Water Resources Governance Of Water Resources

2y ago
15 Views
2 Downloads
1.18 MB
27 Pages
Last View : 16d ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Ciara Libby
Transcription

Thispublicationwasproduced inPARTNERSHIPWITH:puBLICATIONbr2014Water resourcesGovernance ofWater ResourcesProposal of indicators to monitorimplementationPage 1

CONTENTSWWF-BRAZILSecretary GeneralMaria Cecília Wey de BritoDirector of Public PolicyJean François TimmersWater for Life Programme CoordinatorGlauco Kimura de FreitasWater Governance Study CoordinatorAngelo José Rodrigues Lima (Conservation Analyst)List of abbreviations041. Foreword - WWF-Brazil052. Foreword - FGV-SP063. Introduction094. Initial considerations11Editing & preparation for publicationJoão Gonçalves5. Some concepts used15Translation & English version layoutCarolyn Hoggarth & Karina Berg6. Conclusions from the study207. SINGREH governance thermometer268. Some proposed indicators409. Recommendations for a monitoring system4610. Workshop participants4811. References50FGV (Getúlio Vargas Foundation)Public Administration and Government Study Centre (CEAPG)Coordinator: Fernando Burgos Pimentel dos SantosDETAILSTextAngelo José Rodrigues LimaFernando Luiz AbrucioFrancisco Carlos Bezerra e SilvaTechnical revisionGlauco Kimura de FreitasGraphic designBárbara SonnewendCover photographyWWF-Brasil / Zig KochPublished byWWF-BrasilThis publication was made possible thanks to the studies and research on governance performed and coordinated byFernando Luiz Abricio with the collaboration of Vanessa Elias de Oliveira².¹ Doctor in Political Science at USP, professor and researcher at FGV-SP for the masters and doctorate program inPublic Administration and Government.² Doctor in Political Science at USP, professor and researcher at the Federal University of ABC.SPECIAL TRIBUTEWe dedicate this publication to Ninon Machado de Faria Leme Franco (in memoriam)from the Ipanema Institute, who dedicated a large part of her life to the managementand conservation of water.We would like to thank Samuel Roiphe Barreto for coordinating the WWF-Brazil Waterfor Life Programme between 2001 and 2011 and for his significant contribution to thisproject.Page 2Page 3

list of abbreviationsANANational Water Agency (Agência Nacional de Águas)ANEELNational Agency for Electric Energy (Agência Nacional de EnergiaElétrica)CBHWater Basin Committees (Comitês de Bacias Hidrográficas)CERHState Water Resources Council (Conselho Estadual de RecursosHídricos)CFURHFinancial Compensation for the Use of Water Resources(Compensação Financeira pela Utilização de Recursos Hídricos)CNINational Industry Confederation (Confederação Nacional da Indústria)CNRHNational Water Resources Council (Conselho Nacional de RecursosHídricos)COGERHWater Resources Management Company (Companhia de Gestão dosRecursos Hídricos)CTILTechnical Council for Legal and Institutional Affairs (Câmara Técnicade Assuntos Legais e Institucionais)FGV-SPGetúlio Vargas Foundation – São Paulo (Fundação Getúlio Vargas)FIEMGMinas Gerais Industry Federation (Federação das Indústrias doEstado de Minas Gerais)GTAIWorking Group in Support of the National Water ResourcesImplementation (Grupo de Trabalho de Acompanhamento daImplementação Nacional de Recursos Hídricos)IGAMMining Institute of Water Management (Instituto Mineiro de Gestãodas Águas)Page 4MMAMinistry of the Environment (Ministério do Meio Ambiente)MMEMinistry of Mines and Energy (Ministério de Minas e Energia)PCJPiracicaba, Capivari and Jundiaí River Basins Consortium (Consórciode Bacias dos Rios Piracicaba, Capivari e Jundiaí)SEGREHState System of Water Resources Management (Sistema Estadual deGerenciamento de Recursos Hídricos)SIAPREHMonitoring and Evaluation System for the Implementation of WaterResources Policy (Sistema de Acompanhamento e Avaliação daImplementação da Política de Recursos Hídricos)SINGREHNational Water Resource Management System (Sistema Nacional deGerenciamento de Recursos Hídricos)SMAState Environment Secretary (Secretaria de Estado do Meio Ambiente)SRHUDepartment of Water Resources and Urban Environments (Secretariade Recursos Hídricos e Ambiente Urbano)SUSUniversal Healthcare Programme (Sistema Único de Saúde)UFABCFederal University of ABC (Universidade Federal do ABC)USPUniversity of São Paulo (Universidade de São Paulo)1. forewordwwf-brazilThe creation and implementation of the National Water Resource ManagementSystem (SINGREH)1 has involved the efforts of thousands of Brazilianswho believed that by participating in public policy, society can develop thegovernance required in order to achieve the system’s objectives.A result of discussions on the environment that led to the recognition thatspecific systems for the management of water resources are required, theSINGREH brought with it the hope that water could be used in a better way,ensuring its use in productive processes, its supply for human consumptionand the maintenance of the environmental services that depend on it.However, almost two decades after it was founded and despite the progessmade through the formation of hundreds of collective bodies and theimplementation of a range of planned management tools, the management ofthe SINGREH still needs to be consolidated in order to make further advancesin the direction that was initially proposed.As part of its mission to contribute to the conservation and good use of naturalresources, WWF-Brazil recognises the SINGREH as the most appropriatevehicle through which water resources can be managed, as it brings togetherthe principles of participation, integration and decentralisation. All of thesefactors are essential in managing public assets with a high economic value.In light of this, WWF-Brazil supports initiatives aimed at reinforcing theSINGREH, as demonstrated by the range of actions developed over recentdecades and the organisation’s encouragement of a reflection on which newpractices may contribute to improved implementation of this system.The unprecedented water crisis that the south east of Brazil faced in 2014 is anindication of the extent to which the management of water has been neglected,not just in Latin America’s largest mega-city but in the majority of thecountry’s state capitals. Society needs to assume an essential role and demandconcrete action in order to improve the management of water resources,guarantee the country’s water security and ensure both economic and socialdevelopment. A Water Obervatory could provide the transparency required toenable Brazil to move towards responsible sustainability and guarantee accessto water for its citizens, for economic activities and for natural ecosystems.This publication is another contribution from WWF-Brazil for this purpose andwas created with the support of the HSBC Water Programme.Maria Cecília Wey de Brito, Secretary General of WWF-Brazil. Master ofEnvironmental Sciences and graduate of Agronomy Engineering from theLuiz de Queiroz School of Agriculture at the University of São Paulo.1Sistema Nacional de Gerenciamento dos Recursos Hídricos in Portuguese.Page 5

