MEKSİKA’DA SU ALT YAPI HİZMETLERİNİN YÖNETİMİ: YENİ SU KÜLTÜRÜ MODELİ

Yıl 2013, Cilt: 2 Sayı: 3, 0 - 0, 01.01.2013

Alberto Pombo Ricardo V Santes-álvarez

Öz

Yönetimde geleneksel anlayış, kendisini gücün yeni yollardan kullanımına bırakmaktadır. İlk olarak Yeni Kamu
Yönetimi (YKY) modeli, hizmet sunumunda verimliliği artırmak için geleneksel modele en iyi alternatif olarak
desteklenmiştir; ama YKY, kamu eylemlerinin maddi varlıklardan ziyade aktörler arasındaki ilişkilere ayrıcalık tanıması
gerektiği fikri ile karşı karşıya kalmıştır. Bu model, demokrasilerde sorunları çözmek için en iyi yol olan toplum, özel sektör
ve kamu arasındaki iyi ilişkileri cesaretlendiren yönetişimin temelinde yer almaktadır. Suyun yönetiminde, birçok deneyim,
kamu, özel sektör ve toplumun katılımına izin veren ve kaynakların yönetimini garanti eden bir model olarak üçlü yönetim
modelinin kullanımını önermektedir. Geleneksel model (problemin talep tarafına odaklanan ve kamu işleri ile çözüm
geliştiren model) ve Kamu-Özel Ortaklığı modellerinden (sosyal sektörü sadece müşteri olarak değerlendiren model) kamu,
özel sektör ve toplumsal katılım ile üçlü yönetim modeli oluşturmak için ayrılan Yeni Su Kültürü (YSK) modeli de bir
seçenektir. Meksika’nın YSK konusunda hiç bir deneyimi olmamasına rağmen uygulaması için bir temeli mevcuttur.
Meksika’da bunu uygulayabilmek için, yeni kurumsal koşulların geliştirilmesine, su kaynaklarının yönetiminde servis
kalitesini denetleyecek komşuluk ilişkileri komitesi gibi yaratıcı figürlerin oluşturulmasına ve hizmet kalitesini arttırmak için
özel sektörün kamu işletmecisi ile nasıl işbirliği yapabileceğinin idari otorite ile tanımlanmasına ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yeni Kamu Yönetimi, Yeni Su Kültürü, Kamu-Özel Ortaklığı, Meksika, Su Yönetimi

AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE GOVERNANCE OF WATER SERVICES IN MEXICO: THE MODEL OF THE NEW WATER CULTURE

Öz

The conventional image of governance is yielding to novel ways of exercising power. Initially The New Public Management (NPM) was promoted as the best alternative to the conventional model to increase the efficiency in the delivery of services; but the NPM is confronted with the idea that public action should favor the interaction between actors rather than the material aspects of the management. This concept is at the root of governance, which encourages good relations between public, private and social, promising to be the best way to resolve matters in democracies. In water management, several experiments suggest that the use of a "tripartite” model guarantees resource governance by allowing the participation of public, private and social sectors. The model of the New Water Culture (NWC) is an option that departs from the conventional approach (which focuses on the demand side of the problem and promotes solutions through public works) and public-private-partnership (PPP) models (which considers the social sector only as a "client") to create a tripartite model of administration with public-private-social participation. Although Mexico has no experience of the NWC, there is a basis for implementation. In order to implement it in Mexico there is a need to develop new institutional conditions, to create innovative figures such as neighborhood committees for water management to oversee the quality of services and define together with the administrative authority the way the private sector associates with the public operator in order to improve the quality of the service

Anahtar Kelimeler

New Public Management, New Water Culture, Public-Private-Partnership, Mexico, Water Management

