Riverside Meetings

The Riverside Meetings take place every 3 weeks at river–sides, in bars, or during excursions to river landscapes. Participants of the meetings discuss and gain a deeper understanding of selected key literature related to conceptual and methodological topics relevant to the River Commons and Riverhood projects; learn about relevant historic and ongoing scholarly debates, with special attention to disruptive theorization (beyond mainstream); get familiar with water management approaches in the Netherlands and other countries; learn from multi-stakeholder/grassroots movements about co-learning practices and processes. The meetings are meant to provide PhD candidates with literature, knowledge, thoughts, and questions that are helpful and enriching for their individual research projects. 

Overall reflection on the Riverside Meetings

After all of the Riverside Meetings, the PhDs prepared a general reflection relating the readings and discussions with each other, and their proposals. As an example of these reflections, we present below the one elaborated by the Riverhood PhD candidate Carolina Cuevas.

_____________________

Riverside Meeting: “The subversive politics of sentient landscapes”

Date: February 17, 2022

Engaging with what has been considered the “ontological turn” in social sciences, the three articles discussed during this Riverside meeting, allowed me to pose compelling questions regarding the “River as subject” ontology that is part of the conceptual scaffold of the Riverhood project. The question on sentient landscapes’ capacities to “sense, feel and act upon people” (Bacigalupo, 2021, p.176) challenges modern-colonial Western understandings of personhood and moral value and agency, and enables the possibility of mountains, rivers and other non-human riverine beings to become relevant and collaborative actors in contemporary political struggles. However, as Bacigalupo herself argues, examining closely how landscapes such as mountains (apus for the poor mestizos of the valleys of La Libertad) acquire moral agency for certain communities from either a radical ontology approach (that claims that sentient landscapes inhabit a radically different world that is incommensurable with modern socio-political domains) or a political ecology approach (that seeks to unravel the power relations embedded in socio- environmental struggles) is insufficient to understand how mountains (or, in our case, rivers) become moral agents for socio-environmental justice. Tracing how apus are incorporated into environmental movements beyond a merely rhetorical device required for the author to highlight the “practical dimensions of moral reasoning” (Bacigalup, 2021, p.182) and to document what kind of relationship people maintain not only with the actual apus, but with other people, plants, animals, and rocks that compose the territory. This is very relevant for my own research project, given that I will engage with the practical and material dimensions of caring socio-environmental relations, which also pertain environmental ethics and morality.

In a similar vein, the question of divergent relations to the landscape appear as central to Paredes & Li (2019), who explore people’s engagement with the Mamacocha lagoon in the midst of a severe conflict with mining companies. Their approach is relevant for my project as they also highlight the centrality of world-making practices in trying to understand people’s relationship with water, as practices are context-specific, contested, fluid, and even ambiguous. Their interest in practices makes evident how it is necessary to attend to the materiality of these relations and how they are transformed by the material and discursive irruption of the mine. In the case of my own research, examining why people consider important to care for a river —and the underlying different ontologies of practices of care— will hopefully reveal complex relationalities that, just as Paredes and Li (2019) argue, may challenge the dominant human/non-human distinctions of modern politics. Complementing the more “ontological” approach of this two readings, the paper

“Cultural politics and the hydrosocial cycle” (Boelens, 2014), argues for a political ecology approach that critically examines the conceptual, cultural and political frameworks that seek to stabilize both humans and non-humans in a dominant “water order”. Such water order is always a material-discursive dynamic constellation of ideas, rules, practices, infrastructures, and crucially “water-truths”, that are mobilized to naturalize and depoliticize the socio-ecological “natural” order framing it as self-evident and unquestionable. Bringing into the discussion the truth- knowledge-power conceptual triangle to unravel the water-worlds and relational ontologies I will encounter along my research is crucial to analyze how caring relations are embedded in contested water-power-knowledge hierarchical regimes.

Readings:

Bacigalupo, Ana Mariella. (2021). “Subversive Cosmopolitics in the Anthropocene: On Sentient Landscapes and the Ethical Imperative in Northern Peru”. Published in Climate Politics and t he Power of Religion. Ed. Evan Berry. Indiana University Press.

Boelens, R. (2014) “Cultural politics and the hydrosocial cycle: Water, power and identity in the Andean highlands”. Geoforum 57 (2014) 234–247

Paredes Peñafiel, P. & Li, F. (2019) “Nourishing Relations: Controversy over the Conga Mining Project in Northern Peru”, Ethnos, 84:2, 301-322

_____________________

Riverside Meeting: “Future Imaginaries on rivers”
Date: March 16, 2022

Continuing with the discussion on the material-discursive co-production of place, this Riverside meeting highlighted the role of (future) imaginaries in shaping people’s subjectivities and relations to place, specifically in the context of extractivism and climate change. Foregrounding the importance of studying “futures” —be them probable, possible, preferable, present or alternative— (Marien, 2009), this session invited us to think carefully on the temporal and imaginary dimension of rivers. Using the concept of temporal enclosures to analyze how mining companies “transmit images about the future that favour mining” (p.12), Jaramillo and Carmona (2022) scrutinize the complex ways through which dominant imaginaries are deployed and materially inscribed as an attempt to control the narratives of the future of a given place. Such an attempt to control and govern the future, and even intervene in “the ontology of time itself” (p.12) —presenting it as linear, fixed and inevitable— is a crucial aspect of extractivism, and it involves a set of intertwined knowledge-production processes such as modelling, risk-management, and calculation. According to the authors, controlling the expert discourse that seems to “factually” support a favorable scenario, the extractive industries may even deploy participatory tools and social mapping to justify the “participatory futures” they are able to promise and achieve. Emphasizing two crucial component for my own research project, the authors point out 1) the role of expert knowledge and the manyfold knowledge production practices regarding hydrology, ecology, geology, that converge in the attempts to legitimize the promised future-scenario that the mining project entails, and 2) the role of future-oriented affects that are also involved in how people respond to the both the hopeful promises and the uncertainties of a major socio-environmental transformation.

