Preliminary Draft: Please do not cite or circulate without the author's permission.
Water Policies: a comparative study in South America
Matilde de Souza1
Franciely Torrente2
Mariana Balau3
Rebeca Caeiro4
This paper aims to compare the water policies among eight countries in South America:
Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela,
considering that decentralization, integration and participation are the main principles
that could drive the management of a river basin5. We are also considering, in advance,
that a good governance of a river basin would have to observe (1) the river basin as a
territory to manager water, (2) an informational system as a primary tool to administrate
hydric resources and (3) the assignment of economic value to water; we will compare
the domestic policies of these countries to discuss the level of institutional innovation
they have achieved in the last ten years.
We are taking those elements as an ideal type to measure the extent on which the
domestic water policies approximates or moves away from them. Documental analysis
of domestic laws, reports, case studies and others, with the support of the Atlas TI
software, will be our research method.
1
PhD in Political Science, Professor of PUC Minas International Relations Department
Undergraduate student, PUC Minas
3
MsC Candidate, PUC Minas Internacional Relations Department
4
Undergraduate student, PUC Minas.
5
This paper is part of a research project funded by FAPEMIG.
2
Introduction
Ensuring access to safe water, and the understanding that such access is essential
for the eradication of poverty and for the economic and social development of human
settlements, are elements included among the Millennium Development Goals,
specifically by Goal 7, Target C. Moreover, according to Justo (2013), there is a strong
set of rules that determines public policies on water resources related to the human right
to access water and sanitation. According to the same author, this right is supported by
international law, as confirmed by the Resolution 64/292 of 2010 of the UN General
Assembly, which reads that the Assembly "[r]ecognizes the right to safe and clean
drinking water and sanitation as a human right that is essential for the full enjoyment of
life and all human rights ".
Based on the idea that the access to water in sufficient quantity and quality is a
human right, the participation of the civil society in the governance of this resource is a
main key. Apart from participation, other elements that constitute the structure of this
resource governance should also be considered when analyzing the policies of water
management. These elements have been established through a long process of
discussion (SOUZA, TATEMOTO, 2012) and it is suggested that its synthesis is an
ideal type, here applied as a guideline for the analysis and comparison of the water
policies in some South American countries: Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia,
Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela. Thus, the ideal type of water management
should be: an integrated, participatory and decentralized management; with the adoption
of a territorial base for the river basin, the recognition of the economic value of water;
and at the same time, its treatment should be the same as a public good and the
establishment of an information system and support for decision making is essential.
The focus of this paper will be on the aspects of the integrated, participatory and
decentralized management. This choice is justified by the fact that these elements are
fundamental to the observance of an integrated and multi-level governance of water
resources - concepts that will be discussed in the first section of this paper. The second
section will present a brief background of the countries listed above, to explain the
demand for water resources, due to their diverse and competitive uses. The third section
will be devoted to a brief statement of the management of water resources and the
fourth, and last, aims to analyze the policies of those countries, in conclusion, to
compare them, regarding the aspects already mentioned and to verify whether they meet
the principles advocated.
A limitation of this work that could be highlighted is its attention to the
institutional aspect of the politics here analyzed – politics that are, indeed, extremely
dynamic. However, it is understood that, for the efforts to build institutions for shared
governance of transboundary water resources, greater proximity between the political
aspect of riparian countries is essential facilitator. Thus, it is understood that the less
diverse the rules governing the management of water resources are, the most likely is
the advance of the establishment of institutions for governance of these resources in
international or transboundary river basins or regions.
Integrated, decentralized and participatory water governance
According to Dourojeanni (2001), the development of water resources
management policies aims to establish mechanisms to deal with conflicts between
different users of these resources and between the users and the environment. Thereby,
the management systems of water resources and river basins are designed to avoid,
prevent or resolve conflicts. As defined by the Agenda 21, Chapter 18, the integrated
management of water resources is based on "the perception of water as an integral part
of the ecosystem, a natural resource and social and economic good”, must be taken
within the river basin and should seek the achievement of four core goals:
(a) To promote a dynamic, interactive, iterative and multisectoral
approach to water resources management, including the identification
and protection of potential sources of supply of freshwater that
integrates technological, socio-economic, environmental and health
considerations; (b) To plan the use; protection, conservation and
sustainable and rational management of water resources based on
community needs and priorities, within the framework of a national
economic development policy; (c) To draw, implement and evaluate
projects and programs that are economically efficient and socially
appropriate within clearly defined strategies, based on an approach of
full public participation, including women’s, youth, indigenous people
and local communities, the establishment of policies and decisionmaking of water management; (d) to identify and strengthen or
develop, as required, in particular in developing countries, appropriate
institutional, legal and financial mechanisms to ensure that water
policy and its implementation are a catalyst for social progress and
sustainable economic growth. (Agenda 21, ch. 18, 18.9, p. 269).
Akhmouch (2012) states that water governance involves a set of systems that
control the decision making over resources, including the rules that define it (who
decides, how, and under what conditions), covers how responsibilities and roles are
fulfilled and formal and informal institutions by which management authority is
exercised. Governance structures are established at various levels, whence comes the
term "multilevel governance", understood as "the range of political, social, economic
and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources, and
the delivery of water services, at different levels of society "(GWP, apud AKHMOUCH
2012, p. 9). This definition was published by the Global Water Partnership (GWP) and
has been shared by several agencies, including the World Bank.
Based on this definition, according to Akhmouch (2012), the GWP suggests that
two principles underpin the effective water governance: the first is that management
should observe an integrated, transparent, inclusive, equitable and consistent approach;
and the second one suggests that they conform to the principles of accountability,
efficiency, responsiveness and sustainability in structures provided aiming the
effectiveness of the management of water resources. This understanding indicates the
need to establish public policies, mechanisms involving government, civil society and
the private sector in the responsibility for governance and management of water
resources.
The integrated governance, according to Hantke-Domas (2011), must take into
account: the various uses, enabling the fulfillment of various interests related to these
uses; all aspects of water - the quantity, quality, time of occurrence; the different phases
of the hydrological cycle; surface waters and groundwater; demand in line with supply;
and the management of other natural resources associated with related ecosystems.
The concept of integrated governance allows us to set new parameters for the
management of water resources and, especially, to differentiate the integrated
perspective from the sectoral one, since the latter is characterized by planning, by public
or private actors, the use of resources according to their specific purpose - in industry,
agriculture, for supply, etc. (LANNA; DORFMAN, 1993).
Regarding the decentralization of the ways to manage water resources, is
intended that the policy should set that the decision-making will occur in the very
location of the basin, through the creation of a committee, or equivalent body, that
includes the participation of economic agents, civil society and local governments.
According to Karin Kemper, William Blomquist and Ariel Dinar (2007),
decentralization is justified by the fact that the consultation and participation of local
groups, directly affected by decisions related to water management, offer better and
more reliable information about the real conditions of the place that will be affected by
the policy. Baring in mind that governance mechanisms aim, as a rule, to establish
institutional arrangements to deal with resource conflicts - facilitating negotiations
between groups - a decentralized policy enables participation. According to Rodrigo
Pereira de Mello, decentralization
[p]resupposes capacity for action and sustainability of the agency /
entity to be responsible for the implementation of the management;
requires high capacity for dialogue between interacting public and
private agents and must also be reconciled as a harmonizing
coordination of actions in the river basin plan - which should be
headquartered in Committees (such as a "base system" and
a
"privileged place", that would allow the existence of the system in
continuous time), with the guarantee of necessary legal, institutional
and political space along with the various federal entities that hold
dominion in the river basin. (MELLO cited KISHI 2006, p.6).
