Day: 8 julio, 2009

Seminario: Masculinidades, Familia y Violencia

semi (más…)

AGROKASA AQUEDUCT PROJECT THREATENS TO DRY THE ICA AQUIFER

Por: David Bayer
11 October 2009
bayedavid@speedy.com.pe
Tel: 51-56-256036


INTRODUCTION

The Agrokasa Agricultural Corporation, one of the biggest agro-exporters in the rich Ica Valley, with more than 2,900 hectares (7,250 acres), has run out of water. Agrokasa wants to impose its aqueduct project on the Ica Province against the will of the vast majority of the people. The agro-exporter is willing to run the risk that the project will be the “kiss of death” for the Ica aquifer which is in a state of emergency. The Ica aquifer may be dry within the next six years. Agrokasa exports asparagus and table grapes world wide, including to the U.S.
This essay demonstrates how the Neo-Liberal development model, Neo-Colonialism, works. Economic and political power is highly concentrated in Peru, where the executives of Agrokasa sit on the Board of Directors of several other institutions, such Peru’s Central Reserve Bank and Interbank. This fact strikes fear in the hearts and souls of government bureaucrats and mayors who bend to Agrokasa’s demands.
Under the Neo-Colonialism, the State is weak in imposing rules and regulations. It exonerates the biggest corporations like mining and agro-exporters from paying their fair share of taxes. Therefore the State has no resources to implement environmental controls or other public services. This leads to the need to privatize State functions. Given that a small number of families have the financial resources to start companies, Neo-Colonialism opens the door to foreign domination and concentrates power, leading to corruption and the environmental destruction of water, land and other natural resources. The lives of millions become threatened by the Neo-Liberal, Colonial, development model. Company’s like Agrokasa believe that they are “doing good” by creating jobs. But when scientists add up the accounts, more jobs are destroyed by a model which excludes the vast majority from its development benefits and its unsustainable environmental destruction.
How are the vast majority excluded? Ica is a perfect example. There is no agricultural extension program to help small farmers become more efficient and participate with larger farmers in the export trade. The State does not intervene to place wells in operation which could sell water to the small farmers. Instead, it allows low, or untaxed, large companies, with extra capital, like Agrokasa, to buy up the wells and dominate the water supply.

THE POLITICS OF WATER AND PROBLEMS WITH THE ICA AQUIFER
The Ica aquifer is being over-drafted to the tune of 252 million cubic meters (MMC) per year. For example, assuming an overdraft of 252 MMC and a reserve of 1,592 MMC, Ica has 7 (seven) years before the aquifer is dry. However, if Ica experiences a “dry year” in terms of Highland (Sierra) rains, the aquifer might only last 3 (three) more years. The high probability that the Ica aquifer will be dry in the next several years predicts the third Ica disaster after the January 1998 flood and the August 2007 earthquake from which the city has yet to recover. The difference this time is that you can not live without water. So the Province of Ica (about 1 million) will be gone in a few years unless there is a radical change in the agricultural use of water, including the elimination of all crops which use more than 8,000 cubic meters of water per hectare per year (asparagus uses 22,000; artichoke, 30,000; export grapes, 15,000).
Agriculture uses nearly 97 percent of the water in the Ica Valley. The six largest agro-exporters control nearly 50 percent of all the Ica Valley land. Most of them have used “drip irrigation” for water-intensive crops like asparagus (22,000 cubic meters of water per hectare per year versus traditional crops which use 3,000: more than 7 times). These growers are the most efficient by using 15,000 for asparagus; therefore 5 times more water than traditional crops. They have not “flood irrigated” their lands for the last 15 years which is needed to recharge the aquifer . They expanded into new, non-irrigated lands, thereby increasing the stress on water resources and increasing the overdraft. These large agro-exporters have aggressively bought up the wells in the Valley, in areas several kilometers from their land. They have imposed their political and economic power to change the licenses to permit waters from these wells to be pumped, in underground aqueducts, running 10 to 20 kilometers, to their formally dry lands. These activities have dried the farm lands which these wells formally irrigated and for which they were originally licensed. In the process, these water transfer activities by the large agro-exporters (more than 500 hectares) have eliminated many small and medium size farmers. The proof of this is in the fact that nearly 3,000 small producers have ceased buying irrigation waters from the two traditional Water Committees (the River Committee and the Achirana Canal Committee) during the season of flood irrigation, when waters from the Sierra highland rains of Huancavelica run down to the coastal Valley of Ica, from March to May, and during September to October, when the Choclococha Reservoir in Huancavelica releases its waters. It is important to take note of the fact that farmers who pump well water do not have to pay for the use of this underground water which belongs by law to the State.

RESISTENCE TO AGROKASA’S AQUEDUCT PROJECT
On September 14,2009, Agrokasa brought 50 Police to confront the Puno Caserio Defense Committee in the District of Tate and impose its aqueduct project across four Districts. The purchase of police forces to impose projects, illustrates a

major dynamic of Neo-Colonialism whereby the State serves the corporations against the will of the vast majority. The Defense Committee opposed the aqueduct project from its beginning in August 2008. In a 19 February 2009 community meeting with Agrokasa, the top administrator of the agro-exporter stated, “Agrokasa will not implement the project because you people of Puno oppose it … not even with the Police forces”. In short, Agrokasa lied to the people by (1) imposing the project and (2) using the Police forces to do it. That Monday, the protesters were told by the State Attorney that if they continued
blocking the road where the trenches to bury the aqueducts needed to be dug, they would be arrested.

