Book contents
- Water Justice
- Reviews
- Water Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: The Multiple Challenges and Layers of Water Justice Struggles
- Part I Re-Politicizing Water Allocation
- Part II Hydrosocial De-Patterning and Re-Composition
- Introduction: Hydrosocial De-Patterning and Re-Composition
- 6 “… And Not a Single Injustice Remains”: Hydro-Territorial Colonization and Techno-Political Transformations in Spain
- 7 Making Space for the Cauca River in Colombia
- 8 Reconfiguration of Hydrosocial Territories and Struggles for Water Justice
- 9 Large-Scale Dam Development and Counter Movements
- Part III Exclusion and Struggles for Co-Decision
- Part IV Governmentality, Discourses and Struggles over Imaginaries and Water Knowledge
- Index
- References
8 - Reconfiguration of Hydrosocial Territories and Struggles for Water Justice
from Part II - Hydrosocial De-Patterning and Re-Composition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 February 2018
Book contents
- Water Justice
- Reviews
- Water Justice
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- 1 Introduction: The Multiple Challenges and Layers of Water Justice Struggles
- Part I Re-Politicizing Water Allocation
- Part II Hydrosocial De-Patterning and Re-Composition
- Introduction: Hydrosocial De-Patterning and Re-Composition
- 6 “… And Not a Single Injustice Remains”: Hydro-Territorial Colonization and Techno-Political Transformations in Spain
- 7 Making Space for the Cauca River in Colombia
- 8 Reconfiguration of Hydrosocial Territories and Struggles for Water Justice
- 9 Large-Scale Dam Development and Counter Movements
- Part III Exclusion and Struggles for Co-Decision
- Part IV Governmentality, Discourses and Struggles over Imaginaries and Water Knowledge
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter explores hydrosocial territories as spatial-political configurations of people, institutions, water flows, hydraulic technology and bio-physical elements revolving around water control. Territorial politics confronts diverse actors whose spatial and political-geographical projects compete, superimpose and align their territorialization strategies in order to strengthen their water control claims. In practice, hydro-social territories that are imagined, planned or actually materialized, have functions, values and meanings that are different or even incommensurable for the parties involved. Conflicts over water governance, development and distribution therefore involve diverging regimes of representation, each aiming to conceptualize, arrange and materialize water realities in different and often mutually contradicting manners. Using a political ecology focus and providing illustrations from Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Turkey, this chapter discusses how such territorial reconfiguration projects may generate and stabilize profound water injustices, while movements’ struggles for techno-political re-composition may challenge dominant hydro-territorialization projects.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Water Justice , pp. 151 - 168Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Agnew, J. (1994). The territorial trap: The geographical assumptions of international relations theory. Review of International Political Economy, 1(1), 53–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ahunbay, Z. and Balkiz, Ö. (2009). Outstanding universal value of Hasankeyf and the Tigris Valley, Dog˘a Derneg˘i, Ankara (leaflet).Google Scholar
Assies, W. (2010). The limits of state reform and multiculturalism in Latin America: Contemporary illustrations. In R. Boelens, D. Getches, and A. Guevara-gil (eds.) Out of the Mainstream. Water Rights, Politics and Identity. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Bagis, A. I. (1997). Turkey’s hydropolitics of the Euphrates-Tigris Basin. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 13(4), 567–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baletti, B. (2012). Ordenamento territorial: Neo-developmentalism and the struggle for territory in the lower Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Peasant Studies, 39, 573–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J. and Alatout, S. (2012). Water worlds: Introduction to the special issue of Social Studies of Science. Social Studies of Science, 42(4), 483–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baviskar, A. (2007). Waterscapes: The Cultural Politics of a Natural Resource. Ranikhet: Permanent Black.Google Scholar
Boelens, R. (2014). Cultural politics and the hydrosocial cycle: Water, power and identity in the Andean highlands. Geoforum, 234–47.Google Scholar
Boelens, R. (2015a). Water, Power and Identity: The Cultural Politics of Water in the Andes. London: Earthscan, Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boelens, R. (2015b). Water Justice in Latin America: The Politics of Difference, Equality and Indifference. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., Swyngedouw, E., Vos, J. and Wester, P. (2016). Hydrosocial territories: A political ecology perspective. Water International, 41(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
Brighenti, A. M. (2010). On territorology: Towards a general science of territory. Theory, Culture & Society, 27, 52–72.Google Scholar
Budds, J. and Hinojosa-Valencia, L. (2012). Restructuring and rescaling water governance in mining contexts: The co-production of waterscapes in Peru. Water Alternatives, 5, 119–37.Google Scholar