Attending to the ways through which those in power attempt to foreclose imaginable alternative river-futures is necessary to also trace how “other imaginaries” resist —materially and discursively— to those attempts. Situating their argument in how imaginaries are mobilized, contested and resisted in the current climate crisis, Davoudi and Machen (2021), argue for a co- productionist approach to climate imaginaries. This approach understands the discursive-symbolic and material aspects of imaginaries in a continuous process of co-production, and thus highlights the importance of ideas, stories, and metaphors, as well as infrastructures, technology, tools, and other “material” elements. Because imaginaries have been primarily understood as symbolic, the authors foreground the role of the material “within the production and circulation of climate imaginaries by employing the concept of ‘medium’ , which we understand as an ensemble of material, infrastructural, discursive, and practice-based influences.” (Davoudi and Machen, 2021, p.4). From this mediation-oriented understanding of imaginary (extrapolated to the contested river-imaginaries we are examining in the Riverhood project), I found many connections to the concept of hydrosocial territories (Boelens et al., 2016), specially in their acute attention to the contested socio-technical practices that materially make and discursively make-sense of a territory’s space-temporalities.

Readings:

Davoudi, S., & Machen, R. (2021). “Climate imaginaries and the mattering of the medium”. Geoforum, 137, 203-212

Jaramillo, P., & Carmona, S. (2022). “Temporal enclosures and the social production of inescapable futures for coal mining in Colombia”. Geoforum, 130, 11-22.

Marien, M. (2010). “Futures-thinking and identity: Why “Futures Studies” is not a field, discipline, or discourse: a response to Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘the namesake’”. Futures, 42(3), 190-194.

_____________________

Riverside Meeting: “Water, infrastructure, power”

Date: June 2, 2022

Riverside Meeting: “Counter-cartographies”

Date: June 30, 2022

When approaching rivers as socio-natural assemblages composed of techno-social and bio- physical dynamic interactions, it is crucial to consider the role of technologies and the ways they shape (and are shaped by) multiple visions and modes of life. Considering technology as simultaneously material, social and symbolic (and not merely a material object void of social meaning) allows us to pay attention to how it provides structure and meaning to human life through specific socio-political visions that are woven into it (Pfaffenberger, 1988). This means that technology is never politically neutral and, on the contrary, as it becomes part of daily life, it tends to “harden” and hide the social processes and choices through which it acquired —and continues to reproduce— a dominant set of uses, social relations, exclusions, and meanings. According to Pfaffenberger, the task of an anthropology of technology would be to unveil these processes and to critically examine what are the effects of certain technologies in a given society or community, specially since successful technologies become mystified and naturalized black boxes that “render invisible the social relations from which [they] arise and in which any technology is vitally embedded.” (Pfaffenberger, p. 242).

One of the most revealing examples of how technology operates as a set of “hardened” social relations and meanings is hydraulic infrastructure. Analyzing the case of Israel’s attempt to transform water infrastructure in Golan Heights as a means to exert colonial domination, appropriation of land, and the subordination of Indigenous people, Dajani & Mason (2018) offer an illustration of how people respond to a dominant hydrosocial order that relies heavily on infrastructure. According to these authors, “the configuration of hydrosocial domination is enacted by state appropriation of land and water resources, providing settlers with continuous, subsidised and connected water infrastructure, whilst systematically denying equal water access to the non- settler indigenous population” (Dajani & Mason, p.132). Such complex processes of domination, inequality and exclusion are embedded in the artificial lakes, dams, and reservoirs that are being built across the occupied territories. Yet, the authors impel us to also consider how alternative hydrosocial realities are also being built and sustained through counter-infrastructures even if more precarious and even residual (Dajani & Mason, 2018). This attention to what remains and resists despite (settler-colonial) socio-environmental transformations and processes of exclusion can support us in our efforts to understand how rivers are crucial sites for power disputes that involve water flows, infrastructures, and social, ideological and symbolic contestation.

Just as water infrastructure, the role of cartography and mapping techniques should be equally examined, as maps also operate as artifacts that may reproduce or challenge dominant social orders. Acting as a sort of technology that produces, conceptualizes and organizes space, maps are not neutral nor “simple representations of a supposedly legible reality” (Oslender, 2021, p.2). On the contrary, maps are the result of a series of ideological choices, life-experiences, and ways of relating to the world, that usually appear hidden in the “final” output. According to Oslender (2021), as a key component of euro-centric colonial enterprises, maps have been a central tool in the colonization of our cartographic and geographical imaginations. As social scientists interested in researching rivers, we are interested in understanding how people produce and experience riverine spaces across scales and layers that extend from the everyday life, participant’s identities and embodied experiences to wider structural oppressions (Gieseking, 2013). And for this, mapping turns out to be a very promising method. However, as provoked by these readings, our research should also take into consideration how maps are used to (re)produce hegemonic representations of space and time, occluding the many alternative possibilities of representation that may emerge from people’s imaginations and memories. In this sense, Oslender (2021) encourages us to acknowledge the long-standing existence of riverine “cartographies otherwise”, as well as the more contemporary efforts to imagine emancipatory counter- cartographies (that may present us with a fluid bottom-up “informational chaos of rivers, mountains, resources, animals, peoples, and cultures” [Oslender, p.4]).

Readings:

Dajani, M. & Mason, M. (2018). “Counter-infrastructure as resistance in the hydrosocial territory of the occupied Golan Heights”. In: Menga, F. & Swyngedouw, E. (eds) Water, Technology and the Nation-State. Routledge

Gieseking, J.J. (2013). “Where We Go From Here: The Mental Sketch Mapping Method and Its Analytic Components”. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9) 712– 724

Oslender, O. (2021). “Decolonizing cartography and ontological conflict: Counter-mapping in Colombia and “cartographies otherwise”. Political Geography 89: 102444

Pfaffenberger, B. (1988). “Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of Technology”. Man, 23(2), 236–252.

By Carolina Cuevas  | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

Fundación Alma’s work over Magdalena River – Lecture by Juan Carlos Gutiérrez

18 November 2022 | Gaia WUR, Wageningen

On November 18, 2022, Juan Carlos Gutiérrez, who is an anthropologist, researcher, and director of Fundación Alma (Colombia), presented the themes of research work on artisanal fishing of this foundation. Also, he described the processes carried out by him and his team to strengthen the governance of the Magdalena River from methodologies based on Participatory Action Research (PAR) with artisanal fisher communities and social organizations. Gutiérrez discussed the biocultural systems of artisanal fisheries in the Magdalena River, its aquatic ecosystems, and wetlands.

