MANEJO

INTEGRADO DE
CUENCAS
HIDROGRFICA
S I
NOMBRE: IVN LPEZ

ESCUELA DE INGENIERIA
AMBIENTAL
SEMESTRE: SPTIMO
DOCENTE: ING.PATRICIA ANDRADE

TEMA ARTCULO CIENTFICO

REFLECTIONS UPON WATERSHED "INTEGRATED" MANAGEMENT IN BUENOS
AIRES. SOCIAL ORGANIZATION NETWORKS WITHIN ENVIRONMENTAL
SANITATION POLICIES.

DATOS DE LA AUTORA

Soledad Fernndez Bouzo

Universidad de Buenos Aires
Argentina
soledad.fernandezbouzo@gmail.com

DATOS PUBLICACIN

Recepcin: 10 de febrero de 2014

Aceptacin: 23 de abril de 2014

Licencia: Creative Commons Atribucin-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Argentina

REVISTA: Geograficando, 2014 10(1). ISSN 2346-898X

Universidad Nacional de La Plata

Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educacin

Departamento de Geografa

Breve resumen del trabajo

El trabajo rastrea en documentos de organismos internacionales, entrevistas a
funcionarios locales y miembros de organizaciones territoriales, las acepciones
sobre la gestin integrada y la participacin en torno a cuencas metropolitanas
degradadas tomando en cuenta que la gestin integrada de cuencas resulta ser una
directriz de los organismos internacionales. Desde la gestin local se apela a la
participacin social, al tiempo que las redes de organizaciones socio-territoriales
reclaman mayor injerencia en procesos de control para el saneamiento de las
cuencas en Buenos Aires. En cualquier caso, sobrevuelan ideas tales como
integracin (de componentes) y participacin (de grupos y sectores), que no
necesariamente son concebidas unvocamente por todos los actores sociales en
juego. Mientras tanto, el control de la contaminacin del agua sigue siendo una zona
gris en la gestin, a pesar de la creacin de autoridades de cuenca.
Resultados obtenidos del trabajo
De los resultaos obtenidos mediante esta investigacin bibliogrfica tenemos que
en la actualidad, y desde hace unos cinco aos aproximadamente, las organizaciones
que conforman el colectivo Espacio Intercuencas y el Espacio Matanza Riachuelo
expresan su preocupacin acerca de la modalidad de participacin que finalmente
adoptar la Autoridad de Cuenca Mataza Riachuelo (ACUMAR) y su metodologa
de trabajo.

Enfocndose que tanto la participacin como la integracin en la gestin de cuencas

aparecen como horizontes deseables por el conjunto de las redes de organizaciones
analizadas y que, por ende, articulan pero a la vez disgregan, justo all donde se
tornan difciles las posibilidades de discusin alguna sobre la cuestin. Estos
enfoques brindan un terreno comn y un consenso inicial que difcilmente puedan
cuestionarse De este modo, se convierten en un recurso discursivo codiciado y,
como tal, tambin pasible de ser apropiado por el Estado y sectores privados que
precisen legitimar su orden del da.
Posibles mejoras en el trabajo
Mediante el trabajo

se

not que

existe marcada jerarqua de posiciones

diferenciadas segn se trate de diferentes redes de organizaciones, por lo que un

resultado uan vez identificado el problema sera pensar

y proponer

las

posibilidades reales de acceso igualitario a la participacin en pos de una solucin

definitiva al problema de las cuencas degradadas metropolitanas.

ARTCULO TOMADO
Introduction
Currently, the management model "integrated" -based watershed in the
heterogeneous and controversial "sustainable development" principle - appears to be
a predominant suggested guideline from international agencies, and on the basis of
which is intended to delineate the translation national, provincial, regional and
municipal policies. At the same time, from public administration as a whole, it
appeals to "participation" in a context in which different networks of social

organizations demand greater interference in the process of management control in

pursuit of environmental sanitation in metropolitan basins degraded. In all cases,
they fly over ideas like "integration" (component such as water and soil), and
"participation" (of groups and social sectors), which are not necessarily uniquely
designed for all stakeholders.

In the literature on management of degraded watersheds, water pollution and

sanitation are presented as the most problematic aspects of management, despite
progress in creating institutional arrangements such as, for example, basin
organizations. Consequently, this paper aims to crawl through institutional,
organizational and academic papers document the debate in play between different
views on the integrated and participatory management, to place it in relation to the
most important purposes of the networks of social organizations today demand
rehabilitation of polluted watersheds in the metropolitan area of Buenos Aires.

