Exploring Siembra y Cosecha de Agua: Highland Rainwater Harvesting as a Solution to Aquifer Depletion in Ica, Peru

(1)

Exploring Siembra y Cosecha de Agua:

Francesca Nightingale

Highland Rainwater Harvesting as a

Solution to Aquifer Depletion in Ica, Peru

(2)

~ 1 ~

University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Social Sciences

MSc International Development Studies 2019-2020

Exploring Siembra y Cosecha de Agua: Highland Rainwater

Harvesting as a Solution to Aquifer Depletion in Ica, Peru

Francesca Nightingale, 12072990 francescanightingale@hotmail.co.uk

Supervisor: M.A. Verzijl MSc Second Reader: Cristian Olmos

17 August, 2020 Word Count: 24,900

(3)

~ 2 ~

Abstract

Over the past twenty years there have been increasingly dire warnings about the groundwater levels in the Ica-Villacurí aquifer in Ica, Peru. Groundwater is used for both agricultural and domestic purposes, however, the expansion of the agro-export industry since the 1990s, and their practice of pumping groundwater for irrigation has been blamed for the overexploited aquifer. Still, if the groundwater runs out, there will be catastrophic consequences for all communities who live in the desert region. Multiple actions have been attempted to address this problem, and one of them is the rainwater harvesting policy of

siembra y cosecha de agua. It is a multidimensional approach, reconciling a techno-scientific

approach to water problems, with a socio-political and cultural one. Little research has been done to examine the effects of constructing these highland projects on groundwater governance. This policy presents a departure from how groundwater governance has previously been approached in the Ica Valley, with a focus on small, localised projects rather than large water infrastructure or legislative actions. Therefore, this research seeks to explore the ways that groundwater governance in the Ica Valley is being shaped by siembra y cosecha, through examining the policy process. Insight was gained through semi-structured qualitative interviews with actors who are involved in tackling the groundwater problem and those who are affected by it. Additionally, observation of the projects, and content analysis was carried out of documents and audio-visual material related to the policy. This research presents the narratives and dimensions that make up the implementation process, the political interests and the roles of various actors, but in particular, it shows there is a gap between how the policy is presented and how it is actually being implemented. Siembra y cosecha demonstrates a recognition that a watershed is an interconnected landscape, which can be very important for future climate change mitigation policymaking. However, in the Ica Valley, it is characterised by its lack of short-term tangible benefits and that it does not have the effect of changing the water practices of those who exploit the aquifer.

Key words: rainwater harvesting; groundwater governance; hydrosocial; policy process; Ica Valley; Peru

(4)

~ 3 ~

Acknowledgements

The journey to completing this thesis has been a long and stressful one, not least because of the outbreak of a global pandemic in the middle of it, however, it has also been an extremely valuable one. I feel as though I have gained so much over the past year but, this experience would never have been possible without all those who helped me along the way. I am incredibly grateful.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my academic supervisor, Andres Verzijl, for the unending support and encouragement. I honestly do not know if I could have made it this far had he not patiently listened to my ideas, dedicated hours to virtual meetings and answered my never-ending questions. I also want to thank all those kind people who helped me with the research process in Peru, I am so grateful that so many were willing to help me, and I hope I did some justice to those who participated in this thesis.

I especially would like to thank my family. To my mamá, I am so grateful for everything you have done for me, you have always supported my dreams and you inspire me every day. Thank you for giving me this opportunity. To my baby sister, Fiorella, thank you for all the support you gave me this past year, and especially while writing my thesis in lockdown. Thank you for always listening to me drone on about groundwater and rainwater harvesting, I am more grateful than I can ever express.

Thank you to the rest of my family; my dad, tias and primos, your support was invaluable. To my lovely friends (Torran and Darren), thank you for your words and gifts of encouragement, and of course, Rose, for actually reading the whole thing! To my Amsterdam friends (Charlotte, Emma, Thea and Sveva), I am so sad we did not get to finish this thing together, but thank you for the support throughout the master’s programme, and the virtual support through the writing process.

Finally, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my Tio Romelio and Tia Demi. I lost you at the beginning of this and I miss you every single day. Espero que estén orgulloso de mi dónde sea

(5)

~ 4 ~

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of the aquifer systems in the Ica River watershed 9

Figure 2: Linear Model of Policymaking 15

Figure 3: Policy Process Framework 16

Figure 4: Conceptual Scheme 19

Figure 5: Map of the political-administrative location of the Tambo-Santiago-Ica watershed 29 Figure 6: An example of a water reservoir with a geomembrane, Yauca del Rosario, Ica 47 Figure 7: Pine trees growing as part of a forestation project, District of Yauca del Rosario, Ica 48

Figure 8: Qocha, District of Cordová, Huancavelica 48

List of Tables

Table 1: Exploited reserves and their capacity 30

Table 2: Types of actors who participated in this study 35

List of Textboxes

Front page photo: A qocha in the district of Cordová, Huancavelica. 12th_{March, 2020. (Source: My} own)

(8)

~ 7 ~

Acronyms

AAA Administrative Water Authority (Autoridad Administrativa del Agua)

ALA Local Water Authority (Autoridad Local del Agua)

ANA National Water Authority (Autoridad Nacional de Agua)

DRA-Ica Agricultural Department, Ica (Dirección Regional Agraria de Ica)

FONCODES Social Development and Compensation Fund, Peru

GESAAM Project for Social Management of Water and the Environment (Proyecto Gestión Social del Agua y el Ambiente)

GORE-Ica Regional Government of Ica

GRADE Group for the Analysis of Development (Grupo de Análisis para el Desarollo)

JUASVI Water User Organisation for Groundwater Users of the Ica Valley (Junta de Usuarios de Aguas Subterráneas del Valle de Ica)

JUSH-Rio Seco Water User Organisation for the Hydraulic Sector – Rio Seco (Junta de Usuarios del Sector Hidráulico – Rio Seco)

MANRHI Regional Association of Huancavelica and Ica (Mancomunidad Regional Huancavelica e Ica)

MEF Ministry of Economics and Finances (Ministerio de Economía y Finanza)

MERESE Ecosystem Services Retribution Mechanism (Mecanismos de Retribución por Servicios Ecosistémicos)

MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego)

MINAM Ministry for the Environment (Ministerio del Ambiente)

MVCS Ministry of Housing, Construction and Sanitation (Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento)

NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations

PACC Perú Programme for Adaptation to Climate Change

PETACC Special Project for Tambo Ccaracocha (Proyecto Especial Tambo Ccaracocha)

PUCP Pontifical Catholic University of Peru

RWH Rainwater Harvesting

Sunass National Agency of Water Sanitation Services (Superintendencia Nacional de Servicios de Saneamiento)

(9)

~ 8 ~

Chapter 1: Introduction

Over the past two decades increasing international demand for certain “cash crops” like asparagus or avocados have put immense pressure on countries in the Global South to increase production. Often as a consequence, they overuse their natural resources, like water, to meet that demand. In Ica, Peru, there have been increasingly dire warnings about the groundwater levels in the Ica-Villacurí aquifer (aquifer shown in figure 1). Groundwater extraction is used for both domestic and agricultural purposes, but, as the Ica Valley has been the centre of the country’s agro-export industry since the 1990s, agriculture has mostly been blamed for the increasing groundwater scarcity (Damonte & Boelens, 2019).

