Public management, private management and collective action in the Portoviejo river basin: Visions and conflicts

sustainability Article Public Management, Private Management and Collective Action in the Portoviejo River Basin: Visions and Conflicts Joaquin Romano 1,* and Byron V. Coral 2,* 1Department of Applied Economics, University of Valladolid, 47002 Valladolid, Spain 2Faculty of Administrative Sciences, Universidad Laica Eloy Alfaro de Manabí(ULEAM), 130214 Manta, Ecuador *Correspondence: [email protected] (J.R.); byr[email protected] (B.V.C.) Academic Editor: Carmela Cucuzzella Received: 20 May 2020; Accepted: 30 June 2020; Published: 7 July 2020   Abstract: Agricultural policies show an orientation in the management of natural resources, such as water, towards specialized production for world markets. This is promoting models of private use against those of common use. The objective of this research is to evaluate the transformations in the institutional framework associated with the change of vision of water and the pressures created on peasant communities that culturally maintain socio-ecological systems. Based on Ostrom’s methodologicalproposals forthegovernanceofcommongoods, acasestudyoftheRioPortoviejoBasin (Ecuador) was carried out. The three developed management models are analyzed: public, private and community. Evidence is provided that the community model is more equitable, efficient and sustainable. The way in which the extension of the market model, which conditions agricultural activity to profitability, is weakening the networks of peasant communities is also studied. In this context, the correlation between the loss of the traditional agrarian culture and the environmental degradation of the area is observed. Keywords: water management; common goods; Ecuador rural landscape; collective action; rural sustainability 1. Introduction In Ecuador, as in the rest of Latin American countries, there is an important tradition regarding the collective management of goods that are neither public nor private, but communal [ 1 ]. Of these assets of common heritage, water systems, food production systems, medicines, textile fibers, materials for house building, and environmental conditions stand out. These are managed with the knowledge passed down from generation to generation. Water management in the Ecuadorian territory of Manab í predates the Spanish colonization. The influence of the Inca culture is observed, which based its economy on the intensive agriculture of products such as corn, beans and livestock, and developed the construction of large cultivation terraces and stone ditches [ 2 ]. For them, the value of water does not respond to a market criterion in which sellers and buyers determine a price. Water in indigenous and small farming communities is a heritage and fulfills a social function as an integrating element of nature and society. It has cultural connotations, given that the aforementioned communities consider water as a living being and force of the universe, and has religious connotations because water, for them, in its origin, comes from Viracocha, creator god of the universe, who fertilizes the Pachamama (mother earth) and allows the reproduction of life. In ancestral communities, it is very common to exercise the right to water of the rivers, streams and channels that pass through their communes without the obligation to pay for it, taking into account the principle that water belongs to everyone in Sustainability 2020,12, 5467; doi:10.3390/su12135467 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 2 of 17 general and to none in particular. Moreover, it also fulfills environmental functions. Water’s behavior responds to natural laws and constitutes the most important value that humanity has [3]. Studiesconductedthroughapproximately5000casesinnativecommunities,includinghigh-mountain meadows in Japan and Switzerland, water projects in the Philippines and California, and fisheries in Canada and Turkey [ 1 ], reveal that the culture of water and land is the community heritage of peoples in all corners of the world. The common conclusion to all of them is the fact that for indigenous communities, water is life. In Quechua language, the term Sumak Kawsay is used, which encloses a respectful knowledge of nature. The concept of the Sumak Kawsay allows to recover a vision or perception of nature, “without disregarding technological advances or advances in productivity, but rather projecting them within a new contract with nature, in which society does not separate from it, nor considers it as something external, or as a threat, or as the radical Other, but as part of its own dynamics, as the foundation and condition of possibility of its future existence” [4] (p. 261). The ties between the community as a form of government and the management of natural resources, and in particular, water, as common goods, have consolidated inseparable ties due to history, culture and human rights. According to Aguilera Klink et al., “Communal property has never been alien to the rules that the community members endowed themselves with so it constituted and continues to constitute the adequate solution for the life of many communities whenever it is possible to cooperate between users and provided that they do not have to face violence from governments and big private interests” [5] (p. 56). In many of these communities, their organization and governance have, as a principle, the recognition of common goods or common pool resources, as known in the theory of the government of the commons and Public Choices [ 6 ]. The sustainable management of common goods represents their vital space. The well-being of the communities depends on the way in which they are related to the climate, water, land, lakes, forests, flora and fauna, and, in general, to all forms of life, however small or large they may be. Millions of Common Property Resources (CPR) users in the Andean countries are engaged in non-mechanized agriculture and constitute the fundamental basis of food supply and the guarantee of food sovereignty by conserving much of the diversity of food. Approximately 80% of farmers in Africa, and between 40% and 60% of Latin America and Asia are part of these structures of communal agriculture, agricultural heritage of humanity