RESOLUTION 147 LACKS AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY
Resolution 147 gives Agrokasa permission to implement its aqueduct project for which there is no Environmental Impact Study (EIA) to defend the project from a technical point of view. Agrokasa bullied the Ica Public Water Authority to issue Resolution 147 on 29 December 2008 (when the rest of the public bureaucracy was on vacation) which gives it permission to implement the aqueduct project. Resolution 147 is not only defective by not requiring an EIA. It does not mention the fact that the two 14 and 16 inch aqueducts will travel some 20 kilometers, through four rural districts (Santiago, Pueblo Nuevo, Tate, and Pachacutec). Four wells on Agrokasa’s Santa Rita farm in the District of Santiago will pump water through the aqueducts to Agrokasa’s Catalina Farm, in la Pampa de los Castillos, located in a dry, formally non-irrigated area. The Resolution does not mention the approval of any of the Mayors of these four Districts. Resistance by the population existed before the Resolution was issued. The Mayor of Tate approved the project in 2008 against the will of four City Council persons. After the 14 September confrontation, Agrokasa negotiated a secret agreement with the Mayor of Pachacutec who has no approval from the city council and who has not informed the population.
All of the actions above violate Peruvian transparency laws and the 169 International Labor Organization (ILO=OIT) Agreement (OIT 169) whereby Peru must make sure that there is a “consultative process and approval” by any community impacted by private or public projects. Moreover, Peruvian municipal law and the Peruvian Constitution demand that the people be consulted and approve large projects which might have an impact on their lives.
This lack of genuine consultations represents the Agrokasa way of doing business.
It is the essence of the Neo-Colonial Model whereby a small group of politically and economically powerful corporations convert the State into their servant, for their private benefit. The fact that no EIA was done, within the context of the Ica aquifer which is in a state of emergency due to the 252 MMC overdraft borders on criminal activity . Why? Because without the EIA , we have no way of knowing which areas of the Ica aquifer will dry out as water is pumped across the Valley to Agrokasa’s land in the Pampa de los Castillos. Four kilometers south of the four wells which Agrokasa plans to use in the aqueduct operation, is the community of Mayuries. Its

200 inhabitants have defended their single well for 60 years. Most likely the Mayuries well will dry out within half a year if Agrokasa pumps water through its aqueducts. This is only one of several areas which are likely to be impacted. Dozens of farmers to the south of Agrokasa’s four wells in Santa Rita are likely to see the water in their wells descend to non-useable levels. Thousands will be thrown out of work and rural conflict and violence will explode as drinking and farming water become scarce and non-existent.
LETTER TO AGROKASA PROPOSES ALTERNATIVES
Bayer sent a letter to Agrokasa Director, Chlimper on September 11 in English. It is important to note that this communication was sent to Chlimper two full days before the 14 September Police force confrontation. It offered clear alternatives to Agrokasa such as negotiating with the Puno Defense Committee and offering to sell them water for irrigation.
MANIPULATION OF THE LA ACHIRANA WATER COMMITTEE APPROVAL
La Achirana Water Committee, which serves some 7,000 farmers, apparently sent an approval of the aqueduct project to the Ica Public Water Authority without any consultation with its membership Assembly . This violates La Achirana charter. Since this publication, I have learned that the Board of La Achirana did NOT APPROVE the project, but only the manager and President of La Achirana approved it. The President had some private business deals, trading wells with Agrokasa, in an obvious “conflict of interest”. This La Achirana approval was kept secret in violation of Peru’s transparency laws and OIT 169. Again this is typical of Chlimper’s/Agrokasa’s operating style which borders on the corruption of public officials. THE PROOF THAT THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN KEPT SECRET IS IN THE FACT THAT Ica is recently finding out about Resolution 147 in September 2009 but it was approved on 29 December 2008.

LETTER TO PERU’S WATER AUTHORITY SUPPORTED BY 7,500
A complaint letter, signed by 288 people from the rural area of Ica was sent to the National Water Authority (ANA), on 28 September 2009, requesting that Resolution 147 be nullified (the letter also requested that another similar Resolution 142 be cancelled). The signers included the Puno Defense Committee; the medium size farmers (10 to 500 hectares); small farmers (less than 5 hectares); rural populations in the districts of Tate, Pachacutec and Santiago; the Mayor of Santiago; the people of Mayuries; the Commission which operates several wells in Pachacutec (CRPP) which has existed for nearly 40 years; and several from the Ica Municipal Drinking Water Authority (EMAPICA), including its technical director.
Since the transmission of the letter to the ANA, three other important groups have joined the complaint against Resolution 147: (1) the Rio Seco Water Committee

representing another 150 farmers in the Villacuri-Lanchas area published its complaint on 30 September 2009 in Correo Ica newspaper; (2) the well water operators in the southern part of the Ica Valley announced their opposition to Resolution 147 on 1 October 2009 and (3) Ica River Water Committee Board of Directors (JUDRI) sent a letter to the ANA on October 10 requesting that resolution 147 be annulled and eliminated. The JUDRI represents 7,000 water users!
In summary, a large cross section of the Province of Ica, some 7,500 people, in the rural areas and cities of Ica, including farmers and residents, are against Agrokasa’s aqueduct project and have expressed their opposition formally to the ANA. Agrokasa, in several disinformation communications, argues falsely that the opposition is concentrated in David Bayer and the two leaders of the Puno Defense Committee.
SUMMARY
These are some final points about why the people of Ica are calling for the repeal of Resolution 147 and the termination of the Agrokasa aqueduct project:
1- It implies that Agrokasa owns the water below Santa Rita, thereby giving it the right to transport it to Catalina. The Water Law declares that the Peruvian State owns the water: there are no private property rights with regard to water. All licenses for using wells specify that the water must be used in the specific farm area where the well is located. Companies like Agrokasa who have pressured the Public Water Authority to change the licenses to allow the transport of water several kilometers, to other agricultural lands, are violating the intent of the Water Law.
2- If the ANA does not nullify Resolution 147, it will loose all its authority with regard to water management in Peru. The story of the battle between Agrokasa and the people of Ica is being circulated throughout the country as well as abroad. The issue of who should control water in Peru, and in Ica concretely, is clearly specified in the Water Law. Up to now the ANA and the Local Water Authority in Ica (ALA-Ica) have not approved Resolution 147 which was issued by the old Ica Water Authority (ATDR-ICA) under the previous water law. But the ANA has declared a freeze on the perforation of all new wells, the changing of the use of water, and prohibited the expansion of water resources for new agricultural lands in Ica and two other coastal valleys (Ica-Veda Acuifero-ANA-Res.No. 0327-2009,15June09). The Agrokasa project is in clear violation of the freeze (Veda).
3- The Resolution 147 states that there is “excess water in the Ica aquifer” near Agrokasa’s four wells. This is a blatantly false statement because (1) it ignores the fact that the Ica overdraft is more than 250 MMC and will collapse the aquifer within six years and (2) it implies that Agrokasa owns the underground water below its wells and is free to move it wherever the company chooses.

