Construction) was in charge of supplying water to the DF and constructing and maintaining the primary water network. The CADF (Water Commission of the Federal District) collected tariffs, supervised the job of the private companies and served the users. The second was created as part of the reforms that aimed to decentralise and promote private participation in the sector in 1992.

There are other agencies involved in water issues in the DF. The treasury, as well as the private companies and the SACM, collects bills and concentrates the total revenue from the system. The 16 delegaciones take care of the secondary network, which is the smaller diameter network delivering directly to the users. The SACM supplies bulk water for each delegación to distribute it. This gives the SACM considerable power in deciding where water goes without giving the delegación much room for manoeuvre, which will be addressed latter on.

The delegaciones have several difficulties in fulfilling their obligations. The most significant problems are related to the lack of human capacity, financial and human resources. The lack of materials for repairs of leakages and ageing personnel are two recurrent problems in most delegaciones. Moreover there are several services that are still centralised in the SACM making the delegaciones only intermediaries of paperwork. This demonstrates an incomplete decentralisation process (Delgado, 2004).

Concerning how the service is brought to different areas of the city by the authorities, Ward (1986) explains how the provision of water services in the irregular settlements is ‘open to partisan political influence’ (p. 91). He argues that the agencies designed to procure water to Mexico City have a technical image due to the relative success of providing water to many parts of the city. Yet when it comes to decide what neighbourhoods will be connected to the system and with what frequency they will receive water it becomes more a decision of the hierarchy of politicians, up to the mayor or even the president.

In 1997 the inhabitants of the DF for the first time elected a mayor and a local assembly with legislative powers (ALDF). A left wing party, the PRD, has dominated the political scene since; although the prevailing party nationally for 70 years, the PRI, continues to dominate in the State of Mexico. How this has changed the patronage system is still unclear. But the fact is that several parties try to compete for electorate support and it is not uncommon that they use the promise of better water provision for winning an election.

The ALDF is very aware of the strategic role water management plays in the development of the city. It published a water law in 2003 that specified the roles of the SACM and the delegaciones. Some members of parliament are continuously in touch with the SACM advocating for water services for different neighbourhoods and are commonly heading demonstrations. Currently there is a Special Committee for Integral Water Management in the ALDF working on how to improve the water management in the city with a particular focus on improving participation, financial sustainability, water provision and environmental sustainability (ALDF, 2004).

Private sector

In 1993, four private companies formed through combinations of national corporations and transnational water giants signed ten-year service contracts for the Federal District. Among the water transnationals involved in the city are Générales Des Eaux, Suez-Lyonnaise Des Eaux (today Suez), Anglian Water and Severn Trend (Martínez Omaña, 2004). A new contract negotiation is currently taking place. According to a water official the changes in conditions will not be significant (Germán Martínez Santoyo, interviewed by the author, 23/07/04).

The four private companies are responsible for users’ registration, the water metering and billing. This is a considerable increase in private participation in the sector but it is not complete privatisation or divestiture. According to Martínez Omaña (2004), the overall performance of the water companies has led to some improvements. Particularly considering efficiency in management, metering and billing, the private corporations have improved the situation in the DF.

Nevertheless according to Castro (2003) the public reaction to this was negative: ‘the response of water users took largely the form of civil disobedience, such as the non payment of water bills in protest for the steep increases in the tariff, but also included the destruction of water meters and other actions to sabotage the functioning of the new system’ (p.30). In fact, the employees of these four private companies wear uniforms and carry personal identifications using the SACM’s name instead of that of their own company.

Even those most in favour of private participation have seen the problems this has brought in the country. A WB document recognises: ‘The relative failure of PSP in Mexico has been exacerbated by a combination factors, including the absence of a clear regulatory framework for private participation, and design and procurement flaws resulting from ad hoc processes carried out by unprepared municipalities’ (Kemper and Alvarado, 2000). In addition the OECD emphasised this problem: ‘the regulatory environment proved insufficient, especially because the number of public organisations in the water sector led to severe co-ordination problems’ (OECD, 2003:126). Possibly this problem could be solved with the merge of the two previous government agencies into the SACM as mentioned earlier.

Yet private sector participation is most probably to continue and increase to some extent in the DF. While the number of employees of the public agencies – particularly with the creation of the SAMC – continues to decrease, the challenge of coordination among different government levels in order to be more capable of supervising the private companies remains. As long as this is not achieved, those who have currently the worst water services or no service at all will suffer most.

Organised civil society

Although the water law explicitly states that the CNA is to promote and favour users’ participation including decision-making capacities (LAN, 2004), the achievements of the organisations it created for this purpose, the Basin Councils, are unsatisfactory. The aim of these councils is to contribute to the integrated management of water, promoting sustainability and local participation. Yet the widespread belief in the academic sector and the local government is that they fail to achieve the goal of participation (interviewed by the author: Germán Martínez Santoyo, 23/07/04, Martha Delgado, 3/08/04).

Even the CNA admits the structure does not help to enhance participation (CNA, 2003). Allowing only one representative for agricultural water users and one for urban users as representatives of entire basins is clearly not enough for participation claims to be believed. Moreover the competences of the Basin Councils are narrow because they only authorise and supervise the programmes and plans but do not take part in many other important issues, for example tariff approvals or pollution charges (CNA, 2003).

For Martha Delgado, the member of local parliament driving water reforms in the DF, the Basin Councils are the spaces where users just sort out who is going to obtain what amount of water. They fail to promote wider participation and do not address issues of conservation. Additionally the CNA is inexperienced in dealing with social groups, particularly because its staff is dominated by technical specialists (interview with the author, 3/08/04).

