Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais • Brazilian Journal of Environmental Sciences
https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820200711
THE LOCAL DIMENSION IN WATER RESOURCES
GOVERNANCE: THE EXPERIENCE OF INTER-MUNICIPAL
CONSORTIA AND COMMITTEES ON RIVER BASINS
A DIMENSÃO LOCAL NA GOVERNANÇA DE RECURSOS HÍDRICOS: A EXPERIÊNCIA
DOS CONSÓRCIOS INTERMUNICIPAIS E DE COMITÊS DE BACIAS HIDROGRÁFICAS
Yuri Kasahara
Senior researcher , Oslo
Metropolitan University – Oslo,
Norway.
Maria do Carmo Sobral
Full professor, Universidade
Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE) –
Recife (PE), Brazil.
Maiara Gabrielle
de Souza Melo
Professor, Instituto Federal de
Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia da
Paraíba – Cabedelo (PB), Brazil.
Correspondence address:
Yuri Kasahara – PO Box 4, St Olavs
Plass, 0130 – Oslo, Norway –
E-mail: yurik@oslomet.no
ABSTRACT
Integrated water resources management is advancing in Brazil as decentralized
and participatory governance gains more prominence. However, local actions
need to be better understood since several public policies are effectively
implemented at this level. The present article aims to present the current debate
about the local dimension in water resources governance. The paper analyzes
empirical cases of water resources management in semi-arid Brazil, based on
the performance of inter-municipal consortia and São Francisco’s River Basin
Committee. Research shows that municipalities do not ignore the need to adopt
new management models in response to their known financial and technical
limitations. Cases of inter-municipal consortia and river basin committees have
proven to be opportunities for greater visibility and action of local participants.
Inter-municipal consortia assist in sanitation management, because they increase
the access of municipalities to the services provided. On the other hand, dynamics
of the river basin committee expanded the possibilities of participation of local
actors, allowing the debate and shared decision-making. Nevertheless, identifying
factors and strategies for the successful organization of local participation and
cooperation in these new governance arrangements is needed.
Keywords: water resources governance; local level; inter-municipal consortia;
river basin committees.
Received on: 02/20/2020
Accepted on: 07/05/2020
RESUMO
A gestão integrada de recursos hídricos no Brasil tem avançado à medida que
se amplia a governança descentralizada e participativa. Contudo, há uma
necessidade de melhor entendimento sobre a atuação do nível local, tendo
em vista que é nesse nível que diversas políticas públicas são efetivamente
implementadas. Nesse sentido, este artigo teve por objetivo apresentar o debate
contemporâneo sobre o nível local em relação à governança de recursos hídricos
no Brasil semiárido, com base no desempenho de consórcios intermunicipais e
do comitê de bacia hidrográfica do rio São Francisco. A pesquisa demonstrou que
os municípios não ignoram a necessidade de adotar novos modelos de gestão
como resposta às suas conhecidas limitações financeiras e técnicas. Os casos dos
consórcios intermunicipais e dos comitês de bacia têm se apresentado como
oportunidades para maior visibilidade e atuação dos atores locais. Os consórcios
intermunicipais têm auxiliado na gestão do saneamento conforme ampliam o
acesso de municípios aos serviços prestados. Já a dinâmica do comitê de bacia
hidrográfica tem aumentado as possibilidades de participação de atores que
atuam em nível local na mesma arena, possibilitando o debate e a tomada de
decisão compartilhada. Porém, evidencia-se uma clara necessidade de identificar
fatores e estratégias que possibilitem uma organização bem-sucedida de
participação e cooperação de níveis locais nesses novos arranjos de governança.
Palavras-chave: governança de recursos hídricos; nível local; consórcios
intermunicipais; comitês de bacias hidrográficas.
282
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
The local dimension in water resources governance: the experience of inter-municipal consortia and committees on river basins
INTRODUCTION
by the analysis of numerous cases have gradually led
to a consensus: the importance of the local level for
understanding the organization of water resources
governance (MANCILLA-GARCÍA et al., 2019; SHARMA-WALLACE; VELARDE; WREFORD, 2018; WHALEY;
CLEAVER, 2017). The local level does not have a self-evident meaning. It can involve political-administrative
units, such as municipalities, or even smaller areas,
like neighborhoods or communities of a municipality.