The legal, institutional and political space, to which Mello refers to, is
guaranteed, as Paulo Affonso Leme Machado (2002) explains, by transferring
jurisdiction from federal, or state, environmental agencies to the new management
structures created within the scope of the river basin. Kemper, Blomquist and Dinar
(2007) argue that, although often underestimated, the decentralization process is
fundamentally important to the management of water resources, because it shows the
different interests of the several groups that influence the process of determining the
rules and the access to information and, consequently, who will be benefited or harmed
by them. Thus, decentralization becomes something whose political and social costs
need to be evaluated prior to its implementation.
The third aspect to be addressed is the participation, clearly related to both
integration and decentralization. The prospect of participation assumes that the direct
users of water resources should be included in the decision-making process related to
them. Participation is recommended by Agenda 21, that recommends the development
of "techniques of public participation and [the efforts to] implement them in decision
making, in particular strengthening the role of women in planning and management of
water resources." (Agenda 21, ch. 18, 18:12 / n, p. 271).
Participation is a central principle in the definition of democratic decisionmaking structures and implies the recognition of fundamental rights of freedom.
Regarding governance, participation processes should be institutionalized, aiming its
legitimation and acceptance. (PASQUINO 1998, p.555). To establish forms of citizen
participation in processes of decision making involves acknowledging the possibility of
the presence of private interest, since, in general, the participation of any person
happens via some associative tool that brings together common interests of a specific
industry, vis à vis what one would expect as wider collective interests (PIZZORNO,
1975). Therefore, and considering that there are various ways to participate politically,
political participation as a "reflection of the civil society views" (PIZZORNO 1975, p.
28), reflects an aspect of consensus and a problem of equality, since it legitimizes the
questioning of a given structure of inequality and the values that sustain it.
The prospect of participation, added to the notion of decentralized management,
expresses, in some measure, the understanding of the limitations of a centralized state
structure that incorporates a specific understanding of what should be the collective
interest. It is understood, therefore, that participation involves different interests
necessarily implying power relations (PIZZORNO, 1975). Regarding participation in
the governance of water resources, the challenge is to include partial interests (the
irrigators, the industry, sanitation companies, the companies producing electricity, home
users, fishermen, etc.), they all considered legitimate in terms of resource allocations in
each of these activities, but also potentially conflicting, face the evils that a particular
activity may cause to the resource, damaging other possible uses (eg household usage or
industrial, which can degrade water quality, increasing the cost of treatment and
precluding other uses such as irrigation or fishing).
When Agenda 21 establishes guidelines for the management of water resources
at the local level, it ensures the need for education and training to enable the integration
of users in the decision-making process. Moreover, based on the grounds of the action
focused on the drinking water supply and sanitation, the Agenda considers a guiding
principle the provision of conditions for the participation of users in various activities
and levels of responsibility regarding the management of water resources in river
basins.
Thus, according to Earle and Malzbender (2007), the benefits of the user groups
participation in watershed management are especially four: improves the conditions that
underlie the process of decision making, increasing the data base; increases the
credibility, effectiveness and accountability of those involved; facilitates project
implementation and monitoring; and, finally, facilitates the identification of possible
problems related to the resource. To see the extent of participation in the governance
structures of the countries’ water resources, we will seek to identify the presence of
non-state members in the composition of the policies provided.
Water Resources in South America
It is estimated that 28% of all available fresh water on the planet is found in
South America, which represents about 6% of the world population6. The region
contains three of the major world’s river basins: the Amazon Basin, the La Plata Basin
and the Orinoco basin. Besides the surface waters abundance, the region also has large
reserves of groundwater in the Guarani Aquifer and in the called Aquifer System Great
Amazon, SAGA, newly discovered – it achieves the phenomenal volume of 160,000
km3 of water (ABREU, Cavalcanti, MATTA, 2013).
Despite the abundance of the resource, as their territorial distribution is uneven,
there are arid and semiarid areas with recurrent water shortages and record of prolonged
droughts. According to assessments by the World Bank7, the increasing scarcity may
occur due to climate change - the possible melting of the Andean glaciers could
compromise the volume of available water resources. Following the International Panel
on Climate Change, IPCC, predictions, the World Bank believes that, in such scenario,
the poor population would be the most affected, especially in rural areas8.
Currently, information provided by the World Bank indicate that approximately
30 million people still have poor access to drinking water in South America The
coverage of water services has greater deficits in some countries than in others.
UNASUR data (2013) indicate that, among the member countries, the lowest coverage
6
Available at ://www.gwp.org/en/gwp-in-action/South-America/
7
Available at http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/03/22/world-water-day-latin-americaachievements-challenges - Access in 14/05/2014.
8
Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/03/22/world-water-day-latin-americaachievements-challenges. Access in 12/05/2014.
is in Peru, Paraguay and Bolivia, and the population not served fluctuates between 15%,
14% and 12%, respectively. Even considering this deficit, most of the countries studied
have achieved the seventh Millennium Development Goal, especially regarding the
treated water supply, and the projection is that those who have not yet reached the goal,
Colombia and Venezuela, should reach it until 2015. It is important to note that, despite
of the success achieved regarding the water supply service, the same cannot be said
about sanitation9, since only 5 countries in the region have achieved the target set and
the rest will probably not reach it, according to the UNASUR assessment.
Researchers who have studied water resources policies of South American
countries do not specify clearly whether there is a more direct correlation between the
success in the fulfillment of Goal 7/C of the MDGs and the modernization of domestic
policies for water management in the region. It appears, however, that in the last 20
years almost all the most populous countries of South America promoted revisions to
their policies for water resources management, seeking adaptation of the guidelines for
a integrated governance of these resources. But, it appears, also, that in most cases, such
a review is very recent and new structures planned for the governance of water have not
been implemented, or are very recent.
It is worth noting that, although the satisfaction of basic human needs is the
priority of a water policy, it is a consensus that such a policy should also observe the
various uses of water, considering its indispensability for the vast majority of human
activities.
Chart 1: Territorial extent and population of the studied countries
Country
Territorial Extension*
Population
(million)**
(Km2)
Argentina
9
2.780.403
40.374
According to the Brazilian Federal Law No. 11.445, of 01/05/2007, that establishes guidelines for basic
sanitation in Brazil, sanitation is the set of services and infrastructure aimed at providing services to the
population, via the supply of drinking water the sewage, urban cleaning, solid waste management and
drainage of rainwater. The same law defines, in its Article 4, that water resources are not part of public
sanitation services and that the use of such resources in the provision of public sanitation services is
subject to the grant, as provided in Federal Law No. 9,433, of 08/01/1997 establishing a Water Resources
Policy.
Bolívia
1.098.581
10.157
Brazil
8.515.692
195.710
Colombia
1.141.748
46.445
Paraguay
406.752
6.640
1.285.216
29.263
Uruguay
177.879
3.372
Venezuela
916.445
29.043
Peru
*Source: Enciclopédia Britanica - http://escola.britannica.com.br/. Access in 05/06/2014
**Source: UN Department of Social Affairs; acesso em 05/06/2014
As observed, there are large differences regarding the territorial extent and
population of the countries under study. Certainly these conditions are fundamental
when we think about the governance of water resources, based on the territory and
population demands, geared to their survival and well-being, particularly to the
economic, social and leisure activities.
Figure 1: Hydrological Map of South America
Source: http://geografia8anoa.blogspot.com.br/
In almost all the countries studied, agriculture is an important economic activity.