Sadly, according to her, environmental NGOs in Mexico are not particularly concerned about water issues. These organisations, she argues, are not organised territorially but in relation to topics and they have not been generating debate in this area. Then the discussions around water issues become focused in how water should be distributed, disregarding how it should be managed for conservation and eventually making distribution easier.

Nevertheless at a community level, people do organise to contest the authority around service delivery issues. This has been a constant feature in the urbanisation process of the city. Recently, one of the most significant achievements of continuous protesting with the backing of local assembly members was by the inhabitants of the Sierra de Santa Catarina in Iztapalapa. Thanks to their ability to organise, they managed to get exemption of the payment of massive debts to the CADF. They made their point because the low quality water service they received could not justify the charges.

The unsuitability of the existing ‘spaces for participation’ is manifested in the frequency of water related conflicts in the metropolitan area. Two different studies show the considerable unrest concerning water issues in the metropolis. Castro (2004) analysed water related conflicts (from peaceful petitions to violent actions) through press reports from 1985 to 1992. His study shows the concentration of the conflicts in the DF in three delegaciones, but the majority of events were in some municipalities in the State of Mexico. This showed that lack of water is only suffered in some areas of the city. Central to his argument is the fact that water conflicts arise because of socio-political problems, not because of scarcity of the resource. In this sense, the current governance system allows management decisions to favour certain areas of the city over others generating socially unjust results.

The second study is that of Sainz Santamaría and Becerra Pérez (2003). They studied water conflicts at the national level and found that half of them were in Mexico City. They also found that the main way citizens manifested their demands was through demonstrations. This shows how urgent changes in the governance system are in order to solve these conflicts in more satisfactory and lasting ways.

All the previous discussion evidences that there are problems in the way the public, private and social sectors operate concerning water governance in Mexico City. The end result is that a considerable portion of the population either lacks water services or has a poor service. In the next section of this work, the discussion will be centred in which problems principally affect the residential water users in the city.

Social injustice in water issues in Mexico City

As mentioned in the theoretical framework, I consider that the two key dimensions of social justice are distribution and participation. In the previous section I have already dealt with the problems in the water governance system concerning the lack of proper channels for users’ participation to take part in the decisions concerning the management of the resource. This section will be more concentrated in the problems of distribution of water, the resulting social injustices and the conflicts generated by them. The distribution problems will be identified related with water availability and the way it is available, its quality, affordability and differences in price. Also, the important considerations of uneven spatial distribution and the differences among water uses – residential and non-residential (industry, commerce and services) – will be kept in mind.

Distribution and availability

The water available for the DF is 35m3/s; and, as the current general director of the SACM expressed in an interview, no more will be transported to the city (Ramirez Cuevas, 2002). Although there is a proposal for bringing water from Temascaltepec, the financial, political and environmental costs would be substantial. A much wiser choice is to work on demand management, efficiency, conservation and distribution.

Indeed the fact that the DF already has this water supply presents controversy and conflict with the State of Mexico that now claims the water from the Lerma and Cutzamala as theirs. Furthermore the untreated drainage of the DF generates serious problems to the state of Hidalgo where this highly polluted water is used for irrigation of crops consumed by the inhabitants of the city.

Thus the 35m3/s of water has to be somehow distributed among more than 8.6 million people that live in the DF. In 2000 only in the DF - which has been traditionally the place in Mexico that enjoys the best services – there were more than 400,000 dwellings without water connection inside their home (INEGI, 2000). This represents 22% of the dwellings in the capital. However a more common number given by the authorities is that 97% of the population has a water connection in the plot of their home. The mismatch of the data is because 19% of the dwellings have a water connection inside the plot where they live but not inside their home. Most probably this would often be a shared faucet with other dwellings in the plot. Although this is clearly a better access to water than having to walk considerable distances to fetch water outside the plot, it is still not an optimum service.

One of the most notorious differences in availability in the city is that between the east and west. Water availability in the west is more than enough, while in the east this is not so. The west is where the water from the external sources, the Lerma and Cutzamala, get into Mexico City (Tortajada, 2003). Therefore the pressures in this area are very high and water appears abundant (Libreros Muñoz and Quiñones Castillo, 2004). Not surprisingly the wealthiest neighbourhoods are located in the west while the poorer ones in the east (Ward, 1998). The location of lower income groups in the east of the city was because the upper and middle classes took over the west. The east and north are the areas where the lakes of the basin used to be (De Garay, 1856). Thus the problems of flooding were – and in some places still are – very frequent and made the areas less desirable.

Water distribution among the delegaciones is highly unequal and generates conflict especially during the dry season, when even authorities enter into conflict for the resource. For instance, the delegación Tláhuac limits with Iztapalapa. Both have an important number of users supplied through the tandeo[2] system. During the dry season these users are the first to suffer scarcity and the struggle for the resource is not only the demand from the users to their authorities but also among authorities themselves to satisfy their users’ claims. There are no institutional channels currently in place for these conflicts to be resolved.

In this difficult context where many residential users face the reality of having to invest considerable energy and time in getting water, 80% of the industries in the basin directly extract the water they need from wells. Many of these industries consume enormous amounts of the resource in their production processes. Here the debate of water as a public good or as an economic commodity becomes relevant. In my opinion it would be possible to defend water used for survival and hygiene as a public good and make it available to everybody, whereas water as an input for production is an economic commodity that should be priced accordingly (see section on ‘Affordability and price differences’). Yet this distinction does not necessarily brings us closer to a solution for distribution because if water is scarce then one or both of the uses will be limited in their consumption. This limitation would either impact the quality of life of the population having less water than they need or impact economic activities – which could eventually affect the availability of jobs and the wages paid, thus ultimately affecting people’s life quality. Certainly the residential use is the priority in social justice terms but it is a complex problem.