Kaynakça

• Altaf, Mir Anjum., & Jeffrey. A. Hughes. (1994). Measuring the demand for improved urban sanitation services: Results of a contingent valuation study in Ouagadougou. Burkina Faso. Urban Studies, 31(10), 1763- 1776.
• Banco, Mundial-PASRAL. (2007). Los nuevos operadores en las pequeñas ciudades del Perú: Diseño de un nuevo modelo de gestión sostenible de los servicios de agua y saneamiento. Lima. BM.
• Banco, Mundial-PASRAL. (2007). Un nuevo acuerdo social: El cambio de modelo de gestión para mejorar la sostenibilidad de los servicios de agua y saneamiento en las pequeñas ciudades, Lima, Programa de Agua y Saneamiento Región América Latina y el Caribe PPPL-LEDEL S.A.C.
• Barkin, David. (2004). Las contradicciones de la gestión del agua en México. en Denise Soares Moraes et al., Gestión y Cultura del Agua, Tomo I. México, IMTA-COLPOS, 44-71.
• 2006a, coord., La gestión del agua urbana en México- retos, debates y bienestar-, México, Universidad de Guadalajara.
• 2006b, La Gestión Popular del Agua: Respuestas locales frente a la globalización centralizadora, Futuros, 2(7).
• Carabias, Julia et al., (2005). Agua, Medio Ambiente y Sociedad: hacia la gestión integral de los recursos hídricos en México. México. UNAM-COLMEX-Fundación Gonzalo Río Arronte.
• CARE-PROPILAS.( 2005). Experiencias de planificación estratégica en agua potable y saneamiento rural en municipalidades distritales. Perú. LEDEL S.A.C.
• CMMA. (1999). Public private partnership: A guide for local government. Canadian Ministry of Municipal Affairs, (1999). In: http:// www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/ lgd/ policy_research/ library/ public_private_partnerships.pdf. (Accessed May 2011).
• Conagua. (2005). Información proporcionada por la Gerencia, La Paz, Conagua- Gerencia Estatal de BCS.
• Conabio, (1998). División de Evaluación y Alerta Temprana del Programa. Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente PNUMA. www.unep.org/ geo/ geo4/ (Accesed May 7, 2007).
• Crozier, M., S, Huntington., & J, Watanuki. (1975). The crisis of democracy. Report on the governability of democracies to the Trilateral Commission, New York: NYU Press.
• Donolo, Carlo. (1999). ¿Cómo gobernar mañana?. Barcelona: Galaxia Gutenberg-Círculo de Lectores.
• El Colegio de México, (2003). Agua para las Américas en el Siglo XXI. México. Comisión Nacional del Agua.
• Finnegan, William. (2002). Letter from Bolivia: Leasing the rains: The world is running out of fresh water and the fight to control it has begun. The New Yorker, 8 de abril, <http:// www.newyorker.com/ archive/ 2002/ 04/ 08/ 020408fa_FACT1>, (Consultado el 8 de febrero de 2008).
• Garza, Gloria de. (2006).Visión ciudadana de un sistema de agua semi-privatizado, Saltillo, en David Barkin, coord. Gestión del Agua Urbana en México, México, Universidad de Guadalajara, 103-126.
• Gentes, Ingo et al.(2006). Protección de Humedales Altoandinos y programa de agua potable rural en Chile. Dos acciones locales de políticas públicas y gestión comunitaria”, en Denise Soares Moraes et al., Gestión y Cultura del Agua, Tomo I, México, IMTA-COLPOS, 113-133.
• Gilbert, Alan. (2007). Water for all: How to combine public management with commercial practice for the benefit of the poor?. Urban Studies, 44(8), 1559–1579.
• Goethert, Reinhard., & Nabeel, Hamdi. [publicación en línea]. (1997). Community action planning-wall chart. en <http:// web.mit.edu/ urbanupgrading/ upgrading/ resources/ useful-downloads/ WallChart.pdf>, (consultado el 9 de marzo de 2008).
• Gunnerson, Charles. (1991). Cost of water supply and wastewater disposal: forging the missing link. en H. Rosen y A. Durkin Keating, Water and the City: The Next Century. Public Works Historical Society, Chicago, American Public Works Assn.
• Habermas, Jürgen.(1999) Problemas de legitimación en el capitalismo tardío, Madrid: Cátedra.
• Hall, David. (2001). Water in public hands, London, Public Service International Research Unit. Greenwich University, en David Hall, Kate Bayliss & Edmundo Lobina, Still fixated with Privatization: A critical review of the World Bank's Water Resources Sector Strategy London, PSIRU, Greenwich University, 35-55.