In the first instance, placing the shaft in a cognitive dimension, I try to problematize
notions of integration in water management and / or watersheds, as well as the
different uses given by various actors. Then, based on the network approach and
perspective of sociology of public action, I will focus the analysis in two cases
forming organizational networks that try to participate in the process of "translation"
of environmental problems linked to metropolitan basins in sanitation policies.
Finally, I will reflect on these aspects, trying to draw the first outlines of a dynamic
"map" hierarchy of positions on the ability to influence policies that aim to clean up
the basins under analysis.

What is integrated river basin management? How participatory perspective is

incorporated in watershed management in the metropolis of Buenos Aires? What is
the level of effective participation as try different organizational networks? What

characteristics distinguish the latter? The idea is not to answer these questions but
acabadamente to establish possible lines of inquiry.

"Integration" as a complex notion in watershed management

The origin of the principles that give sustenance to what is called "integrated water
management" is in the Dublin Declaration on Water and Sustainable Development
within the framework of the International Conference on Water and Environment
(1991). sectoral integration, territorial decentralization and participation of civil
society (Abers, 2010): There a vision of water management based on three basic
ideas suggested. From them, they highlight three dimensions that make the value of
water: the economic, environmental and social dimensions (Global Water
Partnership, 2008). A decade later, at the World Summit on Sustainable
Development in 2002, all countries are calls to develop plans for integrated water
resources management (IWRM) and "water efficiency" by the end of 20051 (Global
Water Partnership , 2008).

However, IWRM is a concept with a high level of complexity when we consider the
multiplicity of dimensions that aims to cover. Then the next question is: what is this
complexity ?. In the same line as Lascoumes (1996), we could say that, like many
other areas of public action today, IWRM is characterized by a triple heterogeneity:
that of their issues, their programs and their networks of actors. Therefore it
presents specific challenges of "governance" 2 (Le Gales, 1995; Lascoumes, 1996;
Dourojeanni and Jouralev, 2001; Merlinsky, 2013) and "accountability" 3 (Ryan,
2000; Jacobi, 2006).

Meanwhile, Dourojeanni and Jouralev (2001) lists the most important obstacles to
achieving the goals of integrated watershed management in Latin America; the

-aclaran- which are not linked to technical aspects but institutional and political
boundaries. It is worth mentioning those three are more related to the problematic
core of this work; namely: 1) Distance between, on the one hand, official statements
on the importance of watershed management and -for the other, budgets, and record
levels of decision allocated for this purpose. 2) widespread confusion about the
scope of concepts such as "integrated watershed management" difficult issue to
clarify institutional roles and creates conflicts between authorities. 3) Conflicts
between actors and institutions of various kinds, which often are the result of
decisions made by some public authorities do not take into account the existence of
technical studies, basin authorities, etc.

From another perspective, Molle (2008) speaks of three different types of concepts
that shape the policy and decision making in the water sector: concepts "narrative"
"nirvana", concepts and concepts "model". They arise at some point to establish a
certain view, approach or solution to a problem or set of problems. In turn, these
concepts realize a cognitive and ideological dimension in policy, in which private
actors and social groups appropriate for those and integrate them into their speeches
and strategies.

The concepts "nirvana" embody an ideal of what the world should improve image;
they are to reach the horizon. They take the form of "photographic negative"
because they arise from the evidence of negative impacts and try to dissolve the
antagonisms in reconciling visions. In the field of water and watershed
management, the concept principal "nirvana" is IWRM ( "Integrated Water
Resources Management"), which arises from the correct perception of a fragmented
water treatment: economic and political actors they have handled independently;
intervention on water in the upper watersheds has been carried out without
consideration of impacts on low-lying areas; quality problems have often been
ignored; groundwater have often been exploited without worrying about

establishing hydrological links with surface water (and vice versa); land-water
interactions have been overlooked; and finally, ecosystems have deteriorated and
inequalities in access to water and sanitation were also ignored (Molle, 2008: 134).
However, the author adds that IWRM faces two difficulties inherent to all nirvana
concepts: 1) by its very nature, prove to be attractive and consensual concepts,
reason why tend to hide the political nature of management natural assets; and 2)
they are easily appropriated by groups seeking to legitimize their own agendas4.