Distribution and quality

However the problems with water delivery are not only about having a water connection and getting it in a sufficient amount but also with good quality. For decades, citizens have been aware of the need to boil tap water to make it drinkable. But increasingly the problem of the quality in city water is not only about the presence of bacteria but of salinity, chloride ions, iron, manganese, ammonium and faecal coliforms (Ezcurra et al, 1999).

The greater problems of water quality are again found in the east, north and rural south of the city coinciding with the areas where the lower income groups live. Moreover there are constant claims that the water provided through the truck services has visible organisms and green or brown colour (Olayo Guadarrama, 2002). This situation is worse when the unavailability of the service forces people to stock water in inadequate containers that provoke further contamination of the water.

Affordability and price differences

Commonly water utilities consider two or three water uses and classify them as: residential water use and non-residential water use (industrial and/or commercial). This is the case in Mexico City. According to the use given to the resource, water tariffs are charged differently. This is only sensible because water used for survival and hygiene cannot be perceived as equivalent to water used as an input to a product. Thus there is a cross-subsidy between the non-residential and the residential use.

Both water usage tariffs are structured as inverted block rates. In this way, users consuming more water will be paying more per cubic meter than those using less water. The aim of tariffs set in this way is to promote conservation. Nevertheless there are problems in how the residential tariffs are set.

Residential users pay a subsidised tariff even if their consumption is excessive. In 2003, considering the average cost to the DF for each cubic metre it provided, the cost of operation would be covered only until a household consumed 90 m3 per month. Considering that the average household in the DF is 4.2 persons, basic water consumption according to Gleick would be 6.3 m3 per month. Even what the CADF regards as normal water consumption, 20 m3 per month (Germán Martínez Santoyo, interview with the author, 23/07/04), evidences a subsidy for a very high consumption. In these circumstances the goal of promoting conservation through tariffs may not be met, particularly for more affluent households for whom this water charge is insignificant.

Yet the solution of just restructuring the rates for families consuming more than 20m3 per month to pay at least the operation costs would have other problems. Often, lower income families tend to form larger households (particularly as a strategy to share expenditure among the extended family), consequently consuming more water than smaller households that might be better off. Thus, unless other measures are taken to target these lower-income larger households, there would be a socially unjust charging because it would be unfavourable for the most disadvantaged.

However with the current charges, when considering the water delivered by the utility, it is difficult to say that water is unaffordable. In the case of having only the minimum salary, normal water consumption would represent 4% of the income. Taking into account that in a general calculation spending 5% of an income in water is regarded as affordable (Winpenny, 2003); water in the city appears to be affordable. Nevertheless the problem arises when the family does not have a connection or the tandeo system does not satisfy their water requirements. It is here when water needs to be obtained through other systems that the issue of affordability becomes a concern, when the price paid for the resource is unjust and water becomes an expensive commodity for the poor.

Getting water through truck services is certainly much more expensive than receiving it through a water connection. The delegaciones provide water trucks for those without a water connection, and, when there is scarcity, for those neighbourhoods, generally in the east of the city, with connections that do not receive water (Ramirez Cuevas, 2002). This service is supposed to be free if the neighbourhood is regular, but in practice corruption of the drivers is common, demanding ‘tips’ for their service (Olayo Guadarrama, 2002). In contrast with the cost it represents to pay water from the utility, the cost paid for water from trucks can be 10 times as much, becoming unaffordable.

Getting water trucks to fill the containers at home is not an easy task and it is generally done by women. In times of scarcity, women can spend up to 10 hours of the day to obtain the water they need for 2 days (Ramirez Cuevas, 2002). This is a work load that restrains their ability to get engaged in income earning activities. It is not surprising that when it comes to demonstrations and other contentions to the authorities women dominate the scene (Delgado, 2004).

Another problem of affordability arises with connection charges. A water connection represents nearly two times a minimum month salary. There are no financing mechanisms for this payment. Adding to this is the very tedious and difficult procedure a user needs to follow to get a connection which might even take two years. In these circumstances no wonder there is a high percentage of illegal connections. These are estimated to be in the delegación Cuauhtemoc of 40 per cent (Delgado, 2004)!

In support of the argument set forward in the previous section of this work about the role of conflict in achieving a more socially just distribution and management of water, let us consider the example of Iztapalapa. Iztapalapa is the most populated delegación in the DF. It is located in the east of the city, having the availability problems of the area mentioned earlier. This delegación has traditionally been a combative one, promoting collective action in demonstrations and street blockages. Today many of the projects for improving the water provision in the city are concentrated in this area. Among the projects are the reopening of wells and purifying plants that aim to improve the water availability in Iztapalapa.

Yet much remains to be done to approach a more socially just distribution and management of water in Mexico City. The social injustice of the difference in the water service received by users in the DF is manifested in multiple ways. In the end it is generally neighbourhoods in the east delegaciones that receive the worst water quality, the least reliability of the service and pay the highest prices, with the women within these households bearing the heaviest burden. This in turn generates conflicts that have now challenged the governance system to the extent that the local parliament is working on various reforms to improve the current laws in water and the water service.

[1] Proposals concerning how water from other sources could be transferred to the city do exist but due to the high political, ecological, social and financial costs they would represent, they have not been carried out so far.
[2] Tandeo refers to water serviced in an inconstant manner. In some neighbourhoods that have water connections, water is only available at certain times of certain days to overcome the problem that the offer is less than the demand. This worsens during drought periods.(Libreros Munioz and Quiniones Castillo, 2004)

Conclusions

2005-07-13T20:49:00.001-05:00

Claudia Campero Arena

As a result of the analysis presented in this work the questions set in the introduction can now be addressed: How far is the water governance system in Mexico City responsible for a socially unjust distribution and management of the resource? How can civil struggle or conflict help to change governance systems to achieve more socially just results?