Groundwater resources are often “irreplaceable” in character (Villhoth & Conti, 2018: 23), and 14 to 17% of all global food produced using groundwater relies on non-renewable groundwater resources (CGIAR/WLE, 2017: 3). Ica is a desert area that relies on such non-renewable groundwater resources for its agro-export industry, and if the water were to run out, not only could this disrupt the global food supply chain, but there would also be catastrophic consequences for the local area. Previous research in Ica has looked at the rapid expansion of the agricultural frontier, and has found that this “expansion has become unsustainable given the hydrological context and concurrent demands for water in the Ica Valley” (Hepworth et al., 2010: 3), with particular negative impacts on small and medium-scale farmers, but also on some of the poorest communities in Peru. Consequences for these communities include worsening inequality, “fuelling social conflict and… [enhancing] vulnerability to climate change across the Ica Valley and beyond” (Ibid.). These conclusions were reached ten years ago, and a number of changes and solutions have been attempted to address the problem of the overexploited Ica-Villacurí aquifer since. As one might expect with this sort of development problem, there are different, and often, contradictory perspectives on the issue, resulting in different approaches to finding solutions.

Some of the solutions that have been attempted in the Ica Valley include the banning of drilling of new wells – which still continues, albeit illegally (James, 2015) – to using pozas de

infiltración (infiltration basins)1_{, proposed by actors like JUASVI and ANA, involving the use of}

excess surface water during the rainy season to artificially recharge the aquifer (Navarro Venegas & Fernández Escalante, 2017: 569). However, for more water, those on the coast have always looked to the highlands. This can be seen in the construction of large water infrastructure projects, like the Choclococha project, which re-directs water down from the Ica Highlands and the neighbouring region of Huancavelica, through a large system of canals built in the 1950s and 60s. However, this type of solution has also caused social tension and conflict (Guerrero & Verzijl, 2015), with local communities mostly consisting of small farmers claiming to be excluded from decision-making or having their access cut off from the water sources used to irrigate their own crops (Swedwatch, 2018).

(10)

~ 9 ~

An alternative to the techno-scientific or managerial realisations such as building large water infrastructure or enforcing legislation is the Programa de Siembra y Cosecha de Agua – the Sowing and Harvesting of Water programme, proposed by the Ministerio de Agricultura y Riego (MINAGRI), and other actors. It aims to develop the ancestral practices of rainwater harvesting in small Andean farming communities that are also affected greatly by water scarcity issues (MINAGRI, 2016: 12). It is a multi-dimensional approach attempting to reconcile technical solutions with cultural practices, whilst also trying to address the socio-political ramifications of the problem.

Since 2012, the Regional Government of Ica (GORE-Ica) has constructed qochas (semi-natural small lakes), water reservoirs and other siembra y cosecha projects, like forestation projects, in the Ica highlands and in Huancavelica (DRA-Ica, 2018). This rainwater harvesting policy became a particular focus of GORE-Ica during Cillóniz’s time in office (2015-2018), and it was presented as a form of win-win solution. Local communities where these qochas have been built should be able to use the rainwater harvested for their own agricultural needs, and agribusinesses below in the Ica Valley can also benefit, through the recharging of the Ica-Villacurí aquifer.

Figure 1: Map of the aquifer systems in the Ica River watershed. The Ica-Villacurí aquifer is highlighted in light blue. (Source: INGEMMET, 2009)

(11)

~ 10 ~

This research aims to explore the policy process of siembra y cosecha and examine how its implementation in the upper part of the Ica watershed is changing and shaping groundwater governance in the lower part. Siembra y cosecha in policy form is relatively new and its impacts are long term. It will be a couple of decades before the results of the rainwater harvesting projects in the Ica watershed can be examined fully. However, I believe that at this stage of implementation, it would be beneficial and informative to examine whether groundwater governance in the Ica Valley is being approached at all differently, because of this policy.

Due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors, it was necessary to shift the initial focus of this research from the rural campesino communities in the highland areas, to the actors in the Ica Valley and the policy process. Initially, the hydrosocial approach, a key part of my theoretical framework, was to be a lens in which to view the water practices of these rural communities, however, that shifted as well, as I use this lens to look at the workings of policymakers and the siembra y cosecha implementation process in the Ica watershed. This research retains its core purpose of examining how siembra y cosecha is shaping groundwater governance in the Ica Valley, albeit from a different angle, redirecting the focus on the policymakers and the policy process.

Groundwater governance comes with a unique set of difficulties and challenges, especially because of the inherent “invisible” nature of groundwater (Foster & Chilton, 2018: 77).

Siembra y cosecha is certainly a novel way to approach solving the groundwater problem in

the Ica Valley. Projects are done using a localised, small-scale approach in the highlands, of which one of the aims is to help recharge the aquifer that is mostly used by the agro-export industry in the lower part of the watershed. This research explores the narratives and inherent contradictions arising from the implementation of this policy, focusing on how actors perceive and then act on the groundwater problem, and on the politics of it, identifying the gaps between the policy’s aims and its actual achievements. This research will therefore address the question: how is the implementation of siembra y cosecha in the Ica highlands shaping groundwater governance in the Ica Valley, Peru?

This analysis starts by outlining the theoretical framework and the conceptual scheme. Then it follows with the research questions and the methodology adopted, and a chapter to provide some context. After this, the empirical data is presented and analysed in two chapters, firstly, through presenting the perceptions and actions of actors in the Ica watershed on the groundwater problem, and then secondly, looking at the policy process through its narratives and dimensions, the politics involved and the roles of different actors. The empirical chapters end with an analysis of why siembra y cosecha is being presented as a solution to the groundwater governance problem. The final chapter provides a conclusion and discussion of the findings of this research.