Fundación Alma is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that conducts interdisciplinary research from the social and natural sciences with the intention of making political intervention in the Magdalena River. Simultaneous and interrelated objectives motivate the research, and the social and political agenda of the foundation: 1) the restoration of riparian forests, floodplains, and uplands of the river from artisanal fishing and agroecological projects such as productive gardens and seed conservation; 2) the construction and strengthening of productive practices complementary to artisanal fishing from sustainable agriculture; and 3) the promotion of political advocacy and governance of the river from the recognition of artisanal fishing as an immaterial heritage of Colombia. These objectives have been transformed and consolidated in the Special Safeguard Plan (PES, by its acronym in Spanish).

The main objective of the PES is to support the historical struggles of fisher communities and their hydrosocial territory based on the recognition of the fisher communities as cultural subjects with political rights. Fundación Alma is articulated with different local, national, and international actors to achieve this political recognition at the national level. This implies the recognition of the symbolic, material, social and political relationships of fisher communities with the Magdalena River (Boelens et al, 2021). From the vindication of the amphibian culture and the existence of water’s people (los pueblos del agua), Fundación Alma seeks that Colombia heals and settles the historical debts with fisher communities. It is important to mention that on December 6, 2022, artisanal fishing on the Magdalena River was declared immaterial heritage of Colombia by the National Council of Cultural Heritage.

Gutiérrez also discussed that the process of fishing patrimonialization and the recognition of the fishers as political subjects has been carried out jointly with the participatory analysis of social cartography and the understanding of the acuatorios, a concept coined by the researcher to talk about the aquatic territories of fishers (Gutiérrez, 2016). Thus, the comprehension of the non-static dynamics of the river is relevant and essential to understanding the geography of the Magdalena through dynamic maps. In addition, it will contribute to the recovery of lost histories of fisher communities, which have been affected by the armed conflict, the land accumulation through dispossession mechanisms, the infrastructures that affect the connectivity of the river, and the extractive projects that ignore the sessions of the river, the variability of the climate and the socioecological complexities of the river.

References

Boelens, R., Forigua-Sandoval, J., Duarte-Abadía, B., & Gutiérrez-Camargo, J. C. (2021). River lives, River movements. Fisher communities mobilizing local and official rules in defense of the Magdalena River. The Journal of legal Pluralism and unofficial law, 53(3), 458-476.

Gutiérrez Camargo, J. C. (2016). Río Magdalena, Bien Común. De acuatorios y sistemas de producción en paisajes y geografías del agua.

By Bibiana Duarte Abadia  | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

A river with rights and in constant dispute, The Atrato river basin, Colombia – Lecture by Sandra Liliana Mosquera

17 November 2022 | Gaia WUR, Wageningen

The declaration of the Atrato river as a subject of rights was given by the Constitutional Court of Colombia in the 2016 Sentence T-622, being the first case for the country. The ongoing humanitarian crisis, the environmental depletion of the river body, its resources, and the basin’s ecosystems previously led to consecutive legal claims against the State, triggering this novel legal model where the river has rights.

In this talk, Sandra Liliana Mosquera (PhD researcher at IRI THESys, HUB) presented the case through the lens of hydrosocial territories (Boelens et al., 2016) and linked the proposed legal model of river rights with elements of territorial pluralism. She highlighted the divergent territorial interests of multiple actors in the basin and how the T-622 ruling has changed or reinforced their forms of participation and negotiation. At the same time, she critiqued the complexity of implementing river rights at different scales, especially in a region where ethnic groups are reasserting their ancestral Afro-Colombian and indigenous territoriality that was recognized in the 1990s (Agnew & Oslender, 2010).

“Rights of the river” is setting up a new governance model along the whole Atrato river basin. It has implied a complex social organization process among peasants, afro and indigenous communities, triggering micropower conflicts. Liliana has been working directly with the guardian’s board, divided into two instances: communitarian and state guardians. Specifically, she has examined the organizational process of these guardian’s boards throughout the judgment process. Besides, Liliana stated that the guardians represent the river’s voice; besides taking care of it, they must transmit messages among the different organizations (14) along the river. Based on the hydrosocial territories approach, she analyzed how the different imaginaries (war, state, community-based organizations) have changed in the Atrato river through this judgment process.

Liliana showed the timeline of the main events, critical moments, and main results of this process from its beginning, in 2017, to the present. She compared these events with the orders given by the Constitutional Court. She paid special attention to the implementation struggles and the theoretical discussion of the rights of nature and how these are embedded in the collective territories of black communities and indigenous peoples. The case of the Atrato river has a unique feature that makes it different from other world river cases. It is the construction of a biocultural rights framework. However, indigenous communities are uncomfortable with this judgment process and want to shape another.

References:
Agnew, John, Ulrich Oslender, and Ulrich Oslender. 2010. ‘Territorialidades superpuestas, soberanía en disputa: lecciones empíricas desde América Latina’. Tabula Rasa, núm. 13, julio-diciembre, pp. 191-213

Boelens, Rutgerd, Jaime Hoogesteger, Erik Swyngedouw, Jeroen Vos, and Philippus Wester. 2016. ‘Hydrosocial Territories: A Political Ecology Perspective’. Water International 41 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1134898.

Note: these partial results are framed in the Research doctoral proposal: Hydro-social territorialisation in the Atrato River Basin, Colombia. Supervised by Prof. Dr. Tobias Krüger at IRITHESys, Humboldt Univerzität zu Berlin.

By Bibiana Duarte Abadia | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

“The unbearable lightness of climate populism” with prof. Erik Swyngedouw

22 September 2022 | Grandcafé Loburg, Wageningen

On Thursday, September 22, the Riverhood and River Commons team met for a PhD-Masterclass with Prof. Erik Swyngedouw (Professor of Geography, University of Manchester) at the Grandcafé Loburg in Wageningen. In his talk, prof. Swyngedouw discussed how his life-long interest in processes of politicization —that is, the processes through which we socially organize to change our socio-ecological conditions— led him to interrogate the irreconcilable gap between “knowing” and “acting” in our current climate crisis. How is it that we know so much about climate change, greenhouse emissions, and CO2, and yet our actions don’t seem to lead to the “desired” socio-ecological transformations? Departing from the recognition of this gap, prof. Swyngedouw invited us to reflect on the performative effect of political ecology’s (and other disciplines) critical insights. If, he argued, critical knowledge does not self-evidently translate into transformative action, what are we actually doing? Is it possible that critical theory is subconsciously attached to the very problem it sets itself to solve? Is it possible that we find enjoyment in sustaining the status quo? These thought-provoking questions led to a discussion on the role of critical knowledge in our current socio-ecological crisis. If we —as political ecologists, as activist-researchers— are committed to transforming the plurality of power relations that configure the present socio-ecological conditions, we need to question the belief that knowledge itself will achieve this.