In relation to the first question, the argument set in this work is that the water governance system in Mexico City is definitely one of the causes for the prevailing socially unjust distribution and management of water. The current water governance system in the city is still dominated by the decisions of local government officials and to some extent of the private sector. The institutional channels for citizens to participate are far from being structured in a way that could guarantee meaningful participation. This is the first way the system becomes socially unjust in that it does not allow people to take part in the decision-making process that affects a central part of their lives. In practice, as it has been clear in the development of this work, the inhabitants of some of the areas that suffer water scarcity are highly involved and participate, not through institutional channels, but through different protest strategies.

The second way the governance system becomes responsible for a socially unjust distribution of water services is manifested in the fact that the decisions of where and how water is distributed is normally to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable, generally using the explanation of financial and technical limitations. The same neighbourhoods simultaneously suffer the worst service regarding availability, reliability and quality and are the ones that end up turning to water vendors paying much higher prices for their water. This has not only a technical or financial explanation, it is a expression of the power relations prevalent in the city, where people of these neighbourhood, particularly their women, find themselves powerless in front of the other actors defining how water services are managed and distributed.

Water scarcity is a constant theme when discussing the sustainability of Mexico City. Yet as discussed in this work, scarcity is suffered unequally. While citizens in Iztapalapa and other delegaciones suffer water unavailability for months, inhabitants of more affluent neighbourhoods have water uninterruptedly year-round. What is more the scarcity is not suffered equally within households, where normally women are responsible for overcoming the lack of water having to invest hours in fetching it.

The second question where the evidence is much less clear can now be addressed. Although it is appreciable that conflict over water, particularly when it brings together considerable number of citizens to contest the authority, can motivate responses in them to somehow resolve the claims, the solutions are commonly ephemeral. Yet this continuous battle with the authorities has, not only in Mexico but in other Latin-American countries, brought significantly improved water services (Bennett, 1995). Now, the question of whether these conflicts have actually changed the governance system to achieve more socially just results is one step further. The fact that the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District (ALDF) has created a Special Commission for the Integral Management of Water shows to some extent recognition of the present deficiencies in the governance system. The uncertainty is whether the resulting law modifications will help to improve social justice in water services. Moreover, the question of whether the law will be put in practice is pertinent because there are plenty examples in the country where laws are not practiced.

The need to improve regulation in the water sector of the city is nonetheless evident. The SACM needs to have greater supervision on the private companies work to improve the water service particularly for those who suffer most the scarcity of the resource. Furthermore the role of the delegaciones has to be restudied to be more effective in addressing citizens’ needs and improving efficiency. Moreover the participation channels for citizens involvement in water distribution and management is central for social justice.

According to Martha Delgado, the water sector in Mexico City is crumbling. She admits there are people working to improve the situation; but will it be enough to revert the tendency? We need urgent investment, she emphasises (interview with the author, 3/08/04). Yes, investment is needed, but the way this investment is used will be defined by the power struggles within the governance system. Those who suffer the worst service might fight for an improvement, but how well organised they are – and the honesty of their leaders to avoid co-option – will be crucial to success. Indeed, there are other areas that like Iztapalapa suffer water scarcity, but the combativeness and organisation of this delegación has helped it to be at the centre of attention.

The fact that governance systems do change in time is somewhat encouraging, but how the power relations will evolve is difficult to tell. Will the result of the local water law amendments improve the conditions of some of the poorest in the city? If it is the result of an exercise of wide participation of the different actors, including the most vulnerable, it might to certain extent be a more socially just result. But given the present situation this will most probably be a long process of struggle. Some hard decisions – regarding participation, distribution and management – would be necessary to arrive at a more socially just result. This involves changing power balances which is not something that normally happens as the result of good will but of struggle. Hopefully this struggle can be resolved in negotiation and dialog spaces.

References

2005-07-13T20:47:00.000-05:00

ALDF (Asamblea Legislativa del Distrito Federal), 2004, ‘Programa de trabajo. Comisión Especial para la gestión integral del agua’, III Legislatura, Mexico.

Asmal, K, 1998, “Water as a metaphor for governance: issues in the management of water resources in Africa”, Water Policy Volume 1, Issue 1, p. 95-101

Barlow, M. and T. Clarke, 2002, Blue Gold. The Battle Against Corporate Theft of the World’s Water, Earthscan, UK.

Bennett, V., 1995, The Politics of Water. Urban Protest, Gender, and Power in Monterrey, Mexico, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Budds, J. and G. McGranahan, 2003, ‘Are the debates on water privatisation missing the point? Experiences from Africa, Asia and Latin America’ Environment & Urbanization. Vol 15 No 2

Castro, J.E., 2003‘Urban water and the politics of citizenship: the case of the Mexico City Metropolitan Area (1980s-1990s)” Environment and Planning A

Castro, J.E., 2004, “Private sector involvement in water and sanitation services, water governance, and the water poor: some lessons from Latin America, Africa, and Europe”, in N. Laurie (ed.) Geoforum, Special Issue on “‘Pro-poor’ water: past present and future scenarios” (forthcoming 2004).

Canak, W and Swanson L., 1998, Modern Mexico, Mc. Graw Hill, USA.

CNA (Comisión Nacional del Agua), 2000, Programa Nacional Hidráulico 2001-2006, CNA, Mexico.

CNA (Comisión Nacional del Agua), 2003, Desafíos para consolidar los Consejos de Cuenca: Nuestra responsabilidad con el presente y el futuro, CNA, SEMARNAT, Segunda reunion nacional de Consejos de Cuenca, Ciudad de Mexico.

Crawley, H., 1998, ‘Living Up to the Empowerment Claim? The Potential of PRA’ in I. Guijt and Shah, M.K. (eds) The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development, Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd, London.