Although its participation in the composition of the GDP of the countries studied is
relatively small, agriculture is responsible for a reasonable percentage of jobs, as shown
in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Percentage of labor force in agriculture, in relation to the set of available
jobs in the country - 2011
Source: ILOSTAT Database, OIT
Agriculture is one of the most demanding water activities, especially regarding
irrigation.
Figure 3: Percentage of captured water used at culture irrigation - 2000
Source: AQUASTAT/ FAO-Database
The country that captures less irrigation water is Colombia and the one that uses
the most is Uruguay, in this case, especially in rice plantation. Unfortunately, there’s
almost no recent data on irrigation – but we suppose, here, that the percentages should
have varied due to the shrinkage or expansion of irrigated agriculture in the last 14
years.
The use of water for irrigation certainly conflicts directly with its impoundment
for the purpose of generating electricity. That is the reason why UNASUR, concerned
about the conditions for the promotion of the member countries development,
recognizes that the expanding needs of energy production from water resourses is a
challenge when it comes to resource management. (UNASUR 2013).
The policies for the governance of water resources, therefore, have an important
role in protecting the right of people to access water, observing the rights of users,
considering the competition between the various types of use, as well as ensuring the
supply of that resource, vital to the promotion of development.
Water Resources policies in South American Countries
Since the late 1990s, several countries in South America have been making
changes to their policies for water management, usually by promoting modernization of
governance methods, in most cases taking into account the central problems and the
challenges involved. (HANTKE-DOMAS, 2011). Among the innovations promoted are
the adoption of aspects demanded for an integrated governance, with the compliance of
the multiple uses and the delimitation of the territory of the river basin as a basis for the
management. However, decentralization and participation have not always been
observed.
The reading and analysis of water resources policies will be made here, taking
into account the resource in its natural state, used for various purposes. Resource use for
multiple purposes is predicted in its forms of management and it develops from a legal
framework that generally covers the following aspects: provisions for the collection and
use of information; mandatory use of planning processes; definition of the legal status
of the waters; establishing the use regime (permissions and concessions, recognition or
redistribution of pre-existing uses, and their relocation); limitations on use; priority
uses; criteria for defining water quality and contamination control; groundwater; control
and protection of hydraulic and other structures; zones or protected areas; financial
aspects; management tools that enable the implementation of the policy; national
administration of water; management of transboundary basins; coordination
mechanisms between authorities; charging for water environmental services, among
other aspects (HANTKE-DOMAS, 2011).
Argentina - The National Constitution of Argentina (reformed in 1994)
establishes jurisdiction over the nation, among others, the rights and duties relating to
navigation, the interprovincial and international trade, armed and maritime jurisdiction.
In its Chapter II, New Rights, Article 41, the Constitution guarantees all citizens the
right to a healthy and balanced environment fit for human development, in order to meet
the principle of sustainable development; ensures the State's duty to preserve the
environment and natural heritage, ensuring observance of the law referred to in Article
imputing responsibility to the nation by setting standards for environmental protection,
transferring to provinces the responsibility for additional standards respecting local
jurisdictions.
Overall, with specific regard to the river basin management, the country still
lacks a coordinated policy of organization and management with the appropriate legal
and regulatory support, with the exception of Law No. 25,688, of December of 2002,
called "Water Management Envionmental Regime", that establishes the creation, for
interjurisdictional basins, of basin committees, with the aim of assisting the competent
authorities at higher levels in the preparation of action plans, providing necessary
information; these committees can group or subdivide the basin if it is for better
distribution of organisms and responsibilities. This policy, however, is valid for interjurisdictional basins and does not include all the country's water resources.
Despite this fragmentation, the Guiding Principles of the Argentine Republic
(2003) express the effort to establish a solid legal basis to ensure efficient and
sustainable management of water resources across the country. It was initiated by the
Secretariat of Water Resources of the Nation (SSRH) and includes the participation of
the sectors related to the management and protection of water resources. The main goal
is to establish guidelines for the governance of water resources aiming a policy for the
sector10.
The Guiding Principles consider water as a public good, a renewable resource,
scarce and vulnerable; suggests that management should incorporate the environmental
10
Available at: www.hidricosargentina.gov.ar/politica_hidrica.php?seccion=principios. Access in
21/05/2014.
dimension; the governance of water resources should be integrated to environmental
and land management; should seek to ensure water quality and act against sources of
contamination. Admits that the access to drinking water and sanitation services is a
human right. The State is primarily responsible for the governance of the resource,
which must comply with the principles of decentralization and participation (HANTKE
–DOMAS, 2011).
Regarding the institutional organization at the national level for the governance
of water resources, the Secretariat of Water Resources is responsible for water
managing since May 2003. The SSRH is linked to the Department of Public
Construction – and this government body is responsible for: assisting the Department of
Public Construction for the development and implementation of the national policy on
water resources management and the preparation of the proposed regulatory framework
for management that links and coordinates other jurisdictions and organizations that
also have expertise in the management of waters; develop and implement programs and
actions for the management of shared international water resources and the management
and infrastructure development; implementing national policy on drinking water and
sanitation; coordinate the activities of the Environmental Plan comitee and the
management of the Matanza-Riachuelo river basin; act as tax auditors of the State by
the Inter Jurisdictional Committee of the Colorado River (COIRCO), the Inter
Jurisdictional Authority of the Basins of Limay, Neuquén and Negro (AIC) rivers and
the Regional Commission of the Bermejo River (COREBE) (Decree No. 27/2003,
quoted by POCHAT, 2005).
In addition to the SSRH, other national bodies also act on water management: it
is the Ministry of Interior responsibility to represent the national government in the
governing bodies of some jurisdictional basins organisms and to act aiming to solve
interjurisdictional water resource conflicts; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
International Trade and Worship acts on the issues related to shared water resources
with neighboring countries; the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fisheries and
Food of the Ministry of Economy and Production, oversees the implementation of
rehabilitation of irrigation areas and recovery of flooded areas and salinized programs.
Connected to the Ministry, the Department of Energy develops projects for river basins
hydroelectrical uses, coordinating with other areas the compatibilities and priority uses
(POCHAT, 2005).
According to Pochat (2005), when it comes to the Argentine provinces, the legal
status of water resources and their management mechanisms is diverse. There are
provinces whose rules are well developed, while others have no specific laws on water
resources. Such laws are not included in the constitutions of all the provinces, although
they refer, generally, to sustainable development.
We conclude that, in Argentina, the management of water resources is mainly
characterized by sectoral and institutional fragmentation. The lack of interagency
coordination, communication and exchange of information among the various agencies
working in the sector generates overlapping functions and dilution of responsibility. The
lack of coordination has favored the development of inter-sectoral conflicts, particularly
between competing uses such as irrigation and power generation. Argentina does not
have a mechanism for consensual conflict resolution, or economic instruments that
would improve efficiency in the allocation of water (such as water markets), nor the
required principles for the evaluation of water projects. (POCHAT, 2005).
Besides fragmentation, integrated management is an intention that appears in the
Guiding Principles, but there is nothing that indicates institutionalization. The Guiding
Principles also indicate the participation, but since there’s no policies that predict
governance structures and mechanisms for the management of water resources,
participation, if it occurs, occurs in those management structures of jurisdictional
waters, but this dimension is not clear on existing rules.
Bolivia - Bolivia has three major river basin regions, formed by the Amazon
basin, the Andean Basin and the Silver Basin that covers respectively 66%, 21% and
13% of the territory, with each of these regions harboring several river basins.