Following this invitation to self-reflect on the articulation between critical knowledge and political transformative action, the discussion posed a few central questions for our current research endeavors: How do we account for the resistance that emerges from those places where the “climate apocalypse” has already happened? How do we shift our vantage point to change the master narrative of the disaster-to-come? What other socio-ecological systems are possible and necessary for us? How do we articulate them? And what are the political imaginaries that could orient “us” to achieve this?

For the second part of his visit, prof. Swyngedouw presented the public conference “The unbearable lightness of climate populism (the depoliticization of the environment)” based on a homonymous recently published paper. Mobilizing a Lacanian psychoanalytical perspective to address what he calls “climate populism”, prof. Swyngedouw posed a series of critical arguments around the current climate discourses. Grouped around the consensus that the climate emergency is the utmost urgent problem of our times, these discourses — both mainstream and radical, left and right— are also trapped within the cognitive dissonance between “knowing” and “acting”. Considered “too big or too threatening to be symbolically articulated” (Swyngedouw, p.2), our current socio-ecological crisis leads to the displacement of our desire to build a politically egalitarian, ecologically sensible and socially inclusive world into a manageable “small” entity called CO2. In this sense, CO2 operates as a “fetish object”. It allows us to deny the Real problem, and build fantasies, apocalyptic future scenarios and promises around it (“We need to tackle CO2, and then everything will be solved”), that then mobilize a complex apparatus of techno-managerial solutions to address “the problem”.

Discussing the four forms of discourse through which such climate populism and techno-managerial apparatus are structured, opened up new interrogations on our role as critical and politically committed activist-researchers. Revolving around the Master-discourse that frames climate change as a problem-to-come for which there is an existing solution within the current structural parameters, our “hysterical” critical discourse requires self-scrutiny. According to prof. Swyngedouw’s analysis, even if we are invested in questioning, criticizing, and uncovering the Master’s narratives’ mechanisms, we are also potentially reproducing “the existing power configurations that produced the problem in the first place” (Swyngedouw, p.14).

This conversation motivated additional pressing questions for our riverine investigations: How do we learn, then, from the failures and limitations of critical theory to overcome the Master-discourse, the fetishization of CO2, and climate-apocalyptic narratives? How do we undertake our research from the acknowledgment that the climate catastrophe has already happened? How do we re-politicize our imaginaries to open up “different political-ecological trajectories” (Swyngedouw, p.15)?

References                   

Swyngedouw, E. (2022). The unbearable lightness of climate populism, Environmental Politics, vol. 31

By Carolina Cuevas | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

A debate around “Dams, Rivers and Rewilding Dams”

30 August 2022 | Impulse, WUR

Contestations around water infrastructures shape many debates around water governance and cut across our river research projects. The 7^th riverside meeting was a fruitful space to share ideas on how water infrastructures, which embody specific visions and projects about development, can trigger diverse social movements and forms of resistance in different geographies.

The debate around “Dams, Rivers and Rewilding Dams” took place on 30 August 2022, at the Impulse Speakers Corner of Wageningen University. Dr. Barbara Hogenboom opened the session with a presentation of two books by postdoc researchers, Dr. Juan Hidalgo and Dr. Bibiana Duarte. Both authors analyse the power-water-technology nexus and how utopian ideas seek to order society through water management. Hidalgo’s work focused on three dams built in Ecuador in different political moments: developmentalism, neoliberalism, and progressivism. His work sought to unravel the impact of power dynamics on design decisions and how continuities and discontinuities in political dynamics affected the development of the dams. Duarte’s work explored how utopian dreams impose a universalising world-view, which in the two cases she investigated (Guadalhorce river in Spain and Middle Magdalena in Colombia) resulted in a rupture of the social fabric and large dispossession of local communities. These books triggered diverse questions: how to address uneven interests and positions regarding water infrastructures within local communities and how to position ourselves as researchers in such a myriad of interests and perspectives?

The second speaker of the session was Frank Westerman, who presented his recently published work “Too true to be good”. His book talks about the removal of two hydroelectric dams on the Selune river, namely, the Vezins (36 meters) and the La Roche Qui Boit (16 meters), within the re-wilding effort to have a free-flowing river and restore the riparian ecosystem according to the provisions of the EU Water Framework Directive. The author reflected on how the removal of these dams encountered robust social resistance from residents of the Sélune and Vezins. They have lived around the reservoirs all their life and disagreed with such massive intervention in their villages. Citizens organised themselves in a group called “Amis des barrier”, to challenge the dam removal operation, arguing that the damns were not only part of their landscape but also a key source of income. Westerman also adopted a critical position toward the dam removal initiative, opening the debate about who has the authority to define what nature is and how to restore the landscape to its previous state if there are no memories of how it looked before the construction of the dams. These thought-provoking points lead the audience to reflect on the dynamics around grassroots populist counter-movements and how to balance social demands with nature protection and new legal figures such as rights of nature.

Finally, Dr. Lena Hommes presented her recently defended PhD dissertation “Infrastructure Lives”, which studied water and territorial transformations in Turkey, Peru, and Spain. Dr Hommes analysed how material and symbolic identities shape political processes and contestations around dam construction and removal. An essential element within her analysis is how imaginaries evolve through the different time stages of infrastructure: design, development, and removal. In this regard, defining when infrastructure is obsolete has become a contested issue, as exemplified by the Torranes dam case. Although the dam was no longer producing energy, local irrigators used it for irrigating their orchards. For them, this infrastructure was still alive. As with the case of the Sélune river, the social resistance against dam removal in Torranes highlights how debates around water infrastructures embody broader societal discussions on legitimacy and social justice: What are the vested interests in maintaining or removing a dam? Who decides the prevalence of environmental values over cultural ones? Who has the legitimacy to decide what nature is worth protecting? How do we overcome nature-society binaries?