Delgado, M., 2004, ‘Foro de consulta sobre la problemática que enfrentan las delegaciones en la gestión del agua’, 21 de julio de 2004 celebrado en la ALDF, unpublised

De Garay, 1856, ‘Plano General de la Mesa del Valle de Mexico. Con indicación de los canales de desagüe, navegación y riego’ Reduction of the original by M. Castro.

DFID (Department of International Development), 2003 ‘Promoting Institutional & Organisational Development’, Department for International Development, Issues, UK.

Ezcurra E. et al, 1999, The Basin of Mexico. Critical Environmental Issues and Sustainability, United Nations University Press, New York.

Gilbert, A., 1998. The Latin American City. Russell Press, UK.

Harvey D, 1988, Social Justice and the City. Blackell Publishers, Oxford.

Harvey, D., 1992, ‘Social justice, postmodernism and the city’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 16, No. 4, p.588-601.

Healey, P., 1997, Collaborative Planning. Shaping places in Fragmented Societies, MacMillan Press, London.

INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática), 2000, ‘XII Censo de Población y Vivienda 2000’, INEGI, México. www.inegi.gob.mx

Kemper, K. and O. Alvarado, 2000, ‘Water’ in Giugale, M et. al. editors, Mexico—A Comprehensive Development Agenda for the New Era, World Bank, http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/external/lac/lac.nsf/0/9364AB8A25BABD6085256A4C004B3963?OpenDocument

LAN (Ley de Aguas Nacionales), 2004, ‘Ley de Aguas Nacionales’ First publication in 1992, last modifications 29/04/2004.

Libreros Muñoz and Quiñones Castillo, 2004, ‘La participación de las delegaciones políticas en la gestión del agua y drenaje del Distrito Federal’ in PUEC, Gestión del agua en el Distrito Federal. Retos y propuestas, UNAM, Mexico.

Martínez Omaña, M. C., 2004, ‘La participación de la empresa privada en la gestión del servicio de agua en el Distrito Federal’, in PUEC, Gestión del agua en el Distrito Federal. Retos y propuestas, UNAM, Mexico.

Martínez-Lagunes and Rodríguez-Tirado, 1998, ‘Water Policies in Mexico’, Water Policy, Vol. 1 pp. 103-114.

Midgley, J., 1997, Social Welfare in Global Context, Sage Publications, USA.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2003 ‘Social Issues in the Provision and Pricing of Water Services’, France.

Ohlsson, L., 2000, ‘Water Conflicts and Social Resource Scarcity’, Phys. Chem. Earth (B), Vol. 25, No.3, pp. 213-220.

Olayo Guadarrama, 2002, ‘Lo que existe en la zona es discriminación: Clara Brugada Llama a huelga de pagos’ La Jornada, 16 April 2002, Mexico, www.jornada.unam.mx

Ramirez Cuevas, 2002, ‘La ciudad tiene sed’ Masiosare, No. 232, La Jornada, 2 June, 2002, Mexico, www.jornada.unam.mx

Sainz Santamaría and Becerra Pérez, 2003, ‘Los conflictos por agua en México: avances de investigación’ Instituto Nacional de Ecología, SEMARNAT, http://www.gob.mx/wb2/egobierno/egob_Los_conflictos_por_agua_en_Mexico

SEDUVI (Secretaria de Desarrollo Urbano y Vivienda), 2001, ‘Programa General de Desarrollo del Distrito Federal 2001’. Gaceta Oficial, Mexico.

Schmandt, J. [jschmandt@harc.edu], 2004, ‘Water Demand Management in Arid Regions’ University of Texas at Austin and Houston Advanced Research Center. Paper submitted for International Water Demand Conference (30 of May to 3 June, 2004).

Shiva, V., 2002, Water Wars. Privatization, Pollution and Profit, South End Press, Canada.

Swyngedouw, E., 1995, ‘The contradiction of urban water provision: A study of Guayaquil, Ecuador’, Third World Planning Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 387-405.

Swyngedouw, E., M. Kaïka and E. Castro, 2002, “Urban Water: A political-ecology perspective”, Built Environment, Special Issue on Water Management
in Urban Areas, Vol. 28, #2.

Tortajada, C., 2003, ‘Water Management for a Megacity: Mexico City Metropolitan Area’, Ambio, Vol. 32, No. 2, March 2003, pp. 124-129.

Uitto, J., 1997, ‘Environmental governance and the impeding water crisis’, Global Environmental Change, Vol. 7, No. 2.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), 2004, ‘Water Governance for Poverty Reduction. Key Issues and the UNDP response to Millennium Development Goals’, UNDP, New York, http://www.undp.org/water/pdfs/241456%20UNDP_Guide_Pages.pdf

UN-WWAP (United Nations – World Water Assessment Programme), 2003, Water for People. Water for Life, The United Nations World water Development Report, UNESCO and Berghahn Books.

Ward, C., 1997, Reflected in Water. A Crisis of Social Responsibility, Cassel, Great Britain.

Ward, P., 1986, Welfare Politics in Mexico. Papering over the cracks, The London Research Series in Geography 9, Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.

Ward, P., 1998, Mexico City. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex.

Warner, M, 2000, Complex Problems Negotiated Solutions: Strategies and Tools for Reducing Conflict as an Obstacle to Sustainable Rural Livelihoods, ITDG.

WB (World Bank), 2004, World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People, WB, http://econ.worldbank.org/wdr/wdr2004/

Whiteford and Melville (eds.), 2002, Protecting a Sacred Gift. Water and Social Change in Mexico, Center for US-Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego, USA.