The country had a General Water Law of 1906, which has already claimed the
necessity of water for survival, considered water as a public resource managed by the
state and established the rights of the waters that flow in the territory, on a public
property or a private. Until the 1990s, the law established in Bolivia for the governance
of water resources was directed mainly to the use rights, especially those related to
irrigation, which represented 85% of total water used in the late 1990s
(BUSTAMANTE, 2002).
Until very recently, the set of rules that established guidelines for the governance
of water resources were 20, indicating an extremely fragmented and sectoral structure,
including, for example, specific regulations for irrigation, for concessions to the
responsible sector of services, for the supply for power generation, etc.. This situation
began to change over from the discussion of two projects of the called Water Law, the
first one of 1995 and redesigned in 1999; and the another dated of 2002.
The 1995 Bill suggested the concentration of decision-making and the
management by committees that would represent the three hydrographic regions of
Bolivia, covering 17 sub-basins, a project that was amended by 1999, which proposed
that the committees should be related to each department of the Bolivian state, and
therefore should be administered locally. The other project, dated from 2002, brings the
General Water Law proposal that keeps the design of the three hydrographic areas, with
the management of the 17 sub-basins, according to the 1999 Bill, reaffirming water
management by each sector but overseen by a Superintendent of Waters, whose duties
are to grant authorization for the use and exploitation of water (MIRANDA, 2009).
After his election, President Evo Moralez has promoted changes in the structure
of water resources management and one of the major initiatives was the creation, in
2006, of the Ministry of Water. Later, in 2009, the agency was renamed and became the
Ministry of Environment and Water, in search of greater integration in the management
of natural resources. To a large extent, these changes were driven by what became
known as "water war" that occurred in Cochabamba in 2000, motivated by the
privatization of the water supply services to the population (RUIZ; GENTES, 2008).
In fact, Bolivia does not have an specific legislation for the governance of water
resources legislation. The rules may be found in the new 2008 Constitution and in
management plans. The Constitution devotes a chapter to water resources and the
beacons of governance are found in the Articles 373-377. The human right to water is
recognized in the 2008 Constitution, in the chapter of Fundamental Rights (Article 20,
Section III,. Art . 33), besides the social right to a healthy, safe and balanced
environment. In general, the Articles related to water resources establish management,
regulation, protection and planning as a responsibility of the State that will respect the
customs and traditions of the communities, local authorities and indigenous
organizations when it comes to water management. The State also develops plans for
use, conservation, management and utilization of the river basins.
Thus, the National Basin Plan is the public document that guides the
management of water resources. The Plan into force dates of 2007 and aims to promote
integrated water governance, considering the participation and self-management as
ways to facilitate the management of the resource. The Plan involves investment
projects, development of river basin master plans, risk management and water
vulnerability. Aims at institutional strengthening, provides an information system,
includes the management of transboundary basins, and other elements (BOLIVIA,
2007).
The management structure organized by the Ministry of Environment and Water,
contains: the Vice Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, that consists of two
directorates: the General Directorate of Water Supply and Sanitation and the General
Directorate for Integrated Management of Solid Waste; the Vice Ministry of Water
Resources and Irrigation, also with two boards, the General Directorate of Watershed
and Water Resources and the General Directorate of Irrigation. In addition to these,
dependent and linked to the Ministry, are provided: the Social Technical Committee responsible for the dialogue of the Ministry with the population and the
Interinstitutional Water Council, that takes care of the Ministry relationship with the
social and economic organizations.
As seen, the water management in Bolivia is a social reality, economic , political
and cultural complex. The absence of a national policy and a national coordinating
authority of the forms of governance of the resource left room for the establishment of
local procedures, many of them anchored in the traditions and indigenous culture.
Initiatives to substantive changes in the dynamics of water governance in the country
must necessarily include this variable. The guidelines adopted today are still very
recent. Thus, we can conclude that there was a long experience of governance of the
resource sector, although currently the political authorities of the State are seeking to
implement IWRM. One can also say that decentralization has its positive aspects, but it
also means fragmentation of forms of governance because of the absence of a national
authority with coordination ability. As for participation, it is provided in the guidelines
and has been practiced over time. The question that arises here is whether the traditional
forms and practices of participation will have space to share with the demands set by
the current principles for the governance of water resources in Bolivia.
Brazil - Brazil has been innovating its institutions for water resources
management since the mid-1990s and established its policy on water resources by the
Law No. 9433, 1997. The Policy creates the the institutional framework for the
governance of water resources and creates the National System of _ Water Resources
Management. Considering the complexity of Brazilian hydrography, the institutional
structure provided for the governance of water defines the integrated and decentralized
management but a general policy coordinating body. This jurisdiction is exercised by
the National Water Resources Council, a body of equal representation from
government, public users and private companies civil society, responsible for joint
planning of water resources at the national, regional and local plans (SOUZA, 2003).
The institutions responsible for water resources management are collegiate
structures and predict the involvement of government agencies in its three levels of user
sectors, public and private companies, and civil society. The participation occurs within
the river basin committees, from national to local river basins, and also at the State and
national water resources councils.
In general, the Brazilian federal structure for water management is organized as
follows: the Department of Water Resources and Urban Environment11 is subordinate to
the Ministry of the Environment , which is responsible for the governance of Brazil's
natural resources, including water resources. The Secretariat has a Department of Water
Resources. As a collective body is the National Water Resources Council as linked
entity, is the National Water Agency, a local authority provided in the management
structure and responsible for the implementation and coordination of shared and
integrated water resources management as well as for regulating the access to water12.
The National Water Resources Council, a deliberative body, is organized in technical
councils, as the Technical Chamber of Transboundary Water Resources, CTGRHT (in
portuguese).
It is observed that, although it has a very modern and integrated legislation for
water governance structure, and the managed points to decentralization and
participation, Brazil still has a long way to go with regard to the implementation of this
structure. Considering the complexity of the National System for Water Resources
Management, the coexistence of two forms of territorial organization - the political and
administrative organization of states and municipalities and the organization of the
governance of water resources committees of interstate basins_ - there are difficulties of
dialogue regarding planning, as well regarding the coordination for a multi-level
governance of water. In the case of transboundary waters, the complexity of this issue is
amplified: it is about the interaction and coordination with central governments of the
riparian countries of the resource, with state and municipal governments in the domestic
sphere and with the bodies of the river basin management of the countries involved.
11
Recent denomination, based on the decree n 6.101/2007.
12
Available at http://www2.ana.gov.br/Paginas/default.aspx. Access in 05/05/2010.
We can also verify differentiated processes and rhythms in the implementation
of the management system. As the federal states have jurisdiction to establish
governance guidelines on state watersheds, the progress in the implementation of a
national policy vary widely: in some states the policy is fully implemented, such as the
state of Minas Gerais, for example, while others are early in the process, such as the
state of the Amazon.
Colombia - In the first half of the twentieth century, Colombia initiated the
efforts to establish a framework of natural resource management, and the Decree 1381
of 1940 issued by the Ministry of National Economy, was one of the first steps in this
direction. The decree deals with the exploitation, conservation and distribution of
natural resources for public use. In 1952 was established the Division of Natural
Resources of the Ministry of Agriculture, and, subsequently, was created the National
Institute of Natural Resources (INDERENA, in spanish). These initiatives were
essential to the institutionalization of a regulatory framework on the management, use
and exploitation of water resources in the country. Later, INDERENA was renamed and
became the National Institute of Renewable Natural Resources and Environment, and its
priorities were the management, conservation and rational use of resources.
(COLOMBIA, 2010).