and future of man and life [7]. Associated with these agricultural practices are problems of access to water and the means to manage irrigation systems, largely administered, maintained and operated on a community basis. Many of them, despite being backed by customary rights, are subjected to great pressures to strip them and transfer them to private interests under the protection of state regulations that deny livelihoods, water rights and local management rules [ 3 ]. These causes justify the study of water resource management models in the basin of the Portoviejo River, which are developed from the intervention of the State through agrarian policy. Concordant with the vision of good living typical of the Andean worldview [ 4 ], other elements related to culture, motivations and recognitions are incorporated. Felber calls these elements the nuclei of the economy for the common good, which seeks to resolve the conceptual contradictions about values between economy and society, highlights a scale of values around good human relations, appeals to a spirit of constitutional sovereignty, and emphasizes that economic success should become an indicator of social utility. When the exchange value is measured, reference is made to quantities and forms. When talking about utility, reference is made to what really works. The economy for the common good proposes to measure what counts, that is, what the human being needs mainly to feel satisfied and happy [ 8 ]. The result of the successful management of common goods, by organizations or communities that collectively manage the commons in a national economy, far exceed the traditional indicators of GDP that seek to measure development [9]. On the other hand, theories that advocate keeping the State away from its spaces of institutional realization (the self-regulatory market) proliferate. However, Ostrom establishes a link between them, showing that institutions are rarely either private or public (the market or the State). This intuitive Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 3 of 17 understanding, that the State maintains its institutional function as a regulator and supervisor entity of the private sector, is diminished with the case illustrations, which demonstrate that institutional support for the market is provided by the State through its regulations which provide the necessary guarantees for the market to function. In addition, as Ostrom states, “No market can exist for long without underlying public institutions to support it [ . . . ] public and private institutions frequently are intermeshed and depend on one another, rather than existing in isolated worlds” [ 1 ] (p. 15). This facilitates a framework that disturbs the possibility of finding different solutions to the problem of the sustainability of natural resources. This last one is understood as the ability to apply extraction processes to the components of the ecosystem in such a way that they preserve their structural and functional characteristics, such as those raised in the theory of collective action. This rupture of the State-market dilemma for the inclusion of common goods is supported by the legal sciences, since from the point of view of Law, the practice of common goods is found without much difficulty in the traditional management of communal goods. Such custom still persists in Europe and is also present in the traditional law of the indigenous communities of Latin America [ 10 ]. In Roman law, there was a consideration of the so-called “res communes omnium”, the common goods of all (air, running water, the sea and its shores), but legal-political measures were not necessary to preserve the “common things” and guarantee its enjoyment by all [ 11 ]. Nowadays, new categories of common goods emerge, linked to environmental protection, such as water or the atmosphere, but also to other areas such as outer space, the Antarctica or the oceans. As has been said, the premises of current legal systems are based on a nineteenth-century individualism, which have possessive individualism as a cornerstone without considering other factual realities as not only possible but materially existent [ 12 ]. The “anthropological ignorance” of the jurists has been spoken about to show that current law and many jurists are not capable of conceiving a property different to the one of the dogmatic 19th century civil law [13]. However, an increasingly broad current welcomes jurists who have become aware of the reality of common goods as an autonomous legal category and the need for their express protection by Law. Probably its most qualified theoretical representative is the Italian, Ugo Mattei, who has stated that “Awareness of common goods as political and constitutional instruments of direct satisfaction of the needs and fundamental rights of the community does not arise from offices. Rather, it constitutes a political product, still technically amorphous, that takes root in the deep sense of injustice that gives life to Law” [14] (pp. 11–12). In this author’s position, the factual reality of common goods requires theconstruction of categories and institutions that account for their existence and allow their preservation and protection, in order to exclude them from both commodification through private property and its exploitation by the State. Furthermore, common goods are always linked to a community (they serve their common good), thus, their contextualization in the community environment is essential. As a characteristic, common goods respond to their use value in the community and not to their exchange value in the market, being accessible to all. Accordingly, they must be treated as goods outside the market that play an essential role for everyone in the community. The globalizing dynamics extend the great transformation of rural landscapes, associated with the privatization of natural resources. Such resources are traditionally managed as public or common goods. The effect of market globalization on rural communities, and particularly on small farmers, in Latin America, is an important topic in the literature [ 15 , 16 ]. Development policies in Portoviejo incorporate the extended vision of the country progress and the well-being of the peoples. This well-being depends on the productivity and export capacity of agricultural products as indicators of competitiveness and human talent based on the efficiency of the use of natural resources. The aim is to determine the impact on Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) and social capital [ 17 , 18 ], derived from changes in the management model of water resources in the basin of the Portoviejo River, located in the canton of Portoviejo in the Province of Manabí(Ecuador) (Figure 1). Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 4 of 17 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16 inhabitants under 50 years of age, of which 17,294.877 live in urban parishes and 66,583 in rural areas. The active population is 108,353 inhabitants, of which 62 percent is employed by the tertiary sector, while agriculture employs 16 percent [19]. Statistics for rural areas are imprecise, given the predominance of the informal economy. Figure 1. Map of the hydrological system of Manabí and study area of the Portoviejo River. The hydrological system is characterized by having various water sources which supply water to the population for human consumption and irrigation water for agricultural production, as can be seen in Table 1. Table 1. Flows of the hydrological system of the Canton of Portoviejo. Basin Name Environmental Flow (m3/s) Water Quality Poza Honda Dam Site 3.26 Contaminated Santa Ana Diversion Dam 7.42 Contaminated Portoviejo River in Portoviejo 12.35 Contaminated Portoviejo River A. J. Chico 13.74 Contaminated Riochico River in Alajuela 3.5 Contaminated Riochico River A.J. R. Portoviejo 6.45 Contaminated Portoviejo River-Ceibal 21.62 Contaminated Portoviejo River Estuary 22.19 Contaminated Source: SENAGUA 2011. From a sample of farming families, we analyze the effects of irrigation infrastructures on the vision or perception of water as a communal resource, prevalent in rural communities. The construction of the Poza Honda reservoir on the Portoviejo River has expanded the irrigation area and the incorporation of cultivation practices of productive agriculture (Figure 2). Its impact is considered in the conservation of social networks that structure the SES, which are representative of a culture that, over time, has generated traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) [20,21], considering Figure 1. Map of the hydrological system of Manabíand study area of the Portoviejo River. The Portoviejo canton has an extension of 967 km 2 , which represents 5.12 percent of the surface of the province of Manab í . As of 2014, it had an estimated population of 304,227, with 80 percent of inhabitants under 50 years of age, of which 17,294.877 live in urban parishes and 66,583 in rural areas. The active population is 108,353 inhabitants, of which 62 percent is employed by the tertiary sector, while agriculture employs 16 percent [ 19 ]. Statistics for rural areas are imprecise, given the predominance of the informal economy. The hydrological system is characterized by having various water sources which supply water to the population for human consumption and irrigation water for agricultural production, as can be seen in Table 1. Table 1. Flows of the hydrological system of the Canton of Portoviejo. Basin Name Environmental Flow (m3/s) Water Quality Poza Honda Dam Site 3.26 Contaminated Santa Ana Diversion Dam 7.42 Contaminated Portoviejo River in Portoviejo 12.35 Contaminated Portoviejo River A. J. Chico 13.74 Contaminated Riochico River in Alajuela 3.5 Contaminated Riochico River A.J. R. Portoviejo 6.45 Contaminated Portoviejo River-Ceibal 21.62 Contaminated Portoviejo River Estuary 22.19 Contaminated Source: SENAGUA 2011. From a sample of farming families, we analyze the effects of irrigation infrastructures on the vision or perception of water as a communal resource, prevalent in rural communities. The construction Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 5 of 17 of the Poza Honda reservoir on the Portoviejo River has expanded the irrigation area and the incorporation of cultivation practices of productive agriculture (Figure 2). Its impact is considered in the conservation of social networks that structure the SES, which are representative of a culture that, over time, has generated traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) [ 20 , 21 ], considering determinants of sustainability. The basis of this research study are the three models of water management that have occurred in the Poza Honda irrigation system. Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16 determinants of sustainability. The basis of this research study are the three models of water management that have occurred in the Poza Honda irrigation system. Figure 2. Aerial view of the Poza Honda Reservoir. A first model was extended until the mid-20th century, in which the agricultural community in the basin of the Portoviejo River was dedicated to the production of traditional crops, closely related to the concept of food sovereignty. Starting in 1962, Manabí began a second model of public water management, as a result of a great mobilization of small farmers, workers, students, housewives, educational establishments and social organizations, who organized, in a great front of struggle, the demand of solutions to the water problem, and forced the National Congress in 1962 to create the Manabí Rehabilitation Center (MRC), whose function was the planning and execution of potable water works, irrigation and use of the province water resources. The most significant public work was built in this stage, which begins with the construction of a water reservoir called Poza Honda Dam, with a storage capacity of 100 million cubic meters of water, the initial cost of which amounted to 123.2 million dollars (at current prices of 1969). This dam came into operation in 1971. The original aim of this work was to provide water for human consumption to the inhabitants of the cantons of Santa Ana, 24 de Mayo, Portoviejo, Jipijapa, Montecristi, Manta, Rocafuerte and towns in between. Moreover, in order to take advantage of the surplus, a system of canals was built in 1978 to irrigate crops in the valley of the Portoviejo River. A third private management model for Manabí water resources was introduced in May 2003. This model arose from the reforms brought about by the so-called Washington Consensus, the