In this sense, might think the three "E" in the IWRM approach (English:
"Efficiency", "Equity" and "Environmental"): each actor emphasizes one of the "E",
depending on what which more reflects his own inclination, ideology or interest.
For example, it is very likely that actors and businesses as a priority promote
"efficiency" and its vision of water as an economic resource. It is easy to suspect
that actors with a predominant social agenda (social organizations, NGOs, etc.),
promote the principle of "equity". A clear example of the appropriation of this
principle is the "gender perspective in water management" (UNDP and The Gender
and Water Alliance, 2006). Another group of actors are those who support the
creation of basin organizations, just as territorial organizations, conservation groups
or "green" NGOs can use IWRM to promote the defense of life, nature conservation
and environmentalism in general.

Another related aspect is the combined action of various actors around promoting
concepts that tend to stick together in flexible networks and what Hajer (1995)
defines as "discourse coalitions": that is, a set of stories, actors and practices that
promote them.

After a brief definition of the network approach, I will present two cases of
networks of organizations in recent years promote -in the area of the metropolitan

area of Buenos Aires integration and participation in the management of watersheds,

and who apply -depending on each case- as actors demand, control and monitoring
of policies in this regard. In that way, I try to envision the type of link and position
that they were able to establish networks with respect to those state actors treatment
given to the problems of the basins.

Methodology
The network approach "joints and tensions"

Prior to the description of cases is necessary to define what is meant by "red". It

should be clarified that the incorporation of the concept of network in this work is
done in order to visualize the relationships established between themselves and with
other stakeholders, certain social organizations interested in the rehabilitation of
degraded watersheds. That is, the focus is on relationships, flows that connect
different subjects / actors / territories forming an articulated joint (White, 2009).
Thus defined, networks are constituent elements of the territory unequivocally refer
to relations with other territories: "There is no territory without a net" (Pumain and
Saint-Julien, cited by White, 2009). According Marston (2000), the articulation of
scales across networks is a central aspect of the relationship with the territory.
Following the author, the scale is not necessarily a hierarchical pattern to order the
local, regional, global, etc.- world, but is an emerging tensions between structural
forces and practices of social actors. On the other hand, networks dynamically
reproduce the differences in the territory and rely on themselves heterogeneities
own territory. In this regard, Haesbert (2004) speaks of "multiterritoriality" to
highlight the possibility of connecting to various territories, understood "as the
essential space for social reproduction, whether an individual, group or institution"
(Haesbaert cited by White, 2009). Returning to the present cases, we can
hypothesize that the notion perfectly integrated and participatory management of

metropolitan basins is indeed one of the aspects that condense, coalesce and put
pressure on the networks of social organizations and state actors. In other words,
being adopted by a large number of dispersed actors, this idea is simultaneously
both a contact point and a point of tension.

Thus, it is important to emphasize one of the main activities of the networks:

traduccin5y the role in it of intermediaries in heterogeneous contexts (documents,
technical tools, human capabilities, codes of action, etc. ). All of them allow
interactions to realize that actors undergo objects and transform them into
circulation (Callon, cited by Lascoumes, 1996). For cases that concern us, from
various intermediaries, can think of the snowball effect, it understood as a process
by which a concept gradually in this case, the integrated and participatory
management cuencas- is adopted by an increasing number of dispersed actors,
screened in professional events, distributed in the academic literature, and will
slowly setting on an idea of consensus and control (Latour, 1989).

Results and Discussion

According Lascoumes (1996), state actors have at least two selection criteria for
cases which are forced to choose networks of actors that would fulfill the role of
interlocutors. These criteria are the ability of technical examination held by each of
the networks and their representativeness. This question implies that very few those
that manage to be recognized. Lascoumes adds that, in general, are perceived as
agents that complicate the administrative work rather than facilitating it.

In that sense, the author points out that these networks can be targeted five types of
"attitudes" on the part of public authorities and that they define the shape of the
networks established relationship with the state. Namely cooperative relationship

(which, as we mentioned recently, there is a prevailing attitude); exclusion ratio

(that is, the rejection by incompetence and lack of representativeness);
marginalization (which differs from the previous one in both the recognition of the
network by the state power is given in a negative sense: for example, cases where
the decision is given from the systematic rejection of proposals for given network);
instrumentalization (from which network resources are used pragmatically); and
finally, absorption or destruction (which consists of direct production or progressive
organizations capture, used to counterbalance the most vindictive).