The Decree-Law 2811 of 1974, established the Code of Renewable Natural
Resources whose object, according to its Article 2: is to preserve and restore the
environment, conserve and improve the rational use of renewable natural resources
according to criteria of equity, in view of the harmonious development of man and of
such resources, its continued availability and the maximum social participation, to the
benefit of health and welfare of current and future inhabitants of the country. It also
aims to prevent and control the harmful effects of the exploitation of non-renewable
natural resources. This Code remains in effect.
The period between 1980 and 1985 represented a time of regulation of the Code
of Natural Resources and Sanitation Law, through decrees on watersheds, air emissions,
and water quality (OHEDA, 2000). With the creation of the Ministry of Environment
(Law 99/1993) and the creation of Regional Autonomous Corporations, as part of the
National Environmental System, SINA, powers and responsibilities of institutional
actors on governance of water resources have been defined, defining, also, the powers
of government in the matter (Law 60/1993; RODRIGUEZ, 2012; OHEDA, 2000).
The role of autonomous corporations is to advise departments, municipalities
and districts in their plans for environmental development, so that the various actions
undertaken in the various regions of the country were consistent. Moreover, according
to the Colombian Constitution of 1991, these corporations are public in nature, endowed
with administrative and financial autonomy, with its own assets, legal personality and
responsibility for managing the environment and natural resources within its area of
jurisdiction . Regarding the participation of citizens in the management and protection
of natural resources, the National Environmental Council has representatives of civil
society. (OHEDA 2000).
In 1996 the Ministry of Environment established guidelines for the integrated
management of water policy, along with guidelines for the organization of the territory,
from 1998, encouraged the organization of watershed organisms and water resource
management. This organization was guided by the Plan of Organization and Watershed
Management, POMCA (in portuguese), as well as the Plan also guided the creation of
management tools such as financial mechanisms, planning and regulation.
Considering the provisions of the existing rules, the governance of water
resources is made by the following institutional structure: the responsiblebody is the
Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development, that through the Vice Ministry
of Environment and Sustainable Developmenthas the role to guide the process of
policymaking, regulating general sanitation, establish guidelines for the planning and
management of watersheds, regulate resource management in marine and coastal areas
etc.. It is recorded, under the Vice Ministry, the Dirección de Gestión Integral del
Recurso Hidrico.
The document "Policy Guidelines for Integrated Water Management" was issued
by the Ministry of Environment in 1996 and was supported technically as the "National
Water Strategy." This document has the basis and objectives for the management of the
national water supply, in addition of meeting the requirements of social and economic
development of resources in terms of quantity, quality and spatial and temporal
distribution. (COLOMBIA, 2010).
Some attempts have been undertaken to establish a policy for the governance of
water resources. However, it has not reached an internal agreement regarding its general
guidelines. Thus, the normative foundations that guide the governance of water
resources have been established by the Ministry of Environment. For this reason, it is
considered that there are coordination problems, and that the existing standards
sectorialize and scatter the management. In addition, there is dispersion of the resource
among many organs that also regulate the use of water for specific activities, which
causes sometimes shocks and regulatory management conflicts. According to
Rodriguez, there would be a crisis of water governance in Colombia. (RODRIGUEZ,
2012).
Paraguay - The most important water reservoirs of Paraguay are shared with
neighboring countries, and the Paraguay River divides the territory into two parts with
very different economic dynamics. There is plenty of action, since the uptake of water
for consumption is around 0.1 to 0.2% of the total water available per capita.
Nevertheless, there are problems of drought in more arid regions and contamination of
available resources and serious distribution problems, particularly in rural areas
(SEGOVIA, 2006).
Until 2007, Paraguay had an extremely sectoralized perspective of water
management, with overlapping of responsibilities between various government
agencies. In the opinion of experts, water management in Paraguay was very
fragmented and atomized into a set of institutions acting without coordination. Not
many works on the politics of water governance in Paraguay were found. Thus, queries
were made directly to official documents, available on the Secretariat of Environment
official website13.
Thus, it is given that the Department of Environment was created by Law
1561/2000, which defines the institutional framework for the environment in the
country: establishes the National System of Environment, formed by all public agencies
and entities of the various levels of government, as well as private entities created to
exercise jurisdiction in environmental matters; creates the National Council for the
Environment and the Department of the Environment.
The National Council on the Environment, that predicts the participation of
representatives of government agencies and private productive sector organizations and
non-governmental environmental organizations, have, among their skills, to define,
monitor and evaluate the national environmental policy, to propose standards, criteria,
guidelines and standards for matters under their consideration. Meanwhile, the powers
of the Department of Environment, who chairs the National Environmental Council,
include a set of actions aiming at the development of specific environmental policies,
13
www.seam.gov.py
development plans, programs and projects for the environmental area and use of natural
resources, the organization and administration of a national defense system of the
environmental heritage. The Secretariat should also promote the decentralization of the
environmental area. It is, therefore, directly responsible for the implementation of a
range of existing environmental laws. In the structuring of the Secretariat was created
the General Directorate of Protection and Conservation of Water Resources.
The General Directorate of protection and conservation of water resources,
coordinates the management of watersheds and the main flows are the major river
basins of the Paraguay and Paraná Rivers and Lakes Ypoá and Ypacaraí. The functions
of this board are:
To develop and propose policies and strategies for management of
water resources and watersheds; To promote the management of water
resources considering its many uses; To undertake studies and
hydrological basin level and sub-basin analysis; To Plan, regulate and
control the use, preservation and restoration of water resources while
preserving the ecological balance; To Form a basis for the
environmental management of watersheds; To Form a basis for the
hydrologic watershed management; To Define environmental goals and
standards of rational water use14
In 2007 the Law No. 3239 was promulgated – it establishes guidelines for the
governance of water in Paraguay. Its object is the sustainable and integrated
management of water and related territories in Paraguayan soil. Its principles, as defined
in Article 3, declare water as a public good of the state, endowed with social,
environmental and economic value; define access to it as a human right; establish that it
has multiple functions that must be addressed and that the watershed is the management
unit.
The established goals meet the principles of integrated governance of water
resources. Therefore provides, as a management tool: the National Water Resources
Plan, the National Inventory of Water; conferring the right to use; the territorial
organization for the purpose of management (zoning); charging for water use;
Environmental Impact Statement. The responsible body for management of river basins
are the basin committees.
14
Available at http://www.seam.gov.py/direccion-general-de-proteccion-y-conservacion-de-los-recursoshidricos/funciones-especificas.html. Access in 20/05/2010.
No records of the actual existence of river basin committees were found and we
could not find the composition of the ones predicted. Therefore, the participation of
private users and non-governmental organizations is provided in Consejo del Ambiente,
no other forms of participation in the mechanisms for governance of water were found.
Despite of the information gap, we can conclude that, in a normative
perspective, the institutional structure of the governance of water resources of the
country approaches partially the ideal type, as defined above. The integration and
decentralization are provided in the rules, but there are clear ways in which the social
participation will happen in the governance structures. Moreover, there is no way to
gauge the deployment process of the structure drawn by the rules. As the law is
relatively recent, and past practices were based on “command and control” type of
planning, possibly the deployment of innovations would take some time to become
effective.
Peru - The Peruvian policy for the governance of water resources is also very
recent and seeks conditions to deal with some challenges like, for example, to meet the
increased demand, better protection for watersheds and restore water quality, to increase
the efficiency of its use, to mitigate the impact of extreme events and to adapt to climate
change, to develop participatory social awareness to manage and assess the water and,
finally, a culture of peace regarding water (Peru, 2012). The designed structure for the
governance of resources provides an integrated and decentralized management, as
suggested by the concept of IWRM.