As a space, the local level also has no natural representation since it encompasses a great variety of actors.
Municipal administrators, rural producers, companies,
and neighborhood associations are examples of local
actors. Simultaneously, settings with high population
density and urbanization exponentially increase the local complexity level. In other words, the governance of
large metropolitan areas is much more elaborate than
that of small rural municipalities.
The last two decades were marked by intense global
and institutional changes in regulatory frameworks of
water resources (CONCA, 2006). Efforts for the implementation of systems inspired on principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM), both in developed and developing countries, led to the creation
of a plethora of new institutions for water resources
management (WOODHOUSE; MULLER, 2017). The creation of national and state regulatory agencies, as well
as river basin committees, was an important institutional innovation for the governance model adopted in
Brazil (ABERS; KECK, 2013).
Academic literature has extensively analyzed the processes of implementation and operation of these new
institutions in different international, national, and
regional contexts. A quick search on Google Scholar shows, for instance, that 16 academic papers with
the term water governance were published in 1999.
In 2018, 4,080 individual articles including the term
were published, with an annual average of 1,469 publications during this period. As a result of this growth,
methodological and conceptual approaches, as well as
the levels of analysis used, were diversified.
The growing interest in the local dimension results
from the fact that the policies formulated in higher political and administrative spheres, such as federal and
state governments, are effectively implemented at the
local level. Therefore, systematic and detailed analyses
of local dynamics are crucial to understanding the reasons for the success or failure of governance models.
In Brazil, for instance, although municipalities are not
directly responsible for the management of river basins, they oversee water supply, and sewage collection
and treatment, in addition to being the main regulators
of local land use – with direct impact on existing water
resources.
Despite this diversity, some topics are recurrent.
The first is the description and analysis of how water resources governance is organized. How are conflicts resolved and how are interests between countries (in the
case of cross-border water resources), between different political-administrative entities of the same country
(for instance, between central government and states
or between municipalities of the same state), between
productive sectors and consumers, and between technical and political bodies coordinated? What system of
governance is more inclusive and considers the greatest
number of voices? How is the process of consolidation
of new instances created to manage water resources?
These are some of the questions posed in this first topic. The second recurrent discussion is the prescriptive
and normative debate on governance. Whereas the
first theme has a more descriptive nature, seeking to
understand the workings of governance bodies and actors, this second discussion addresses the characteristics of “good” governance, which objectives it should
prioritize, and the best ways to reach these goals.
Moreover, Goal 6 of the United Nations 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development (UN, 2015) defends the
need to “Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”, with one of its
targets declaring the importance of supporting and
strengthening the participation of local communities
in improving water and sanitation management. In this
perspective, local governance becomes paramount,
and its improvement, an urgent demand.
According to Philippi Jr., Sobral and Carvalho (2019),
reaching the targets of Goal 6 and having instruments
for environmental and water resources planning require the creation of governance structures that will
lead the implementation of the 2030 Agenda throughout the national territory at the river basin level.
The interaction between these two — completely intertwined — approaches and the knowledge produced
283
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
Kasahara, Y.; Sobral, M.C.; Melo, M.G.S.
River Basin Committee (Comitê da Bacia Hidrográfica
do Rio São Francisco — CBHSF). We chose these examples because they detail how the local level can have
a differentiated role in water resources management.
In conclusion, municipal performance has some gaps,
and these local actors need to be consistently engaged.
We also suggest the development of some lines of research on the relation between the local dimension
and water resources governance in Brazil.