In the next two sections briefly I will characterize two cases of networks of welldefined organizations, trying to shed light on the types of specific relationships that
each set with certain state actors, who, in this way, the interpellate (or not); promote
them, they support them or weaken them.

to. Space interbasin RRR (Stream, Reconquista, Rio de La Plata)

This network is the first joint, with a strong territorial anchoring explicitly refers to
a spatial cut regional type, such as watersheds in the metropolitan region. In its
founding document, dating from 2007, expressly state that they have met: "... nongovernmental, social, neighbors, environmentalists, Organizations under the slogan
'Buenos Aires hugs for life' with the desire to join efforts by clean, free of
contamination and the recomposition and environmental management of watersheds
our territory (...) with the aim of: installing the issue on the public agenda as a
matter of state and achieve effective enforcement; build citizenship, getting
everyone to exercise the right to a healthy and fit for human development
environment, enforcing the Constitution and the rules of environmental protection;
generate union, social participation, awareness, joint spaces, tools for action, critical
mass and mobilization for life ".6

Organized in plenary, on that occasion also they highlighted the participation of one
hundred twenty organizations from various parts of the metropolitan region, which
ended up solving the following items: to consider the first meeting as a starting
point for the creation of popular participation of the problem watershed; support the
struggles in each locality; not rule out action in the field of organizations and / or
public officials, the judiciary and through the media; require the declaration of
water, health and environmental emergency in the province of Buenos Aires and the
Autonomous City of Buenos Aires; use the popular mobilization as a basic form of
work of the network; require a policy of "integral" sanitation of all basins through a
single basin committee with citizen participation that has decision-making power;
require social participation in the control of water works and sanitation, and in
epidemiological studies, among others.

Also among the proposals organizational, they stated that it was necessary to
conceive of the "Space interbasin RRR" with the idea of "unity in diversity"; ie as
an area of joint accumulation of knowledge and various associated experiences.
While the network characterized created with the aim of working the problems
related to the basins of the three rivers mentioned above, we must not forget that the
urgent question took place -for that then- following the completion of the public
hearing (in July 2007) which called the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation for
the particular case of contamination Riachuelo, after denouncing Beatriz Mendoza.
It is very important to consider this point to understand cases of repositioning by
some organizations identified with both the first group and the second network of
organizations, further characterized. It is also important to understand this aspect
because it forces us to ask whether the (barely) subsequent creation of the MatanzaRiachuelo Basin Authority (ACUMAR) is the product of the mobilization raised in
these terms; or whether on the contrary, as part of an agenda that has nothing to do
with the possibility of influence of these networks in the definition of sanitation
policies.

Currently Returning to the characterization of the red-, interbasin Space actively

involved in a much smaller number of organizations within it than they did at first.
However, their activity level is high and enduring if we consider that in late 2013
there was a meeting No. 28 and participated in the corresponding classic journey to
the National Environmental March in Argentina, all on December 12 at 12 pm .
Meetings and meetings are distinguished by interbasin Space always be located in a
different place in the metropolitan region. The dynamics of each meeting-often
involves exposure Themes- their representatives, commissioning discussion grounds
and the granting of a time towards the end of the meeting, is devoted to decisions on
actions to continue as a collective. Needless to say, the main mode of action of this
network is the definition of an agenda of mobilization and protest, discussed and
systematized with each encounter. It would be very interesting for future work to
analyze in detail each point that makes the main complaint of "total sanitation" of
the basins in question and the proposed solutions approach; however, no less
important point to be highlighted is now the order that this network repeatedly done
so that different state authorities (including the relevant bodies to each basin)
convene public hearings. The paradox is that the interbasin network does not get
answers to that request, but at the same time, the few public hearings that actually
made no dissemination enough to reach the ears of many of the stakeholders, among
them is the same network7.