(12)

~ 11 ~

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

New ways of analysing water problems have evolved within international development studies and other disciplines. No longer can water issues that come about because of policies of ‘modernization’ be treated as either, exclusively a technical problem for engineers or scientists to solve, or as purely a governance problem, solved within the political sphere. The hydrosocial approach arose out of a need to “understand and address complex, interdependent water related societal challenges” (Wesselink, Kooy & Warner, 2017: 1). For the purposes of this research, this approach will be used as a lens in which to view the key concepts: groundwater governance, the policy process and rainwater harvesting.

2.1 The Hydrosocial Approach

The hydrosocial approach deliberately focuses on the inherent political and social nature of water (Linton & Budds, 2014: 170), and makes an effort to examine the “articulation of water and social power relations” (Ibid.). Although this approach is a relatively new way of looking at water problems, Banister (2014) roots it in Wittfogel’s notion of “hydraulic despotism” (1957, as cited in Banister, 2014: 205), who took a Marxist approach which views humans as “constantly, restlessly, striving to dominate and, thereby, escape from, nature’s clutch” (Banister, 2014: 205).

As humans transform and “dominate” our environments, we also transform ourselves. This aspect of the human condition can most clearly be seen through the way water, and the human relationship with water, has shaped not only our environment, but also, our history and our society today. Political ecology recognises that “conventional technical approaches to natural resources (engineering, economics, law, resource management, science) are inadequate” (Budds, 2008: 60) for explaining the environmental problems humans face today, because those approaches fail to look beyond the ‘observable’ boundaries of these problems. By viewing environmental problems in a “depoliticised” way, it is not possible to “capture the complex nature of society-environment dynamics,” resulting in solutions that only address “’symptoms’ rather than their ‘causes’” (Ibid.).

To demonstrate how I will utilise this approach in this research, I will first discuss the variations that have been used in the academic literature to attempt to engage in and explain water problems. Some of these variations include the hydrosocial cycle, hydrosocial territories and hydrosocial relations. The hydrosocial cycle (Linton & Budds, 2014) is defined as: “a socio-natural process by which water and society make and remake each other over space and time” (p.170). The hydrosocial cycle is used as a point of departure from the scientific tradition of the hydrologic cycle, which is a popular way of representing water flows in the hydrosphere, but, has the “effect of separating water from its social context” (Ibid.). Importantly, it recognises that “the ways in which water flows over space and time is also shaped by human institutions, practices and discourses that determine modes of control, management and decision-making" (Ibid.: 173). This approach allows us to understand how

(13)

~ 12 ~

water, through decisions made on how to manage it, can be the cause of unequal development (ibid. 175).

Defining a territory as a hydrosocial territory allows for a look at different perspectives and materialisations of socio-natural networks that result in overlapping, and often contested, forms of water governance (Verzijl, Boelens & Núñez, 2019: 253). The concept of hydrosocial territories has been used to explore water conflicts (Soberón Álvarez, 2018: Ch. 1) as territorial struggles often go beyond contested natural resources, but also involve struggles over “meaning, norms, knowledge, identity, authority and discourses” (Boelens et al., 2016: 1). Fundamentally, this variation demonstrates a need to understand and take into account these differing realities of water (Ibid.). This adds depth when looking at a policy like siembra

y cosecha given the many contrasts in the social, political and economic make-up of the Ica

watershed. Banister (2014) also uses the term “hydrosocial relations” to discuss conflicts between various actors, which arises from who controls or has access to the water flows (Ibid.: 208). He discusses how the completion of major water infrastructure projects can shift hydrosocial relations (Ibid.: 211) in a territory. Or such actions like, “water contamination, professional land trafficking, and even, “anarchy” in distribution… [can be] used to describe hydraulic-social relations” (Ibid.). While he looks at the hydrosocial cycle from a philosophical perspective, he demonstrates the role of water infrastructure in “encoding” hydrosocial relations (Ibid.: 213) in a territory.

The hydrosocial approach works well at creating a rich narrative around water problems, and therefore, creates a good reasoning for addressing the issue. However, it has some key flaws. It does not “usually engage in discussions about solutions to the problems [found]” (Wesselink, Kooy & Warner, 2017: 8). This approach can be very theory dense, making it quite inaccessible to other academic disciplines to which it might be useful. Thus, this approach should be used, whilst still grounding it within the theory, to bring the “rich understanding, or narrative, of a situation” (ibid.: 11) and make it more accessible to those attempting to find solutions.

The key conclusion of this discussion of the variations of utilising the hydrosocial approach and its critiques is that, for the purpose of this research, it helps address the gap that is often found when trying to find solutions to water problems, between techno-scientific or managerial approaches and socio-political approaches. Using the hydrosocial approach as a lens allows this research to demonstrate that the groundwater problem examined is not only a hydrogeological problem, but also a governance problem, with social, political, ecological and economic dimensions. This is, perhaps, where Linton and Budd’s ‘hydrosocial cycle’ (2014) variation is most useful because, by recognising that water flows and the social are fundamentally interwoven, each changing one another, then the groundwater problem looked at in this thesis can also be characterised as a social problem, necessitating more than a scientific fix.

(14)

~ 13 ~

2.2 Groundwater Governance

Discussions revolving around groundwater governance often start with a focus on the latter half: governance. This is because, as Villhoth and Conti (2018) highlight, governance frames can help “overcome deficiencies in historical, more engineering and linear approaches to water management” (p.3), allowing for a “change in mind-set, from focus on the physical expression and reasons for water problems to the more human and political aspects” (Ibid.: 4). This is important when attempting to define groundwater governance, as although it is intrinsically interlinked with groundwater management, and is described as a sub-set of the wider concept of water governance, it necessitates its own specific definition.

The initiative Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Action defines groundwater governance as:

“the enabling framework and guiding principles for responsible collective action to ensure control, protection and socially-sustainable utilisation of groundwater resources for the benefit of humankind and dependent ecosystems” (FAO, 2015). The end goal for improved groundwater governance is “sustaining water security and adapting to climate variability” (ibid.: 2). However, this definition could be described as normative and aspirational or goal-orientated (Closas & Villholth, 2019: 3), which is why another definition is put forward by Villhoth and Conti (2018) that removes these elements:

“[it encompasses] the processes, interactions, and institutions, in which actors (i.e. government, private sector, civil society, academia, etc.) participate and decide on management of groundwater within and across multiple geographic (i.e. sub-national, national, transboundary, and global) and institutional/sectoral levels, as applicable.” (p. 14)

I have taken a halfway point between these two definitions for the purposes of this research. This is because while the first is normative and prescriptive in nature, it shows how and what

effective groundwater governance is - actors or stakeholders acting in a collective way to

ensure the sustainability of groundwater resources. However, by removing these elements, as the latter definition does, groundwater governance can be narrowed down to its key fundamentals and functions. This thesis focuses on the role of actors in carrying out the decision-making and practical elements of groundwater governance. Actors are identified as one of four components of groundwater governance by de Chaisemartin et al. (2017: 206), alongside “national legal frameworks, policies and information and knowledge.” A definition of groundwater governance must encapsulate the practical function of actors, but also, attempt to be in some way “aspirational” and “goal-orientated” as this is how solutions to groundwater problems can be found.