4- There is no EIA which might indicate the potential negative, environmental impacts of the project. Like it or not, when an aquifer is in a state of emergency like Ica’s water resources, the EIA must be required. Agrokasa says one is not needed.
5- Disregarding Peruvian law, consultations and approvals for the aqueduct project have not been properly executed or obtained by Agrokasa. Only a small handful of people (5) have approved Agrokasa’s project: the Mayor of Tate but not the city council; and recently, after the 14 September police confrontation in Puno, Agrokasa obtained a secret agreement from the Mayor of Pachacutec without city council approval; the Ica Water Authority employee who signed the 29 December 2008 Resolution 147; and the president and manager of the La Achirana Water Committee without Board or Assembly approval. On the other side, more than 7,500 people in Ica, from a wide cross-section of farmers, rural residents, and drinking water authorities (EMAPICA) strongly oppose the project.
6- The International Finance Corporation (IFC), the financial arm of the World Bank, has refused to finance the Agrokasa project due to three complaints sent to it by Ica’s farmers and the Puno Defense Committee. Moreover, the IFC and World Bank have been informed of the increasing number of people opposed to the project as indicated by the 29 September 2009 complaint sent to the ANA and other groups which joined the resistance after that date, nearly 7,500 in all.

PoR: David Bayer
bayedavid@speedy.com.pe (más…)

Manifiesto Latinoamericano de Hombres contra la Violencia hacia las Mujeres

CIUDADANO
Desde Red Tolerancia y AVESA nos es grato dirigirnos a usted con el fin de invitarlo a unirse a la firma del Manifiesto Latinoamericano de Hombres contra la Violencia hacia las Mujeres, actividad que forma parte del programa de la II Semana Nacional por la Tolerancia, la cual estará dedicada a la lucha contra la violencia hacia la mujer, en el contexto de dos fechas decretadas por la ONU: el Día Internacional por la Tolerancia (16 de Noviembre) y el Día Internacional contra la Violencia hacia la Mujer (25 de Noviembre).

Este manifiesto constituye parte de la campaña que realiza la Organización de Naciones Unidas contra toda forma de violencia y discriminación hacia la mujer. Se conoce como la Campaña del Lazo Blanco (WRC por sus siglas en inglés, White Ribbon Campaign) y es el esfuerzo educacional más grande del mundo de hombres que trabajan para terminar con la violencia en contra de la mujer.

El problema de la violencia contra la mujer, flagelo combatido hoy en día a nivel mundial, constituye la principal amenaza para la convivencia familiar, base de toda sociedad, y es uno de los factores estimulantes de la violencia social y la delincuencia que en estos momentos nos asedia a todos los venezolanos. Esta es la razón por la cual decidimos resaltar esta problemática para colocarla en la agenda social y política de nuestro país y por lo que requerimos de su apoyo en esta cruzada: que suscriba el manifiesto y nos acompañe en una rueda de prensa que se ofrecerá el jueves 30 de noviembre para hacer pública la decisión de los hombres venezolanos de sumarse a esta campaña mundial.

La Red Tolerancia, coordinada por FIEL, está integrada por 18 ONG y cerca de cinco mil venezolanos de distintas ciudades, posiciones políticas, culturales, religiosas y sociales, que propician el respeto por la opinión ajena, el diálogo, la convivencia familiar, comunitaria, social y política.

La Asociación Venezolana para la Educación Sexual Alternativa (AVESA) es una institución que se dedica al estudio e investigación en las áreas relacionadas con la educación sexual, ejercicio sano y responsable de la sexualidad y defensa de la salud y derechos sexuales y reproductivos, violencia sexual y doméstica, y abuso sexual infanto-juvenil.

Para unir su nombre a la publicación de este Manifiesto, le rogamos nos comunique por esta misma vía su aceptación. Agradeciéndoles altamente la atención que se sirvan dispensar a la presente, y seguros de contar con su apoyo, les saludamos.

Mercedes Muñoz
Presidenta de AVESA.

Franklin Guzmán
Presidente de FIEL
Coordinador de la Red Tolerancia.

toleranciapolitica@cantv.net
Edificio San Martín, N.O. 1. Ofic. 112. Parque Central
0212-5764789 -5760548
www.redtolerancia.org

http://www.analitica.com/mujeranalitica/apostillas/3824630.asp

Fuente: clam.org (más…)

V CONCURSO DE MUJERES: VOCES, IMÁGENES Y TESTIMONIOS 2009

25/8/2009

TEMA: Mujeres que luchan por su dignidad, la de otras mujeres o por sus comunidades Historias Que mueven al compromiso y al cambio

El Centro de Comunicación Voces Nuestras y Simas de Nicaragua abren la V convocatoria del Concurso de mujeres: Voces, Imágenes y testimonios 2009. El Concurso es un espacio de interés público que estimula la creatividad y la expresión de las mujeres para que ejerzan el poder de la palabra.