Regarding the latter, judging by the responses (or "non-responses"), you may
suspect that the kind of relationship linking this network with state actors is closer
to exclusion, and the possibilities they suggest marginalization of tracking links
and / or absorption.

b. Espacio Matanza-Riachuelo (EMR)

Space Matanza Riachuelo comes almost simultaneously with the birth of the
previous network and describes itself to itself as "a network of non-governmental
organizations, non-partisan and non-profit organization formed to articulate
participation and citizen control around sanitation Matanza Riachuelo basin, one of
the urban areas with higher levels of pollution in the country. "8 Unlike nucleated
organizations in the interbasin Space -mostly, strong territorial descent, originally
doomed to a well located and absence of legally problematic personality, the
network NGO compose -some of them scale globally, whose main characteristic is
not exactly the work in the territory but have a proven track record on specific
issues, such as the intersection between environment and collective rights and / or
human rights, others.9

In that sense, the EMR manifests the objective of increasing the spaces to promote
and channel citizen participation and control in the integrated management of the
Matanza-Riachuelo Basin. More particularly (according to the same members
EMR) 10 seeks to sustain over time the public demand for sanitation of the basin,
and simultaneously monitor and disseminate information on the implementation of
the Comprehensive Plan of Sanitation about ordered the government nacional11.

Recall that the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (in
July 2008 declared competent originating mode) not only it determined the State's
responsibility in prevention and recomposition of the basin, but also created a
collegial body coordinated by the Ombudsman's Office, which would promote
citizen participation in the control of the judgment. In this context, two things
happened: some organizations that are part of Espacio Matanza-Riachuelo (which
had also been part of interbasin Space but then distanced themselves, as in the case
of the Neighborhood Association of La Boca) were designated to form said body

referee. These are: Environment and Natural Resources Foundation, Greenpeace

Argentina, Center for Legal and Social Studies and Public Association for Human
Rights (OHCHR). On the other hand, some NGOs that originally were not part of
this group, such as Greenpeace and UNHCHR, joined the EMR considering it as
"(...) the enabling environment and necessary to strengthen and expand citizen
participation granted by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation ".12

In the same vein, a remarkable activity carried out by the network in question was to
relieve -through the implementation of a questionnaire- proposals designed by
different candidates for deputies to the last legislative elections on the issue of
Riachuelo solutions. The EMR got the answer almost all forces except oficialista13
consulted.

In this case we think that the type of bond that could establish such a network is a
relationship of exploitation with respect to the judiciary, if we consider the influence
of this network in the collegial body and the central feature of this type of
relationship, It is to pragmatically use network resources. Once at this point, we can
reach the following final reflections.

conclusions
At present, and from about five years ago, the organizations that make up the
collective interbasin Space and Space Matanza Riachuelo express concern about the
mode of participation that will finally adopt the River Basin Authority Mataza
Riachuelo (ACUMAR) and its methodology job.

We do not intend to delve into this point. Just enough for me to note that both
"participation" and "integration" in watershed management appear as desirable
horizons by all networks of organizations analyzed and, therefore, articulate yet
disintegrated, right where the chances of any discussion on the issue become
difficult. These approaches provide a common ground and an initial consensus that
can hardly be questioned (Allan, 2003). Thus, they are become a coveted discursive
resource and as such, also liable to be appropriated by the state and private sectors
that need to legitimize their agenda.

For example, in the public hearing of August 7, 2010 (see note 7) the concept of
"nirvana" was also present in state actors promoting sanitation and director AySA
basic works plan for the Matanza Riachuelo Basin. Indeed, the official in charge of
the presentation of the plan, referred to it as a "comprehensive plan" long-term,
taking into account the necessary participation of all stakeholders and provides for
future growth.

According Molle (2008), a set of other authors who argue that, despite these
negative aspects, concepts "nirvana" can also be conceived as "boundary objects"
(Cash et al., 2002 Conca, 2006) , ie as collective constructions that provide a
common basis for interested parties wishing to participate Similarly, certain models
of watershed management can be interpreted positively,. that is, as an initial step
that gradually institutionalizes decentralization in the management of resources and
the democratization of decision making (Meublat and Lourd, 2001).

However, if we pay attention to the analysis outlined above, it realizes a marked

hierarchy of different positions depending on whether different networks of
organizations. This also enables us to keep thinking about what the real possibilities

of equal access to participation towards a definitive solution to the problem of

metropolitan degraded watersheds.
REFERENCES
ABERS, Rebecca (Comp.) (2010) gua e Poltica Atores, instituies e poder nos
Organismos Colegiados de Bacia Hidrogrfica no Brasil. Brasil: Annablume.

ALLAN, John A. (2003) IWRM/IWRAM: A new sanctioned discourse? Discussion

Paper No. 50. Water Issues Study Group. Londres: Universidad de Londres.