2. forewordgetÚlio vargas foundationBrazilian public policy has been through some significant transformations sincethe democratic process was reintroduced to the country. The 1988 Constitutionproposed five institutional parameters that changed the face of Brazil’straditional state, namely:1) The universalisation of access to policy, making this the right of every citizenand not simply a benefit provided by those in power.2) An increase in the scope of the constitution, expanding the rights of citizensand including environmental issues, such as those relating to water resources.3) The reformulation of federalism including the decentralisation of policy,particularly in terms of implementation, forms of cooperation, partnershipand intergovernmental induction. In the case of the latter, more powerwas given to the federal government in relation to states, and to a greaterextent municipalities, through the distribution of resources, training and thedefinition of general legislation.4) An emphasis on the professionalisation of public administration, mainlythrough staff selection processes and career structures, paving the way formore technical and less patrimonialist forms of management.5) The democratisation of governmental decisions through the formation ofmeans of social participation at the various stages of public policy.This institutional upheaval has led to important results over the last 25years, increasing social inclusion and the power that citizens have toaffect governmental decisions. However, there have also been problemsalong the way; insufficient funding to back the universalisation process,the predominance of some sectors on the public agenda, difficulties indecentralising and federally coordinating policy, the fragility of statebureaucracy across a range of areas (above all at subnational level) and faultsin the democratisation process, from the limited ability of some groups toattract participation to the low capacity to mobilize the electorate to participatein the available forums.A range of measures has been taken in order to solve these problems, inparticular the creation of what have become known as Public Policy Systems(Abrucio & Franzese, 2013). These systems were recommended for Brazil’suniversal healthcare programme (SUS), and they are now used in a range ofother areas, such as the public welfare and education systems (currently inPage 6implementation). This institutional innovation establishes a systemic logicfor each sector, which involves the definition of plans, relationships betweenfederal bodies and interaction with wider society.In the area of the environment, one of the most important areas wascoordinated with the National Water Resource Management System(SINGREH), which was created in 1997. The aim of this publication is to studythe governance of this sector. The management of water is essential in anysociety for a range of reasons; it is important as a part of peoples’ diet and theirgeneral health, and it is used in economic activities and in energy generation.In short, it is one of the central elements of life. In Brazil, however, as a resultof the (mistaken) belief in the infinite supply of this asset and the fact that forcenturies it has frequently been misused by both public and private entities,matters relating to water were often relegated to the background.With the redemocratisation process, social movements, state and federalbureaucrats in technical areas related to water use, academics, politicians andsome actors in the private sector started to fight for an overall change in thesector involving the same topics included in the 1988 Constitution as describedabove. It is noteworthy that a more systemic form of water management firstemerged at a subnational level. The formation of River Basin Committeeswas a great institutional innovation that combined decentralisation, socialparticipation, financing and intergovernmental links between the state andsociety.The SINGREH represents significant institutional progress and has broughtimprovements to the management of the system. However, many of itspromises have still not been delivered, particularly because in reality theinstitutionality that was proposed has still not become completely effective.Some key elements, such as the participative process, decentralisation andintergovernmental coordination have produced substandard results. In thecase of the first, because the average citizen still needs to be mobilised withinthe process and the different sectors involved do not have an equal chance tooperate within the system. In the case of the second, because of the enormousheterogeneity of the states, the fragility of subnational bureaucracy (aboveall at a local level) and the lack of adequate incentives for municipalities toget involved. In the case of the third because the strengthening of the state’sinstruments, particularly with the creation of the National Water Agency(ANA), provided improvements in policy that were not quite sufficient, aboveall in terms of federal coordination and the specific type of management thateach region requires.Some other issues were not adequately dealt with by the original model usedfor the SINGREH. Cross-sector interaction and the need for wider policiesrelated to governmental training (particularly at municipal level) were notincluded in the original legislation. In addition, Law No. 9,433/97 was not clearon how the system should be managed as it did not describe how methods,targets, follow-up and monitoring, indicators, evaluation and institutionallearning should be used to move forward from formulation to implementation.Page 7