WHO and UNICEF, 2000, ‘Meeting the Millennium Development Goals drinking water and sanitation target - A mid-term assessment of progress’, http://www.unicef.org/publications/who_unicef_watsan_midterm_rev.pdf

Winpenny, 2003, ‘Financing water for all’ Report for the World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure, World Water Council and Global Water Partnership.

Wratten, E., 1995, ‘Conceptualizing urban poverty’, Environment and Urbanisation, Vol. 7 No. 1 April 1995, p. 11-36.

Young I M, 1990, Justice and the Politics of Difference. Pricenton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey.

Interviews

Delgado Peralta, Martha Teresa, 3/08/04, Independent Member of Parliament, currently the president of the Special Commission for the Integral Management of Water in the ALDF.

Martínez Santoyo, Arturo Germán, 23/07/04, senior official of the SACM, previously Director General of the CADF.

Rental housing in consolidated self-help settlements in Mexico City

2005-06-08T22:16:00.000-05:00

Claudia Campero-Arena
26 April, 2004

The present paper is concerned with understanding how irregular settlement upgrading can help to increase the supply of rental housing for low income groups specifically in Mexico City. This could be achieved when owners in self-help neighbourhoods decide to build new rooms for rent. The discussion will also address how policies might be structured to generate this impact. While it is essentially concerned with Mexico City, many of the principles hold true for other Latin American cities.

One of the most challenging problems developing countries encounter is the issue of housing. Answers have varied and so has their relative success. One of the reasons for some of the fiascos has been failing to recognise that there is no single answer. In other words, housing is a complex problem concerning not only houses but services, infrastructure, health, economic activities and the consequential spatial, social, economic, cultural and political dimensions that affect and are affected by it. Not surprisingly many consider housing policies to be at the heart of poverty reduction (Fiori et al, 2001b). Yet governments commonly put their housing resources and effort (which are normally from the start insufficient) to a housing policy at the time – for instance either building complete houses and subsidising their price or offering upgrading – disregarding any other strategy. But different people have different housing needs. This paper aims to emphasise on the importance of having rental accommodation alternatives in the city.

The dominant tenure in Mexico City has shifted significantly. Although its inhabitants used to be mainly tenants, homeownership in Mexico City has increased steadily during the last 50 years. Clearly governmental policies favouring home ownership have had a key role in this shift. Notwithstanding the present dominance of homeownership, the number of non-owner households has increased in absolute terms. Gilbert (2001) mentions two very different estimates of this increase. The first (Gilbert, 2001:30) calculates nearly one million tenants by 1990. This would mean the amount of tenants almost doubled from 1950 to 1990. The second estimate (2001: 59) is of 4 million. The difference might be due to the inclusion of all non-owners (including shares or rent-free occupiers) in the second estimate.

It is clear that not everybody can afford or wants homeownership. Indeed people young people may wish to rent first and latter in their lives, with a more stable lifestyle may search ownership. In many cases, families cannot afford to own the kind of home they would like, for instance, a serviced and well located house, and consequently prefer to rent (Gilbert and Valey, 1991). Most home owners were once renters. Furthermore renting is essential for the newly arrived and those only staying in the city temporarily. All this makes it clear that a considerable supply for rental housing – particularly low cost because of the dominance of low income population – is needed in Mexico City.

Nevertheless the Mexican government policies have normally favoured ownership. Regarding renting there have been sporadic and unsuccessful policies promoting it to some degree. Yet investors are not interested in being landlords. This is particularly because they consider other sectors more profitable. Adding to this fact, regulations favour tenants over landlords making it unattractive to invest in rental housing (the history of rent controls is an example).

What are the reasons for the government to favour ownership over renting? Gilbert and Valey (1991, 2001) identify two broad reasons: (1) the Mexican government does not want to repeat its short experience as providers of social housing for rent. It does not want to deal with maintenance and collecting rents. (2) Rent is perceived as unsatisfactory for a series of imprecise assumptions. Firstly, rent is considered to be an insecure form of tenure. Yet there is evidence that ‘many Mexican families seem to achieve this goal [security of tenure] perfectly satisfactorily through renting’ (Gilbert, 2001:30). Surveys show that a majority of families renting in some settlements have stayed there for more than 10 years. Secondly, there is a widespread belief that tenant-landlord relationships are very conflictive. Yet high degrees of conflict are only common when landlords either wish to evict tenants – which is not unseen but not that frequent – or completely disregard maintenance – common when they do not live in the premises. Thirdly, rents are thought to be unfairly high. This of course varies considerably with space and time. Gilbert claims that rental accommodation in Mexico City can be as low as to represent less than 10 per cent of the average household income (2001). Fourthly, many politicians think that poor people rent whereas the rich are owners. This argument may go further to belief the poor need to own to overcome their poverty. In reality, those families that decide to invade land or buy a plot irregularly might do so because they cannot afford to rent (Gilbert and Valey, 1991). Renting accommodation is more common in consolidated and nearer to the centre settlements which means better services. Living on unserviced land can be a very tough experience and families that can afford renting might decide it is a better choice even if ultimately their aim is to be owners. Fifthly, for this reason, another common assumption proves to be untrue: the consideration that homeowners living conditions are better than tenants.

Finally, renting is thought of as an inequitable tenure. This might come as a surprise, yet research has shown landlords in self-help housing normally come from the same social class that the tenants and have a similar or even lower per capita income (Gilbert and Valey, 1991; UN Habitat, 2003a). This is because landlords are simply older than the tenants and are frequently retired. In addition, UN Habitat (2003a) makes the point that providing rental accommodation may be a major livelihood source for woman who are generally more vulnerable and in greater need. In this sense the doubt of whether renting is desirable in equity terms looses its pertinence.

