Who owns our water? : water management, governance and ownership : the case of Lake Parón in the Peruvian Andes

(1)

Who owns our water?

Water Management, Governance and Ownership

The case of Lake Parón in the Peruvian Andes.

(2)

(3)

WHO OWNS OUR

WATER?

WATER MANAGEMENT, GOVERNANCE

AND OWNERSHIP

THE CASE OF LAKE PARÓN IN THE PERUVIAN

ANDES.

Charlotte van de Lagemaat

University of Amsterdam

Charlotte van de Lagemaat 6063519

supervisor: Imke Harbers

second reader: Anja van Heelsum 16 July 2014

Master Thesis for the Department of political science, International Relations

(4)

(5)

ABSTRACT

During the 1970s neoliberal thinking slowly and surely started to influence the world. From Europe and North America, it spread towards other parts of the world. In the 1980s it found its way into Latin America as a response to economic decline and the oil crisis of the 1970s. At the turn of the millennium, neoliberal policies slowly came to a turn: the promises of the neoliberal reforms were not being fulfilled. Because neoliberalism often caused a greater gap between rich and poor, and even economic decline, globally governments introduced more socially than market-oriented policies. We now call this post-neoliberalism.

In this study the impact of macro theories and policies are studied closely on a local level. In the Áncash region in Peru, conflicts on natural resources have persisted over decades. These conflicts took a new turn when natural resources were privatized under neoliberal reforms with the administration of president Fujimori in the 1990s. In 1994 the registration of the water of Lake Parón was sold to a private company from the United States. For the local peasants around the lake, this meant that they were robbed from what they see as ‘our water’. Different stakeholders give different meanings to the ‘ownership‘ of the water of the lake.

This study focuses on the reasons why conflicts about water distribution – conflicts on the ownership of a lake – persist on a local level, even though on the macro level of national government and economy, more leftist, socially oriented, ‘post-neoliberal’ policies are introduced. What are the challenges for Peru to introduce these post-neoliberal policies on the local level and what causes the persistence of conflict around the ownership of the water of Lake Parón?

In the light of macro theories on neoliberalism and post-neoliberalism, this study aims to give insight into the complexity of introducing post-neoliberal policy reforms on a local level. A case study on the conflict around Lake Parón gives some explanations on how ‘macro’ does not always reach ‘micro’ and more specifically how this works in the case of Peru and Lake Parón.

(6)

(7)

Who owns our water?

Water Management, Governance and Ownership

The case of Lake Parón in the Peruvian Andes.

Master Thesis Charlotte van de Lagemaat

University of Amsterdam July 2013

(8)

(9)

FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

After a bumpy ride of 32 kilometers up a steep road we arrived at Laguna de Parón, the largest lake in the Cordillera Blanca, a range in the Andes Mountains in Peru. ‘This water is our life’ is what the respondent of Cruz the Mayo told me when we looked over the beautiful turquoise lake in front of us. On the other side, there is a view over the glaciers that provide the water for the lake. Thank you, respondent D, for introducing me to your community and to your most important source of life, la Laguna de Parón. Since 1994 there have been conflicts around the water of Lake Parón in which many different parties, from national government to local government, from NGO’s to communities and private investors, have been involved. As D said: ‘water is life.’ And, water is irreplaceable.

First of all I would like to thank Soluciones Prácticas in Lima, Peru for giving me the opportunity to work with them and do my research in Peru. I especially want to thank Gonzalo Alcalde and Alicia Quezada, who created the opportunity for my research from the work of Soluciones Prácticas. Thank you for giving me feedback and insights to Peruvian culture and politics during the process of literature study and fieldwork. Secondly, I want to give a very special thanks to all my participants. Without your openness about the political situation in Peru and the events around Lake Parón I would not have been able to get such a specific insight into the complexity of water conflicts in Áncash, Peru. I do want to mention Erick Mautino from Gerencia de Recursos Naturales. Thank you for taking me around Huaraz and for introducing me to members of the Cruz de Mayo community.

Next, I would like to thank Imke Harbers, my thesis supervisor from the University of Amsterdam. Thank you for your critical but always kind feedback and questions and important insights to natural resource management and Latin American culture. Finally, I want to thank my parents, first of all for creating the possibility to travel to Peru and secondly for supporting me in writing this thesis.

With this study, I complete my five years of academic studies at the University of Amsterdam. Five years in which my passion for Latin America was born and in which

(10)

the connection between science and ‘real life’ became my main interest. In this thesis the impact of macro thought and international policies comes perfectly together with my heart for daily life in villages. My affinity with Latin America is reflected in both science and ‘real life.’ How do developments in the international debate and politics translate to the micro local level of a community and how does this have an impact on the lives of people?

The result of my quest into these questions lies in front of you.

Charlotte van de Lagemaat Amsterdam, 2014

(11)

TABLE OF FIGURES

1. Table: 1 summary of differences between natural resource management under

neoliberal and post-neoliberal policy reforms. 22

2. Photo 1: school children of the Cruz de Mayo community protesting for

the water of Lake Parón. 33

3. Map 1: Location Lake Parón and research area 35

4. Map 2: Lake Parón and the snow chains that form the lake 36 5. Graph 1: Maximum and minimum level until witch the lake can

naturally rise and fall 39

6. Table 2: summary of important happenings in the conflict around Lake Parón 40 7. Photo 2: Protest of Cruz de Mayo about the water of Lake Parón 48 8. Table 3: Ranks for Peru of six dimensions of governance according to the

(14)

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANA (National Water Authority)

ALA (Local Water Authority)

AAA (Administrative Authority of Water) CEAS (Episcopal Commission of Social Action)

FIDA (Fundación International para el Desarrollo Agrícola) SP (Soluciones Prácticas)

GRACC (Gestión de Riesgo y Adaptación al Cambio Climático) INDECI (National Institute for Civil Defense)

OFDA-AID (Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance - Agency for International Development)

ONR (Office of Natural Resources)

PCM (Presidency of the Council of Ministries)

SERNANP (National Service for the Protection of National Parks) UNASAM (National University of Áncash Santiago Antúnez de Mayolo) USAID (United States Agency for International Development)

(15)

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION: LAKE PARÓN,

OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SOCIAL

EQUITY AND (POST-) NEOLIBERALISM

1.1 Introduction

In 2008 the tensions around the water of Lake Parón rose to a peak. A representative from to Cruz de Mayo1 community told me in our conversation that he thought that after decades of being deprived of their water rights to Lake Parón, the management of the lake would finally fall under the authority of Cruz de Mayo, his community, again. However, on July 29, 2009 the regional government decided in favor of the private company Duke Energy. He commented on this: ‘Even though the struggle still continues, we will not give up until we have our water back.’ The campesinos2

reclaim their historical, customary and even sacred ownership of the mountains and its water. Although he had no good hopes for the future, the representative saw it as his responsibility to keep on fighting for their water rights.3

During our conversation the representative kept referring to the Lake Parón as their and our water. This made very clear to me, for the first time during my research, the emotional value of the Lake Parón for the campesinos - in this case the campesinos of the Cruz de Mayo community who live in the watershed of the Lake Parón, in the region Áncash, Peru. In a region like this, with such a close relationship between cultural subsistence and the land, it is no surprise that the mountains and the water have spiritual meanings. From pre-Incan times the people worshipped nature spirits associated with mountains like the Cordillera Blanca, and bodies of water like Lake Parón.