¿Quienes pueden participar? Mujeres centroamericanas de todos los sectores sociales, edades, oficios como: amas de casa, maestras, líderes comunales, obreras, profesionales entre otras.

¿Cuáles son las modalidades para participar?

1. Testimonio escrito personal: Mínimo tres páginas, máximo cinco páginas, presentar el trabajo en letra arial 12, a espacio sencillo.
2. Testimonio escrito colectivo: El testimonio es escrito por varias mujeres que hayan participado en alguna lucha o causa. Se presenta mínimo cinco páginas y máximo siete, en Arial 12 y espacio sencillo.
3. Poesía original: Una página en arial 12, espacio sencillo. Se entrega en forma digital o impresa.
4. Fotografía profesional o aficionada. Enviar una hasta tres fotos como máximo. Pueden ser digitales. Las fotos se presentan impresas en un tamaño 11 x 14 pulgadas, en blanco y negro o a color. En una página aparte se le pone el título y en un párrafo se explica el por qué de la foto.
5. Pintura original alusiva al tema en óleo, acuarela, agua, no importa el tamaño. Adjuntar un párrafo de justificación de por que la pintura.

Cierre de la convocatoria: viernes 30 de octubre a las 6 p.m. En todos los casos se presenta solo un trabajo, en digital o impreso, con título y seudónimo. En una hoja aparte la persona escribe el titulo de su obra, su verdadero nombre, el seudónimo, teléfono, dirección para localizarla en caso de que gane.

¿Quienes son ganadoras?
Un jurado selecciona las 30 mejores historias inspiradas en el tema del Concurso. Se seleccionan las 10 mejores poesías, 10 fotografías y 10 pinturas. Las obras son publicadas en un libro y diez de los testimonios serán adaptados para la producción de una serie de radio. Con el libro y la serie radiofónica se realiza una campaña en 100 medios en Centroamérica.

Más información. Voces Nuestras apartado 1224-1002 San José Costa Rica. Tel (506) 2283-2105/ 2224-8641 concurso@vocesnuestras.org www.vocesnuestras.org

Fuente: generoyambiente.org (más…)

Manu Chao canta al Che en La Habana

Yinett Polanco, Mabel Machado, Kaloian Santos y René Hernández
La Jiribilla

El cantante franco español Manu Chao, invitado por la Asociación Hermanos Saíz, cantó como tributo al Che, ante miles de jóvenes en la escalinata de la Universidad de La Habana. El ex guía del grupo Mano Negra compartió durante 50 minutos con un público que portaba la imagen de Guevara en pullovers y banderas de diferentes países de Latinoamérica.

Al inicio del espectáculo Chao dijo: “ Buenas noches Cuba, es un honor estar contigo”. Durante la presentación, Manu Chao y Mayip, el guitarrista de Radio Bemba Sound System s, compartieron escenario con algunos músicos cubanos como Fernando Bécquer, Diana Fuentes, Toni Ávila, Adrián Berazaín y Kelvis Ochoa. Junto a este último interpretó “Volando voy” y “Desaparecido”, los temas finales del concierto.

Chao, que hace solo tres años ofreció un concierto en la Tribuna Antimperialista, ha mostrado una fuerte identificación con Cuba. Entre un tema y otro del recital, exclamó varias veces “Habana, te quiero” y, luego de la presentación, declaró a los periodistas que volverá a la Isla “en cuanto pueda, con toda la banda”.
En una entrevista para La Jiribilla, durante ese viaje a La Habana, el artista reveló el significado que tiene Cuba para su vida y su profesión: “ La cultura cubana me llegó a casa a través de mi padre cuando yo era pequeñito. Había muchos discos de música cubana en casa. Bola de Nieve era el que más nos gustaba en aquella época, era nuestro ídolo. Conocíamos todas sus canciones. Recuerdo que de toda la pila de discos de mi padre siempre elegíamos el de Bola para escucharlo. Empecé a nutrirme de la cultura cubana desde la infancia, sin entender mucho todavía lo que era Cuba, ni Francia, ni España”.

Y agregó: “Desgraciadamente vivo en un mundo en el que hay muchas cosas que no funcionan, en el que hay mucha injusticia y mucha corrupción (…) siento más la necesidad de descargar mi rabia cuando veo algo que no me gusta. Ahí es cuando necesito de esa catarsis que es hacer una canción.”

El repertorio escogido por Manu Chao para su actuación en la Escalinata comprendió los éxitos “Bienvenida a Tijuana” y “Clandestino”. Al introducir la canción “Alas rotas” afirmó que la dedicaba “a todos los enemigos del pueblo cubano”.
Durante el concierto, artistas de la plástica —entre ellos el polaco Jacek Wozniak y los cubanos Javier Guerra y Carlos Guzmán— realizaron detrás del escenario un álbum mural dedicado al Che.

El lunes próximo el cantante repetirá su presentación en Santa Clara, ciudad en la cual reposan los restos del Guerrillero Heroico, quien encabezara allí una de las batallas decisivas para el triunfo revolucionario de 1959. Manu Chao actuará en el estadio Augusto César Sandino, acompañado del grupo cubano Trovuntivitis.