The closing discussion between the PhD researchers and the speakers revolved around how to re-think nature-society relations overcoming the myths of utopian development on the one hand and pristine nature on the other. Although apparent tensions and contradictions between the so-called red (social) and green (environmental) demands, it is key to consider those aspects as interdependent. Therefore, when criticising mainstream and elitist environmentalism that does not reflect on systematic injustices, we must be careful and “don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater”. For many years, environmentalism movements, especially those led by historically marginalised populations, have called attention to the intersectionality between the environmental crisis and other forms of oppression, such as colonialism, classism, and racism. Besides, factors such as climate change and biodiversity loss made it clear that we need to transform our relationships with ecosystems and other living beings on the planet. A central challenge for our research is to promote future conversations and alliances in that direction: establishing new ways of relating, being, and dreaming of the nexus of nature-technology and society.

By Ana Maria Arbelaez-Trujillo and Sarita Bhagat | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

“Commons relations: CONFIANZA” and “A counter geography of water”

30 June 2022 | CEDLA, Amsterdam

During our 6th Riverside Meeting on June 30, we discussed the importance of ‘confianza’ with Prof. dr. Michiel Baud, and explored the possibilities of counter cartographies with Prof. dr. Edward Huijbens.

As a rhizome, we explored the multiple and non-hierarchical relations and conceptualizations of ‘confianza’ as a way of commons-relations, as principle in itself and as an expression of solidarity networks with all its connecting implications.

The second part of the session was focused on territorial transformations through cartography as a contested practice, understanding different ways of how mapping can be a political declaration and an act of resistance to create alternative cartographies based on other ways of understanding the world.

Finally, we put in practice the discussed counter-mapping insights by walking around a section of the Amstel river and looking at the urban-cultural landscape through different lenses: How would the state represent the river? How we could represent commoning values through a map? What would be important to visualize for workers, feminist or minorities?

References                   

Gieseking, J.J. (2013). Where We Go From Here: The Mental Sketch Mapping Method and Its Analytic Components. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9) 712– 724

Oslender, O. (2021). Decolonizing cartography and ontological conflict: Counter-mapping in Colombia and “cartographies otherwise”. Political Geography 89: 102444

By Catalina Rey Hernandez  and Laura Giraldo Martinez | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

Water, power & technology

06 June 2022 | Forum, WUR

Infrastructure concerns all of us, we are surrounded by it and rely on it daily. It is also an important topic in the diverse riversides studied by the Riverhood and River Commons projects. Therefore, on Thursday June 2, PhD students and project staff met to further dive into this topic and ‘open the black box of infrastructure’.

One of the central points that came out of the readings (Pfaffenberger, 1988; Dajani and Mason, 2018) was the importance to understand technology and infrastructure as intrinsically shaped by social relations. These social relations are often disguised by artefacts’ visibility and materiality, and associated claims about artefacts being ‘just artefacts’ (Pfaffenberger calls this the “fetishization of objects”).

However, we need to consider technological artefacts as the materialization of power relations, morality and ideas about how society should be and behave – what is good, what is bad. Discussed examples for that were the famous bridges of Long Island (which were constructed so low that busses – that were commonly used by lower income groups – could not pass and thus could not access the area); and benches in urban environments that are designed in such a way that people will sit down but homeless persons won’t have the possibility to sleep there.

Beyond the morals and power relations, we also discussed how technology and infrastructure often carry powerful meaning beyond their technical function only. For example, infrastructure projects and the inaugurations thereof are instrumentalized by politicians to gain votes and to show that they are doing ‘a great job’ to the benefit of the people. Of course, this can be highly problematic, leading to conflictive projects that might gain political votes but might, at the same time, have detrimental effects for people and the environment. This makes it even more central to critically deconstruct technologies and infrastructures, their meaning, uses, sustaining discourses and political relations that give shape to them. Last but not least, we also debated about how technology is material and stable, but at the same time dynamic: it is being contested, redefined, and adapted.

This discussion session was only the start of conversations and critical reflections about infrastructure: how infrastructure shapes hydrosocial territories, what environmentally and socially just infrastructure would look like, and how the new water justice movements studied by the Riverhood and River Commons projects engage with riverine infrastructures.

References                   

Pfaffenberger, B. (1988). Fetishised Objects and Humanised Nature: Towards an Anthropology of Technology. Man, 23(2), 236–252.

Dajani, M. & Mason, M. (2018). Counter-infrastructure as resistance in the hydrosocial territory of the occupied Golan Heights. In: Menga, F. & Swyngedouw, E. (eds) Water, Technology and the Nation-State. Routledge

By Qinhong Xu and Lena Hommes | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

Rijn River Walk

28 April 2022 | Wageningen

By Carolina Cuevas | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

Climate change adaptation under multiple interpretations of reality

16 March 2022 | Orion, WUR

In this Riverside meeting, we met to share, discuss and reflect on future imaginaries of rivers based on Lotte de Jong’s (PhD Researcher/River Commons) research proposal titled “Climate change adaptation under multiple interpretations of reality”. Lotte argued that climate change adaptations have influenced river management and that diverse future imaginaries co-exist and are contested in the discourse and political activity of water governance (Davoudi & Machen, 2021). She will work on the Meuse River (The Netherlands) and the Magdalena River (Colombia). During the presentation, the researcher discussed provocative ideas regarding numerical models, infrastructures and negotiations of different imaginaries in participatory modeling practices. Finally, Lotte closed her presentation highlighting the importance of deconstructing river models to identify the power relations that are embedded in these processes.

Several ideas, concepts and questions emerged from the presentation. From the discussion, I will highlight three aspects that I consider the most relevant: the criticism of the models used on climate change adaptation projects, the role of the future, and the reflections on the fishing communities of Magdalena River. Regarding the models, we discussed that they bring with them knowledge claims that justify and validate infrastructure interventions. Although the models are presented as objective tools, they are formulated with concrete interests and are part of power-knowledge relations. Climate change models are ideal tools for understanding or studying the future, i.e., the projections, dreams, and ideas that decision-makers have about the future and the hegemonic discourses that are imbricated in such projections (Marien, 2010). Finally, we discussed the case of the Magdalena River and the fishing communities that are of special interest to the researcher, in order to analyze imaginaries that contest hegemonic visions about the river and the future (Jaramillo & Carmona, 2022). Specifically, we discuss the complexity of the fishing communities, their micropolitics, and the social intersections of the different social groups that compose such communities. We conclude that it is necessary to not essentialize communities and to be open to understanding them from their disparities, differences, and internal particularities.

