Disputas e hierarquias no acesso à água em assentamentos de reforma agrária

Abstract

This thesis aims to study the disputes and hierarchies regarding the access to water in two Agrovilas, Campinas and Birigui, of Reunidas Agrarian Reform Rural Settlement, located in the municipality of Promissão, in the state of São Paulo. The choice to develop a case study in these two Agrovilas is based on the fact that they present differences in their land structures regarding the access to water. Water considered as a key element to treat in a broad way the environmental issue in that territory. The methodology adopted to research the two Agrovilas was the testimony collection within the oral history perspective. However, as one of the determining elements of these disputes and hierarchies are linked to the management of water resources, which is carried out by the Lower Tietê River Basin Committee, a semi-structured interview was also conducted with the vice-president of the Committee and the documents produced on management and water collection were analyzed. The main results of the research show that due to changes in rainfall regimes with greater periods of drought in the Settlement region, the settlers who have more access to water are in a privileged position as regards the possibility of tracing production strategies. The disputes and hierarchies resulting from this land arrangement eventually were translated into discursive conflicts within the Settlement between those who have and those who do not have access to water. This water shortage increased in the years of 2013/2014, due to a great drought period in the state of São Paulo. This fact raised a rumor about the possibility of charging for the use of water. However, the settlers did not have enough information about how and which institution would perform this collection. Thus, it can be noticed that the Committee is an institution not known by the settlers. Despite they don't know the Committee the settlers are against the model of regulation of water resources which is based on technics and money. Thereby, it is possible to realize the conflict between two territorialities, that of the Committee, with a technical and monetary vision, and that of the settlers, with a view contrary to monetarization and the external regulation of a good that the settlers deem free to be accessed. From these disputes and hierarchies between the settlers themselves and between the settlers and the Basin Committee it is possible to visualize the necessity to think of a management model that is more open to receive the demands and to recognize the knowledges from distinct social groups that historically deal with the water.