It is noteworthy that Peru shares 34 watersheds with neighbors Brazil, Ecuador,
Bolivia, Chile and Colombia and seeks to promote and support bilateral and multilateral
arrangements for its management, and to formulate and implement binational plans.
The agricultural sector accounts for about 80% of all water consumption in the
country and since 1991, by Legislative Decree No. 653, the agricultural sector is
strengthened as a relevant actor (Hantke-Domas, 2011). In fact, this Decree approves
the Law for Promotion of Investment in Agricultural Sector, of January of the same
year, which includes, among other specific questions, rules for the use of public funds
for irrigation, for the agricultural use of water and creates, in watersheds where there
was intensive and multi-sectoral water use, the Autonomous Authority of the river basin
as the decision-maker regarding the use and conservation of water resources and soil. It
is the responsibility of the Authority the formulation of plans for utilization of water
resources under their jurisdiction. Composing the Autonomous Authority Hydrographic
Basin are representatives of agricultural organizations of producers and users and
representatives of the State15.
Therefore, it appears that Peru has made efforts to modernize its governance
policy of water resources. More recently, in 2009, it promulgated the Law No. 29.338 ,
whereby creates the National System of Water Resources (SNGRH), establishing the
principles of integrated, decentralized and participatory management through
instruments such as the National Plan of Water Management and the Management Plans
of Water Resources in watersheds. The SNGRH is formed by the "set of institutions,
policies, procedures, techniques and instruments through which the state develops and
provides integrated, multi-sectoral and participatory management" of water resources16.
The implementation of the system has been taken through six pilot river basins.
The National Water Authority (ANA, in spanish) is the highest organ of
technical and administrative authority of SNGRH. It was established in 2008 and is
linked to the Ministry of Agriculture. Its goal is to protect, manage and conserve
sustainable development (ANA, 2012a). Watersheds are territorial planning instruments
and allow the decentralization of water governance: were created 71 of the Water Local
Administrations (ALA), which covers the administrative and judicial framework and
coincides with the natural limits of the Peruvian watersheds. These local governments
are subject to the administrative authorities of the Water, larger units that are divided
into 14 hydrographic boundaries, formed by sets of basins, reaching regional geographic
levels.
The interesting innovation promoted by the Peruvian State was the creation of
the National Court of Resolution of Hydrical Controversies, a body linked to the
National Authority of Water in first instance, responsible for receiving complaints and
administrative resources and solve them. Its resolutions can be appealed to the common
law of the country.
It appears, therefore, that, in normative terms, the governance policy of water
resources in Peru complies with the recommended guidelines and meets the proposed
principles for integrated, decentralized and participatory management. However, as
already stated, the fact that the standards meet the guidelines does not mean that the
15
16
Available at http://www.ana.gob.pe/media/95336/dleg_653.pdf. Access in 19/05/2014.
Available at: http://www.ana.gob.pe/sistema-nacional-de-gesti%C3%B3n-de-recursos-hidricos.aspx.
Access in 19/05/2014.
everyday practice of resource management observes them in part or in its entirety. Field
observations are demanded so that we could make inferences about the success of
innovations.
Uruguay - In its territory, Uruguay has five river basins: the Alto Rio Uruguay
(45.970 km ²) the Río Negro y San Salvador (68.450 km ²), the Laguna Merín (31.120
km ²), the Atlantic Ocean and the Inmediata del Rio la Plata (32.210 km ²). (YELPO;
Serrentino, 2000). The waters of all these basins are shared with neighboring countries,
which makes the case of Uruguay very important when it comes to discussing the basis
for shared governance of water resources. For territory management purposes , and
taking into account the transboundary nature of water resources, these basins are
grouped into three river regions: the Uruguay River, the Laguna Merin and the Rio de la
Plata and its estuary (Law 18.610/2009 , item 26). This definition requires the direct
participation of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, within their competence, in the
coordination of representations of the country or committees formed for the governance
of these transboundary water resources and regional equivalent bodies.
Like most countries in South America, Uruguay has redrafted its constitution
and its laws. Therefore, the reform of the Constitution, carried out in 2004, received the
Article 47, which deals with the protection of the environment, in which two general
principles are adopted: the essentiality of water for life; and the recognition of access to
water as a fundamental human right. It also defines the boundaries for the national water
policy, and indicates that such a policy should be guided by the perspective of
sustainability; rely on user participation in management mechanisms that have the river
basin as a basis; establish priorities for the use and provision of drinking water and
sanitation services17.
In 2009, the Uruguayan Parliament passed the Law No. 18.610, which
establishes the guiding principles of national water policy of the country. Its application
covers the Water Code (Decree-Law No. 14,859, 1978), the Ley de Riego con
Destination ARD (Law No. 16,868, 1997) and the Ley de Aguas (Law No. 17,142,
1999) and extends the water resources and drinking water and sanitation services
(Hantke-Domas, 2011) Its instruments are: the national, regional and local planning,
institutional coordination between the various mechanisms with jurisdiction in the
17
Constituición de La República. Available at www.parlamento.gub.uy/constituciones/const004.htm.
Access in May 21, 2014.
matter, the integration of information on water resources and drinking water and of
sanitation on a national system of information , training of managers, land use, among
others.
The Articles 18 and 19 of the Law No. 18.61018 define the participation of users
and civil society sectors at all times of the policy realization - from planning to
implementation. The Article 23 establishes the National Council for Water,
Environment and Territory, in which participates, equally, the government
representatives, users and civil society sectors, chaired by the Ministry of Housing,
Environment and Territory. There is also a Regional Council of Water Resources
(Article 29), responsible for promoting and coordinating the formation of basin
committees and aquifers aimed at local sustainable management of natural resources
and management of potential conflicts related to their uses. These committees are
advisory of Consejos Regionales (Regional Councils), to ensure a broader participation
of local actors.
We conclude that the reforms promulgated by Uruguay regarding the
governance of water resources have advanced aiming the establishment of the structures
of an integrated, decentralized and participative management. It is acknowledged,
however, that because the reforms are very recent, they are still in the implementation
process.
Venezuela - Venezuela has 16 hydrographic regions formed by a large number
of basins, some of them transboundary. Since the late 1990s the country has been
reshaping its policies for the environment. Therefore, the new Constitution,
promulgated in 1999, considers the waters as a public good, essential for the
development and provides that legislation will ensure the protection, recovery and
reclamation of water, respecting the water cycle and land use planning19.
According to Landazabal (2000), the implementation of the country's water
policy is direct jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment and Natural
Resources that, by exercising their status as National Water Authority, is responsible for
coordinating actions related to the governance of water along the governments of
subnational entities, the companies that provide services, the associations of users and
18
Available at: em www.parlamento.gub.uy/leyes/AccesoTextoLey.asp?Ley=18610&Anchor= Access in
21/05/2014.
19
: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/constitucion1999.htm. Access in 03/06/2014.
organized communities. The Government agencies participates in designated materials
management, according to the Venezuelan Constitution.
In 1996 the National Council on Water Resources Planning, an advisory body to
the National Executive of Venezuela and supportive to the Ministry of the Environment
and Natural Resources, was created. This committee is composed by representatives of
state agencies, by electrical companies and representatives of civil society organizations
(LANDAZABAL, 2000).
In 2007 Venezuela promulgated Law No. 38,595 the Law or the Water Act,
establishing modern guidelines regarding the rights and the governance of water
resources, introduced the concept of integrated governance of water resources, IWRM,
as well as the principles recognized by international law as transboundary water
resources (Hantke-Domas, 2011). This Act establishes the National Policy on Integrated
Water Management and creates mechanisms and instruments for its effectiveness.