References

Jaramillo, P., & Carmona, S. (2022). Temporal enclosures and the social production of inescapable futures for coal mining in Colombia. Geoforum, 130, 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.01.010

Davoudi, S., & Machen, R. (2021). Climate imaginaries and the mattering of the medium. Geoforum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.11.003

Marien, M. (2010). Futures-thinking and identity: Why “Futures Studies” is not a field, discipline, or discourse: a response to Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘the namesake’. Futures, 42(3), 190-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.003

By Juliana Forigua Sandoval  | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

Lecture with Professor Ana Mariella Bacigalupo

25 February 2022 | Lumen, WUR

The second Riverside Meeting took place on 25 February on campus at Wageningen University, with a lecture from Professor Ana Mariella Bacigalupo. The presentation and discussion that ensued focused on Bacigalupo’s latest article, “Subversive Cosmopolitics in the Anthropocene: On Sentient Landscapes and the Ethical Imperative in Northern Peru” (Bacigalupo, 2021); and an additional reading for the meeting included Adriana Paola Paredes Peñafiel’s and Fabiana Li’s “Nourishing Relations: Controversy over the Conga Mining Project in Northern Peru” (Peñafiel and Li, 2019). Both the articles and the lecture and discussion intersected with one of the four central ontological dimensions of the Riverhood and River Commons projects – that of river-as-subject. In particular, Bacigalupo’s lecture raised interesting questions among the audience about different topics, like the plurality of existing ontologies about Nature and about the role of humans in relationship with Nature. Namely, questions and reflections focused on lively and sentient conceptions of natural entities such as mountains (here represented in the figure of the Apu, according to Peruvian shamans that Bacigalupo engaged with during her research). Some also focused on the role of researchers (anthropologists or otherwise) and their own beliefs and/or practical involvement in the kind of subjects that they are researching on, especially when such subjects may touch upon the borders between – for instance – science and spirituality. This Riverside Meeting was overall an interesting and enriching opportunity to reflect on the abyssal lines (Santos, 2014) between different forms of knowledge; different understandings of the relations between nature and (human) society; and the potential tensions and contradictions that lie not only between divergent worldviews, but also between varying ways of conducting research and producing scientific or academic knowledge.

By Carlota Silva Houart | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

Renkumse Beekdal

27 January 2022 | Renkumse Beekdal, Renkum

A central point of the Riverside Meetings discussions has been the concept of ‘commons’ as the notion of self-governance arrangements of collective goods/resources that are not privately held and can be tangible or intangible (De Moor, 2011). Therefore, for our first Riverside Meeting we went on a field visit to the Renkum valley (Renkumse Beekdal) to learn and get insights from locally involved actors that have redesigned and reorganized the river’s ecology, territory, and governance under the concept of ‘commoning’.

The Renkum valley has a history of afforestation, industrial and agricultural land use which has led to a process of biodiversity loss due to a desiccation and degradation of its stream ecosystems (Reis Oliveira et al, 2020; Witte et all, 2019). As nowadays the valley has lost its industrial and agricultural value, pressure from society helped to get (semi) self-governing initiatives to order the sociological-ecological space of the valley (Slijkhuis, 2021). Hence, multiple local commoning and municipal river valley restoration actions are being developed for nature conservation and to create an attractive environment for recreation (Jongman, 1990).

During our visit to the valley, volunteers from the “Informatiecentrum Renkums Beekdal” guided us through the landscape and its ‘sprengen’ (artificial brooks) that have been restored, and that under constant maintenance can have water flow again. Through our walk, we were able to get insights of the historical evolution of this ‘human-made’ landscape, its maintenance and protection; and how different competing users claim to organize, use and govern the water flows in the area.

To finalize the excursion, we gathered under the trees of the valley to discuss our insights and debate how the conception of commons can help us to enrich our knowledge to manage resources collectively and in a fairer way, not only for humans, but also for other beings that are an essential part of the landscape and its ecosystems.

References                   

De Moor, T. (2011). From common pastures to global commons: A historical perspective on interdisciplinary approaches to Commons. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 19(4), 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2011133

dos Reis Oliveira, P. C., van der Geest, H. G., Kraak, M. H. S., Westveer, J. J., Verdonschot, R. C. M., & Verdonschot, P. F. M. (2020). Over forty years of Lowland Stream Restoration: Lessons Learned? Journal of Environmental Management, 264, 110417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110417

Jongman, R. H. G. (1990). Conservation of brooks in small watersheds: A case for planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 19(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(90)90035-z

Witte, J. M., Voortman, B., Nijhuis, K., van Huijgevoort, M., Rijpkema, S. & Spek, T. (2019). Met het historische landschap verdween er water van de Veluwe. Stromingen, 33(1), 91-108.

Slijkhuis, H. (2021). Waarom Voeren de veluwse sprengen en beken steeds minder water. From https://www.henk-weltje.nl/verdroging-op-de-veluwe/waarom-voeren-de-veluwse-sprengen-en-beken-steeds-minder-water-af-slijkhuis-2021

By Catalina Rey Hernandez | Water Resources Management Group, Wageningen University

River Commons will implement a long-term international Master students exchange programme. The INREF-collaborating WUR chairgroups and study programs, CEDLA/UvA, WNM-Netherlands and different NGOs around the world will jointly set up this collaboration that focuses on participatory action research, education, and awareness-raising.

Goal

The goal of the programme is to foster cross-cultural training and exchange for students from the social and natural sciences. It does so by accompanying students before, during and after their MSc thesis research and providing tools for intercultural communication.

Activities

• Preparatory activities include intensive online preparation and in-person interaction where topics such as intercultural communication, community engagement and critical self-reflection are discussed. The aim is to equip students with tools and insights to learn from and with different cultures in creative and inspiring ways.
• Exchange: After the preparation, students will conduct field research abroad for about three months. They will engage with local communities, NGOs and other stakeholders to jointly study innovative river commoning approaches and methodologies. From a participatory action research Students will support and collaborate in riverine grassroot initiatives aimed to protect and restore rivers.
• Networking and conscientization: Upon return, students are expected to communicate and raise awareness on inter-cultural insights to audiences in their home country, for example through experience-discussion meetings on social equality, sustainable water governance and environmental justice.