Law of Modernization of the State, Privatizations and Provision of Public Services by the private initiative, the Reform Law to the Constitutive Law of the MRC, and the MRC resolutions. These resolutions sought to transfer to the private initiative the operation, maintenance, administration and construction of the water works through the company Manageneración, which was created for this purpose. The main objective of this research is to analyze, in terms of SES and social capital, the transformation processes that are taking place in rural communities in the context of irrigation infrastructures linked to the Poza Honda reservoir and its water management models. This research offers contributions to three basic questions that these transformations raise: Does the increasing interference of world markets in collective decision-making processes produce a change in the vision and model of water management in rural communities as a communal good to a private good? To what extent do these causes disrupt ESS and affect social capital? What are the impacts that these transformations have on the ecological systems of the basin under study? Figure 2. Aerial view of the Poza Honda Reservoir. A first model was extended until the mid-20th century, in which the agricultural community in the basin of the Portoviejo River was dedicated to the production of traditional crops, closely related to the concept of food sovereignty. Starting in 1962, Manab í began a second model of public water management, as a result of a great mobilization of small farmers, workers, students, housewives, educational establishments and social organizations, who organized, in a great front of struggle, the demand of solutions to the water problem, and forced the National Congress in 1962 to create the Manab í Rehabilitation Center (MRC), whose function was the planning and execution of potable water works, irrigation and use of the province water resources. The most significant public work was built in this stage, which begins with the construction of a water reservoir called Poza Honda Dam, with a storage capacity of 100 million cubic meters of water, the initial cost of which amounted to 123.2 million dollars (at current prices of 1969). This dam came into operation in 1971. The original aim of this work was to provide water for human consumption to the inhabitants of the cantons of Santa Ana, 24 de Mayo, Portoviejo, Jipijapa, Montecristi, Manta, Rocafuerte and towns in between. Moreover, in order to take advantage of the surplus, a system of canals was built in 1978 to irrigate crops in the valley of the Portoviejo River. A third private management model for Manab í water resources was introduced in May 2003. This model arose from the reforms brought about by the so-called Washington Consensus, the Law of Modernization of the State, Privatizations and Provision of Public Services by the private initiative, the Reform Law to the Constitutive Law of the MRC, and the MRC resolutions. These resolutions sought to transfer to the private initiative the operation, maintenance, administration and construction of the water works through the company Manageneración, which was created for this purpose. The main objective of this research is to analyze, in terms of SES and social capital, the transformation processes that are taking place in rural communities in the context of irrigation infrastructures linked to the Poza Honda reservoir and its water management models. This research offers contributions to three basic questions that these transformations raise: Does the increasing Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 6 of 17 interference of world markets in collective decision-making processes produce a change in the vision and model of water management in rural communities as a communal good to a private good? To what extent do these causes disrupt ESS and affect social capital? What are the impacts that these transformations have on the ecological systems of the basin under study? The case study offers results that show the division of producer typologies that globalization has introduced in the study area. Family groups that have less access to irrigation water and land ownership are in conflict with those who practice intensive and productive agriculture, with state support. As a result, the cultural degradation of the peasant communities is verified, with the loss of the TEK acquired on techniques and varieties of crops that guaranteed food sovereignty and security. The increased demand for land and water for agriculture has an ecological impact on the sensitive dry forest ecosystems of the region, and causes adaptation problems to climate change. 2. Materials and Methods Methodologically, the analysis is carried out from the new institutional economics approach, designedandusedbyOstromin studies of systems of common pool resources aroundtheworld[ 1 , 18 , 22 ]. Ostrom’s theoretical proposal includes the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework which includes the broadest categories of variables that can be affected in an action situation, such as: 1. Biophysical conditions, which involve the analysis of goods according to the four categories of defined goods (common pool resources (CPR), public goods, private goods and toll goods) which are also the characteristics of the cultivated ecosystem. 2. Attributes of the community, which include the history, culture, customs, their knowledge, techniques and social capital; the latter, understood as the set of networks of interpersonal trust between human societies, also known as the productive social system. 