This omission needs to be resolved, as the process of improving the SINGREHis guided by democratically constructed and regulated results.The challenge faced by this study was to perform a diagnostic of the SINGREH15 years after it was created and propose institutional changes leading to itsimprovement. A result of the partnership between WWF-Brazil and FGVSP, this study involved extensive research including analysis of specialistliterature, legislation and a variety of interviews with strategic actors. Theresults obtained were then discussed in workshops in order to develop a fivedimensional tool to be used within a systemic management matrix monitoredusing a measurement tool and indicators. With the completion of this process,it was recommended that a Water Management Observatory be created in linewith international trends in the monitoring of public policy.It is expected that the ideas presented in this document will generatedebate around the improvement of the SINGREH. This system needs to bereformulated with fresh impetus so that its original objectives can be met infull: to provide a water management process that is inclusive, democratic,sustainable, federally coordinated and that is able to provide better results thatare evaluated and improved on a constant basis.Fernando Abrucio, Doctor of Political Science at the University of SãoPaulo (USP) and professor at the Getúlio Vargas Foundation, São Paulo(FGV-SP).3. INTRODUCTIONThis study is a contribution to the reinforcement of the National Water ResourceManagement System (SINGREH) through the proposal of tools aimed at themonitoring of this system’s management.It aims to assist in the development of a system that will monitor the ability of statesto provide quality governance of the country’s water resources and to connect withand mobilise other state and social actors involved in this process.Produced through a process involving nationwide research, governance studiesand two workshops guided by the information gathered, the proposals presentedrepresent a starting point from which a deeper understanding may be sought.In the introduction, information is provided to justify the proposal, explain some ofthe concepts used and to present the main results obtained from the research carriedout by the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV-SP) and WWF-Brazil.The main text provides a summary of the discussions and proposals that cameout of the workshops. For each dimension covered, this includes a description ofthe relevant concepts, a measurement of the current status, the central issues thatshould be used to guide the monitoring process and suggestions of indicators thatcould be employed.Finally, the participants’ conclusions are provided on how the management of theSINGREH should be monitored.Therefore, the proposals presented should be reflected on by all those engaged inensuring the SINGREH meets its objective to guarantee water for current and futuregenerations through decentralised, integrated and participative management.Page 8Page 9

WWF-BraZil/adriano gambarini4. Initial considerationsIn order to contribute to the reinforcement of the National Water ResourceManagement System (SINGREH), WWF-Brazil is offering those engaged inconsolidating National Water Management Policy another opportunity to reflect.This document has been produced by the Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV-SP) byWWF-Brazil’s request, and its objective is to widen reflection on the managementsystem required in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the SINGREH.The study is broken down into three parts. The first involves an analysis ofhealth, education, security and welfare management systems. In the second, thetheoretical and conceptual foundations of governance are presented. In the third,interviews carried out with 37 relevant actors directly linked to the SINGREH orwith significant influence over the system are discussed, providing the conceptualbasis of this document. In addition, a model for an indicator measurement tool isproposed.Discussions were held in two workshops bringing together another set of actorsthat were identified using a survey and were willing to contribute propsals andsuggestions to help achieve the purpose of this study. The workshops led to thedevelopment of a measurement tool to analyse the aspects of governance identifiedby the study and some proposals for the indicators and basis for a monitoringsystem for the SINGREH.The aim of the SINGREH, which was created by constitutional resolution andinstituted by Law No. 9,433/97, is to guarantee the quality and quanitity ofwater for current and future generations. This is underpinned by the principlesof participation, decentralisation and integration, with the use of institutionalattributes and instruments so that the objectives defined in its legal wording can beachieved.It was established to work as a system, which implies the need for strong linksbetween its different components in order to ensure smooth functioning and amonitoring process to follow its implementation and results, steering it towards itsexpected performance.However, this essential monitoring process needs to be improved and reinforced,despite previous efforts the National Water Agency (ANA) with its SituationReport and the attempt to establish a Monitoring and Evaluation System forthe Implementation of Water Resources Policy (SIAPREH) by the Departmentof Water Resources and Urban Environments (SRHU) of the Ministry ofEnvironment (MMA).Page 10Page 11

