Este artículo analiza la evolución de la tenencia de recursos en laAmazonía peruana y la relaciona con la protesta indígena de losaños 2008 y 2009. A través de este análisis, se plantea que existendos visiones de desarrollo contrapuestas: la del gobierno y el grancapital por un lado, y la de los pueblos indígenas por el otro. Si biendurante la protesta el gobierno reprimió desproporcionadamentea los indígenas especialmente en Bagua, con lamentables cruentosresultados, el derecho de los pueblos indígenas a la consulta, basadoen el Convenio 169 de la OIT, quedó colocado en el debate nacional.Sin embargo, el gobierno ha mostrado gran resistencia parareconocerlo, pues esta consulta implicaría una serie de restriccionessocioambientales a la forma en que se desarrollan las industriasextractivas y las grandes obras de infraestructura en la Amazonía.Se sostiene que el conflicto continuará si no se desarrollan políticaspúblicas en favor de los pueblos indígenas. Para que estas se dense requiere, a su vez, de una visión diferente de desarrollo desde elEstado y el Gobierno.El análisis de la tenencia de recursos en la Amazonía se basaprincipalmente en información del Sistema de Información sobreComunidades Nativas, base de datos georreferenciada manejada porel Instituto del Bien Común. Asimismo, el artículo basa su análisisen bibliografía secundaria y en el seguimiento a los acontecimientospor la autora, como especialista en el tema. / This article analyzes the evolution of the natural resources tenure inthe Peruvian Amazon, and its relation with the indigenous protest ofthe years 2008 and 2009. The authoress argue that during the indigenousprotest aroused two opposite visions of development: the visionof the government supporting the big capital interests in one side,and the vision of the indigenous peoples defending their territoriesas a source of their material and identity survival. Nevertheless, theAwajún and Wampis suffered the disproportional repression of thegovernment in Bagua, with bloody results, the main four decreesthat were in the origin of the protest, because they threatened thejuridical security of indigenous peoples territories were derogated,and the indigenous peoples right to be consulted, established by theConvention 169 of the International Law Organization, was placed inthe center of the national debate. Nevertheless, the government hasresisted its application, because these consultations would imply aseries of socio environmental conditionings to the extractive industriesand the big scale infrastructure constructions. The authoresssustains that the conflict will continue if public policies in favor ofindigenous peoples would not be developed. For the establishmentof these public policies another vision of development is requiredfrom the State and government.

Este artículo explora el proceso de bricolaje institucional que se desarrolla en una comunidad nativa y que conduce a la creación de una comisión de regantes. A partir de una revisión histórica, se identifican las dinámicas de préstamo de arreglos previos, como relaciones familiares o modalidades de reunión, para dar sentido a nuevos marcos institucionales promovidos por proyectos de desarrollo, como el trabajo cooperativo o el pago de una tarifa por el uso del agua. El argumento sostiene que se trata de un proceso de alteración institucional, dado que no conduce a la creación de un nuevo organismo cualitativamente distinto sino que reproduce lógicas y acuerdos previamente establecidos. / This article explores the institutional bricolage process developed in a native community, which derives in the creation of a water user’s association. Based on a historical review, the article identifies the borrowing dynamics from previous arrangements, such as family relationships and meetings, in order to make sense of the new institutional frameworks promoted by development projects, such as cooperative work and the payment of a water tariff. The argument proposes that this is a process of institutional alteration, because it does not led to the creation of a qualitatively different organism, but rather it reproduces previously stablished logics and agreements.

Made available in DSpace on 2008-10-20T20:22:55Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 CPDOC2006ClaudiaSantiago.pdf: 1174020 bytes, checksum: 8abc7401b180c8ea81aacc2fb66251d3 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-03-10T00:00:00Z / This essay reports the use of information in the decisive process that took place in the basin of Paraíba do Sul River when charging for the use of untreated water was implemented, determined by National Policy of Hydro Resources, in the year of 1997. This hydrographic basin is of great importance to the national scenery of Brazil (since it is located between the two largest cities of the country). It was choosen as the focus of this study because it was a pioneer experience in implementing a Management System of Hydro Resources in rivers of Union domain, having as background the complexity of Brazilian federalism and the lack of tradition in participative processes of making decisions in this field. This study shows how the fact of charging for the use of water was an agglutinative factor for all the actors in the basin, how the accumulative social capital was fundamental for the negotiation process, and finally how the use of technical information, contrary to what was expected, led to significant advances in methodology and criteria proposed for implementation of this important instrument of water management. / Esta dissertação relata o uso da informação no processo decisório havido na bacia do rio Paraíba do Sul em torno da implementação da cobrança pelo uso da água bruta,instituída pela Política Nacional de Recursos Hídricos. De grande importância no cenárionacional essa bacia hidrográfica foi escolhida como foco de estudo por se tratar de umaexperiência pioneira de implementação de um Sistema de Gestão de Recursos Hídricosem rios de domínio da União, tendo como pano de fundo a complexidade do federalismobrasileiro e a falta de tradição em processos participativos para tomada de decisão nestecampo. O estudo mostra, ainda, como a cobrança pelo uso da água foi um fator deaglutinação dos atores da bacia, como o capital social acumulado foi fundamental para oprocesso de negociação, e finalmente, como o uso da informação técnica, ao contráriodo que se imaginava, proporcionou avanços significativos na metodologia e critériospropostos para implementação desse importante instrumento de gestão das águas.

La Ley de Recursos Hídricos (No 29338) de 2009 transformó el marco normativo e institucional del sector hídrico en el Perú hacia un enfoque en la Gestión Integrada de Recursos Hídricos (GIRH). Este cambio fue significativo después de 40 años de vigencia de la ley anterior que priorizaba el uso agrícola del recurso hídrico. A través de un análisis del marco normativo actual y la institucionalidad existente combinado con una mirada a las relaciones históricas entre la burocracia hídrica del Estado y la sociedad peruana, este artículo argumenta que la institucionalidad del agua contemporánea refleja la persistencia de una cultura tecnocrática basada en la ingeniería y la manipulación y control de la naturaleza que predominaba al nivel global en el siglo 20. El trabajo muestra como la burocracia hídrica actual en el Perú ha consolidado su autoridad sobre el agua a través de la asimilación y desarrollo de una variante de la GIRH que prioriza el establecimiento de derechos formales al agua, el reconocimiento del valor económico del recurso hídrico, y un creciente enfoque en la eficiencia del uso del agua. / The 2009 Hydrologic Resources Law (Law 29338) shifted the legal and institutional framework in Peru’s water sector toward a focus on Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM). This change formally ended the explicit prioritization of water for agricultural uses that had prevailed for four decades under the prior legal regime enacted during the nation’s agrarian reform. This article combines analysis of Peru’s current legal and institutional setting for water management with examination of the historical dynamics betweenthe state water bureaucracy and Peruvian society to argue that the existing arrangements for water governance reflect the enduring influence of an engineer-led technocracy rooted in the high-modernist approaches of the 20th century. The article illustrates how the state bureaucracy has consolidated centralized authority over the water sector through assimilation and adaptation of the IWRM paradigm and the development of a water regime that prioritizesthe formalization of water rights, recognition of the economic value of water, and water-use efficiency.