At 4200 meters above sea level, located in the Cordillera Blanca, in Áncash, Peru, the Lake Parón provides drinking water for approximately 25,000 people in and around the city of Caraz and the surrounding agricultural area Campiña, and for about 600 people of the campesino community Cruz de Mayo. Besides that it serves as irrigation

1 _{Cruz de Mayo is a local community of campesinos living in the watershed around the Lake Parón}

2_{Peasant
communities,
mostly
indigenous
people
who
speak
Quechua
and
who
are
smallholder
farmers
whose
identity
is}

directly linked with this key subsistence activity (Boelens et al. 2006).

3_{To conceptualize water rights I use the definition used by Boelens (2002). When I refer to water rights I understand them as}

“authorized demands to use (part of) a flow of water, including certain privileges, restrictions, obligations and sanctions accompanying this authorization, among which a key element is the power to take part in collective decision-making about system management and direction” (Boelens, 2002:3)

(16)

water for small to large-scale farmers. Finally, the water leaving the lake into the Rio Santa, or Santa River and is also used for the Cañon del Plato hydroelectric plant that is operated by Duke Energy, an international hydroelectric company from the United States.

A conflict about ‘ownership’ exists since decades around the water of Lake Parón. Under neoliberal reforms in the 1990s, the Peruvian government, under the

administration of Fujimori, authorized Duke Energy, a private electrical company from the United States to exploit and manage the Cañon del Plato hydroelectric plant. Part of this authorization means that Duke Energy has the right to use the water of Lake Parón for electricity generation. The state sold the ownership of the water of the lake, which some parties perceive as a public good, and turned it into a commodity, authorized by private ownership.

In 2006 a conflict around the use of the water started to arise. The local community Cruz de Mayo wanted the water under their authorization again and demanded it to be returned to the state as a public good. Since 2011, when Ollanta Humala became president of Peru, the country has been going through some post-neoliberal reforms. Ollanta Humala is a leftist president who tries to introduce more social policies with more participation of local communities and a stronger role of the state as the guardian of public goals and goods.

The conflict exists between a local campesino community and an international multinational hydroelectric company that bought the use of the water during the neoliberal reforms of President Fujimori in the 1990s. Because of opposing needs and uses of the water by different groups, at the heart of the conflict around Lake Parón lies the question: who has the ownership of the water of the lake? This is not just the practical issue of access to the use of the water. What we see here is a conflict between paradigms, related to three types of ownership: the legitimate ownership by the state as owner of the land and its natural resources; the economic ownership by a company of the water as a commodity; and the customary, even sacred ownership by the local communities. The conflict around Lake Parón unfolds in a context of historical grievance of the local population against institutional interference with the lake, more recently enhanced by the effects of neoliberalism in Peru. Even though since 2011, Ollanta Humala, a rather leftist president tries to implement more social post-neoliberal policy reforms, the conflict around the Parón Lake continues. What

(17)

are the factors that cause ownership conflicts on local level to persist, even while the national government tries to implement more post-neoliberal policies? Why do macro policy changes not lead to expected results on the micro level of a local community? In sum: ‘What are the challenges Peru faces when introducing more social – or post-neoliberal – policies regarding the ownership of natural resources on a local level?’ In February 2014 I traveled to Peru to work with Soluciones Prácticas. Soluciones Prácticas is an international NGO that works on technical solutions for community building. Since 2004 they have been working in the Áncash region on community building. In their work they were affected by the conflicts that exist in the region around natural resources. During three months I completed a case-study on the ongoing conflict around Lake Parón. The main question of this thesis is about the relationship between macro policy making and its impact on local or micro level. My focus lies on the mechanisms around public, private and custom ownership that impede the implementation of macro policy reforms on the micro level of a campesino community.

Ever since colonial times campesinos have been treated as third rate citizens in Peru and in 2008 this was no different. Ever since the Cruz de Mayo community can remember, the Parón Lake has been their primary source of water for their livelihoods and agriculture. In 2008 it was already fourteen years ago that the government granted the ownership of the Lake Parón to Duke Energy4. This decision has had major

economic and social impacts on the community. The privatization of the water rights of the lake meant that Duke Energy got the right to use large amounts of water for the use of energy production. On a practical level this meant that ancient customary ways of water distribution were being neglected. On an emotional (socio-psychological) level this meant that the sacred ties between the campesinos and their water were being violated.

The hydroelectric power from the Duke Energy owned plant, is used for the majority of the Áncash region energy needs. The national government has great interest in the presence of Duke Energy at Lake Parón, because the responsibility for the production and distribution of energy for a big region of the country has been transferred to this company.

4_{Duke
Energy
is
an
international
hydroelectric
multinational
company
that
has
been
registered
to
the
use
of
the
water
of}

(18)

This difference in perception on ownership is one of the main reasons the conflict around the Lake Parón exists. Not just because of the existence of two main parties with their own interests and perceptions of the water of the Lake Parón, but because there is no shared paradigm on the ownership of the lake, and because there is no authority that is able to formulate and embed a paradigm that takes the different ‘ownerships’ into account. It is not just a conflict about access to the water in a lake; it is a conflict that touches the core of the campesinos identity, the impact of private property of natural resources and the ability of the state to serve public interests. It is a conflict in which political parties, governmental institutions, NGO’s, local campesino communities and a private company play their roles and interact around the ownership of a lake in the Andes mountains.

1.2 Theoretical relevance

From the 1970s onwards the international political system went through a transition of neoliberal reforms. At the heart of these reforms lie privatization and marketization of public goods. In the realm of this thesis: the ownership of a mountain lake was sold to a private energy company.