Desde pequeño, el vínculo con nuestro país tiene un antecedente directo en su padre Ramón Chao, y el apoyo brindado por este a la Revolución Cubana. En ese encuentro memorable con los cubanos en el 2006, Manu dijo a La Jiribilla : “sueño con miles de pequeñas revoluciones en los vecindarios”. Esta vez, en el aniversario 42 de la desaparición física del guerrillero, Manu nos recuerda que el Che “sigue siendo un personaje emblemático de la izquierda mundial”.

Cobertura especial: Yinett Polanco, Mabel Machado, Kaloian Santos y René Hernández.

http://www.lajiribilla.cu/2009/n440_10/440_43.html

Por rebelión.org (más…)

ANSWER TO JOSE CHLIMPER WITH REGARD TO THE MEETING IN THE CASERIO DE PUNO

ANSWER TO JOSE CHLIMPER WITH REGARD TO THE MEETING IN THE CASERIO DE PUNO, THE 25TH OF AGUST 2009
Jose Chlimper Board President Agrokasa, Ica

Dear Pepe:
I viewed the DVD of the meeting you had with the small farmers in the Caserio of Puno and the Puno Defense Committee for Water Rights on August 25, 2009. As you know, I am an advisor to the Committee. Agrokasa called this meeting from one day to the next, without the courtesy of any advance notice.
I would like this to be a positive communication, without sacrificing any of the principles which the people in Puno are fighting for. I believe that we may be able to resolve the problem which your Water Transfer Project poses for the people and prevent any violent conflict which might take place if you seek to impose the Project without full consultations with all of the actors in the Project zone and their approval.
The first things we need to clarify are the false statements which you made about my person at the August 25 meetings where I was not present. Here are some of the clarifications:
1-David Bayer made false statements about Agrokasa’s labor practices in the project protest letters sent to the IFC/World Bank.
If you read the two protest letters sent, mine and the one by Sra. Dominga and Sr. Ramon, you will see that my letter does not contain any statement about your labor practices but sticks to the issue of water problems. In fact, I have recognized publicly that Agrokasa has some of the best labor management practices and is a leader in this area. I criticized Dominga and Ramon for including the labor practices part in their protest. However, it is true that both protest letters were circulated to a larger Ica audience since the main issue is the public problem of water rights and aquifer collapse.
2- The above answers your false statement that David Bayer drafted both protest letters.
I drafted my letter and only my letter.
3- David Bayer is against Agrokasa because the company refused to donate funds to the Radio “La Achirana”.
This is an absurd statement. When I worked for USAID and the Radio was inaugurated in the 1990s, I was the “padrino” of the Radio. I do not recall ever asking you or Agrokasa for any donations. It is possible that someone else working with Radio “La Achirana” may have made such a request.

What is worse about this false statement by you during the August 25 meeting is that it belittles my work and role as a civil society advocate for water rights.
4- The data in the Water Overdraft Aquifer Table produced by Bayer is false.
The only false data was that produced by the World Bank study in November 2008 where the overdraft is estimated at 64 MMC yearly. We know that the real overdraft is nearly four times that amount, near 250 MMC. The real question is: why was there such a deliberate, large underestimate?
The argument by you, at the meeting, that one needs to be a water engineer in order to produce these tables and talk about water issues is not only spurious but reflects an attitude designed to reduce the participation of the larger population in decisions which are vital to their lives. It so happens that I have been dealing with agricultural and environmental issues as early as 1980, almost 20 years before you got into the agricultural business. Moreover I have a unique comparative perspective (U.S. and Peruvian agriculture) which gives me some historical insights that you do not have. I have worked as a farm advisor in California and lived on farms in Peru.
Up until now, no one has raised any issue with the Water Overdraft Aquifer Table. That does not mean that everything in the Table is perfect. But the estimates must be fairly close to the real situation at this point in time. The Table was carefully drafted over several months, after collecting information, from several sources, primarily from engineers who have been working on these issues for years. What is interesting is that no engineer has presented publicly a Water Overdraft Aquifer Table like mine which attempts to predict in how many years the aquifer will be dry unless we change the structure of production and water management practices. It has built into it, the flexibility to use different assumptions with regard to overdraft and the amount of water reserves which may be available.
Due to the fact that the structure of domination in Peru does not permit public functionaries or private engineers to be honest (the case of the “deliberate overdraft underestimate” is but one proof of this reality), I need to protect my sources. Moreover, if you or other agro-exporters have studies which contain different estimates, then they should be shared with the public. In general, it has been the practice of the agro-exporters in the Ica Valley to carefully “hide” or reduce public access to the water study documents and those related to water concessions or resolutions emitted by public water authorities. This apparently was the case with regard to Resolution 147 (28 December 2008) favoring Agrokasa in implementing its Water Transfer Project. All of this is against Peru’s transparency law. This is precisely why I work to bring these public issues to the people and to make sure that they have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
The key people who began raising questions as early as 2000 about the water overdraft in Ica; the need to eliminate asparagus and substitute new, less water-intensive crops; the need to trap the millions of cubic meters of water which are lost