3. Rules-in-Use of the system, which englobes what is allowed, what is done by obligation and what is prohibited. These rules include agreements on how the system is managed, who can act within the system, with which functions its members participate, and the type of sanctions for non-compliance with the rules, that is, the system of government. The characteristic of complexity is introduced in the analysis of institutions and the governance of natural resources as a key element, in which the existing interrelationships between social and ecological systems are observed, leading Ostrom to propose the study of SES [ 22 ], or what Mazoyer and Roudart denominate Cultivated Ecosystem and Social Productive System [ 7 ] (p. 72), in which it is possible to observe the multiple forms of organization and operation to which natural resources are subject. The processes of change are the result of a vision that represents the social perception or cognitive representation of the territory dynamics, and of the participation of agents and social dialogue, as has been discussed in landscape research [ 23 ]. Some analysis of the theoretical or conceptual foundations that underlie these approaches when evaluating the perceived values of the landscape observe the absence of an explicit theoretical foundation [ 24 ]. However, at the same time, the importance of understanding the perception dynamics of the human landscape and its importance for integrating and implementing it in current policy strategies is recognized [ 25 , 26 ]. Landscape conservation in rural areas and indigenous peoples is closely linked to the intangible heritage and the attachment or sense of place of their communities [27–29]. Ostrom methodological proposal is multidisciplinary, considering the need to address complexity through multiple methodologies from different disciplines. It is also transdisciplinary, focusing on real problems. This is reflected on the suitability of the case study, which meets the objective of solving real problems in the practice of collective action in ecological systems and landscapes that meet the characteristics of common goods [30]. The case study of the basin of the Portoviejo River is applied to the research. It is organized according to a protocol that seeks to understand complex processes. It is ideal to work with natural Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 7 of 17 resource systems that involve experiences of collective action and common goods, considering that it is the only empirical field research option when cross-data is not available [ 31 ]. The investigation began with the compilation of the available documentation of the socio-ecological system of the studied area. This documentation does not provide information on the action situation and the perception of agricultural producers. Therefore, field work has been carried out with interviews and direct observation, complemented by interviews with the authorities and other institutional actors responsible for managing the basin. The collected information for this case study begins with an interpretation of the landscape, which helps to recognize the different elements and the biophysical conditions of the cultivated ecosystem along the basin of the Portoviejo River. This interpretation allows us to have relevant information on the infrastructures related to the water system, its state, and the way the territory is organized for agricultural production. The study area is located, according to the Bioclimatic map of Ecuador, in a region classified by Holdridge as subtropical desert, and on the Phenology map of Ecuador as semi-deciduous [ 32 ]. The climatic characteristics of the area, with two clearly differentiated seasons, have determined the ecological systems and conditioned cultivation practices. Vegetation varies in each of these seasons, with the wet season exhibiting a predominant coverage of hydrophytes, epiphytes and climbing plants. Although practically all groups of fauna are found, birds constitute the most representative group, and only common species of medium or small size are found. Regarding mammals, these have disappeared, or their populations have been reduced in most of the territory and have taken refuge in areas of difficult access for man. In Manab í , endangered species have increased, such as agoutis, deer, oncillas, lowland pacas, partridges, guacharacas or the eared and rock pigeons. The study area is characterized by agricultural activity, with family farms predominating. The traditional cultivation practice is one of short-cycle crops, mainly in the dry season, between June and November. The low pluviometry effect contributes to a great extent, during the dry season, to the water degradation in all the tributaries that form the Portoviejo River. In the wet season, from December to May, heavy rains cause overflows and floods that hinder crops. This shows the sensitivity of this area and requires integral management of crops to improve food security and sustainable development [ 33 ]. Regarding land use, the III National Agricultural Census shows that until 2000, most of the canton area corresponded to mountains and forests, and to transitory crops and fallow, which covered an area of 26,206 ha and 13,109 ha, respectively (Figure 3). The area of crop and pastures is estimated at 37,000 ha, which occupy almost 40 percent of its surface, from which 16 percent is pasture and 24 percent are crops. A total of 39 different varieties of crops have been identified, highlighting dry corn which occupies 39 percent of the cultivated area, coffee with 16 percent, hard corn with 7 percent, and lemon or cocoa with 5 percent. The Survey of Surface and Continuous Agricultural Production of the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses of 2018 indicates a reduction in mountains and in the crops of forests of 8 percent, and an increase in the areas cultivated with irrigation by 16 percent, mainly in dry corn. The irrigation system varies from transitory crops, in which the furrow or flood crops dominate in 86 percent of the surface, to permanent crops in which this system is 38 percent; and in 55 percent, the irrigation is by sprinkling [34]. In the next step, 27 in-depth interviews are carried out with producer families. The selection of the families was made following the non-probability sampling technique; in this case, criteria of access to land, water and the predisposition of families to provide the requested information were used. Each interview lasted between three and four hours, accompanied by field observations lasting an additional one to two hours. The interview guide used corresponded to a properly structured questionnaire to collect the information provided by producers with irrigation and without irrigation. This instrument is divided into eight parts. Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 8 of 17 Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 16 Figure 3. Map of land use and cover of the Portoviejo, Santa-Ana, Rocafuerte and Sucre cantons. (Source: Ministerio del Ambiente y Agua, Ecuador). In the next step, 27 in-depth interviews are carried out with producer families. The selection of the families was made following the non-probability sampling technique; in this case, criteria of access to land, water and the predisposition of families to provide the requested information were used. Each interview lasted between three and four hours, accompanied by field observations lasting an additional one to two hours. The interview guide used corresponded to a properly structured questionnaire to collect the information provided by producers with irrigation and without irrigation. This instrument is divided into eight parts. The first part collected location information on the property. The second part dealt with the composition of farming families and the time its members spend on agricultural work on their farm, in the production of other farms as wage labor and in other activities not related to agriculture. The third part reported on the income that rural families earn from work related to migration. The fourth part dealt with information on other types of income that families earn. The fifth part provided information on the characteristics of agricultural holding. The sixth part of the interview collected information on the technical and economic characteristics of the cropping systems, in some cases with information on more than two crops. The seventh part gathered information on the technical and economic characteristics of animal husbandry. Lastly, the eighth part sought to identify the resources that producers have for agricultural work. It is important to highlight that the interview guide allowed the recording of valuable information regarding the questions asked, and also made it possible to collect comments and testimonies on the relationship of the families with the environment, the market, social capital, and state entities. Although the main source of information comes from the structured interview carried out, due to the heterogeneity of the peasant families interviewed, we have carried out semi-structured interviews as one of the instruments of the ethnographic method, given that they offer an acceptable degree of flexibility, while maintaining sufficient uniformity to achieve interpretations consistent with the purposes of the study. The information from the interviews has been completed with that obtained from observing their irrigation practices. The aim was to describe the rationalities of small farmers and the collective rule systems behind their daily practices. It was possible to understand the Figure 3. Map of land use and cover of the Portoviejo, Santa-Ana, Rocafuerte and Sucre cantons. (Source: Ministerio del Ambiente y Agua, Ecuador). The first part collected location information on the property. The second part dealt with the composition of farming families and the time its members spend on agricultural work on their farm, in the production of other farms as wage labor and in other activities not related to agriculture. The third part reported on the income that rural families earn from work related to migration. The fourth part dealt with information on other types of income that families earn. The fifth part provided information on the characteristics of agricultural holding. The sixth part of the interview collected information on the technical and economic characteristics of the cropping systems, in some cases with information on more than two crops. The seventh part gathered information on the technical and economic characteristics of animal husbandry. Lastly, the eighth part sought to identify the resources that producers have for agricultural work. It is important to highlight that the interview guide allowed the recording of valuable information regarding the questions asked, and also made it possible to collect comments and testimonies on the relationship of the families with the environment, the market, social capital, and state entities. Although the main source of information comes from the structured interview carried out, due to the heterogeneity of the peasant families interviewed, we have carried out semi-structured interviews as one of the instruments of the ethnographic method, given that they offer an acceptable degree of flexibility, while maintaining sufficient uniformity to achieve interpretations consistent with the purposes of the study. The information from the interviews has been completed with that obtained from observing their irrigation practices. The aim was to describe the rationalities of small farmers and the collective rule systems behind their daily practices. It was possible to understand the management and control actions related to water, soil and vegetation resources in the activity of producers. Secondary information from official sources was also used for the analysis, so as to observe the institutional trajectories for the management of water resources in Manab í , mainly the one related to the legal reforms that modified the way of seeing and undertaking water management in the basin. In order to assess this information, nine open-ended interviews were carried out, distributed Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 9 of 17 as follows: two to researchers in the field of agrarian economy, who were familiar with the study of agrarian systems in Manab í , four to community leaders linked to the problem of irrigation in Manab í , and three to officials of the Manab í Water Resources Regulatory Corporation, a public institution in charge of managing Manab í ’s water system. The documentation reviewed is extensive. On the one hand, it includes Williamson recommendations in the framework of the so-called Washington Consensus that were implemented in Latin America from 1989 [ 35 ], the Law of Modernization of the State, Privatizations and Provision of Public Services by the private initiative of 1993, the Reform Law to the Constitutive Law of the MRC of 1994, the reports of minutes, agreements and contracts made by the MRC for the construction, operation, maintenance and exploitation of hydroelectric power generation plants, and the operation, administration and maintenance contracts for the pumping dams, water transfers and related works, and, in general, for the privatization of the Manab í water since 2003. In addition, the agreement was analyzed to transfer the infrastructure of the Rocafuerte Irrigation System to the community of families organized in the General Board of Users of the year 2000. 