After the introduction of neoliberal thinking in Europe and North America in the 1970s, it quickly expanded towards other parts of the world during the 1980s and 1990s, and became a hegemonic way of thinking in world politics. During at least three decades, it dominated most governance (Harvey, 2005). According to Hojman (1994), neoliberalism only became very popular in most Latin American countries at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s as a reaction to economic recessions and oil crisis in the 1970s and 80s.

The main principles of neoliberalism often are being referred to as the ‘Washington consensus.’ These principles can be traced down to ten policy recommendations for governments of especially less developed countries to follow, in order to recover from the economic crisis they were in, by letting the market do its work. Economist John Williamson put these rules of thumb together as the ‘Washington consensus’, because they reflected the insights as shared by important Washington D.C. based financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank (Corrales, 2011).

(19)

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the first critics on neoliberalism started to arise. Scholars started to criticize neoliberal reforms because they would not have led to stronger economies, development and market growth as predicted. The new trend of post-neoliberalism that followed neoliberalism, focuses on a more important role for the state in which the government provides more social protection and welfare systems.

The case of Lake Parón will be put in a broader context of the political policy reforms of first neoliberalism and then post-neoliberalism. Peru is a striking example of the way these worldwide evolutions work out on a national level, and how this in turn affects the daily life of peasants in a village.

1.3 The Peruvian case

In this thesis I will focus on Áncash, Peru, because of the special characteristics of its history and culture of politics, governance and the ownership of natural resources. On a political level in Peru, elites traditionally have been in conflict with each other about power and access to resources. As a result, no solid foundation for politics serving general and national interests could emerge. It was risky to invest in the building of institutions, because there were always opponents ready to overthrow them. The continuous presence of inter-elites conflicts created short time horizons – indeed, long-term institutionalizing requires a minimum amount of peace and certainty. These inter-elite conflicts led to a weak public sector and a built-in tendency to conflict between the middle class and the rural/working class – and between the political movements catering to these different groups. As a consequence, economic liberalism favoring middle and upper classes, could subsist. This made Peru a fertile soil for the worldwide neoliberalism wave of the 1980s and 1990s, of which Alberto Fujimori became the great protagonist during his presidency. Arellano-Yanguas even states that “Peru has been one of the most faithful followers of the economic and political prescriptions of the international financial institutions” (2008:10).

Peru has been under the administration of a leftist government for more than a decade, with Ollanta Humala as its current president, elected in 2011. Since this period

governments try to counteract certain effects of neoliberalism and to implement more social policies and we would expect that social conflicts would decrease. However,

(20)

especially in regions that are rich in natural resources, social conflicts persist or even aggravate. Because Peru was one of the most faithful followers of neoliberal reforms since the 1990s, and now has been under a leftist government for over ten years, it is the perfect case to illustrate how conflicts on natural resources can persist, even though one would expect them to decline under post-neoliberal reforms.

1.4 My research in the Áncash region

The popular neoliberal reforms that dominated international politics since the 1970s seem to have come to an end. The dominant discourse has shifted towards what is called post-neoliberalism, in which more social policies replace privatization and extreme liberalization policies to protect economies and developmental growth. There seems to be a general trend, especially in Latin America, in which governments take on a bigger role in politics and economy and in the implementation of policies to counterbalance the effects of the market. Particularly in areas like the division of national income between different groups in society, national governments take on more initiative and a bigger role for themselves as regulator. Instruments for this role are public spending, social care, and welfare programs.

In the Andes Mountains in Peru much tensions and conflicts exist around natural resources. Especially in mining areas, of which Áncash is one of the most important ones in Peru, water distribution and mining is one of the main causes of conflict. The main question for this thesis is which factors ensure that conflicts and tensions around natural resources in Áncash persist, despite the more people oriented intentions and social reforms of the government of Ollanta Humala.

Shortly put: What are the challenges Peru faces with introducing more social – or post-neoliberal – policies regarding the ownership of natural resources on a local level?

With this question I explore how macro trends become visible at the local level and what are the difficulties of introducing post-neoliberal policies on the micro level. In this research the conflict that exists around Lake Parón will be placed in the context of political and economic developments in Peru, as a result of the international debate on policy reforms. To answer the main question of this research, a theoretical

(21)

framework of theories on neoliberalism, neoliberalism in Latin America, neoliberal and post-neoliberal policies on natural resources and the implication of the shift towards post-neoliberalism will be provided. In the light of these theories the Lake Parón case will be used to demonstrate how international and national policies can result in local demonstration movements and conflicts. In this study, my hypothesis is that the conflict around Lake Parón persists because different claims on ownership of the water exist next to each other, without a clear comprehensive paradigm. I will try to show why the shift from neoliberalism to post-neoliberalism has not solved the problem, but may have caused more unclarity around the ownership of the lake.

1.4.1 Structure of the thesis

In chapter 2 I will introduce a theoretical framework. Theories on neoliberalism and neoliberalism in Latin America will be discussed. Next, the relationship between neoliberal reforms and natural resource management will be explained. Then, the shift towards more social and leftist governance will be described: the era of

neoliberalism that starts dominating the region. Finally, the shift towards

post-neoliberalism in international politics and how this trend affects Latin America’s new policy reforms will be discussed.

In chapter 3 I will introduce the Peruvian situation. I will outline why Peru is an interesting case to look at in the shift from neoliberalism towards post-neoliberalism.

Because social conflicts on natural resources persist, it is interesting to understand the implications of the introduction of more post-neoliberal reforms and why this has not resulted in a diminishing incidence of conflicts. Peruvian state building and the relation between local, regional and national politics will be outlined. Examples will be described that show the implications of the introduction of successive policies on the ownership of natural resources in Peru.

In chapter 4 I will give a description of the case of Lake Parón, based on interviews with different actors involved in the conflicts and issues around Lake Parón. In chapter 5 I will give an analysis of the data from my case study in the context of the literature discussed in the theoretical framework of this thesis.

(22)

Finally, a conclusion and discussion will show how the Peruvian situation affects the relationship between a macro trend towards more social policies and the occurrence of conflicts around the ownership of natural resources on a local level.

(23)

CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: NEOLIBERALISM,

POST NEOLIBERALISM,

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND LATIN AMERICA

During the 1970s in many countries neoliberal reforms were introduced as part of political and economic development. As a result of worldwide economic declines, international policy makers and politicians believed neoliberalism was the solution for regaining economic growth and political prosperity. Open markets, privatization and deregulation lie at the heart of neoliberalism, which was presented as the solution for stalled economies worldwide. Latin America was one of the extremes in introducing neoliberal reforms, also known as the ‘Washington Consensus.’