Groundwater governance is constantly shifting and evolving (Conti & Gupta, 2016; Simpson & de Loë, 2020) and is particularly characterised by the difficulties and limitations of effective

(15)

~ 14 ~

governance. As the Groundwater Governance Project (2016) emphasises, it is highly context-specific and depends on “the hydrogeology, the level of development and the context-specific challenges of an aquifer” (p.10), but also on the “capacity of political leadership to deliver” (ibid.). It is not only the physical makeup of groundwater that makes it hard to govern (its invisible nature underground) but also the socio-political aspects. Shah (2014) expands upon this: “most groundwater irrigation is in the hands of the private, or informal, sector and is largely unregulated” (p.8), which is one of the reasons why many countries are facing problems of overexploitation, and sever and often irreversible environmental damage to aquifers (Foster and Chilton, 2003: 1962). As the global agricultural industry increasingly utilises groundwater resources for irrigation purposes, there is a growing concern about their long-term sustainability (Madramootoo, 2012: 27). It is clear that political and economic motivations also have a large impact on effective groundwater governance.

Groundwater characteristics and “the apparent anarchy surrounding groundwater access seem to suggest that effective groundwater management requires centralised control through government agency” (Hoogesteger & Wester, 2015: 119). However, a centralised approach to groundwater regulation is also inherently difficult, because there are spatial limitations on monitoring who is pumping it and how much (Ibid.). As groundwater is extracted by “widely dispersed and numerous pumps controlled by many individuals” (Ibid.), attempting to arrive at collective agreements to reduce the amount extracted is incredibly difficult (Ibid.) due to economic, political and social reasons. Trying to find an effective groundwater governance model can also be challenging, especially for nations in the Global South, because the models generally pushed by development agencies often come from developed nations, like Australia, Spain or the USA. These nations often have greater scientific resources and institutional capacity, and these ‘blueprints’ are not readily transferable to countries in the Global South, because of the significant contextual differences (Shah, 2014: 9). This is why social and political context needs to be taken into account for effective groundwater governance.

In 2005, Mukherji and Shah made the observation that “knowledge formation in the field of groundwater studies has remained asymmetrical” (p. 329), with great strides being made in understanding the physical and chemical properties of groundwater, but little in terms of the socio-political aspects. While the concept and framework of groundwater governance has been significantly expanded since then, particularly with the FAO’s Groundwater Governance project in 2013, their observation remains relevant. The practicality of groundwater governance is still focused on “the more functional and practical, project-based aspects of groundwater management” (Villhoth & Conti, 2018: 17). The hydrosocial lens utilised in this thesis allows for an approach to groundwater governance with the practical and technical dimensions and the socio-political and cultural elements given equal weight, as I propose that it is in this way that groundwater governance can become more effective.

(16)

~ 15 ~

2.3 The Policy Process

Laws and Hajer (2008) point out: “looking at policy, is a form of observing governance” (p. 410). This observation is important for explaining why the policy process is a key part of the theoretical framework of this research. The general consensus when looking at framing a policy process or policy implementation theory is that there is no single, unifying theory (Weible et al., 2012; Barbosa, Alam, & Mushtaq, 2016). Weible et al. (2012) argue that this is a strength that comes from the many different research traditions that study the policy process, and that it is also reflective of its complexity and diversity (p.2).

There are various ways of studying the policy process, described by Weible et al. (2012): from examining the policy cycle (studying a policy from start to finish); to studying distinct stages of the policy process; or even, looking at multiple policies and seeing which are adopted or rejected by the end of the process (p.3-4). Scoones et al. (2006: 7-8) challenge the “conventional” way of understanding policy with that of looking at the policy process. The “conventional” view is based on a “traditional and highly stylised model of policy-making” (Ibid.) which assumes that policymaking is carried out by rational actors who have authority and expertise in a certain policy area. The linear model is presented in figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Linear model of policymaking, as adapted from Scoones et al. (2006: 7)

The major issue with this approach, as Scoones et al. (2006) point out, is that policymaking is reduced to a “purely… bureaucratic or administrative exercise” (p.7), that does not necessarily reflect the often times “complex and messy processes by which policy is understood, formulated and implemented, and the range of actors involved” (Ibid.: 8). They approach the policy process through a simple framework of three interconnected, overlapping themes, seen in figure 3.

Understanding the policy issue or problem (agenda-setting)

Exploring possible options for resolving the problem

Weighing up the costs and benefits of each option

Implementing the policy

(17)

~ 16 ~

Figure 3: Policy process framework, as adapted from Scoones et al. (2006: 9).

According to Scoones et al. (2006: 9), it is at the intersection of the three overlapping domains where policies take shape. The scientific framing of issues is one narrative that tells the policy story, but perspectives and the politics at play of the actors (and/or networks) involved also shape the policy process (ibid.). This has shaped how the policy process of implementing

siembra y cosecha is approached in this research; while the linear model is helpful in the basic

understanding of how a policy is implemented, it does not fully present the narratives that surround a policy, with technical, social, political and cultural dimensions. This framework is adapted in the conceptual framework of this thesis, as the way it presents the policy process is useful for analysing how siembra y cosecha has been implemented in the Ica watershed. Actors or policymakers play an important role in carrying out the policy process. De Chaisemartin et al. (2017) use the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization’s (FAO, 2011, as cited in de Chaisemartin et al., 2017: 208) definition of policy: which is “a set of decisions which are oriented towards a long term purpose or to a particular problem,” and therefore, “policy-making can be considered synonymous with decision-making” (de Chaisemartin et al., 2017: 208). Not all actors have the same definition of governance and this is important when it comes to the policy process, as for some actors, governance is an instrument to achieve certain ends, but for others it entails a more substantive participation from all citizens and water users (Hukka et al, 2010: 240). Certain views of policy implementation can be viewed as largely “a technical stage, whereby agencies carry out the directives of decision-makers” (Ibid.: 246). However, to achieve a form of “good governance” or effective governance, it is recommended to move “towards a better balance between the techno-scientific, socio-economic, political, and cultural dimensions of water policy and management” (Ibid.: 247). The interconnecting themes described by Scoones et al. (2006) and in particular the role of the actors in the policy process can be described as a form of “hydrosocial relation”. Therefore, the process of implementing siembra y cosecha is one of the ways actors in the watershed respond to the groundwater problem they are facing.