BLANCO, Jorge (2009) Redes y territorio: articulaciones y tensiones. En

SHMITE, Stella Maris (comp.) La geografa ante la diversidad socio-espacial
contempornea. (pp. 1283-1294). Santa Rosa. Universidad Nacional de La Pampa.

Cash, David; Clark, William; Alcock, Frank; Dickson, Nancy; Eckley, Noelle y
Jger, Jill (2002) Salience, credibility, legitimacy and boundaries: Linking research,
assessment and decision making. Faculty Research Working Papers Series,
RWP02.046. John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University.

CONCA, Ken (2006) Governing water. Contentious transnational politics and

global institutions building. Cambridge Londres: the MIT Press.

DOUROJEANNI, Axel y JOURAVLEV, Andrei (2001) Crisis de gobernabilidad en

la gestin del agua. (Desafos que enfrenta la implementacin de las

recomendaciones contenidas en el captulo 18 del Programa 21). Serie 35 Recursos

Naturales e Infraestructura, Santiago de Chile: CEPAL

Global Water Partnership (2008) Principios de gestin integrada de los recursos

hdricos. Bases para el desarrollo de planes nacionales. Documento para Amrica
Latina. Recuperado de http://www.agua.org.mx

HAJER, Maarten (1995) The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological

modernization and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

HAESBAERT, Rogrio

(2004)

Desterritorializao,

Multiterritorialidade

Regionalizao. En LIMONAD, Ester; HAESBAERT, Rogrio y MOREIRA, Ruy

(Orgs.) Brasil Sculo XXI, por uma nova regionalizao?. San Pablo: Max
Limonad.

JACOBI, Pedro (2006) Participao na gesto ambiental no Brasil: os comits de

bacias hidrogrficas e o desafio do fortalecimento de espaos pblicos colegiados.
En ALIMONDA, Hctor (Dir.) Los tormentos de la materia. Aportes para una
ecologa poltica latinoamericana. (pp. 205-230). Buenos Aires: Consejo
Latinoamericano

de

Ciencias

Sociales-

CLACSO.

Recuperado

de:

http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/subida/clacso/gt/20101002072521/9Jacobi.pdf

LASCOUMES, Pierre (1996) Rendre gouvernable: de la traduction au

transcodage. De lanalyse des processus de changement dans les rseaux daction
publique.

Recuperado

de:

https://www.upicardie.fr/labo/curapp/revues/root/38/pierre_lascoumes.pdf_4a082e4
1f1369/pierre_lascoumes.pdf

LATOUR, Bruno (1989) La science en action. Pars: La Dcouverte.

LE GALS, Patrick (1995) Du gouvernement des villes la gouvemance urbaine",

RFSP, vol. 45, (n 1), pp. 57-95.

MARSTON, Sallie (2000) The Social Construction of Scale. Progress in Human

Geography, vol. 24, n 2, pp. 219-242.

MERLINSKY, Gabriela (2013) Poltica, derechos y justicia ambiental: el conflicto

del Riachuelo. Buenos Aires: FCE.

MEUBLAT, Guy y LE LOURD, Philippe (2001) Les agences de bassin: Un modle

franais de dcentralisation pour les pays mergents? La rnovation des institutions
de l'eau en Indonsie, au Brsil et au Mexique. Revue Tiers Monde 42 (166): 375401.

MOLLE, Franois (2008) Nirvana concepts, narratives and policy models: Insight
from the water sector. Water Alternatives 1(1): 131-156. Recuperado de:
http://www.water-alternatives.org/index.php/allabs/20-a-1-1-8/file

MOSSE, David (2004) Is good policy unimplementable? Reflections on the

ethnography of aid policy and practice. Development and Change 35 (4): 639-671.
Recuperado de: http://mhpss.net/?get=76/1345166115-Mosse-GoodPolicy.pdf

ONU (2006) 2 Informe sobre el Desarrollo de los Recursos hdricos. Recuperado

de: http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap

PNUD and The Gender and Water Alliance (2006). Resource guide: Mainstreaming
gender in water management. Recuperado de: www.genderandwater.org/page/5390

RYAN, Daniel (2004) Ciudadana y control del gobierno en la Cuenca Matanza

Riachuelo. Center for Latin American Social Policy, Teresa Lozano Institute of
Latin American Studies y University of Texas, Austin.