Recent research has shown that landowners in consolidated self-help settlements do not have a ‘good business sense and that most would probably have made much more money had they invested in stocks and shares, indulged in dollar speculation or simply put their money in the bank’ (Gilbert, 1998:95). Yet given the instability of Mexico regarding finance and the lack of high education, the landlords have decided to make a save investment – in fact, some have not even constructed new rooms but are actually renting vacant rooms of children that grew up and left –in something that might give them a stable income in times of crisis.

Something to take into account is that when talking about low income people we are certainly encompassing in a single category a group of people that is very diverse. We are not only talking about differences of income within the low income group – from the extremely poor to the poor that can afford somehow to satisfy their basic needs – but there is also differences in age, gender, ability, ethnicity that can influence their vulnerability and change their needs. In this sense promoting rental housing in consolidated self-help neighbourhoods bring twofold benefits. On the one hand, it can aid retired homeowners that may become landlords to complement their income. On the other hand, it can aid a young couple to find cheap accommodation to save money for the future.

In evaluating the role of self-help landowners, the UN Habitat goes as far as stating:

‘Such landlords perform a valuable service to the community and the labour market, giving slum dwellers a mobile base form which they can access fluid employment opportunities easily and cheaply, and providing affordable backup housing when formal or squatter building opportunities prove inadequate for urban growth. The supply of cheap rental housing is an essential component of the continued existence of a cheap urban labour force’ (2003a:110).

Indeed in order for low wages to be sustainable low living costs are essential. This fact makes the promotion of this kind of rental housing attractive for governments which wish to attract investment by maintaining the cost of labour low. In this sense it could be argued that promoting rental accommodation through slum upgrading is a way of maintaining the status quo for the reproduction of capital accumulation. Yet improving the housing conditions is certainly an important step to improving peoples life, which is ultimately what development policies are about.

Concerning the issue of slum upgrading, it is now widely accepted that in situ upgrading is a much more desirable, efficient and effective policy than those of the past (Cities Alliance, 2003). Governmental social housing construction and site and services schemes have frequently benefited the middle class instead of the lower income population they intended to. In contrast, irregular settlement upgrading does benefit the targeted population. Indeed risks of upgrading bringing displacement have proved to be largely exaggerated (Gilbert, 2001). Nevertheless a flaw identified in upgrading programmes is that they rarely recover the costs. This makes them difficult to replicate or achieve a city scale. One noticeable exception that did achieve city scale was Favela Bairro. This programme was also successful because it had a multidimensional approach aiming at alleviating poverty and social exclusion through integrating the upgraded settlement to the rest of the city (Fiori et al, 2001).

However, the idea of upgrading settlements is not always seen as positive for the renters. They may want to enjoy better services, but may fear land regularisation and service introduction might raise rents (Ward, 1986: 134). Although tenants in less consolidated self-help settlements might be poorer than those in more consolidated areas, renters, as discussed above, are not normally the poorest within the urban poor. While the UN Habitat (2003b) is critical to upgrading programmes that fail to recognise the presence of tenants in irregular settlements and involve them in the programmes, it nevertheless considers there is not enough evidence of tenants being displaced because of improved settlements. If the tenants have enough income to pay the improved accommodation, both, landlords and tenants, benefit of such programmes. Thus the importance of considering and involving tenants in upgrading programmes form the start in order to find solutions to their specific needs.

This brings us back to the importance of understanding the complexity of the housing problem. Policy implications need to address multidimensionality of housing in the economic sector as well as in the social sector. Moreover they need to contextualise the needs of different groups. Indeed, the failure to address the housing shortages for the middle class as well as the poor has been an important factor in housing projects failing to reach its targeted population. As an NGO expresses it: ‘One needs to remember that the problem of housing, at least as far as Mexico is concerned, involves not only the poorest of the poor, but also nearly all sectors of the working class. And if one fails to seek a solution to the latter problem, it will be difficult to resolve the issue of the least well off’ (Turner, 1988).
Let us examine for a moment some of the housing programmes in Mexico. At the moment there are upgrading programmes instrumented by the federal as well as the local governments in Mexico City. At the federal level a Habitat Programme has very ambitious and perhaps too ample objectives. These include: equitable public investment in services and infrastructure, improve cities’ competitiveness and complementarity to increase private investment, this, in turn, is supposed to ‘reinforce social cohesion and wealth distribution’ (Sedesol, 2002: 59) and improve local government finance. Thus it appears to be a programme that aims at everything, which might ultimately obtain very partial achievements. In spite of the apparent all-encompassing nature of the programme, it does not mention financial or other kind of help for self-help owners to improve their housing specifically for rent.

At the local level, one of the mayor urban policy objectives of the current government in the Federal District is to densify the central boroughs of the city. It has to some extent promoted this by favouring densification in consolidated self-help settlements with a housing programme that won a national price in 2002. Through the programme families can gain access to finance for adding rooms or separate houses in existing plots to house married children (GDF, 2004).

Maybe this programme is a good sign that manifests an effort of the government to adapt solutions that have been applied by Mexicans for decades and support them through finance. Yet it is interesting that the programme is specifically targeted for families that are expanding. This same finance could be made available for constructing for rent. A programme to promote enlarging and improving the housing supply for rent would have two important benefits: it would give the possibility to the landlord to have a stable income, and it would increase the competition in the supply side benefiting the people aiming to rent (demand) who would have more choices.

The city plan of Mexico City for 2001 (SEDUVI, 2001) is also supposed to promote rental housing, yet the how are the specific programmes to fulfil this aim is unclear. Although a brief explanation of the programme addressed above was available on the Ministry of Urban Development and Housing webpage, no information about rental housing promotion programmes was found. This is an example of a common feature in policy formulation: the enunciation of aims yet the failure to articulate the specifics of how these will be attained.