The aim of this theoretical framework is to get a clear understanding of the international debate on economic policy, in which ‘neoliberalism’ and ‘post-neoliberalism’ are keywords. I will explore what consequences neoliberal thought, that dominated the world for about three decades, and subsequent post-neoliberal thinking and policy have in the field of natural resource management. Besides that, the purpose of this framework is to understand how neoliberal and post-neoliberal policies influence aspects of state-society relationships, especially in the area of natural resources. This should give a fundament for my analysis (chapter 5) in which, on the basis of my case study (chapter 4), I will investigate how macro thinking about international developments has its effects on micro or local levels. We will see how policies of neoliberalism and post-neoliberalism each had their effects on policies regarding natural resource management in Latin America, especially Peru, even more in particular the water of Lake Parón in the Áncash region.

The transition of neoliberalism into post-neoliberalism will be discussed to understand how new developments in Latin America are taking place in the realm of politics and economy and what effects these shifts in policies have on the management of natural resources. Water is one of the most important natural resources for human life, but it is also being ‘managed’ as a commodity, within both neoliberal and post-neoliberal policies.

(24)

The transition to post-neoliberal policies is often seen as a universal trend, taking place in Latin America right now, but this needs to be qualified. In many parts of Latin America, governments still maintain – or see themselves forced to maintain - neoliberal policies, also in respect to natural resources.

Privatization lies at the heart of neoliberalism. Peru gives a clear example of how this worked out, mainly in the Fujimori era. Since 2002, post-Fujimori governments try to repair certain consequences of his policy. The current president of Peru, Ollanta Humala is a man with social-democratic sympathies and he would like – in a post-neoliberal fashion – to change the dependence on (international) private companies. In chapter 3 where the case selection is presented, we will see in more detail why Peru is such a striking example of the sequence in economic policies in the last decades.

This theoretical framework will ensure a basic understanding of neoliberal and post-neoliberal political and economic reforms, in order to understand the politics behind natural resource management. Firstly, this chapter focuses on the emergence of neoliberalism as a rather universally accepted fundament for economic policy. Then, natural resource management as an aspect of neoliberal policies will be discussed. Next, the transition to post-neoliberalism will be outlined, followed by a presentation of the possible consequences of post-neoliberal policies on natural resource

management.

2.2 Neoliberalism

“With the banking crisis and the credit crunch of 2007-8, and their economic repercussions around the globe, the system of neoliberalism, or global free-market capitalism, that has come to dominate the world in the three decades since 1980, has imploded.” This is how Hall et al. (2012:7) describe the current political world system. Neoliberal thought and policies are on its return and worldwide a post-neoliberal discourse is becoming dominant (Hall et al., 2012).

Neoliberalism expanded rapidly after 1970. It quickly became a hegemonic way of thinking in introducing new policies on social economics and politics. All around the world, governments started to introduce neoliberalism as a new way of governance. Sometimes this happened voluntarily and in other cases, because of economic decline,

(25)

governments saw themselves ‘forced’ by international financial institutions to introduce neoliberal policies.

Neoliberalism dominated international politics for about three decades. It arose, as a reaction to the welfare programs many countries introduced after the Second World War. It is a political-economic theory and in practice a policy agenda for

governments, introduced in the 1970s. In the first place, “it is a theory of political-economic practices that proposes that human well being can best be advanced by enhancing personal entrepreneurial freedom and skills within an institutional framework of deregulation, characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade” (Harvey, 2005: 5).

The role of the state is to preserve and maintain an institutional framework in which these principles can be maintained. The most important mission of the state is to restrain itself from intervention in the economy. The laws of free market must be left to do their beneficial work. The state should limit its role to granting security, by setting up a military defense, police, etc. It should guarantee the integrity of money, set up functioning markets in areas where they do not yet exist and secure private property rights. Beyond these tasks, the idea of neoliberalism is that the state does not interfere, especially not within the markets (once set up). State interventions in markets should be kept to a minimum base, because the idea of neoliberal thought is that the state cannot posses enough information about market functioning, for

example about fluctuating prices, and that interventions would disturb the functioning of markets (Harvey, 2005).

The principles of neoliberalism often are being referred to as the ‘Washington consensus’, a set of ten policy recommendations for governments of especially less developed countries to follow. The idea was that these countries could only recover from the recession they were in during the 1970s as a result of economic decline and the oil crises, by letting the market do its work. The economist John Williamson summarized these ten recommendations as ‘Washington consensus’, because they reflected the insights as shared by important Washington D.C. based financial institutions like the IMF and the World Bank (Corrales, 2011). These

recommendations are traced back to the thought of neoliberalism and include fiscal policy discipline, moderate marginal tax rates, redirection of public spending away

(26)

from subsidies, market determined interest rates and competitive exchange rates, trade liberalization of imports, liberalization of foreign investment, privatization of state enterprises deregulation and legal security for property rights (Pettinger, 2013). In the next paragraph, the expansion of neoliberalism in Latin America will be further explored.

2.3 Neoliberalism in Latin America

After the spread of neoliberal reforms around the world during the 1970s, it was Latin America’s turn at the end of the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s. Because of many economic recessions and crises in the region, Latin American countries started to look for a solution to their economic low of the 1970s and 80s. Latin America was one of the most popular continents to introduce these neoliberal reforms. Because at the end of the 1970s, many Latin American countries were suffering from economic

stagnation, decline or even crisis, they welcomed the Washington Consensus reforms warmly, hoping for a more prosperous economic future. Before the introduction of neoliberalism most Latin American countries have a history of a more protectionist economic policy. Protection of the internal market was seen as more important than free international trade. With the introduction of neoliberalism, Latin American economies started to become introduced on the world market (Bulmer-Thomas, 2003).

The first shift to a greater reliance on markets occurred in most countries of the region between the 1980s and 1990s (Walton, 2004: 166). Walton (2004) argues that there are two ways in which the term neoliberalism is used when it comes to Latin

American politics. The first one is the narrow meaning that refers to a shift in a subset of policies towards a greater reliance on markets. The other one is a more broad definition of the term and this also refers to the relationship between state and society, that is between the governance of the administration and how society is functioning under this administration.