Buitrago, E. (2012). Entre el Agua y el Oro: Tensiones y Reconfiguraciones Territoriales en el Municipio de Vetas. Santander, Colombia: Universidad Nacional de Colombia.Google Scholar
Cadman, L. (2010). How (not) to be governed: Foucault, critique, and the political. Environment and Planning D, 28(3), 539–56.Google Scholar
Çarkoglu, A. and Eder, M. (2001). Domestic concerns and the water conflict over the Euphrates–Tigris River Basin. Middle Eastern Studies, 37(1), 41–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comisión Estatal del Agua de Guanajuato (CEAG). (2001). Actualización de los Balances de los Estudios Hidrológicos y Modelos Matemáticos de los Acuíferos del Estado de Guanajuato. Mexico: Guanajuato City.Google Scholar
CEAG. (2006). Memoria Institucional 2000–2006 de la Comisión Estatal del Agua de Guanajuato (CEAG). Guanajuato City: CEAG.Google Scholar
CEASG. (1999). Plan Estatal Hidráulico de Guanajuato 2000–2025, Fase 1: Diagnóstico base de la situación hidráulica del Estado de Guanajuato. Guanajuato City: CEASG.Google Scholar
Comisión Nacional del Agua (CNA). (2016). El Registro Público de Derechos de Agua (REPDA).Google Scholar
Damocracy. (2016). “Damocracy: Global campaign to protect rivers from destructive dams,” www.damocracy.org/about/.Google Scholar
DSI and Ilisu Consortium. (2005). Ilisu Dam and HEPP Project Update of Resettlement Action Plan – Final Report. Ankara: Environmental Consultancy Co.Google Scholar
Duarte-Abadía, B. and Boelens, R. (2016). Disputes over territorial boundaries and diverging valuation languages: Santurban hydro-social highlands territory in Colombia. Water International, 41, 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberlein, C., Drillisch, H., Ayboga, E. and Wenidoppler, T. (2010). The Ilisu Dam in Turkey and the role of export credit agencies and NGO networks. Water Alternatives, 3(2), 291–312.Google Scholar
Eichelmann, U. (2009). Stop Ilisu – Controversial Project on the Tigris River. Vienna: ECA Watch Austria.Google Scholar
Elden, S. (2010). Land, terrain, territory. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 799–817.Google Scholar
Escobar, A. (2001). Culture sits in places: Reflections on globalism and subaltern strategies of localization. Political Geography, 20, 139–74.Google Scholar
Evren, E. (2014). The rise and decline of an anti-dam campaign: Yusufeli Dam project and the temporal politics of development. Water History, 6, 405–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, R. (2010). Neoliberal environmentality: Towards a poststructuralist political ecology of the conservation debate. Conservation & Society, 8, 171–81.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 87–104.Google Scholar
Franco, B. M. (2013). “Characterization and analysis of production systems in Guerrero, Rabanal and Santurban páramos: ‘Páramos and life system project’.” Alexander von Humboldt Institute, Bogotá. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
GAP Regional Development Administration. (2013). About GAP: Objectives, www.gap.gov.tr/aboutgap/objectives-of-gap.Google Scholar
Garay, L. (2013). Globalización/ Glocalización soberanía y gobernanza. A propósito del cambio climático y extractivismo minero. In V. Saldarriaga, O. Alarcon, and R. Medina (eds.), Minería en Colombia: Fundamentos Para Superar el Modelo Extractivista. Bogotá: Imprenta Nacional, pp. 9–19.Google Scholar
Gevaert, A. I., Hoogesteger, J. and Stoof, C. R. (2012). Suitability of Using Groundwater Temperature and Geology to Predict Arsenic Contamination in Drinking Water: A Case Study in Central Mexico. Internet-First University Press.Google Scholar
Gupta, A. and Ferguson, J. (1992). Beyond “culture”: Space, identity, and the politics of difference. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häkli, J. (2009). Governmentality. In R. Thrift, K. (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Hale, C. R. (2002). Does multiculturalism menace? Governance, cultural rights and the politics of identity in Guatemala. Journal of Latin America Studies, 34(3), 485–524.Google Scholar
Harris, L. M. (2009). States at the limit: Tracing contemporary state-society relations in the Borderlands of Southeastern Turkey. European Journal of Turkish Studies, 10, 2–19.Google Scholar
Hommes, L., Boelens, R. and Maat, H. (2016). Contested hydrosocial territories and disputed water governance: Struggles and competing claims over the Ilisu Dam development in southeastern Turkey. Geoforum, 71, 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogesteger, J. and Wester, P. (2015). Intensive groundwater use and (in)equity: Processes and governance challenges. Environmental Science and Policy, 51, 117–24.Google Scholar
Hoogesteger, J. and Wester, P. (2017). Regulating groundwater use: The challenges of policy implementation in Guanajuato, Central Mexico. Environmental Science and Policy, 77, 107–13.Google Scholar
Hoogesteger, J., Boelens, R. and Baud, M. (2016). Territorial pluralism: Water users’ multi-scalar struggles against state ordering in Ecuador’s highlands. Water International, 41, 91–106.Google Scholar
Izady, M. R. (1996). The drowning of the Kurdish historical and artistic heritage. The Kurdish Life, 19.Google Scholar
Jongerden, J. (2010). Dams and politics in Turkey: Utilizing water, developing conflict. Middle East Policy, XVII(1), 137–43.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1993). We Have Never Been Modern. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Linton, J. and Budds, J. (2014). The hydrosocial cycle: Defining and mobilizing a relational-dialectical approach to water. Geoforum, 57, 170–80.Google Scholar