In any case, it is likely that upgrading programmes in general and programmes providing finance for house extensions have the effect of creating new spaces that could be eventually rented even if the intention of the programme was not to do so. In this regard Skinner states:

‘Upgrading mechanisms ... have generally been found to contribute to improved quality and quantity of housing... improvements consisted to a large extent of adding rooms or otherwise increasing the amount of sheltered space at the disposal of the households, thus contributing significantly to the expansion of the housing stock’ (Skinner et al in Gilbert, 2001:43)

The neglect of programmes addressing rental accommodation can also be explained because of the lack of interest of the international agencies that normally dictate mainstream development policy strategies. As the UN Habitat states ‘aid programmes for rental tenure remain a neglected element of international assistance, and knowledge about informal landlords and tenants and the kinds of programmes that might benefit them are rare’ (2003a:109). Indeed there is a very small amount of academic work on rental accommodation in developing countries in consolidating slums.

Furthermore the perception that state-funded programmes for self-help settlement improvements should only be targeted for low-income owner occupiers and not for landlords who intend to make a profit out of tenants is more accepted in general (UN Habitat, 2003a). This perception is most likely to be a result of the assumptions about renting accommodation Gilbert and Valey (1991) identified that were explained above. Yet many governments, and in particular the Mexican central government, are keen on giving finance to promote micro and small enterprises to improve the income of the population and promote economic activities while not considering ‘right’ to aid landlords. Thus it is contradictory that when it comes to housing policies to support landlords can be seen as inappropriate because they are getting a profit for providing a service to the tenant!

One of the issues raised by the Cities Alliance about slum upgrading is the need for the community to participate in the understanding that this includes decision-making roles. The reasons given of why this is important should be evident by now: ‘know their community and issues; have to live with the results; can, want, and have the right to participate; and can and will pay for affordable improvements of their choosing’ (2003: 21). Thus Mexico City’s government has to bear in mind the need for meaningful participation of those affected by the programmes to make them sustainable. As Fiori et al (2001) argue in the case of Favela Bairro programme ‘broader processes of democratisation… are essential not only to the implementation of successful projects but also, and above all to ensure the continuity of the policy and long-term sustainable and substantive poverty reduction’ (p. 59).

Conclusions

Concluding, the poorest in Mexico City invade or buy irregular plots. Thus slum upgrading directly benefits a very poor segment of the population. When upgrading also promotes income generating activities such as the construction of workshops and rooms for rent, the benefit the programme brings not only increases for the owners but to those potential renters that may have more and better choices for housing. Considering the housing shortage in Mexico City and that the unsatisfied demand includes a variety of incomes, slum upgrading that improves both the quality and the quantity of the housing stock seems a good policy practice. Nevertheless it is wise to keep in mind that different households have different housing needs and a combination of policies might be a more effective approach for governments than ‘putting all the eggs in one basket’.

References

Cities Alliance, 2003, ‘The challenge of scale- nationwide upgrading, 2003 Annual Report, Cities Alliance, Washington, DC.

Fiori et al, 2001a, ‘Physical Upgrading and Social Integration in Rio de Janeiro: the Case of Favela Bairro’, in DISP, No. 4, Zurich.

Fiori et al, 2001b, ‘Urban Poverty Alleviation through Environmental Upgrading in Rio de Janeiro: Favela-Bairro’, DPU/DFID, London.

GDF, 2004 http://www.prosoc.df.gob.mx/Fomento/launidad3/Reportaje3e.htm Accessed 1/03/04.

Gilbert, A. and A. Varley, 1991, Landlord and Tenant. Housing the Poor in Urban Mexico. Routledge, London.

Gilbert, A., 2001, ‘Housing in Latin America’, IDES.

Sedesol, 2002, Manual Ciudadano. Sedesol a los ojos de todos, Talleres Graficos de Mexico.

SEDUVI, 2001 Programa General de Desarrollo del Distrito Federal 2001. Gaceta Oficial, Mexico.

Turner, 1988, Building Community, Building Community Books, London.

UN Habitat, 2003a, The Challenge of Slums. Global Report on Human Settlements 2003. Earthscan Publications Ltd.

UN Habitat, 2003b, Rental Housing. An essential option for the urban poor in developing countries. UN Habitat, Nairobi.

Ward, P. 1986, Welfare Politics in Mexico. Papering over the cracks, The London Research Series in Geography 9, Allen & Unwin Ltd, London.

Claudia Campero Arena

Las turbias aguas de la privatización en México

Se extiende la privatización del agua en todo el país: Campero

Zapotillo dam needs our attention!

Temacapulín permanecerá.

Boletín: Temacapulín detiene la obra en El Zapotillo para cancelar definitivamente la construcción de la Presa.

Fotos de Temacapulín

Organizaciones civiles y sociales advierten sobre la propuesta del Jefe de Gobierno de incrementar de la participación privada en el servicio de agua en la Ciudad de México

H2Órale nuevo horario

The Story of Cap & Trade

Información para la participación ciudadana y la mejor gobernanza en el agua

H2Órale

Global actions underway to reclaim public water

Water Privatization Threat in Mexico City

Entre la escasez y la abundancia

Cambio Climático y Agua

Experiencias de Foros Mundiales del Agua de México a Estambul

Organising Resistance in the context of the Forth World Water Forum in Mexico 2006

Bienvenid@s / Welcome

Norwegian Organisations Question Water Law

Curriculum Vitae

Firmas por el Derecho al Agua, Octubre Azul 2006

Memoria del Foro Internacional en Defensa del Agua

Report of the International Forum in the Defense of Water

No a la Privatización del Agua

Páginas de agua / Water links

Water Governance, Conflict and Social Justice

Table of Contents

Acronyms

Introduction

Part 1. Theoretical Framework

Part 2. Water in Mexico City

Conclusions

References

Rental housing in consolidated self-help settlements in Mexico City