The National Water Agency (ANA), by the authority established in Resolution No.58/2006 by the National Water Resources Council (CNRH), started to developBrazilian Water Resource Situation Reports. These have been published oncea year since 2009 and monitor the situation surrounding water resources on anational scale in terms of quality and quantity, evaluating the development of theirmanagement.The SIAPREH was an attempt to define a set of data and information to besurveyed on a regular basis among bodies working within the SINGREH. Itsobjective is to systematise information on the activities of the system’s membersand not to present physical information on river basins, as this is the responsibilityof the National Water Resource Information System (SNIRH), instituted byFederal Law No. 9433/97 under the remit of the National Water Agency.Today, 15 years after the SINGREH was instituted, there are still nogovernance indicators within the system. In some cases there are indicatorsfor the quality of water and the implementation of management tools, such asthe ANA Situation Reports and some other state reports. There is also a lack ofsystematised monitoring of the SINGREH, mainly in terms of its governance.Faced with this, WWF-Brazil has started once more to encourage dialogue inorder to improve the SINGREH’s governance mechanisms, and has includedin this document some of the essential components for its development; therelated concepts, analyses and proposals.Although the proposal for a monitoring system has been initiated and three reportswere published between 2001 and 2006, there is no up-to-date information on thecontinuity of this monitoring process.Attempts to generate indicators for this purpose also resulted in an initiativedeveloped by a working group put together by the Technical Council for Legaland Institutional Affairs (CTIL) of the National Water Resource Council.

governance required in order to achieve the system’s objectives. A result of discussions on the environment that led to the recognition that specific systems for the management of water resources are required, the

Related Documents:

PART III Globalism, liberalism, and governance 191 9 Governance in a globalizing world 193 ROBERT O. KEOHANE AND JOSEPH S. NYE JR., 2000 Defining globalism 193 Globalization and levels of governance 202 Globalization and domestic governance 204 The governance of globalism: regimes, networks, norms 208 Conclusions: globalism and governance 214

Good governance and natural resources tenure in Eastern Europe and CIS region up alternative types of “better governance” and “specific democracies”. In such cases, a shift is usually made towards autocratic governance, i.e. strongly controlled regimes. Finally, many countries are willing to accept, implement and exercise good governance

Corporate Governance, Management vs. Ownership, Majority vs Minority, Corporate Governance codes in major jurisdictions, Sarbanes Oxley Act, US Securities and Exchange Commission; OECD Principles of Corporate Governance; Developments in India, Corporate Governance in Indian Ethos, Corporate Governance – Contemporary Developments. 2.

Module 5: Effective NGO Governance page 145 MODULE 5 EFFECTIVE NGO GOVERNANCE Good governance is key to the growth and sustainability of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Module 5, “Effective NGO Governance,” presents methods and techniques for planning and implementing actions to improve an organization’s governance.

Objective: To acquire knowledge of ethics, emerging trends in good governance practices and sustainability. Contents: Part A: Ethics and Governance (70 Marks) 1. Introduction Ethics, Business Ethics, Corporate Governance, Governance through Inner Consciousness and Sustainability Failure of Governance and its Consequences 2.

Governance SOA Governance is the set of policies, rules, and enforcement mechanisms for developing, using, and evolving service-oriented systems, and for analysis of the business value of those systems Design-time governance Runtime governance Change-time governance SOA Governance was crea

IT Audit Virtual Training for PEMPAL CONCLUSION Although components of IT are technical in nature, the measurement of IT governance is less technical. Although auditing IT governance require IT skills, however IT governance is more about governance and less about technology IT governance is a result of global practices and research.

network governance phases: legacy conceptualization, legacy planning and implementation, legacy transfer, and post-Games legacy governance, as well as a number of governance mechanisms (e.g., contracts, policies) that had an impact on the overall governance of the event's legacy. Finally, a critical analysis of the governance of