Advocates of neoliberalism in Latin America hoped that the shift to a greater market orientation in the region would lead to great benefits in terms of economic

development, stability and distribution of wealth. The stability would be a result of more caution in fiscal and monetary processes. Economic growth would result from a

(27)

greater reliance on the wealth creating power of markets and a more profound

economic emphasis on efficiency and investment. Income distribution would improve through the reduction in opportunities for rents and corruption, which are beyond the operation of the market (Walton, 2004: 168).

Most Latin American countries adopted the reforms in the late 1980s and 1990s following the debt crisis, except for Chile, which began its neoliberal project already in the mid 1970s (Hojman, 1994).

When neoliberalism was firstly introduced in Latin America in the 1980s it did not immediately generate the expected results. The 1990s were in general a better

economic decade for the region than the so-called ‘lost decade’ of the 1980s. Hojman (1994) argues why neoliberalism did not become the dominant policy in Latin

America until the 1990s. An important reason for this is the debt crisis in the 1980s in many Latin American countries, which kept their economies from growing. In the 1990s, a new middle class of entrepreneurs, the availability of highly educated technocrats and public support in hopes of better times, favored the emergence of neoliberalism.

The debt crisis was mainly a result of the increase in oil prices during the 1970s, when Latin America was starting to industrialize. Many countries in the region were forced to borrow money to continue their paths of development, towards industrialization. Latin American nations were borrowing money to pay for oil from OPEC nations. These OPEC nations in turn put their funds in multinational banks. The banks had to pay interests on these deposits and that is why they encouraged Latin American countries to borrow this money (Portes, 1989: 9).

After the debt crisis of the 1970s and 1980s Latin Americans foreign debt doubled in a period of only twenty years. So one of the main reasons neoliberal reforms were welcomed warmly in the beginning of the 1990s, was because there was hope that this would secure economic growth and stability (Portes, 1989: 23).

As everywhere, in Latin America neoliberal reforms included deregulation, and free play of the market economy. Trade barriers were eliminated, such as import tariffs and government subsidies of national industries. National policies that favor the needs of business and investment were introduced (Brown, 2003). The tax rates for

(28)

businesses decreased so Latin American nations could compete with other nations for foreign investment and to prevent losing foreign investment to competing nations in other regions of the world. As a consequence of these policies, there is a decrease in tax revenues and state budget. This means a diminished availability of public funds for social spending and welfare programs (Rudra, 2002).

As Sadasivam (1997: 632) argues, labor regulations were weakened, financial trading was deregulated, and the prices of agricultural products were no longer controlled by the state. Neoliberal reforms resulted in the state no longer functioning as a protecting force. It was rather seen as an inefficient producer. Therefore state controlled

industries and social programs were sold to private businesses. The state had to reduce its spending by cutting funding for social programs including health and education, laying off public employees, or reducing their wages. These reforms were designed to minimize the role of the state in the economy, promote efficiency, and maximize productive outputs (Sadasivam, 1997: 635), in one expression: enhancing the market.

2.3.1 Neoliberal Reforms in Natural Resource Management

Natural resources are a source of life and a source of economic prosperity, but they are not always sufficiently present for everybody and therefore they need to be distributed between different stakeholders. The management of natural resources is important because people rely on these resources for their living and survival. On the other hand, natural resources are an important source of income and economic growth for countries. The management of these resources is about how people interact with natural resources and how these resources can be, authorized by and distributed among different stakeholders (Gruber, 2008).

Especially in areas where people rely directly on natural resources like land and water for their survival and their income, fair distribution is an important aspect of the management of natural resources (Gruber, 2008). The management of natural resources is especially important when external factors cause scarcity or ‘excess’ of natural resources, which may threaten the livelihood of individuals and communities. Important natural resources are water, air, sunlight, soil, land, plants, animals and mineral fuels. Natural resources are, as Karl Marx argues, “the basic of human history. There can be no human history without the environment, because human

(29)

history has been made possible only through the metabolization of the environment through human action” (1998: 37 as quoted by Heynen & Robbins, 2005: 5).

According to Heynen and Robbins (2005), neoliberal capitalism that still prevailed in many parts of the world recently, provided the context and direction for how humans affect and interact with one another and with non-human nature. Within neoliberalism natural resources are considered ‘goods’ to be traded in the market.

Perreault (2006) mentions that the encounter between neoliberalism and nature has caused a path of environmental governance in which natural resource management has become involved in a complex set of arrangements dominated not only by the central government but also by state, quasi-state and non-state or private actors. The management of natural resources, which was once secured by the central government, has now become operated across a diversity of scales and institutions involved. So the environment has become part of these neoliberal policies in which private companies have a big say in the distribution of public goods formerly operated by the

government.

2.3.2 Neoliberalism and Natural Resources in Latin America

The most important aspect of neoliberalism in natural resource management is the privatization of the exploitation and distribution of natural resources. Within neoliberal policies most natural resources are being managed and distributed by private companies that operate independently from, or even favored by the

government. According to Heyman and Robbins (2005) privatization of water, air, wildlife and the emergence of property and governance regimes, have destroyed public ecologies. Because of privatization trends, market systems were being extended to natural resources like fish, carbon and water. Heyman and Robbins

(2005) even argue that scarcities in these resources are a result of this marketization as part of neoliberal reforms.

According to Hogenboom (2012), the history of Latin America since colonization has gone through different phases, but was always determined by its mineral wealth, its agriculture and natural resources. Latin America economically still depends on exporting these minerals, which makes mining a very important industry for the continent. During the 1980s, the export of minerals was even responsible for 52% of

(30)

all exports of the Latin American continent (Hogenboom, 2012). However, at the end of the 1980s and 1990s the tide turned.

Neoliberal reforms in the field of minerals and natural resources meant in the first place a reduced role of the state. It was too costly to hold on to state-owned

enterprises and state investments because of the stagnated economy. As neoliberalism prevailed ideologically, politically and economically worldwide, a young generation of technocrats emerged that started to support and help implement new economic and political regulations that were favored by international financial institutions, like IMF, the World Bank and national economic elites. As Hogenboom (2012) puts it: “The transformation of the private sector into a predominant force for economic

development was the main objective of both international and national policies of liberalization, and this required a strongly reduced role of the state in the economy” (Hogenboom, 2012: 137).

Bolivia is a clear example of how far these privatization movements went and what it meant to have a strongly reduced role of the state. At the beginning of the twenty-first century privatization movements led to conflicts all around the country.

“In April 2000, the Bolivian city of Cochabamba erupted into protest over attempts to privatize its drinking water and sewerage services. The now famous Guerra del Agua, or water war, quickly took on national and even international significance, as tens of thousands of people took to the streets” (Perreault, 2006: 150).