Martínez-Alier, J. (2004). Los conflictos ecológicos distributivos y los indicadores de sustentabilidad. Revista Iberoamericana de Economía Ecológica, 1, 21–30.Google Scholar
Ministry of Development. (n.d.). Information Booklet. Ankara.Google Scholar
Ministry of Environment (MMA). (2001). Program for the Sustainable Management and Restoration of Colombian High Land Ecosystems: Páramos. Bogotá: General Direction of Ecosystems.Google Scholar
Nixon, R. (2010). Unimagined communities: Developmental refugees, megadams and monumental modernity. New Formations, 69, 62–80.Google Scholar
Ortega-Guerrero, M. A. (2009). Presencia, distribución, hidrogeoquímica y origen de arsénico, fluoruro y otros elementos traza disueltos en agua subterránea, a escala de cuenca hidrológica tributaria de Lerma-Chapala, México. Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Geológicas, 26(1), 143–61.Google Scholar
Özok-Gündogan, N. (2005). “Social development” as a governmental strategy in the southeastern Anatolia project. New Perspective on Turkey, 32, 93–111.Google Scholar
Perreault, T. (2014). What kind of governance for what kind of equity? Towards a theorization of justice in water governance. Water International, 39(2), 233–45.Google Scholar
Pfaffenberger, B. (1988) Fetishised objects and humanised nature: Towards an anthropology of technology. Man (N.S.), 23, 236–52.Google Scholar
Reis, N. (2014). Coyotes, concessions and construction companies: Illegal water markets and legally constructed water scarcity in central Mexico. Water Alternatives, 7(3), 542–60.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-de-Francisco, J. C. and Boelens, R. (2015). Payment for environmental services: Mobilising an epistemic community to construct dominant policy. Environmental Politics, 24(3), 481–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez-de-Francisco, J. C. and Boelens, R. (2016). PES hydrosocial territories: De-territorialization and re-patterning of water control arenas in the Andean highlands. Water International, 41(1), 140–56.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-de-Francisco, J. C., Budds, J. and Boelens, R. (2013). Payment for environmental services and unequal resource control in Pimampiro, Ecuador. Society & Natural Resources 26(10), 1217–33.Google Scholar
Ronayne, M. (2005). The cultural and environmental impact of large dams in southeast Turkey, fact-finding mission report. National University of Ireland, Galway and Kurdish Human Rights Project.Google Scholar
Ronayne, M. (2007). The culture of caring and its destruction in the Middle East: Women’s work, water, war and archaeology. In Hamilakis, Y. and Duke, P. (eds.), Archaeology and Capitalism: From Ethics to Politics. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
Schlosberg, D. (2004). Reconceiving environmental justice: Global movements and political theories. Environmental Politics, 13(3), 517–40.Google Scholar
Setton, D. and Drillisch, H. (2006). Zum Scheitern Verurteilt – Der Ilisu Staudamm im Südosten der Türkei. Berlin: World Economy, Ecology & Development.Google Scholar
Sullivan, S. (2009). Green capitalism, and the cultural poverty of constructing nature as service provider. Radical Anthropology, 3, 18–27.Google Scholar
Swyngedouw, E. (1999). Modernity and hybridity: Nature, regeneracionismo, and the production of the Spanish waterscape, 1890–1930. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 89, 443–65.Google Scholar
Swyngedouw, E. (2009). The political economy and political ecology of the hydro-social cycle. Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, 142, 56–60.Google Scholar
Swyngedouw, E. (2015). Liquid Power: Contested Hydro-Modernities in Twentieth Century Spain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Today’s Zaman. (2013). “Hasankeyf locals struck in limbo after Ilisu Dam decision,” www.todayszaman.com/national_hasankeyf-locals-stuck-in-limbo-after-ilisu-dam-decision_304540.html.Google Scholar
Warner, J. (2012). The struggle over Turkey’s Ilısu Dam: Domestic and international security linkages. International Environmental Agreements, 12, 231–50.Google Scholar
Wester, P. and Hoogesteger, J. (2011). Uso intensivo y despojo del agua subterránea: hacia una conceptualización de los conflictos y la concentración del acceso al agua subterránea. In R. Boelens, L. Cremers, and M. Z. Zwarteveen (eds.), Justicia Hídrica: Acumulación, Conflicto y Acción Social. Lima: IEP, pp. 111–33.Google Scholar
Wester, P., Hoogesteger, J. and Vincent, L. (2009). Local IWRM organizations for groundwater regulation: The experiences of the Aquifer Management Councils (COTAS) in Guanajuato, Mexico. Natural Resources Forum, 33(1), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wester, P., Sandoval-Minero, R. and Hoogesteger, J. (2011). Assessment of the development of aquifer management councils (COTAS) for sustainable groundwater management in Guanajuato, Mexico. Hydrogeology Journal, 19(4), 889–99.Google Scholar
Zwarteveen, M. (2015). Regulating water, ordering society: Practices and politics of water governance. Inaugural lecture, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zwarteveen, M. and Boelens, R. (2014). Defining, researching and struggling for water justice: Some conceptual building blocks for research and action. Water International, 39(2), 143–58.Google Scholar
- 9
- Cited by