Discourse/Narratives

Actors/Networks Politics/Interests

(18)

~ 17 ~

2.4 Rainwater Harvesting

Rainwater harvesting as a concept has now become intrinsically linked to climate change adaptation (Scott, 2019), and has been offered up as a potential solution to the impacts of climate change on water security. However, it is not a new solution, but rather one that has been described as an inherently ancient practice, carried out all across the world by different human civilisations for millennia (Pandey, Gupta & Anderson, 2003).

Rainwater harvesting (RWH) can be done in a variety of ways and in different settings, from urban to rural. While there is no universal definition of RWH, a simple of definition is: “the process of concentrating, collecting and storing water for different uses at a later time in the same area where the rain falls, or in another area during the same or later time” (Hatibu et al., 2000: 3), with domestic or agricultural uses. The vast majority of the literature that looks at different methods of rainwater harvesting is written for technical or water engineering experts, and identifies the practical techniques of carrying out these types of projects. Three major forms of RWH, as adapted from Helmreich & Horn (2009), are: (1) a form of “in situ RWH” (p. 119), which collects rainfall on the surface where it falls and stores it in the soil; (2) external water harvesting, that collects runoff from rainfall on a surface elsewhere and stores it offside; (3) domestic RWH, where water is collected from rainfall on roofs or streets runoffs (Ibid.). Aladenola and Adeboye (2010) describe some of the benefits of RWH, which consists of it providing “a source of free water with only storage and treatment costs, augment… quantities of groundwater and reduce[s] stormwater runoff” (p.2131), plus it could generate large quantities of water (Ibid.).

Some of these benefits are why RWH techniques and policies are being explored across the world, in both developing and developed countries. Pandey, Gupta and Anderson (2003) put RWH practices in a historical context and discuss how “as culture and climate are interlinked, there is a general human response to adapt and mitigate the sufferings associated with such climate extremes” (p. 46). While they look at the link between RWH and climate change through a historical lens, and hypothesise that human civilisations in the past have turned to RWH practices instead of migrating (Ibid.: 52), they show that there are lessons to be learnt from history. In the process of reviewing the literature for RWH, it is apparent that wherever the policy option of RWH is being explored, whether it be Ethiopia (Binyam and Desale, 2015) or Tanzania (Hatibu et al., 2000) or India (Pandey, Gupta & Anderson, 2003) or Peru, there is a link that is drawn between the practical or technical implementation process, and the cultural or historical context of RWH. This is an important connection to explore when looking at how the RWH policy has shaped groundwater governance.

Siembra y cosecha de agua is one way that RWH practices have been characterised in Peru,

though it has also been called a different name, la crianza de agua, which roughly translates as raising water. Rural communities are reconstructing these ancestral practices of water management from indigenous knowledge and the ideas related to the Andean cosmovision, which had been previously lost (Morán, Hilborn & Villanueva, n.d.: 3) to modernisation. They link the age-old practices of crianza de agua, and the process of recuperating and converting

(19)

~ 18 ~

a communal activity into the recovery of Andean campesino2_{agricultural practices (Machaca,}

2015: slide 6). Though the two terms, crianza and siembra y cosecha, get used interchangeably by some actors, the former seems more connected to indigenous Andean practices. See Textbox 1 for a description of crianza and some of its connections to the Andean cosmovision. Some view siembra y cosecha as linked to ancestral water management practices. It is apparent from Pandey, Gupta and Anderson’s (2003) exploration of RWH in a historical context, and the literature written about RWH across the world, that this cultural and historical link is made quite frequently. Whether this is part of the narrative of implementing a policy like siembra y cosecha or its own dimension in the policy process, is something to be explored.

2_peasant

Textbox 1: Crianza de agua by Machaca (2016)

Machaca (2016) often describes ideas of crianza de agua through their Quechua phrases, like qucha chapay (seasonal lakes that capture water), qucha ruway (making new lakes), and puquio waqaychay (building a system of subterranean aqueducts) (Machaca, 2016: 10). She presents the connection between siembra y cosecha projects and the Andean cosmovision. Some Andean communities see their local world - or Pacha - as a living being populated with other living beings and deities of all classes, making water a living being as well (Ibid., 11). Water is presented as highly emotional and, in these moments, it is known as Yakumama (Mother Water); the relationship between living beings is influenced by a process of reciprocity, and this extends to the relationship humans have with the environment and water (Ibid.). Machaca said,

Man must use natural resources. However, in this case we say no, we have to serve… nature. You have to do something for the natural resources. So that it helps us, you have to help it regenerate. (Ministerio de Ambiente – Perú, 2015: 22:12)

Some rural Andean communities have certain cultural practices connected to this; they make sure to give offerings to and ask permission from los apus (the spirits of the mountains) before they build the qochas or lakes, and then they continue these cultural practices regularly, as almost part of the practice of maintaining the bodies of water (Escobar La Cruz, 2020).

(20)

~ 19 ~

2.5 Conceptual Scheme

The conceptual scheme above visualises the concepts discussed in the theoretical framework used in this research, from groundwater governance to the policy process, to the rainwater harvesting concept of siembra y cosecha. This conceptual scheme nests each concept within the other: starting from the larger scope of groundwater governance, which has various elements and difficulties, and then adapting the policy process Venn diagram used by Scoones et al. (2006) to show the overlapping themes that shape the policy process. It is at their intersection and the smallest part of the conceptual scheme that the rainwater harvesting policy of siembra y cosecha is realised. By nesting the different concepts within each other, it shows that each concept makes up part of the other, and therefore each concept influences

Figure 4: Conceptual Scheme

Narratives/Dimensions: Technical Ecological Social Cultural Actors: Perceptions Actions Politics/Interests: Political Process Siembra y cosecha in the Ica Watershed

Policy Process

Groundwater Governance

(21)

~ 20 ~

and shapes the other. The narratives/dimensions, politics/interests and actors all make up the policy process, and are important in shaping groundwater governance in the Ica watershed.