This form of ‘environmental governance’ as Perreault (2006) calls it, goes back to when neoliberal reforms were introduced in Latin America during the 1980s and 1990s. Privatizations went so far that even public goods like drinking water and gas were operated and exploited by foreign private investors. The core of these protests in Bolivia that took place at the beginning of this century is the idea that it is not just about natural resources but also about national resources. It is about resources that should be owned, managed and distributed by the state. As Perreaul (2006) argues, these goods should be owned by the state and its people and not be exploited for the benefit of a few private foreign investors.

The ‘water wars’ in Bolivia are an example of how privatization led to exploitation of natural resources in the region. Many Latin American countries sold national and

(31)

public goods to private companies. Neoliberal reforms took over the states’ role in Latin America and in many countries this included privatization of water, gas, minerals and agricultural goods.

2.4 The decline of neoliberalism

At the beginning of the twenty-first century the first critics of neoliberalism started to arise. At the turn of the millennium, in many Latin American countries leftist

governments were elected and took office. Their attempts were to endeavor for a more social approach including welfare spending and to put an end to measures that were only in favor of the elite. Democratization acts were introduced to make an end to decades of dictatorship and authoritarian regimes that dominated the region until the 1980s (Grugel & Riggirozzi, 2012). A post-neoliberal trend now starts to dominate the region in which “a demand for more ‘state’ and less ‘market’” has become an important concept in political and economic reforms in Latin America since the 2000s (Foxley, 2010 in Grugel and Riggirozzi, 2012: 2).

Hall et al. (2012) argue that neoliberalism dominating the world system during three decades, created big profits for multi-nationals, investment institutions and venture capitalists. At the beginning of the 21st_{century neoliberalism did not seem to be the}

answer to the problems of economic recession anymore and started to become called into question.

2.4.1 Critiques on neoliberalism

One of the main critiques on neoliberalism was that it caused economic prosperity for only a small part of society. As Hall et al. (2012) argue: “(….) it has led to huge accumulations of wealth for the new global super-rich, while grossly increasing the gap between rich and poor and deepening inequalities of income, health and life chances within and between countries, on a scale not seen since before the second world war” (Hall et al, 2012: 9).

Besides scholars addressing the gap between rich and poor having become larger, there are other theories that confronted neoliberalism. These came from two opposing schools that mainly challenged the idea of development that lies within neoliberal reforms. The first one is called ‘neostructuralism’, which argues, as Corrales (2011) puts it, “a grosso modo, that the Washington Consensus’ emphasis on

(32)

macroeconomics and trade opening leads to de-industrialization and insufficient aggregate demand stimulus, with grave consequences for employment, wages and thus inequality (Corrales, 2011: 16).”

The other school of critics challenging neoliberalism is called the ‘developmental state’ school. This school argues that the economic success of the ‘Asian Tigers’ was not the result of free-markets and privatization, as neoliberals claim, but of peculiar forms of “state-business” collaboration and coordination. Scholars of the

developmental state school argue that state associations with businesses were essential for firms to develop new export products, secure new export markets, reduce

excessive investments, and guarantee sufficient investments in human capital needed for business competitiveness (Corrales, 2011).

According to Hagopian & Mainwaring (2005), by the late 1990s neoliberalism had become one of the most contradicted forces in development. The controversy surrounding the merits of neoliberalism had, besides an intellectual response also political and protest reactions. Politically, anti-neoliberal and anti-globalization movements expanded worldwide. These movements made headlines, especially when they forced the cancellation of the opening ceremonies of the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization in Seattle, Washington, in 1999. Also the IMF, by many seen as the primary global advocate of neoliberalism, was being criticized like never before. The left criticized the IMF for its glorification of the market, and the right wing, for its laxity with non-compliant debtors (Corrales, 2011).

Also the lack of positive results of the Washington consensus in many Latin American countries has prompted much criticism of neoliberalism. Hagopian and Mainwaring (2005) argue that the deep economic crisis in Argentina from 1999 until 2002 was one of the main reasons scholars did no longer believe in the promises neoliberal reforms implied for economic growth. It was one of the deepest economic crises in the world then and neoliberal reforms proved not to be the solution for public debt within the country.

Rodrik (2006) wrote that ‘the reforms did not always work out the way they were intended. While growth generally improved across much of Latin America, it was in most countries less than the reformers had originally hoped for’ (Rodrik, 2006: 2).

(33)

Market-oriented reforms alone in Latin America offered no solution to deal with the growing public health issues and shortages of social services in which the continent became involved. Most critics of neoliberalism also argue that the disappointing outcomes have justified their concerns about the shortages of a standard fit-for-all reform program as neoliberalism and the Washington consensus proposed.

2.4.2 Post-neoliberalism

Corrales (2011) argues that whether the reforms worked or failed in economic terms for a country as a whole, neoliberal policies contributed to a so-called

“representational crisis” that infected Latin American democracy towards the late 1990s. This crisis refers to the idea that Latin American institutions, even though they were more democratic than ever in terms of degrees of contestation and civic and political freedoms, also – in the frame of neoliberal policies – left many citizens and interest groups feeling unrepresented, betrayed, and even economically at a loss (Corrales, 2011).

As a reaction to the failure of neoliberalism, governance in many countries shifted to policies that we now call ‘post-neoliberal’, policies in which the state reclaims a stronger role. Less marketization and privatization, together with more – tax-fed – government investments and social welfare programs are characteristics of this shift.

As Grugel and Riggirozi (2009) argue, at the turn of the millennium many Latin American countries started to reform their political economy and more left wing governments were elected. These leftist governments could emerge because of three main reasons. The first one was the end of the Cold War, in which left was no longer associated with the Soviet Union, who were the opponents of the United States, an important trading partner of Latin America. The second reason was the economic decline and disasters in the region at the end of the 1990s and the last reason was the advent of widespread democratization movements (Castañeda, 2006).

2.4.3 Post-neoliberalism and natural resource management

During the 1990s and 2000s, across the continent numerous conflicts arose around the management and distribution of natural resources. This caused Latin America to have natural resources as a spearhead in the post-Washington consensus development

(34)

debate and the economic policy reforms (Hogenboom, 2012). After the 2000s, many ‘leftist’ regimes in Latin America tried to get a more leading role in the distribution of natural resources and the economy that goes along with that.