to the Pacific Ocean; and the need to recharge the aquifer through flood irrigation and the use of reservoirs have been none other than Alejandro Pavez, David Johnson and David Bayer. We were several years ahead of the Ica engineers and our publications prove it. I plan to continue to work in this area and hope to work with you and all the key actors despite the fact that some growers do not like it.
Let me make some more comments about the August 25 meeting in the Caserio de Puno and other activities which Agrokasa is implementing to get approval for the Water Transfer Project . It is not appropriate to blame the Puno Defense Committee for the Ica Valley water problems or for preventing the implementation of your Water Transfer Project. The Committee should not be blamed for the possible loss jobs. This tactic of pitting small farmer against small farmer and community member against community member is not only inappropriate but dangerous. It is not a good idea for Agrokasa to seek out signatures from its workforce to support the Water Transfer Project . Many of these workers are not residents in the potentially impacted area. This is a “manipulative” practice whereby Agrokasa is “forcing” a captive audience to sign its petitions. This is unbecoming of the generally excellent labor force management practices which have been the hallmark of Agrokasa’s farm operations.
As you know by now, I have insisted that Resolution 147, which the Ica Water Administrator issued to approve your Water Transfer Project , be declared NULL AND VOID. These are the reasons:
1- The ANA (National Water Authority) must demonstrate that water resources are not private but public property. No company is owner of the underground or above ground water resources. Your project implies that Agrokasa owns the water resources.
2- The ANA needs to establish its authority in this area or it will fail in its national goals.
3- The 147 Resolution contains the false statement that the Ica valley has excess underground water resources.
4- The 147 Resolution is incomplete and can be said to “hide” important information which the small farmers and people have a right to know. It does not name the water canals in the Achirana Irrigation Committee which will be used to house the Agrokasa “24 inch” aqueducts as water is moved from Santa Rita to La Catalina.
5- The Resolution does not spell out in its document that Agrokasa plans to move water across four (4) municipal districts: Santiago; Pueblo Nuevo; Tate; and Pachacutec. The Resolution 147 hides these facts and is a “partial”, inaccurate report.

6- All of the above leads to the most serious charge: the Resolution 147 ignores the ILO 169 Agreement (Convenio OIT-169) which calls for “consultations” and “approvals” previous to the implementation of any project which will possibly impact a large population. In effect the following instances have not been consulted or given their approval for the Water Transfer Project:
6.1- the Board of Directors of the Achirana-Santiago de Chocorvos Irrigation Committee.
6.2- the Irrigation Committee “General Assembly”.
6.3- the Mayors from the four (4) districts and their City councils.
6.4- the population in these four districts.
We have learned from the Bagua. 5 June 2009, experience that the lack of consultation and approval under the ILO 169 Agreement can lead to an explosive, violent situation. You heard very clearly from the Puno Defense Committee that they have stated their opposition on four different dates. One person explained that they have farmed in the area for five generations and another said that they are seeking DIGNITY (something as basic as running water and sewage…a toilet). We know that practically 100 percent of this rural population in the Ica valley gets potable water for one hour on some days and often has to wait two or more days for water. In the larger cities of Ica, Parcona and La Tinguina, the potable water supplies are decreasing and scarcity is a reality.
It is my contention that we need a Water Management Committee in Ica (Mesa Tecnica de Gestion del Agua de Ica =MEGAI) which brings together the four Irrigation Committees (Juntas: el Rio; La Achirana; Subterranean Water Junta in the Valley; and the Subterranean Water Junta in Villacuri) plus EMAPICA, the potable water company of Ica. It will need the participation of civil society groups and volunteers. We need discuss issues and present educational programs to the people in the MEGAI meetings. We need to reach consensus.
If you could present and defend your Water Transfer Project before the MEGAI,
then that would be much more positive than the current situation. We might find that several companies should implement the same strategy and all would be better off.
I would like to cite some of the positive parts of your presentation at the August 25 meeting and recommend some possible solutions to this problem. These are the positive things which you stated:
1-You have promised to use 1 percent less water each year. I am not sure what that means. Many it could be more than 1 percent. But it is a positive step.
4
2-You do not see the Ingahuasi Canal as a solution to Ica’s water problems. You know that I am working on this sensitive issue with the Ica and Huancavelica delegations. It is not easy and often frustrating for all parties.
3- You plan to establish 7 “lakes” in Santa Rita to recharge the aquifer. I have been promoting the idea of inundating the larger, agro-export, farms when there is an abundance of water. Almost 10,000 hectares (half the land in the old Valley) has not been flooded for nearly eight years.
4- You plan to replace 73 hectares of asparagus with grapes.
5- You have offered to establish a “Vigilance Committee” whose members may come from the “impacted” communities to oversee the Water Transfer Project .
For many people, Pepe, you are a leader. And my hope is that you lead in the right direction towards sustainable agricultural development. Many do not understand that I have the greatest respect for farmers, both small and large. Their business involves more risk than all others and is the most important since farmers produce the food we need to survive.
I would like you to widen your perspective and plan to promote an Agriculture Extension Program in the Valley of Ica which would promote fruits and nuts and other crops which use much less water. The water you pump could be shared with small farmers as it was in the past, before land reform, when small farmers purchased water from those who had wells. This Extension Program would aim to incorporate the small farmers into the export business by teaching them to “dry” their fruit. I am sure that you and the small farmers could enter into a “win-win” situation where all growers would earn more, have a more stable enterprise and open up the existing system, eliminating its exclusion of small producers. And , finally, move the Valley towards certified organic crops which would be the basis of Peru’s agricultural take-off.
I hope this clarifies what my role and goals are and why I advise the Puno Defense Committee.
Sincerely,
David Bayer
P.O. Box 139
Ica, Peru
bayedavid@speedy.com.pe
51-56-256036
11 September 2009
5 (más…)

AGROKASA IMPONE ACUEDUCTOS EN CASERIO de PUNO Ica

AGROKASA IMPONE ACUEDUCTOS EN CASERIO de PUNO con Fuerza Policial : 14 SET 2009 -Voz de Ica y Carta // Banco Mundial -IFC No FINANCIA EL PROYECTO: Nueva Informacion

Colegas de CODEHICA y CASA de Salud:

Necesitamos mas estudiantes y gente para organizar en el campo de Ica. Pongase en contacto conmigo , por favor: tel : 256036. Esto es su oportunidad de hacer “incidencia”.