3. Results 3.1. Characterization of Agricultural Producers in the Case Study From the case study conducted in the basin of the Portoviejo River, it is deduced that the producers interviewed develop different types of family farming with notable differences between them, both in its material and immaterial aspects. Conventionally, they have been differentiated by income levels, mainly depending on the cultivated area and the access capacity to irrigation water. However, their most relevant characteristics are linked to the cultural vision they have of their activity. In other words, the meaning they give to working with communal goods such as water and land to obtain food sovereignty, around which the government systems and social networks of peasant communities are generated and structured. According to the information resulting from 27 interviews with the selected producers, three types of producer families have been identified. Each family type has undergone nine in-depth interviews. The first group is formed by those families whose production is more oriented to self-consumption. The income they generate is not enough to guarantee family reproduction, so they must resort to wage labor, which Soto calls Family Subsistence Agriculture. This group includes producers who do not have access to irrigation and those who have irrigation but whose surface is very small, less than two hectares. These producers must offer their wage labor force, and the rest of the family members must carry out other activities to obtain the income for their subsistence [36]. A second group, which Soto calls Family Consolidated Agriculture [ 36 ], is made up of the interviewed producers who, on average, have between four and six hectares, have access to irrigation, and the family depends, to a greater extent, on the production for their own consumption with the surplus going for sale in short chains. Although family reproduction is possible with these type of producers, they are not capable of generating the surpluses that allow the reproduction and development of the productive unit. The progress of this group depends, to a large extent, on the support they may find in public policies regarding financing, market insertion, and negotiating capacity and access to technologies to make them more efficient, without distracting them from their role as producers for food security in the region. In third place are those families who have properties with areas greater than ten hectares and have access to the irrigation system, are able to ensure food supplies for their families, and the income they obtain from the sale of their products allows them to capitalize on the farm. Moreover, this group has a high degree of market entry, has and employs more technology, and uses agrochemicals such as fertilizers, herbicides and fungicides, which, among other effects, cause heavy contamination in the basins, especially in the dry season when the flows decrease significantly. According to interviews with the producers, those who have had access to irrigation have achieved increases of over 200% compared to those who do not have access to the irrigation system. Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 16 of 17 10. Chamoux, M.N.; Contreras, J. La Gesti ó n Comunal de Recursos: Econom í a y Poder en las Sociedades Locales de España Y de América Latina; Icaria: Barcelona, Spain, 1996. 11. Añaños Meza, M.C. La doctrina de los bienes comunes de Francisco de Vitoria como fundamentaci ó n del dominio en el Nuevo Mundo. Pers. Derecho 2013,68, 103–137. 12. Gordillo, J.L. La Protecci ó n de Los Bienes Comunes de la Humanidad: Un Desaf í o para la Pol í tica y el Derecho del Siglo XXI; Trotta: Madrid, Spain, 2006. 13. Vicente Blanco, D.J. Protecci ó n de la cultura popular y entidades de gesti ó n colectiva: ¿Apropiaci ó n de bienes comunes y enriquecimiento sin causa? Rev. Elect. Direito 2015,3, 1–26. 14. Mattei, U. Beni Comuni. Un Manifesto; Laterza: Bari, Italy, 2011. 15. Grau, R.H.; Aide, M. Globalization and Land-Use Transitions in Latin America. Ecol. Soc. 2008 ,13, 16. Available online: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art16/(accessed on 13 June 2020). [CrossRef] 16. Theodore, J.D. The Process of Globalization in Latin America. Int. Bus. Econ. Res. J. 2015 ,14, 193–198. [CrossRef] 17. McGinnis, M.D.; Ostrom, E. Social-ecological system framework: Initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 2014,19, 30. [CrossRef] 18. Ostrom, E. Social capital: A fad or a fundamental concept. In Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective; Dasgupta, P., Serageldin, I., Eds.; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; pp. 172–214. 19. S á nchez Guerrero, R.C.; Yugch, T. Memoria T é cnica Cant ó n Portoviejo; Instituto Espacial Ecuatoriano: Quito, Ecuador, 2012. 20. Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Applic. 2000,10, 1251–1262. [CrossRef] 21. Becker, C.D.; Ghimire, K. Synergy between traditional ecological knowledge and conservation science supports forest preservation in Ecuador. Conserv. Ecol. 2003 ,8, 8. Available online: http://www.consecol.org/ vol8/iss1/art1/(accessed on 24 February 2020). [CrossRef] 22. Ostrom, E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009 ,325, 419–422. [CrossRef] 23. Kizos, T.; Plieninger, T.; Iosifides, T.; Garcia-Martin, M.; Girod, G.; Karro, K.; Palang, H.; Printsmann, A.; Shaw, B.; Nagy, J.; et al. Responding to Landscape Change: Stakeholder Participation and Social Capital in Five European Landscapes. Land 2018,7, 14. [CrossRef] 24. Zube, E.H.; Sell, J.L.; Taylor, J.G. Landscape perception: Research, application and theory. Landsc. Plan. 1982 , 9, 1–33. [CrossRef] 25. Selman, P. Sustainable Landscape Planning: The Reconnection Agenda; Routledge: London, UK, 2012. 26. Heijgen, E. Human Landscape Perception. Report on Understanding Human Landscape Perception and How to Integrate and Implement this in Current Policy Strategie; AONB High Weald Unit: London, UK, 2013. Available online: https://www.highweald.org/downloads/publications/uk-landscape-research-reports/1057human-landscape-perception-of-the-high-weald/file.html (accessed on 2 April 2020). 