The question is: which are alternatives for a market oriented natural resource

management? The answer did not immediately come from the government. Over the past twenty years, Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) has become a popular approach to natural resource management in Latin America. It promises to address social justice and environmental protection. It is an alternative model to more centralized approaches of resource management that, as some argue, have dreary outcomes, after decades of intrusive systems of sanctions and top-down decrees. Agrawal and Gibson (1999) argue that these centralized approaches to natural resource management often had incorrect designs, included inefficiencies and sometimes favored corruption (in Gruber 2005: 52). As Gruber (2005) further argues: “Within these centralized designs indigenous communities were sometimes viewed as an impediment to successful outcomes, and not as a necessary part of an inclusive and sustainable solution. In contrast, CBNRM initiatives have as their core value the positive transformation of the relationship between rural (and sometimes urban) people and the environment (Hackel 1999 in Gruber 2008: 8).”

Armitage (2005) defines community based natural resource management as follows: “CBNRM is generally viewed as a mechanism to address both environmental and social-economic goals and to balance the exploitation and conservation of valued ecosystem components. It seeks to encourage better resource management outcomes with the full participation of communities and resource users in decision-making activities, and the incorporation of local institutions, customary practices, and

knowledge systems in management, regulatory, and enforcement processes (Armitage 2005, as quoted by Gruber 2008: 53).”

CBNRM as a new approach was first introduced by (inter)national NGOs. Because the focus lies on participation of local communities in the decision-making and management of natural resources, NGO’s saw it as a more effective and righteous approach to the management of natural resources. It can be seen in the light of a countermovement to foreign investments that were dominating the management and distribution of natural resources in many Latin American countries.

(35)

This countermovement is filed as post-neoliberalism. Grugel and Riggirozzi (2012) note that this is a call for more collective responsibilities, to built more state capacity and rethink what national development is for. Post-neoliberalism is not just a

dominating policy agenda item that is now spreading the continent; it is a call for more integration in decision taking and distribution of welfare.

Too much trust in the market was doubted so much the more because of the 2007/2008 worldwide economic crisis.

Leftist governments have started to take office in all of Latin America, states are promoting more social and welfare programs, they are reclaiming privately owned public goods and the take on a larger role in regulating the market. It is a movement of re-identifying the states’ role to promote social and economic equality and a stronger economy for the benefit of all.

2.5 Summary and relation to the main question of this thesis

The economic low in many parts of the world around the 1970s and the costly welfare programs of many western countries colored the political world arena around the 1970s. As a response to this, economists and politicians started to introduce a new set of liberal ideas for economic growth and prosperity. During the 1970s these reforms started to spread the world under the name neoliberalism. Neoliberalism promised wealth, economic growth, development and independence. After the economic crisis in many Latin American countries in the 1970s and 80s, the neoliberal promises also hit this continent. Most Latin American countries went through neoliberal reforms at the end of the 1980s and 1990s. In Latin America this neoliberal reforms were introduced as a set of ten reform policies, known as the Washington Consensus. Neoliberal reforms with its massive privatization programs came to Latin America during the end of the 20th_century.

‘Everything’ became privatized, including natural resources and the environment, and foreign companies became the authorities of natural resource distribution in Latin America. Minerals, gas and even water became subject to exploitation by foreign investors. This left many groups in society economically at loss, and this caused many social tension and conflicts.

(36)

At the turn of the millennium, neoliberalism and its privatization and marketization programs started to receive criticism. The gap between rich and poor turned out to have become larger and multinational companies were the big winners. Governments had to face the fact that not their countries but foreign investors had become richer by privatizations and liberal policies. That is why since the turn of the millennium post-neoliberal policies in which the government has a larger role tends to become a new dominant economic and political policy for countries in Latin America. Public and national goods are being reclaimed and more leftist governments try to promote social welfare programs for more equality and economic stability.

In the context of international politics, the aim of this research is to show how local movements are influenced by decision taking and policy reforms on national and international level. In this theoretical framework, macro studies were introduced which deal with policy shifts from neoliberal to post-neoliberal points of view. In this research Peru will be used as an example of how first neoliberal and then

post-neoliberal policy reforms influence social movements on the micro, local level of a peasant community in the Peruvian Andes.

This leads to the question what challenges faces the present, leftist government of Peru in respect to the implementation of post-neoliberal policies on a local level? In this research the aim is to answer this question by highlighting the case of Lake Parón in the Áncash region in Peru.

Natural resource management

neoliberal: Natural resource management post-neoliberal: Stared to arise from the 1970s Started to arise from the 2000s Privatization and marketization of natural

resources

State ownership (desirable, but not always achieved)

Authorized mainly by private companies Authorized by the state and local communities

Economic forces regulated by the market Economic forces regulated by the state Distribution for economic benefits;

communities are dependent on decisions by companies

Distribution on the basis of ‘water rights’, with participation of local communities; communities benefit directly from the resources

World market first: commodity for export

and economic growth National and local market first: more fair distribution within the country Ownership lies with private companies,

granted by the state; managed by foreign investors or state and quasi-state actors

Ownership lies with local governmental bodies and local communities; managed with the inclusion of local communities

(37)

CHAPTER 3 – CASE SELECTION AND METHODOLOGY

The case highlighted in this study pertains the situation around Laguna Parón, a lake in the Cordillera Blanca, part of the Andes mountains, in the department of Áncash. What makes Lake Parón an interesting case? There is a long history of conflict around the lake. We see a collision between traditional use and distribution of the water from the lake on the one hand and on the other hand institutional power and regulation. This contrast has been sharpened by the neoliberal reforms, especially in the 1990 under the Fujimori administration. A new dimension was added to the conflict: the authority of the water of the lake was sold to a private company from the United States. The local campesino population traditionally considered the lake and its water as theirs. Its use and distribution was regulated by custom and embedded in the way of life of the Andean villagers. After the expulsion of Fujimori in 2002, successive governments have tried to re-democratize Peru and to take measures to give the poorer segments of the Peruvian people a fairer share of the national income. The state reinstated itself as a regulatory power to counterweigh unwanted outcomes of the market in the national economy. Elements of this post-neoliberal, more social

democratic oriented policy were measures of decentralization, in order to shift power from the central government to regional and local authorities; raising taxes from foreign companies, especially in the mining industry, in order to fund social programs; rollback of privatizations in order to bring back the say over natural resources from private companies to the government and public institutions.

One might expect that these post-neoliberal measures, now part of government policy for more than ten years, would have an impact on a local level, and lead to a

diminishment of the number of conflicts around natural resources. However, we see that protest and conflicts persist, especially in mining areas in the Andes. Also in Áncash, around Lake Parón, distrust against governments prevails. The post-neoliberal policies of the central government seem not to ‘land’ in the Andean villages. This makes lake Parón an interesting case to answer the question, what challenges a post-neoliberal government has to face in its aspiration to reform the country to a social democratic society with more equality in rights, wealth and with more public say over natural resources, like water.