• International Development Research Centre (IDRC) [online publication]. (2007). Public Private Partnership for Urban Environmental Management. en http:// www.crdi.ca/ en/ ev-100052-201-1- DO_TOPIC.html. (Consulted May 5, 2009).
• Kjær, Mette. (2004). Governance, Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Martínez, Omaña,. & María, Concepción. (2006). Gestión del agua urbana en la segunda mitad del siglo XX. Esquemas Institucionales, actores y agentes sociales: 1950-2004, in David Barkin, La gestión del Agua Urbana en México, México, Universidad de Guadalajara, 57-63.
• Ruelas Monjardin, Laura. (2006). La planeación colaborativa en el uso del agua: el caso de Actopan, Veracruz. en Verónica Vázquez, Gestión y cultura del agua Tomo II, Jiutepec, Morelos, IMTA/COLPOS, 216- 232.
• Natera, Antonio. (2005). Nuevas estructuras y redes de gobernanza. Revista Mexicana de Sociología, 67(4), 781-817.
• National Council for Public-Private Partnership (NCPPP). (2007). Retrieved from http:// ncppp.org/.
• Nativ, Ronit. (2004). Can the desert bloom? Lessons learned from the Israeli case. Ground Water. 42(5), 651–57.
• Ogunbiyi, Constantine. (2004). PPPs: Fad or good for SADC?. SADC PPP Pathway. SADC Banking Association. PPP Capacity Building Programme. Newsletter No. 1, July.
• Ortiz, Rendon,. G, F. Cruz., & J,C. Valencia. (2008). Aspectos relevantes de la política del agua de México. Available in: http:// www.oieau.fr/ ciedd/ contributions/ at2/ contribution/ rendom.htm. (Consulted July 31, 2008). Ouyahia, Meriem Aït [online publication].(2006). Public-Private Partnerships for Funding Municipal Drinking Water Infrastructure: What are the Challenges?” Discussion Paper, Retrieved from <http:// policyresearch.gc.ca/ doclib/ DP_SD_PPP_200605_e.pdf>, (consulted October 22, 2008).
• Peters, Guy.(2003, October). The capacity to govern: Moving back to the center?. VIII Congreso internacional del CLAD sobre la Reforma del Estado y la Administración Pública, 28-31.
• Pierre, Jon., & Guy, Peters. (2000). Governance, politics and the state, Political analysis. London: Macmillan Press.
• Pombo, Alberto. (2008). Desalination and wastewater reuse as technological alternatives in Arid. Tourism Booming Region of Mexico. Frontera Norte, 20(39), 191-216.
• Prats, Joan. (2005). De la burocracia al management, del management a la gobernanza. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública.
• Rhodes, R.A.W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652-667.
• Santes-Álvarez, Ricardo. (2009). Replanteando la interacción gobierno-sociedad: Lecciones de la gobernación ambiental en la Franja México-Estados Unidos. Grupo Eumednet, U. de Málaga.. Retrieved from http:// www.eumed.net/ libros/ 2009c/ 603. (Acceso ene. 2010).
• Sartor, Aloma [online publication]. (2006). Modelos de desarrollo. en <http:// www.frbb.utn.edu.ar/ carreras/ materias/ ing_soc/ modelos_de_desarrollo.pd> (consulted October 8, 2008).
• Simon, Marvin., & Nina, Laurie. (1999). An emerging logic of urban water management. Cochabamba, Bolivia. Urban Estudies, 36(2), 341-357.
• UNESCO [online publication]. (2005). Public-Private Partnership for service delivery: Water and sanitation. Retrieved from <http:// www.uneca.org/ chdcs/ chdcs3/ PPPs_CHDCS_3.pdf>, (consulted October 20, 2008).
• Vallespín, Fernando. (2000). El futuro de la política. Madrid, Taurus.
• Velázquez, Sergio Vargas. (2003). Política del Agua y Participación Social: del modelo centralizado al modelo de gestión integral por cuenca, in Patricia Ávila García, Agua, Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo en el Siglo XXI, Zamora, Michoacán, El Colegio de Michoacán/SEMARNAT/IMTA, 203-211.
• World Health Organization (WHO). (1997). Guidelines for drinking-water quality: Surveillance and control of community supplies, Genova, WHO.
• World Bank, 1980, Appropriate technology for water supply and sanitation: Summary of technical and economic options, USA,World Bank.
• __________ [publicación en línea]. (2001). Upgrading urban communities a resourse for Practitioners. Retrieved from <http:// web.mit.edu/ urbanupgrading/ index.html>. (consulted March 15, 2008).