2.6 Research Questions

This research aimed to trace how the siembra y cosecha policy can shape and affect groundwater governance in Ica. Exploring this as a possible solution to the problem of the overexploitation of the Ica-Villacurí aquifer, through looking at the policy process and the main actors involved. This leads me to my main research question:

How is the implementation of siembra y cosecha in the Ica highlands shaping groundwater governance in the Ica Valley, Peru?

To help answer this question, this study addresses the following sub-questions:

1. Firstly, it is necessary to examine the context provided by the actors themselves on the groundwater problem in the Ica watershed and what attempts there have been to address the problem over the years, this in order to provide some level of contrast and background to siembra y cosecha and its implementation in the watershed. Therefore, the first sub-question asks: how do actors perceive and act on the

groundwater problem in the Ica watershed?

2. Secondly, to see how groundwater governance is being shaped in the Ica Valley, an understanding of how the rainwater harvesting policy of siembra y cosecha is actually being implemented in the Ica watershed is required. Leading to the second sub-question: what is the policy process related to siembra y cosecha in the Ica

watershed?

3. Thirdly, to link the above two sub-questions and see how siembra y cosecha is shaping groundwater governance, analysis is needed on the reasons why it is being implemented in the context of providing a solution to the groundwater problems in the Ica watershed. This is addressed with the third sub-question: why is siembra y

cosecha being implemented in the Ica highlands as a solution to the groundwater governance problem?

(22)

~ 21 ~

Chapter 3: Methodology

Initially, this research was designed to focus more on the rural communities where the

siembra y cosecha projects are constructed, however, partly due to the impact of COVID-19

on the practicalities of my research, the focus shifted to the actors in the Ica Valley, and the policy process of siembra y cosecha. This research project is split into two parts: presenting the groundwater problem through how actors perceive and act on it, and then, looking at the policy process of siembra y cosecha in the Ica watershed, and the reasons why it has been presented as a solution to the groundwater problem.

This chapter addresses the methodology employed in this research, firstly by presenting the research location, then, the unit of analysis and observation, the operationalisation and the research methods. To end, there is a reflection on the ethical considerations and the overall quality of the research.

3.1 Research Location

The research location was the Ica watershed, with the majority of the fieldwork being carried out in the city of Ica, capital of the Ica department. However, the first three interviews took place in the national capital of Lima. Interviews were mostly carried out in governmental or corporate offices, with two interviews in cafés. The two observation day-trips were to San José de los Molinos (a district north-east of the city of Ica and in the middle part of the Ica watershed) and Cordová (a district in Huancavelica that falls in the upper part of the Ica watershed). One interview with a water user organisation was carried out in the town of Guadalupe, north of the city of Ica.

3.2 Unit of Analysis and Operationalisation

The unit of analysis in this research project is the actors who are directly or indirectly involved in groundwater governance and the policy process of implementing of siembra y cosecha (the unit of observation) in the Ica watershed. Actors and the policy process play a role in shaping groundwater governance in the Ica watershed. To study these main concepts, groundwater governance, the policy process and rainwater harvesting have been operationalised (see appendix 5) with their dimensions, variables and indicators shown. These have been synthesised from the theoretical framework presented in chapter two, and contributed to the way that the empirical findings of this thesis are presented in chapters five and six.

3.3 Data Collection Methods

A qualitative approach was followed for this research project. This approach identifies how people interact with their world, determining how they experience and understand it by their feelings, knowledge and beliefs, and “how they explain structure and relationships within some segment of their existence” (Locke et al., 2014: 99). Above all, the use of a qualitative approach allows for the ability to “critique and transform privileged groups” (Stein &

(23)

~ 22 ~

Mankowski, 2004: 21), while helping empower marginalised groups. In terms of groundwater governance and the process of implementing siembra y cosecha, qualitative methods are better suited for the analysis of complex governance systems where public and private actors collaborate to achieve certain policy goals, and can also help explain the rationale behind adopting certain policy options (Lasheen, 2019: 132). Additionally, triangulation of different qualitative methods was used in order to inspire greater confidence in the findings (Bryman, 2012: 392) and to verify interview content. The methods used in this research project were semi-structured in-depths interviews; observation and fieldnotes; and document and audio-visual material analysis, which are discussed further below.

3.3.1 Semi-Structured In-Depth Interviews

The principal data collection method utilised in this study was semi-structured in-depth interviews, owing to the flexibility they provide and my interest in gaining perspective on the interviewee’s stance (Bryman, 2012: 470) on the groundwater problem and possible actions to solve it, like implementing siembra y cosecha. Interviews usually began with a few standardised open-ended questions and specific areas of interest to focus on that were prepared beforehand, such as, “can you describe the water problem in Ica?” Additionally, I actively encouraged tangents and open discussion, as I felt this allowed for a richer narrative to develop around the topic and helped the participant grow more comfortable in the interview and start to talk more openly. Usually, this brought up new or particularly interesting points that changed my initial outlook on the situation.

Due to the time constraints of the fieldwork, my interviews in Lima allowed me to gather important background information and better prepare my research strategy for when I arrived in Ica. Once there I conducted eleven individual interviews with actors and stakeholders from across private and public spheres, enabling further insight into the groundwater problem in the Ica watershed, and facilitating discussion of siembra y cosecha. The interviews lasted approximately one hour (on average), with some running to 90 minutes. Where appropriate, I asked permission to record the interviews, which were later transcribed. Notes were always taken and this was important during the transcribing progress, as some recordings had persistent background noise.

There were two group interviews conducted in this study, which happened organically, without being pre-planned as a group interview. This reflected the circumstances at the time when attempting to gain access to these types of actors, which had proven difficult. One was with representatives of the commercial sector in Ica (agro-exporters) and the water user organisation, JUASVI, and the other was with the water regulators, Sunass. Nevertheless, these interviews were very important for the large amount of data collected, and how sensitive topics were freely discussed, such as inequality, poverty, and differing perspectives between the neighbouring regions of Ica and Huancavelica. In each instance I was granted permission to record and notes were also taken; both lasted for 60-90 minutes (see appendix 1 for a list of participants of this study).

(24)

~ 23 ~ 3.3.2 Observation and Field Notes

Throughout fieldwork, I kept a field diary and took field notes detailing observations made. The day-trips were particularly important for observation, as I saw some of the siembra y

cosecha projects in their actuality. The first day-trip was to the possible sites of pozas in San

José de los Molinos and to observe the bocatoma, which divides the river that flows down from the upper part of the Ica watershed into the River Ica and La Achirana Canal. This contextualised the water situation in Ica. The second day-trip, with the mayor of Cordová and an Ica-based NGO, was exceptionally important for confirming some of the previously-gathered information. I was able to observe some examples of siembra y cosecha projects in the form of constructed qochas and forestation projects. Notes were taken and informal interviews undertaken.