Por favor ver los adjuntos y sigue circulando este correo.

En caso que no han captado lo que esta pasando: todo el campo de Ica esta a punto de sublevarse en la medida que averiguan que los seis grandes agro-exportadores estan acabando con el acuifero de Ica, y , en el caso de Agrokasa, van seguir el plan con los acueductos.

Tenemos cerca mil firmas para formar una MESA TECNICA DE GESTION DEL AGUA DE ICA (MEGAI) y solamente hemos salido 2 veces en el campo. El MEGAI pondria orden en el uso del agua y plantear alternativas reales para salvarnos del desastre que viene: VALLE SECA.

Hipotesis Bayer: Grandes empresas eliminan a los pequenos agricultores, dominando el agua. Una vez que seca el Valle de Ica, los precios de la tierra van a caer. Los grandes empresas tienen otros negocios. Pueden esperar hasta que recupera el acuifero, mientras van comprando las tierras de los pequenos y los medianos y sus pozos, porque ellos en su desesperacion , no tiene otra alternativa que vender. Por eso, los seis mas grandes NO ESTAN TAN PREOCUPADOS SI EL ACUIFERO DE ICA, SE SECA.

Les mando el informe de lo que ocurrio en el Caserio de Puno, lunes , el 14 setiembre 2009. Tambien ver las fotos ajuntos y una carta a Chlimper que le mande el 11setiempre 2009 antes de emprender la accion el 14 que esta destruyendo el imagen de Agrokasa. Adjunto una carta de Agrokasa atacando mi persona y mi respuesta.

AGROKASA IMPONE SU VOLUNTAD EN DESPRECIO DE TODO ICA

AGROKASA IMPUSO SU VOLUNTAD PARA INSTALAR LOS DOS ACUEDUCTOS de 16 y 14 pulgadas, cada uno, para transportar el agua subterranea de su Fundo Santa Rita, en el Distrito de Santiago a la Catalina en el Distrito de Pachacutec, cruzando 4 distritos (Santiago, Pueblo Nuevo, Tate, Pachacutec) en un recorrido de cerca de 20 kilometros.

Los pequeños agricultores del Caserio de Puno y tambien los medianos agricultores estan en contra este proyecto y las gentes de los otros tres distritos NO HAN SIDO CONSULTADOS O INFORMADOS. NO HAN APROBADO ESTE PROYECTO SEGUN EL CONVENIO OIT-169, la Ley de Municipalidades y la Constitucion del Peru.

POR ESO AGROKASA TENIA QUE USAR LAS FUERZAS POLICIALES EN CONTRA EL PUEBLO PARA IMPONER ESTE PROYECTO. Gano una batalla pero esta en camino a perder la guerra.

Hay seis razones porque la Resolucion 147, entregado por el ATDR- ICA a favor de Agrokasa el 29 de diciembre de 2008, durante las vacaciones de los funcionarios publicos, es un documento ilegal que debe ser anulado:

1- El agua no es de la propiedad privada de nadie o de ninguna empresa. Al aprobar la resolucion, el ATDR-Ica entrego a Agrokasa la propiedad del agua subterranea. NADIE ES DUEÑO DEL AGUA DEL SUBSUELO porque pertenece al Estado Peruano! La licencia de operacion de un pozo es para una zona concreta y especifica. No es para transportar el agua en acueductos, cruzando 4 distritos, de una chacra a otro.

2- Si la ANA y la ALA-Ica no anula la resolucion, no van a tener ninguna autoridad sobre el agua. Hasta ahora la ANA y la ALA-Ica no han aprobado o avalado la resolucion 147 y han indicado verbalmente que no procede debido a “Ica-Veda Acuifero-ANA-Res.No. 0327-2009 (15jun09) Peruano 16jun09. La Veda contra la apertura de nuevos pozos, se aplica tambien al intento de transportar agua de una zona a otra porque es lo mismo como se fuera abriendo un nuevo pozo.

3- La Resolucion 147 dice que hay un “excedente de agua” . No hay ningun excedente de agua en el Valle de Ica. La sobre-explotacion del acuifero supera unos 250 MMC anualmente. Entonces la Resolucion 147 contiene una declaracion falsa.

4- No menciona que los acueductos van cruzar cuatro (4) distritos: Santiago; Pueblo Nuevo; Tate; y Pachacutec. La resolucion 147 esconde los hechos y es basado en un informe parcial.

5- No hay ningun Estudio del Impacto Ambiental (EIA) que es mandatorio cuando tiene un acuifero en emergencia que es el caso de Ica.

6- No hay consulta previa y aprobacion segun el Convenio de OIT-169. No han consultado con:

1- la Directiva de la Junta de Usuarios del Subdistrito de Riego “La Achirana-Santiago de Chocorvos”.

2- la Asamblea de esta Junta.

3- los Alcaldes de los cuatro (4) distritos y los Consejos de estos distritos.

4- la Junta de Regantes del Rio de Ica y su Asemblea.

5- la poblacion en los 4 distritos.

Por todas estas razones, la Resolucion 147 es ilegal y el proyecto de acueductos que esta imponiendo Agrokasa “a la fuerza” es una imposicion contra los derechos de agua de todo el pueblo Iqueno, agricultores y la gente de la ciudades.