Where?

The main geographical focus will be on Colombia, even though also cases in other countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America can be studied depending on the students’ interests and available host organizations. Students will join in the River Commons and Riverhood PhD projects and experience cross-cultural training and exchange, inspired by community empowerment and knowledge co-production.

Who is involved?

The programme is directed at Master students from WUR, UvA and partners who are interested in studying river co-governance initiatives and processes in a participatory manner.

• WNM (Weeknederlandsemissionaris), WUR Postdocs and CEDLA student/staff, Fundacion Alma and other NGOs will organize workshops and lectures for the preparation phase.
• Casa Migrante (is a non-profit organization that supports Spanish-speaking immigrants who live in and around Amsterdam) will work as a encounter space for intercultural exchange between Latin-American immigrants and students from the north.

Fellowships:

In total, there are 48 scholarships available for the coming 4 years (2022 – 2025): 40 scholarships for students from Dutch partner universities and 8 scholarships for Colombian MSc students to conduct research in the Netherlands

Application:
If you are interested in participating, please contact the coordinator Bibiana Abadia Duarte. Applications will be received at any time and should include CV and motivation letter. Selection will be made on the basis of the application and a following admission interview.

Contact/coordination:
Bibiana Abadia Duarte (bibiana.duarteabadia@wur.nl)

For more information, see: “RIVER COMMONS Inter-university student and grassroots exchange programme”

Example of a Master’s dissertation that is part of the exchange programme

Provisional title: “What is common? A case study of artisanal fishermen around Canal del Dique”

Student: Niek Schasfoort

Supervisors: Bibiana Duarte-Abadía & Jaime Hoogester

Niek Schasfoort is conducting fieldwork around the Canal del Dique in the North of Colombia. In this area, Niek is talking to artisanal fishermen about the possible impact of the PPP project of the canal on their livelihoods. Through these interviews, he aims to define the areas of the commons for the artisanal fishermen and how they may be affected by the project. Although the project is framed by the designers as an ecological restoration project that will benefit the fishermen, there is a lot of fear and mistrust among the fishermen in the true intention of the project: “ANI commented to us that the project is 90% environmental, 7% infrastructure, and 3% navigability. But I stood up and told them that it is 90% navigability, 7% infrastructure, and 3% environmental” (Fisherman Soplaviento). With this research, Niek’s goal is to shine more light on the people of this area and their concerns and to discuss ways in which the people organize themselves to have their concerns heard and addressed by the government.

Update Master Student Exchange Program River Commons

The group of master students meets at Casa Migrante in Amsterdam, a non-profit organization that supports Spanish-speaking immigrants who live in and around Amsterdam. They already all seem so comfortable as it is not their first time here. The students have become acquainted with some aspects of the South American countries that they will go to for their Master’s thesis or internship. In the encounter space for intercultural exchange between Latin-American immigrants, the students have a last meeting to conclude before they will depart. They are the first group of master students that participates in the River Commons Master Student Exchange Program. After several preparatory meetings during one semester, they are now ready to depart to their different study sites in South America. All with their own focus of study on the main topic of rivers, river co-governance, and water justice movements.

As part of their preparatory activities they not only held discussions about development, positionality, and environmental justice, but they also had a first introduction to Casa Migrante and Parroquia San Nicolas as a dynamic interchange between cultures and knowledge. Collaborating organizations shared real-life examples through presentations and lively discussions on topics such as intercultural communication, community engagement, and critical self-reflection. More than once the question arose: “what will be your role, position, and also, your contribution?” and following “how will this be part of your research”?.

Soon, the students will arrive at their study sites, in Ecuador and Colombia, where they will all conduct their field research. Some focus on more social sciences aspects, others on natural sciences. Still, all of them include cross-cultural exchange, connection, and reflection. For at least 3 months, they will engage with local communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders to jointly study innovative river-commoning approaches and methodologies. From a participatory action research approach, students will support and collaborate in riverine grassroots initiatives aimed to protect and restore rivers.

In a couple of months from now, upon their return, the students will communicate their learned lessons and intercultural insights to audiences in their home community, for example through experience-discussion meetings on social equality, sustainable water governance, and environmental justice. This intercultural connection is important to all partners: The INREF-collaborating WUR chair groups and study programs, CEDLA/UvA, Week Nederlandse Missionaris, Casa Migrante, Parroquia San Nicolás Amsterdam, and different NGOs around the world. They jointly stress the programs’ focus on issues of North-South solidarities, common good, ethics, human and nature’s rights, social inequalities and discrimination, and the diversity of cultural values, cosmovisions, and spiritual dimensions.

In 2023, the Masters’ exchange program will focus on consolidating the exchange programs’ setup and methodology taking into account the lessons learned from the first cohort. Specifically, the following activities will take place:

1. Implementation and consolidation of the program with partner institutes, based on the lessons learned from 2022.
2. Supervision of students who are now in the field.
3. Establishment of new exchange opportunities with other NGOs and local actors
4. Identification and arrangement of the counter-exchange-visit of 8 Colombian students to the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, the students who have arrived in Colombia and Ecuador recently, engage with their host organization partners and exchange with youngsters back home: inspiring stories about intercultural.

PHOTO REPORT – Secondment: The Meuse River – Research and practice, living the fieldwork (2022)

The Secondment was a 2-month course designed to provide Riverhood and River Commons PhD students with action-research tools and experiences in preparation for their actual fieldwork in various countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe. In this course, the PhDs developed a short-term action-action project in partnership with local initiatives and institutional actors working on the Meuse River, in the Netherlands. Three excursions, to different locations along the Meuse River, were organized as part of the groups’ assignments. The first excursion was to Limburg; the second, was to Brabant; and the last trip was to Biesbosch. Download here the photo report.

REPORT – Seminar: Rivers, Commons, Movements – Transdisciplinary and crosscultural conceptualizations of river socionatures (2022)

The Seminar Rivers, Commons, Movements took place in Valencia, Spain, and gathered scholars and PhD researchers who focus on theoretical and methodological concepts, strategies and experiences related to studying and supporting evolving ‘river commons’ and new water justice movements (NWJMs), to revitalise rivers. The seminar’s case presentations and research frames and proposals engaged with conceptualizing river systems in all senses, and understanding and supporting river knowledge co-creation and democratisation from the bottom up. Click here to download the Seminar Rivers, Commons, Movements Report.