3.3.3 Document Analysis

For the second part of this study, documents were collected that were particularly relevant to the implementation process (see appendix 2). This was also in order to triangulate the data collected through the interviews and observation, to discover whether the meanings found in the data from the interviews were “trustworthy and right” (Miles, Huberman & Saldaña, 2014: 277). Content analysis was performed on five documents to establish their meanings and contributions to the study (Bowen, 2009). Focus was on how these documents connected to the data already collected and how it could round out elements of the policy process that were not mentioned in the interviews or otherwise observed.

3.3.4 Audio-Visual Materials

In a further effort to supplement the collected data, audio-visual materials were also examined; this was to complement the other data gathered. This was partly due to the constraints and circumstances that this study was subject to, but also a way of confirming the observations undertaken. On both formal occasions of observation (the day-trips) photos were taken for visual evidence of the water infrastructure being studied. This study has also been further aided by several videos that provide contextual information and an explanation of the technical practices necessary for implementing siembra y cosecha – see appendix 4. This has been particularly illuminating, as this was not something I was able to view first-hand. Additionally, it is relevant to this study as these videos provide insight into how the government communicates and justifies these projects.

3.4 Sampling

Due to the nature of my qualitative approach, I used purposive sampling, which relates to “the selection of units…with direct reference to the research questions being asked” (Bryman, 2012: 416). Regarding interviews, snowball sampling was used, as gathering participants was reliant on recommendations from the small pool of initial interviewees in Lima, who were helpful in proposing further participants with experience or characteristics relevant to this

(25)

~ 24 ~

project (Bryman, 2012: 424). Although I had conducted research into useful organisations to contact upon arrival in Ica, specifically water user organisations, it became apparent very early on that approaching participants would be further aided if I was recommended by certain individuals, particularly if I wanted to gain access to any of the representatives of the commercial sector (i.e. agro-exporters). I selected the five documents for analysis based on their technical, political and social relevance to the policy process of implementing siembra y

cosecha, although some of the documents were sent to me by a civil servant and are internal

documents, which provided an interesting insight into the inner machinations of the policy process in Ica. In selecting audio-visual material, although I chose them for similar reasons as the documents, I attempted to make them more location-specific to the Ica watershed.

3.5 Data Analysis

Most of the interview transcriptions and notes was processed through the qualitative data analysis software, Atlas.ti, and manually. A deductive approach was primarily used as the research questions, theories and concepts identified as part of the theoretical framework were all important for the process of coding (Bryman, 2012: 711). Initial open coding using Atlas.ti, which is more attributed to an inductive approach, was used to make linkages and see patterns in the data that might have been obscured had I started the process with a rigid list of predetermined codes. Nevertheless, finding the patterns in the data still related to whether it connected to the key concepts identified in the theoretical framework. In narrowing down the codes, creating sub-categories, and then larger categories which connected to the key concepts (Saldaña, 2016), I preferred a manual approach so as to gain a richer understanding of the data (for code list see appendix 6).

In terms of content analysis for the documents and audio-visual material, Bowen (2009) explains: “the analytic procedure entails finding, selecting, appraising (making sense of), and synthesising data” (p. 28) in this material. This was done especially for triangulation purposes, and to compensate for any gaps in the data collected, in order to better answer the research questions – see appendix 2 and 4.

3.6 Ethical Considerations

Throughout the research process, my priority was respecting the ethical standards of voluntary participation, informed consent, safety in participation, confidentiality and trust (Bryman, 2012).

Interviewees included business leaders, policy-makers, technical experts, small farmers and rural community members. All were asked if they were comfortable with being recorded, and when some did not consent, notes were taken instead. At the beginning of the interview each interviewee was assured of the purpose of the research, their right to anonymity and the confidentiality of the content discussed. All data collected was stored on a password-protected computer. Afterwards, all participants were anonymised and where appropriate, only referred to by their organisation.

(26)

~ 25 ~

Before travelling to Ica, I had read literature about water conflict over the last decade and how it had reportedly calmed in recent years, something that I was reassured of during my time there. However, while trying to obtain consent for one of my initial interviews I discovered that there is tension between representatives of major agribusinesses and local NGOs, thus I became more aware of the sensitive and controversial aspects of water as an issue. This tension resulted in potential participants being wary of talking to someone investigating problems of water scarcity. In order to secure interviews, I took care to assure any potential participant that all ethical standards would be respected. I clarified to all participants that all information shared would remain confidential and would only be used as part of my final thesis, which was very important in gaining their trust.

Interview locations were chosen to ensure my and the interviewee’s safety, as well as for convenience. One point of observation is that the “world of water” in Peru (more specifically in Ica) is overwhelmingly a male-dominated one. As a young, female, foreign researcher, some concern for my safety was expressed by those who helped me during the research process. Someone was always aware of the time and location of my interviews and no issues arose. To finish, some of the findings in this study are critical of the way groundwater is being governed in the Ica watershed and the policy implementation processes. While I never hid this critical perspective from any participants, I have attempted to ensure that the findings are presented in a clear and respectful manner, with a goal of being constructive, rather than negative.

3.7 Methodological Reflection

To assess the quality of the data collection methods, I will use Lincoln and Guba’s concepts (as discussed by Bryman, 2012: 390-393) of credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability and authenticity. First, though, I think it is necessary to address the effect of the coronavirus pandemic on my research process, and its impact on the standard of methodological quality that I had hoped to achieve in this thesis, plus some of the barriers I encountered before the impacts of the pandemic were fully realised.

3.7.1 COVID-19 and other limitations

Due to the announcement of major flight restrictions and a country-wide lockdown in Peru, I decided to cut my fieldwork short. The consequence of this is that I was not able to gather sufficient data on the perspectives of the community members of villages where siembra y

cosecha had been implemented, which I had considered necessary in order to answer my

initial research question and sub-questions. I also believe that another key consideration arising from COVID-19 is its impact on the relevance of my research. The uncertainty caused by COVID-19 and how this lived experience will change the world creates additional questions about the impacts of research such as this.