27. Masterson, V.; Stedman, R.; Enqvist, J.; Tengö, M.; Giusti, M.; Svedin, U.; Wahl, D. The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: A review and research agenda. Ecol. Soc. 2017 ,22. [CrossRef] 28. UNESCO. Living Heritage and Indigenous Peoples. The Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019. Available online: https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/Brochure-indigenouspeople-201904-EN.pdf (accessed on 14 January 2020). 29. De Vos, A.; Biggs, R.; Preiser, R. Methods for understanding social-ecological systems: A review of place-based studies. Ecol. Soc. 2019,24. [CrossRef] 30. Poteete, A.; Janssen, M.; Ostrom, E. Trabajar Juntos: Acci ó n Colectiva, Bienes Comunes y M ú ltiples M é todos en la Práctica; Fondo de Cultura Económica: Mexico, DF, Mexico, 2012. 31. Collier, D.; Brady, E.H.; Seawright, J. Sources of Leverage in Causal Inference: Toward an Alternative View of Methodology. In Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards; Brady, H.E., Collier, D., Eds.; Rowman and Littlefield: Lanham, MD, USA, 2004; pp. 229–266. 32. Gobierno Aut ó nomo Descentralizado Municipal del Cant ó n Portoviejo (GMCP). Actualizaci ó n del Plan de Ordenamiento Territorial del Cant ó n Portoviejo; GMCP: Portoviejo, Ecuador, 2016. Available online: https://www.portoviejo.gob.ec/md-transparencia/2017/julio-2017/Plan%20de%20Ordenamiento.pdf (accessed on 16 January 2020). 33. Gallegos, A.; Monar, C.; Montalvo, V. Gesti ó n y prioridades geogr á ficas por sectores en Manab í para mejorar la seguridad alimentaria y desarrollo. ECA Sinerg. 2016,7, 160–171. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2020,12, 5467 17 of 17 34. Instituto Nacional de Estad í stica y Censos (INEC). Encuesta de Superficie y Producci ó n Agropecuaria Continua ESPAC; INEC: Quito, Ecuador, 2019. 35. Williamson, J. El Cambio en las Políticas Económicas de América Latina; Gernika: Mexico, DF, Mexico, 1991. 36. Soto, F.; Rodriguez, M.; Falconi, C. Pol í ticas para la Agricultura Familiar en Am é rica Latina y el Caribe: Resumen Ejecutivo; FAO: Santiago, Chile, 2007. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-a1248s.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2020). 37. Groenfeldt, D. Explotaci ó n de los recursos h í dricos y valores espirituales en las sociedades occidentales e ind í genas. In El Agua y los Pueblos Ind í genas; Boelens, R., Chiva, M., Nakashima, D., Retana, V., Eds.; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2007; pp. 118–127. 38. Aguirre, Z.; Linares-Palomino, R.; Kvist, L. Especies leñosas y formaciones vegetales en los bosques estacionalmente secos de Ecuador y Perú.Arnaldoa 2006,13, 324–350. 39. Arenas Calle, W.C.; Cardozo Conde, C.I.; Baena, M. Analysis of seed systems in Latin American countries. Acta Agronómica. 2015,64, 223–229. [CrossRef] 40. Neate, P.J.; Guei, R.G. Promoci ó n del Crecimiento y Desarrollo de Empresas de Semillas de Pequeños Agricultores en Cultivos Para la Seguridad Alimentaria; FAO: Roma, Italia, 2011. 41. Achterhuis, H.; Boelens, R.; Zwarteveen, M. Water Property Relations and Modern Policy Regimes: Neoliberal Utopia and the Disempowerment of Collective Action. In Out of the Mainstream; Boelens, R., Getches, D., Guevara, A., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; pp. 27–55. [CrossRef] 42. Boelens, R.; Vos, J. The danger of naturalizing water policy concepts: Water productivity and efficiency discourses from field irrigation to virtual water trade. Agric. Water Manag. 2012,108, 16–26. [CrossRef] 43. Analuisa, I.A. Diagn ó stico de proyectos productivos y soberan í a alimentaria en comunidades. Caso Rocafuerte. ECA Sinerg. 2016,8, 95–106. [CrossRef] 44. Mauden, B. El Agua Nuestro Bien Común; Heinrich Boll Stiftung: Mexico, CDMX, Mexico, 2007. 45. Martínez Gil, F.J. La Nueva Cultura del Agua en España; Bakeaz: Bilbao, Spain, 1997. 46. Ostrom, E. Self-organization and Social Capital. Ind. Corp. Chang. 1995,4, 131–159. [CrossRef] 47. Mart í n-Retortillo, M.; Pinilla, V.; Velazco, J.; Willebald, H. The Dynamics of Latin American Agricultural Production Growth, 1950–2008. J. Lat. Am. Stud. 2019,51, 573–605. [CrossRef] 48. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The Future of Food and Agriculture—Trends and Challenges; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2017. 49. Johnson, K.M.; Lichter, D.T. Rural Depopulation: Growth and Decline Processes over the Past Century. Rural Sociol. 2019,84, 3–27. [CrossRef] 50. European Union. Demographic Trends in EU Regions; European Parlament: Brussels, Belgium, 2019. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/633160/EPRS_BRI(2019)633160_ EN.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2020). 51. Mekonnen, M.M.; Pahlow, M.; Aldaya, M.M.; Zarate, E.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Sustainability, Efficiency and Equitability of Water Consumption and Pollution in Latin America and the Caribbean. Sustainability 2015 ,7, 2086–2112. [CrossRef] 52. Rep ú blica de Ecuador. Primera Contribuci ó n Determinada a Nivel Nacional para el Acuerdo de Par í s bajo la Convenci ó n Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Clim á tico; Ministerio de Medioambiente: Quito, Ecuador, 2019. Available online: https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Ecuador%20First/ Primera%20NDC%20Ecuador.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2020). 53. Guzm á n Casado, G.I.; Gonz á lez de Molina, M. Preindustrial agriculture versus organic agriculture: The land cost of sustainability. Land Use Policy 2009,26, 502–510. [CrossRef] 54. B é li è res, J.F.; Bonnal, F.; Bosc, P.M.; Losch, B.; Marzin, J.; Sourisseau, J.M. Family Farming Around the World Definitions, Contributions and Public Policies; CIRAD: Paris, France, 2015. Availableonline: https://agritrop.cirad. fr/576161/1/Belieres_Bonnal_Bosc_Losch_Marzin_Sourisseau-Family_farming-AFD-2015.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2020). 55. Cardenas, J.C.; Chong, A.; Ñopo, H. Stated social behavior and revealed actions: Evidence from six Latin American countries. J. Dev. Econ. 2013,104, 16–33. [CrossRef] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).