Por eso el pueblo de Ica entrego una carta a la ANA (ver adjunto) el 29 de setiembre. Esta carta ha sido firmada y respaldada por cerca de 300 firmas de personas que representan las empresas agrícolas en el Valle de Ica; el Alcalde de Santiago; los distritos rurales del Valle preocupados por el agua potable; el Comité de Defensa del Caserio de Puno y otros pequeños agricultores del Distrito de Tate; la Comisión de Regantes de los Pozos de Pachacutec (más de 40 anos de existencia); los otros pozos en el Valle; la Empresa Municipal de Agua Potable de Ica (EMAPICA); el Caserio de Mayuries; y los pequeños agricultores. Todas estas personas tienen algo en común: su preocupación para el acuífero de Ica y la necesidad de tomar las decisiones relacionadas a cualquier proyecto o pozo en forma consensuadas. Quieren que la ANA derogue y anule las Resoluciones 147 y 142.

Pero no termino alli. La resistencia contra el proyecto de acueductos de Agrokasa sigue en crecimiento:

1-El 30 de setiembre la Junta del Distrito de Riego de Rio Seco reforzo el movimiento de todos los agricultores del Valle de Ica y los pobladores de los distritos rurales en contra las Resoluciones Administrativas No. 147-2008-GORE-DRAG-I/ATDRI a favor de Agrokasa y No. 142-2008-GORE-DRAG-I/ATDRI a favor de IQF, las dos emitidas el 29 de diciembre de 2008, publicando un Pronunciamiento en el Correo-Ica que pidio que no se debe permitir ningun cambio en el uso de las aguas en el Valle de Ica.

2-El primero de Octubre unos 30 operadores de pozos del sur de Ica, reunidos en el auditorio de la Alcaldia de Santiago, firmaron un acuerdo que pidio la derogatoria de las Resoluciones 147 y 142.

3- La Junta de Usuarios del Rio Ica (JUDRI) que representa 7,000 regantes acaba de mandar una carta a la ANA pidiendo la anulacion de las resoluciones 147 y 142.

La gente quiere que la ANA derogue y anula las Resoluciones 147 y142.

David Bayer
P.O. BOX 139, Ica, Peru
Tel: 51-56-256036

________________________________________________________________________________________

Banco Mundial y IFC (brazo financiera) NO QUIERE FINANCIAR EL PROYECTO DE AGROKASA:

—– Original Message —–
From: Clara Ugarte Perrin
To: David Bayer
Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:47 PM
Subject: Re: AGROKASA USES POLICE FORCE TO IMPOSE AQUEDUCT PROJECT ON CASERIO PUNO,ICA,PERU

Dear Mr. Bayer:

Thank you for your inquiry. IFC has not financed the Aqueduct project in Ica.

Regards,
Clara
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Clara U. Perrin
Communications Officer, LAC
IFC Advisory Services in Latin America and the Caribbean
Av. Álvarez Calderón 185, Piso 2 – San Isidro – Lima, Perú
Tel: + 511- 611-2501 Fax: + 511- 611-2525 Cell: + 511- 9350-3876
E-mail: Cugarteperrin@ifc.org Web: www.ifc.org/lac

IFC is a member of the World Bank Group

Reduce your environmental footprint. Print only if necessary.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Chlimper and Agrokasa han amenazado con el uso de la violencia en el pasado:

Empresarios armados frente a sindicalistas malnacidos

Raúl Wiener, 29 Noviembre 2007, La Primera

El día de ayer, el presidente de Agrokasa, una de las agroindustrias más exitosas de Ica, ex ministro de agricultura de Fujimori, fallido integrante del directorio de FORSUR, miembro del directorio del BCR que no hace nada ante la pérdida de reservas por la depreciación del dólar, integrante del grupo de empresarios que almuerza e influye en Alan García, ofreció ante las cámaras de televisión dos sinónimos para el perro del hortelano: sindicalistas y malnacidos.

Se refería al sindicato de estibadores del puerto del Callao, aquellos afiliados a la CTP aprista del señor Grijalva que quiso marchar, con permiso del gobierno, en contra de la marcha de la CGTP y las organizaciones sociales y políticas opositoras, y fracasó estrepitosamente, pero que ahora está, aunque le pese, al frente de la huelga más desestabilizadora que puede haber para el modelo económico que promueve Alan García.

Por eso Chlimper les ha declarado la guerra, no en sentido figurado, sino directo: “Yo personalmente me ofrezco. Yo, como Pepe Chlimper, no como miembro del directorio del BCR, con mis armas y con licencia de Dicscamec, voy a retomar el puerto hoy. Si la Marina no puede tomarlo, yo lo voy a tomar. Prefiero morir y recibir las balas allí. Invito a todos los empresarios a tomar acción mañana (hoy) a las 18.00 horas”

¿Había escuchado alguna vez algo como esto? Seguro que no, porque no se decían cosas como estas desde la década del 20 o 30, y no en el Perú, sino en Italia y Alemania. Pero lo más interesante es que son dichas en nombre del presidente. Con los dos artículos del “perro del hortelano”, García nos ha convocado a la acción y el otro día en CONFIEP nos dijo que no tuviéramos miedo, dijo Chimpler ante un Althaus más atontado que de costumbre.

Pero, señor Chlimper… claro, tiene razón, pero…

Empresarios armados en defensa de su carga, para acabar con sindicalistas malnacidos ante la inacción del Estado que no es capaz de recuperar el puerto y de cumplir la ley autoritaria que prohibía parar los servicios portuarios por demandas laborales y la disposición del ministerio de Trabajo que declara ilegal la huelga, como a todas las huelgas, muestra que no sólo en Bolivia, Venezuela o Ecuador nos estamos jugando la democracia.

Finalmente todos dicen que los reclamos de los estibadores son justos puesto que en pleno boom de las exportaciones sus remuneraciones –como las de todos los trabajadores peruanos-, andan totalmente rezagadas. Tienen razón, pero las alternativas son que intervenga a sangre y fuego la marina, o que lo hagan directamente los empresarios armados encabezados por Alan García

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Enviado por Mr. David Bayer. (más…)