(27)

~ 26 ~

However, I did encounter barriers to accessing the small, rural villages even before I had to cut my research trip short. I was reluctant to travel alone to some of the more remote communities, even with my prior experience travelling in rural areas in Peru (my family is from rural Cajamarca in northern Peru), this was both because I would be a woman travelling alone without a guide to unknown areas and the financial cost of organising a guide. There were also a couple of occasions where group trips promised by local officials were cancelled last minute because of bad weather. All in all, it was clear by the time the research trip was cut short, that access was very dependent on knowing the right people and, perhaps unluckily, the lockdown happened just as I had managed to organise a further trip to Huancavelica. Fortunately, I was able to gather sufficient data to answer an altered research question. The quality criteria used to assess the qualitative methods are discussed below.

3.7.2 Credibility

To ensure credibility and objectivity around my interpretation of the social reality surrounding

siembra y cosecha implementation, I carried out good practice to ensure that I could establish

a relationship of trust between me and my participants. Some participants seemed to become more comfortable when they realised that I spoke fluent Spanish and have Peruvian heritage, helping to break down the barrier that can often arise between researchers and participants, and adding to the credibility of the results.

From the start, I identified actors I wanted to interview based on literature I had reviewed and on the recommendation of academics. Where possible, I gathered organisation-specific information beforehand, so as to have a better understanding of their work and to establish a rapport with the interviewee when we talked. In addition, I found that it was important that many of my later interviews were organised through certain contacts I had established early on, and that further interviews were organised though recommendations from early participants in the study, as this further helped to establish trust. I found that participants who had been recommended by a previous interviewee were far more willing to discuss the issues in Ica openly.

3.7.3 Transferability

In terms of transferability, the context in which I undertook this study, in a pre-pandemic world, means that it may be difficult to replicate. However, water problems in the Ica watershed will not disappear, therefore I hope that the questions raised in this thesis and the relative newness of the siembra y cosecha project allows for future researchers to use this thesis as a springboard to gain a better understanding of the long-term impacts of the policy. 3.7.4 Dependability

All data collected from the interviews and observation were organised in a thorough way to ensure the transparency of the research process. A document that lists participants was shared with my supervisor midway through fieldwork as a form of audit, and another

(28)

~ 27 ~

transparency document with the full list of participants, respecting their right to anonymity, was shared with the University of Amsterdam to verify the records – see appendix 1 for the transparency document.

3.7.5 Confirmability

At times throughout the research process I thought it would be difficult to maintain objectivity. This is mostly due to the status of some interviewees in the Ica water sector, and because some of them held such different world-views in comparison to my own. In order to ensure I presented as balanced a perspective of the water situation in Ica as possible, I interviewed many different actors with vastly different stakes in the project implementation process. While I think it is impossible to achieve complete neutrality owing to how our world-views shape our perceptions of social reality, I ensured that the interworld-views were conducted in good faith, through detailed note-taking and recording interviews where possible.

3.7.6 Authenticity

Lincoln and Suba outline five sub-criteria for authenticity that assess the wider political impact of the research undertaken (Bryman, 2012: 393). However, due to my shortened fieldwork I have decided to focus on only three of the sub-criteria: fairness, ontological authenticity, and educative authenticity.

In terms of fairness, I attempted to interview a wide spectrum of those involved in the water sector in Ica to fairly represent the different perspectives offered. I also extended the interviews to some who, while not directly involved in the implementation of the siembra y

cosecha, were very knowledgeable about water problems in Ica, in an attempt to gain a more

well-rounded view of the social setting. Had I not encountered problems due to COVID-19 and other barriers, I would have expanded this further, as previously mentioned, by talking to those directly affected by the projects. For ontological authenticity, by attempting to talk to an array of actors either directly or indirectly involved in the implementation of siembra y

cosecha, I hope this research presents a wider perspective on how and to what extent

groundwater governance in Ica is being shaped by the implementation of this project. In doing so, I hope that it can help those involved in this process in Ica to gain some better understanding of their “social milieu” (Bryman, 2012: 393). In a similar vein, educative authenticity is concerned with whether the research helps actors better understand the viewpoints of other members in their social setting (Ibid.). By trying to present the different actors’ perspectives, I think the best possible way this research could be utilised by participants is for them to gain some understanding for how others involved in the governance of groundwater in Ica view the problem of water scarcity, and its solutions.

(29)

~ 28 ~

Chapter 4: Contextual Chapter

In order to contextualise the analysis of the empirical data in the following chapters, this section discusses: the hydrological makeup of the Ica River watershed and explains the groundwater problem from a more technical perspective. It also looks at how groundwater governance is structured in the watershed.

4.1 The Ica River Watershed

In order to better understand how groundwater is governed in the Ica watershed, it is important to have a grasp of its hydrological makeup. This will also assist with the explanation of the groundwater problem from a technical perspective. On the following page, in figure 5, there is a map of the Ica River watershed (outlined in red), officially called the Tambo-Santiago-Ica watershed, in its political-administrative context, crossing the regional boundary between Ica and Huancavelica (GESAAM, 2016). It also shows the sub-watershed of Alto-Pampas high up in Huancavelica.

The Ica River is formed of a joining of the rivers Tambo and Santiago, and the watershed covers an area of approximately 7,400 km2_{(GESAAM, 2016: 4). The water table – the upper}

water level of groundwater – is supplied by waters that infiltrate from the upper part of the watershed, as well as infiltration from surface water from the Ica River, other irrigation canals, and traditional methods of irrigation used by small farmers across the watershed (ANA, 2009: 67). In 2017, ANA did a study of different areas across the watershed and they found that water table levels varied, from a depth of 1.48 metres in Ocucaje, to 75.32 metres in La Tinguiña (p. 71). The rainfall totals in this watershed are very low, making it one of driest along the Peruvian coast (Oré et al., 2013: 169).

The Ica River starts in the neighbouring mountainous region of Huancavelica (Hepworth et al., 2010: 3). Rain falls during the summer months, usually between December and March, and the water flows in the Ica River down into the Ica Valley; after this season, the river dries out around April (Oré et al., 2013: 168). Through the construction of the Choclococha Project towards the end of the 1950s, where the Alto Pampas river basin was artificially diverted from the Amazon basin into the Ica River watershed (Hepworth et al., 2010: 23), PETACC (Proyecto Especial Tambo Ccaracocha), who manages Choclococha, seasonally supplements water flows into the upper Ica River (Ibid.), specifically for agricultural use in the Ica Valley.

(30)

~ 29 ~

Figure 5: Map of the political-administrative location of the Tambo-Santiago-Ica watershed and the Pampas watershed, sub-watershed of Altos Pampas (Source: GESAAM, 2016. Created by: C. Chavarria).