Among these instruments are: the creation of an information subsystem, involving the
collection, processing, systematization, storage and dissemination of data and
information on water resources; integrated management plans at the national level, and
river basin regions , which are public and mandatory; administrative control of the
water, which includes the award; a national registry of the users of sources, and a
system of political financing. The integrated management plans must be in line with the
National Plan for Economic and Social Development, the National Plan on the
Environment and the National Spatial Plan, forming a Planning System. (HantkeDomas, 2011).
Thus, according to Hantke-Domas (2011), the National Plan of Integrated Water
Management has a strategic and long-term profile and should include estimates of
projected water availability and demand, decisions on the ransfer of water resources,
identifying priority watersheds and priority use of available resources. The Plan shall
take into account also the social benefits and the economic importance of each activity.
The objectives of this Plan are: to take action to preserve the national and international
river basins; to strengthen the collective consciousness of resource use and associated
works; to comply with the requirements for the various uses of water; to recover lands
for multiple uses; to boost the development of goods and services to satisfy the
requirements of the plan. (UNEP, 2010).
Venezuela has no legal and formal tool to control the use of resources of
transboundary river basins. When there is the need, negotiations with other states occur
through bilateral agreements, coordinated by the Directorate of Border of the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and the technical assistance of the to the Ministry of the Environment
and Natural Resources . As for participation, it is possible for users to create
associations for the efficient use of water and to defend their interests voluntarily. To
solve conflicts among users, the conciliation proceedings is composed by WaterJuries,
and this body should be requested from the to the Ministry of Environment and Natural
Resources by resolution taken by associations of users.
Conclusions
As outlined, in general, the countries under study have adopted the principles of
Integrated Water Resources Management - and the established policies, since the mid1990s, have been marked by them. The prospect of integrated management is present in
virtually all policies studied, since the countries have conducted efforts to adopt
instruments for the coordination of water policy with other areas such as territorial
planning, agriculture, power generation, sanitation and environmental management. We
could observe, also, some efforts to articulate the structures of water management with
the management structure of other natural resources, usually through agencies linked to
the central government. But the forms of coordination of multilevel governance are not
always clear.
It turns out, in addition, that the concentration of political structures control
linked to the central government of the countries, with the principle of decentralization
of management, can be observed through the creation of basin committees or equivalent
bodies with authority and equipped with decision-making power within their
jurisdictions and in accordance with the powers established by the policy. The difficulty
continues to be the coordination of various management mechanisms at different levels.
This difficulty is most evident in countries of greatest territorial extension, with
complex hydrography, given that decentralization generates a set of bodies with
decision-making power that requires clear articulation among instruments and also
clear delimitation of their spheres of competence.
Countries
Principles of Integrated Water Resources Management
Integration
Argentina
Fragmentation remains, but there are
initiatives for IWRM (integrated water
resources management) since 2003; there is
no national coordinating body. Overlapping
of functions and responsibilities dilution.
Bolivia
Historical management sector; strong
presence of elements of indigenous culture
and tradition in resource management; the
2008 Constitution indicates a possible
development of IWRM;
Brazil
Decentralization
Existing, but reflects more
fragmentation and less delegation of
decision-making power;
Participation
Not enough information has been found.
Normative variation between provinces.
Positive trend, but still reflects the
previous fragmentation; delegation of
decision-making power to the local
level, with extensive autonomy for
indigenous communities, which may
cause difficulties for the overall
coordination.
Observed within the river basin, with
representation of the users and society,
beyond the representation of indigenous
peoples and traditional communities.
Positive trend; structure of water
management articulated to environmental
management, but still with articulation
difficulties. There is a national coordinating
body. There is a national policy and state
policies (states have some expertise in water
management in their territory). But there is a
need to move towards the implementation of
the policy across the country.
Yes, there is delegation of decisionmaking authority to the committees of
national basins and the watershed
committees organized within the states;
states have autonomy to establish
territorial management organization.
Yes. The whole structure of the National
Policy predicts the participation of the
user sectors and civil society with parity
with the participation of state bodies. The
states have autonomy to establish the
methods of choice of non-state
representatives.
Colombia
Positive trend. But the policy is not
established by law, but at the ministerial
planning. There is some coordination
problems.
The trend seems to be positive, but
seems to reflect some degree of
fragmentation; it is not clear in official
documents if there is a real delegation
of decision making power. There is still
dispersion management in the
presence of various state bodies
governing the use of water for specific
activities.
Could be verified in the National Water
Council, but it is not clear in the river
basin committees.
Paraguay
History of previous sectoralization and
fragmentation, but institutionalization of a
policy for IWRM in 2007.
Predicted in the policy instituted in
2007, but as no records of watershed
management bodies were found, it
would be necessary to check further.
According to the rules, yes. But there is
no information about the involvement of
non-state sectors, except in the case of
the Environmental Council.
Peru
Yes, but the institutionalization of the policy
is very recent, from 2009. There is a prior
history of a very fragmented management
Yes In the rules is expected the
creation of the Autoridad Autonoma of
Cuenca, that holds decision-making
autonomy in the area of their
jurisdiction.
Yes, participation is expected; the policy
is being implemented in pilot projects.
Therefore, participation is still restricted
to those experiences.
Uruguay
Positive trend. Indeed, the water governance
policy articulates a set of sectoral laws that
are made by a coordinating body.
Yes, the waters are transboundary,
then the country has a tradition of
establishing governance committees
with some autonomy..
Yes. In the current norm is predicted
equal participation between government,
users and civil society sectors in the
bodies provided for the governance of
water.
Venezuela
Positive trend based on the policy instituted
in 2007. Principle of integration observed
through mechanisms such as the System of
National Planning.
Negative trend. If the System of
National Planning favors integration, on
the other hand, it does not delegate
authority, establishing forms of
concentration and control.
Participation is not provided in the
management structure. Users can create
voluntary associations. In documents
consulted is not clear the relationship of
these with official structures provided for
water management.
As for participation, there are some important differences, related to the
delegation of authority for decision making. The merely nominal participation, without
power resources and management tools that can be used by local agencies for the
effective management of resources within the watershed, does not innovate in
comparison with more traditional forms. Another aspect to be considered is the almost
total lack of explanation of the ways from which participants will be chose in the
governing bodies of which is expected the representation of user sectors and civil
society.
References
ABREU, Francisco de A. M.; CAVALCANTI, Itabaraci N.; MATTA, Milton A. da S. O Sistema
Aquífero Grande Amazônia – SAGA: um imenso potencial de água subterrânea no Brasil. Trabalho
apresentado no III Congresso Internacional de Meio Ambiente Subterrâneo. Disponível em
http://aguassubterraneas.abas.org/asubterraneas/article/viewFile/27523/17790. Acesso em 14/05/2014.
AKHMOUCH, Aziza. Water Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: a multi-level
approach. 2012. Developing Working Papers, 2012/04 – OECD. Disponível em
http://www.oecd.org/governance/regional-policy/50064981.pdf. Acesso em 14/04/2014.
BANCO MUNDIAL. Latin America leads in water management but inequalities in access remain.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/03/22/world-water-day-latin-america-achievementschallenges. Acesso em 14/05/2014.
BLOMQUIST, William; DINAR, Ariel; KEMPER, Karin E. Integrated River Basin Management
Through Decentralization. United State, Springer, 2007.
BOLÍVIA (Estado Plurinacional). Congresso Nacional. Nueva Constitución Politica del Estado.
Outubro de 2008. Disponível em http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Bolivia/constitucion2009.pdf.
BOLÍVIA (Estado Plurinacional). Plano Nacional
http://www.cuencasbolivia.org/files/pnc_modificado.pdf.
de
Cuencas.