(38)

Peru became subject of neoliberalism with the administration of Fujimori in 1990. As Corrales (2011) puts it, Peru was an extreme case of privatization measures during the 1990s. In 2002 when Toledo became president, a stronger focus on democracy arose by means of decentralizing state power, for example. When in 2011 Ollanta Humala was elected president, an even more leftist government took office. Humala wants to be president for all Peruvians and he emphasizes social welfare programs and

redistribution of wealth.

One of the aspects of neoliberal reforms in Peru was the privatization of natural resources. Licenses to exploit natural resources were granted to private – and in most cases foreign – companies. Not only mineral extraction, but also the authority over water was transferred to private institutions. Natural resources became a commodity of which the use and distribution is dictated by the market and by the profit motives of private companies.

Today Peru has a leftist government, but still depends on foreign investors for its economy. In this light, what are the challenges for Peru to implement post-neoliberal policies, that is: to cause a rollback of the (effects of the) privatization of natural resources?

In this chapter the context of politics and state building in Peru will be outlined, as the societal scenery of natural resource management around Lake Parón, to illustrate the relevance of the case. Also the methodology of this research will be explained.

3.2 The political context of Peru and neoliberalism since 1990

When Fujimori came to power as president in 1990, the country was in economic decay, with very high inflation, and Peru was in the grip of the guerrilla movement Sendero Luminoso.

Fujimori tried to stabilize the economy by large privatizations and by inviting foreign companies to come and invest in Peru, without many regulations to protect local interests or the environment. Fujimori established a rather extreme form of neoliberalism, in the modern sense of privatization, deregulation, and cutbacks in social spending. Fujimori focused on economic processes that would strengthen the

(39)

macro-economic and political position of the country. The economist Friedman, who is one of the most important thinkers of neoliberalism, overtook Keynes’ classical liberal ideas. In Friedman’s theories, macroeconomic processes and policy making are indicated by less severe state regulations on the economy and more emphasis on stability in economic policy, as opposed to the Keynesian idea in which goals like full employment and reduction of extreme poverty were also central issues, and in which there is an important role for the state: public spending, for example in infrastructural works, will stimulate the economy and create jobs (Thorsen & Lie, 2006). In 1994 Lake Parón and the right to use and distribute its water were sold to a foreign private company, Duke energy, which overtook the hydroelectric plant from Electroperú.

However, Fujimori did not limit himself to economy. The year 1992 has been an important year for Peru, as it can be seen as the year in which democracy collapsed (Levitsky 1998). In April 1992 Fujimori closed the Congress, suspended the constitution and started ruling by decree.

Some observers argue that democracy returned, as a new constitution was approved by referendum, and Fujimori was re-elected as president in 1993. However, many signs pointed to Peru as falling short to democratic standards. Civil liberties were violated, there was no free press, regime critics were forced into exile and have been tortured and killed by paramilitary organizations, without civilian courts being able to investigate these cases.

3.3 Peru since Fujimori: post-neoliberal governments

After Fujimori’s abdication in 2001 while visiting Japan (not long after his second, anticonstitutional re-election), president Alejandro Toledo re-established democracy and he also succeeded in stabilizing the economy on a macro-economic level. Inflation disappeared and foreign investments led to an economic boom. This however, did not reach all Peruvians: poverty hardly diminished and not many new jobs were created.

Also under the presidency of Alan García (2006-2011 – and from 1985 to 1990 the predecessor of Fujimori) the economic recovery carried on, thanks to the many foreign investments, attracted by the politics of free markets and free trade. García also presented himself as the president of all Peruvians, and in fact the government

(40)

implemented social projects, and poverty decreased. However, under his reign social conflicts became stronger, because of the fact that control over Peru’s wealth and natural resources stayed mainly in the hands of foreign companies. A clear example of such a conflict is the 2008 protest of the Cruz de Mayo campesino against the rights granted to Duke Energy to use water from Lake Parón for their electricity plant, as a result of which the level of the lake started to fall dramatically. Because of the drop in the water level, the water supply for the community and drinking water for 25,000 inhabitants in lower regions were endangered.

Ollanta Humala was elected as President of Peru in 2011. His policies aim at social democratic reforms and improving the situation of the poor, but because of the current economic situation, he cannot afford to restrict the freedom of foreign companies. The reason for this is that the Peruvian economy is very much dependent on these

investments.

3.4 Peru as a mining state

The ‘resource curse’ is a general label for the observation that countries or regions with the greatest wealth in natural resources show low or decreasing economic growth, high rates of poverty and inequality, little democratic development or even authoritarian political systems, and high incidence of conflicts or even civil war (Arellano-Yanguas 2008a). Discussion of resource curse theories goes beyond the scope of this thesis. For our goal, it is relevant to see that also in Peru, the mining districts traditionally are among the poorest in the country. Two main reasons for this are the fact that profits and tax revenues from the mining companies do not benefit the communities in the mining districts, while at the same time the dependence of the local population on jobs in the mining industry hinders the economic development in other sectors that are more locally based.

Neo-liberalism in Peru has been strongly in favor of foreign companies investing in the extraction of mineral resources and hydro-electricity. Later we’ll see that the post-neoliberal era did not bring fundamental changes in this respect.

3.5 Natural resource management in Peru

Lake Parón is a case of conflict around natural resource management and water distribution. These have to be seen in their political context, both regional and

Who owns our water? : water management, governance and ownership : the case of Lake Parón in the Peruvian Andes

Who owns our water?

Water Management, Governance and Ownership

The case of Lake Parón in the Peruvian Andes.

WHO OWNS OUR

WATER?

WATER MANAGEMENT, GOVERNANCE

AND OWNERSHIP

THE CASE OF LAKE PARÓN IN THE PERUVIAN

ANDES.

Charlotte van de Lagemaat

University of Amsterdam

ABSTRACT

Who owns our water?

Water Management, Governance and Ownership

The case of Lake Parón in the Peruvian Andes.

FOREWORD AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF FIGURES

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION: LAKE PARÓN,

OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SOCIAL

EQUITY AND (POST-) NEOLIBERALISM

CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: NEOLIBERALISM,

POST NEOLIBERALISM,

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND LATIN AMERICA

CHAPTER 3 – CASE SELECTION AND METHODOLOGY