Crossing borders to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals: Lessons from ten years of the Wageningen University Interdisciplinary Research & Education Fund (INREF)

How can we make sure there will still be tuna in our seas in the future? How should we tackle Panama disease, which threatens the banana as we know it? And how can palm oil producers in Indonesia and Thailand make a living in a sustainable way? These are just some examples of subjects investigated in the Interdisciplinary Research and Education Fund (INREF) of Wageningen University. All are linked to the major global issues concerning health, energy, food and water, captured by the UN in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  This publication presents a selection of projects funded by INREF, including River Commons, which aim is to support the equitable co-governance of rivers.

REPORT – Summer School River Lives and Living Rivers: Towards a transdisciplinary conceptualization (2022)

World’s rivers are fundamental to social and natural well-being but profoundly affected by mega-damming and pollution. In response to top-down and technocratic approaches, in many places, riverine communities practice forms of ‘river co-governance’, integrating ecological, cultural, political, economic and technological dimensions. In addition, new water justice movements (NWJMs) have emerged worldwide to creatively transform local ideas for ‘enlivening rivers’ into global action and vice versa. The Summer School aimed to provide PhD students who conduct research on these ‘river commons’ and NWJMs with transdisciplinary concepts and approaches for studying their emerging ideas, concepts, proposals and strategies. The different sessions thereby focused on conceptualizing river systems in all senses, and capacity-building for (understanding and supporting) river knowledge co-creation and democratisation from the bottom up. Click here to download the Summer School Report.

March 22, 2023 | DÍA MUNDIAL DEL AGUA: DE LA ONU A NUESTRA MESA

By Ana María Arbeláez Trujillo for  La Silla Llena. Ana is a PhD researcher in the Riverhood project, Wageningen University.

Ilustración: Cristian Olmos Herrera

March 14, 2023 | DÍA MUNDIAL DE ACCIÓN POR LOS RÍOS: ¿QUÉ ESTAMOS HACIENDO EN COLOMBIA?

By Ana María Arbeláez Trujillo, co-authored by Juliana Forigua-Sandoval and Laura Giraldo-Martínez  for  La Silla Llena. Ana is a PhD researcher in the Riverhood, and Juliana and Laura are PhD researchers in the River Commons project, both at Wageningen University.

El 14 de marzo se conmemora el día internacional de acción por los ríos. El propósito de esta fecha es promover y visibilizar el cuidado y la protección de la principal fuente de agua dulce del planeta e invitar a la ciudadanía a que se sume a los esfuerzos colectivos para defender los ríos.

En Colombia, los ríos están bajo diversas presiones que incluyen intereses de industrias extractivas, hidroeléctricas, contaminación, agroindustria y expansión urbana, las cuales deben entenderse en contextos particulares y teniendo en cuenta las disputas entre distintos actores por controlar el territorio y sus fuentes hídricas. Click here to read the whole article.

Photo: Fishermen in Ciénaga El Llanito, Barrancabermeja. Laura Giraldo-Martínez.

• II WEBINAR FOR YOUNG RESEARCHERS – RIVERS
  • Nature and its rights  | DECEMBER 15th and 16th, 2021 |  Join via: https://bit.ly/3r1xSkc

• Book: “River Culture – Life as a dance to the rhythm of the waters“
  • The book entitled “River Culture – Life as a dance to the rhythm of the waters” (2023) presents an analysis of the biological and cultural diversities of several rivers worldwide, threats to these diversities, and perspectives, practical approaches, and suggestions of how to overcome river-related problems. ‘River Culture’ is defined in the book “as the sum of biological adaptations and cultural linkages to nature, developed by organisms (including humans) that live in riverscapes (Wantzen et al. 2016). The term is based upon the hypothesis that natural rhythms (flow, light, and climatic dynamics) trigger the development and evolution of this biocultural diversity” (p. 2). It claims that “investigating river cultures and structuring an integrated knowledge on nature-culture interactions in riverscapes helps provide the necessary basis for their management along more sustainable pathways” (p.2).The book is composed by 36 chapters and brings together the social and ecological background information on 28 selected river basins all over the world (attention is given to the equality of contributions from the Global North and the Global South).

• Review: Encuentros de Saberes “Pensar con los Ríos en Colombia”
  • El pasado 05, 12, y 19 de agosto de 2021 se llevaron a cabo de manera virtual los encuentros de saberes: “Pensar con los ríos: Transición energética, culturas ribereñas y conservación socioecológica”. Desde el año 2018, el Grupo de estudio Ecología Política y Justicia Hídrica de Colombia (GEEPJH) en alianza con varias organizaciones y colectivos viene organizando encuentros de intercambio y de diálogo entre los movimientos ecoterritoriales, la academia y la sociedad civil sobre distintas problemáticas ambientales. Este año el espacio centró su atención en los ríos, tomando como caso la cuenca del río Magdalena en Colombia, y participaron como co-organizadores el Grupo de investigación Territorio de la Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana sede Medellín, Colombia y el Grupo de Trabajo Ecología(s) política(s) desde Sur/Abya Yala del Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales -CLACSO-.

• Book: Hidro-políticas y Territorios Hidrosociales en Rosario y el Río Paraná (Gabriela González, Gustavo Fernetti, Carlos Salamanca Villamizar, Francisco Astudillo Pizarro)
  • En esta obra fascinante e inspiradora sobre los territorios hidrosociales en Rosario y el río Paraná, Carlos Salamanca Villamizar, Gabriela González, Gustavo Fernetti y Francisco Astudillo Pizarro han logrado expresar y visibilizar la certeza y complejidad de este entendimiento cardinal de una manera fenomenal. Tal como ellos escriben, “las distintas concepciones en torno al agua son el fundamento de una pluralidad de prácticas y dinámicas sociopolíticas que se despliegan en conflictividades, negociaciones, normalizaciones y alianzas creativas (Pag. 7).

• Opinion piece:  Miel II, siguiendo el manual de errores de Hidroituango (Ana María Arbeláez Trujillo)
  • En esta columna de opinión la abogada y especialista en derecho ambiental, Ana María Arbeláez Trujillo, explica cómo el proyecto Miel II, que se desarrollaría en el departamento de Caldas, podría afectar la disponibilidad del hábitat y afectar el transporte de sedimentos de los ríos.