2007.
Disponível
em
BRASIL. Agência Nacional de Águas. Conjuntura dos Recursos Hídricos no Brasil: informe 2012.
Disponível em: http://arquivos.ana.gov.br/imprensa/arquivos/Conjuntura2012.pdf. Acesso em 15 ago.
2013
BRASIL.
Agência
Nacional
de
Águas.
Institucional.
<http://www2.ana.gov.br/Paginas/default.aspx>. Acesso em 10 abr. 2012.
Disponível
em:
BRASIL, Agência Nacional de Águas. Sistema de informações hidrológicas. ANA, 2012. Disponível
em: <http://www2.ana.gov.br/Paginas/servicos/informacoeshidrologicas/redehidro.aspx>. Acesso em: 06
fev. 2012
BRASIL. Agência Nacional de Águas, Comitês de Bacias Hidrográficas. Bacias Interestaduais.
Disponível em: <http://www.cbh.gov.br/#not-interestaduais>, Acesso em: 11 abr. 2012.
BUSTAMANTE, Rocio. Legislación del Agua en Bolivia. CEPAL, Cochabamba/Bolívia, 2002.
COLÔMBIA, Ministerio de Agricultura. Decreto 2811, de 18 de Diciembre de 1974. Dita o Código
Nacional de Recursos Naturales Renovables y de Protección al Medio Ambiente. Disponível em:
http://www.minambiente.gov.co//documentos/dec_2811_181274.pdf
COLÔMBIA, Ministério do Meio Ambiente, Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial. Política Nacional para
la gestión integral del recurso hídrico. Ano 2010.
DOUROJEANNI, Axel. Water management at the river basin level: challenges in Latin America.
CEPAL, Santiago/Chile, Agosto, 2001. Disponível em http://www.cepal.org/. Acesso em 14/05/2014
EARLE, Anton; MALZBENDER, Daniel. Stakeholder Participation in Transboundary Water
Management – Selected Case Studies. Germany, Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung, 2007.
HANTKE-DOMAS, Michael. Avances legislativos en gestión sostenible y descentralizada del agua en
América Latina. Documento de Proyeto. CEPAL, Santiago/Chile, 2011.
JUSTO, Juan Bautista. El derecho humano al agua y al saneamiento frente a los Objetivos de Desarrollo
del Milenio (ODM). CEPAL, Santiago/Chile, março de 2013.
KISHI, Sandra Akemi Shimada. Gestão Integrada, Participativa e Descentralizada das Águas. São
Paulo,
Fiuza,
abr/jun
2006,
v.
2,
n.
6,
p.
145–166.
Disponível
em
http://midia.pgr.mpf.gov.br/4ccr/sitegtaguas/sitegtaguas_4/pdf/artigo1.pdf. Acesso em 25 fev. 2014.
LANDAZÁBAL, A. B. G. Água para el Siglo XXI para América del Sur. De la Visión a la Acción.
Informe: Venezuela.
LANNA, A. E.; DORFMAN, R. Sistemas de Gerenciamento de Recursos Hídricos: Críticas a
algumas propostas. Rio de Janeiro: Revista de Administração Pública, 1993, p. 64.
MACHADO, Paulo Affonso Leme. Recursos Hídricos: Direito Brasileiro e Internacional. São Paulo,
Malheiros Editores, 2002, p. 37
MIRANDA, G. A. P. Estágio atual da gestão de recursos hídricos na Bolívia. 2009. 123 f. Dissertação
(Mestrado em Engenharia Ambiental) – Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Programa de Pósgraduação
em
Engenharia
Ambiental,
Rio
de
Janeiro.
Disponível
em:
<http://www.peamb.eng.uerj.br/trabalhosconclusao/2009/GricelAlciraPortillodeMirandaPEAMB_2009.p
df>. Acesso em 20 mar. 2012.
OHEDA, Eduardo Orlando. Água para el Siglo XXI para América del Sur. De la Visión a la Acción.
Informe: Colombia. Ano 2000.
ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS. Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro, 1992. Disponível em:
http://www.onu.org.br/rio20/img/2012/01/agenda21.pdf. Acesso em 25 fev. 2014.
ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS, Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio
Ambiente. Geo Venezuela: Perspectivas del medio ambiente en Venezuela. Caracas: PNUMA, 2010.
ORGANIZAÇÃO DAS NAÇÕES UNIDAS. General Assembly. Resolution 64/292. Disponível em:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/64/292. Acesso em 28/05/2014.
OSTROM, Elinor. Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
PARAGUAI. Secretaría Del Ambiente. Funciones especificas. Miércoles: 2010. Disponível em:
<http://www.seam.gov.py/direccion-general-de-proteccion-y-conservacion-de-los-recursoshidricos/funciones-especificas.html>. Acesso em 02 abr. 2012
PASQUINO, Gianfranco. Verbete Governabilidade. In BOBBIO, N. et all. Dicionário de Política. 11ª
Ed. Brasília: UnB, 1998.
PERU. Ministerio de Agricultura, Autoridad Nacional Del Água. Política y Estratégia Nacional de
Recursos Hídricos. 2012. Disponível em: http://www.ana.gob.pe/publicaciones/publicaciones2012/politica-y-estrategia-nacional-de-recursos-hidricos.aspx. Acesso em: 15 ago. 2013
POCHAT, Víctor. Entidades de Gestión del Agua a Nivel de Cuencas: experiência de Argentina.
CEPAL, Serie Recursos Naturales e Infraestructura. Santiago del Chile, Octubre, 2005. Disponivel em
http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/5/22905/lcl2375s.pdf. Acesso em 25 fev. 2014.
RODRIGUEZ, Carmem Zamudio. Governabilidad sobre el recurso hídrico en Colombia: entre avances y
retos. In Revista Gestión y Ambiente. Vol. 15 - No. 3, Medelim, Diciembre de 2012. Disponível em
http://www.revistas.unal.edu.co/index.php/gestion/article/viewFile/36284/37827
RUIZ, Sergio A.; GENTES, Ingo G. Retos y perspectivas de la gobernanza del agua y gestión integral de
recursos hídricos en Bolivia. In European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies. Centre
for Latin American Research and Documentation. Amsterdam, October, 2008. Páginas 41-59.
SEGOVIA, Diego. La gestión del Agua en el Paraguay: Derecho inalenable del pueblo. Base
Investiagiones Sociales. Asunción. Paraguay. Noviembre, 2006.
SOUZA, Matilde. Solidariedade e interesses na gestão de recursos hídricos. Tese de Doutoramento. Belo
Horizonte, 2003. Disponível em http://www.bibliotecadigital.ufmg.br/dspace/handle/1843/VCSA6W9HQF.
SOUZA, Matilde. TATEMOTO, Letícia. Shared Waters: from global principles to regional agreements.
In HANSEL, Oliver; SELBACH, Jeferson Francisco Selbach; BILIBIO, Carolina.. (Org.). Sustainable
Water Management in the Tropics and Subtropics - V. 4 - Administration: Legislation, Social,
Politics, Economy, Urbanity,. 1ed.Jaguarão; Berlim: Unipampa; Unikassel, 2012, v. 4, p. 657-686
UNASUL. Recursos Naturais na União das Nações Sul-americanas: situação e tendências para uma
agenda de desenvolvimento regional. CEPAL, Santiago/Chile, maio de 2013.
YELPO, Laura; SERRENTINO, Carlos Ma. Uruguay y la Gestión de sus Recursos Hidricos. Informe
Sectorial Uruguay – Uruguay – 2000.