In Brazil, different governance arrangements involving
the local level can operationalize the IWRM. In this regard, the present paper aims to present and analyze
the current debate about the local dimension in water
resources governance, based on the characterization
developed by Hooghe and Marks (2003), detailed in the
following topic. After a literature discussion, the study
assesses the performance of inter-municipal consortia
in providing sanitation services and of São Francisco
TYPES OF GOVERNANCE AND THE LOCAL LEVEL
The multifaceted debate on water resources governance reflects the existing diversity in the broader
theoretical debate on governance. Ansell and Torfing
(2016) discuss, for instance, the different disciplinary
backgrounds of the concept. Therefore, a necessary
first step is to define the concept of what governance
is. In general, when it comes to public policies, governance can be defined as a set of rules that determines
which organizations will manage one or several policies/programs in a specific jurisdiction.
civil society as a space to build alliances and cooperation. The authors report that governance can be understood as a strategy that stresses the need for social
participation in political-decision processes, decentralization of power, and compilation of many interests,
goals, and values for common good.
The binary typology developed by Hooghe and Marks
(2003) is quite informative in illustrating these definitions (Table 1). According to these authors, Type I
governance is inspired by a traditional federal model,
in which clearly established geographical jurisdictions
are responsible for a combination of programs and
public policies (general-purpose jurisdictions). Brazilian federalism would be a typical example of Type I
governance, in which federal government encompasses state administrations, which, in turn, include municipal administrations, with well-defined geographical boundaries. At the same time, these government
spheres — despite having exclusive competence in
many cases — are responsible for the management of
programs related to different areas. Water resources
management is just one of the tasks under the control
of these jurisdictions.
Le Galès (2004) defines governance as the process of
coordinating actors, social groups, and institutions to
achieve goals defined and discussed collectively. Governance refers to a set of institutions, networks, policies, regulations, standards, and political and social
practices, as well as public and private actors, which
contribute to the stability of a society and political regime, its orientation, its ability to manage and provide
services, and its capacity of ensuring its very legitimacy.
Jacobi and Spínola (2019) declare that the concept
of governance focuses on the notion of social power,
which measures the relations between the State and
Table 1 – Types of governance and their main characteristics.
Type I
Type II
Geographical coverage
Defined
Fluid
Criteria for membership
and participation
Clearly defined and compulsory
(e.g., citizenship)
Flexible and voluntary
Thematic jurisdiction
Multiple
Specific
Diversity of interests
High
Low
Source: adapted from Hooghe and Marks (2003).
284
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
The local dimension in water resources governance: the experience of inter-municipal consortia and committees on river basins
(BRANNSTROM, 2004). However, national government
interests are usually more predominant in these instances (EMPINOTTI, 2011).
In contrast to Type I, Type II model is characterized by
a thematic focus and a geographical jurisdiction that is
more fluid or intersects pre-existing jurisdictions. In the
international context, many river basin committees
created with the dissemination of IWRM principles are
examples of Type II governance. Given that river basins
do not usually respect the geographical boundaries of
states and municipalities (or countries), governance
solely based on state and municipal administrations,
typical of Type I model, has clear limitations. The need
to coordinate the interests of different actors scattered
over various political-administrative jurisdictions is
better fulfilled by a new institution. Therefore, river basin committees provide these actors with a specific jurisdiction for coordinating their interests as to the use
of water resources.
A second better-understood debate based on these
typologies addresses the thematic scope and territorial scale under the responsibility of a jurisdiction.
Type II governance models are specialized in one area
to overcome the difficulty of Type I models in providing
satisfactory coordination in contexts of multiple priorities. If we look beyond the issue of water resources,
authorities or regional committees that manage public
transport and solid waste collection or establish quality criteria for certain products are examples of Type II
models that are more effective than traditional Type I
models. However, specific issues managed by Type II
organizations can easily prove to be complex, leading
to pressures for expanding the scope of work of these
organizations.
An important debate about these typologies is the one
involving the participation of citizens and organized
groups — mainly in democratic societies. In Type I governance, the most common and explicit form of participation is the election of and interaction with local
politicians, whereas the form of participation in Type
II models tends to be less evident. Considering these
organizations have a specific purpose, they usually attract only actors interested in the subject. As a result,
whereas Type I models have clear membership criteria
(e.g., individuals living in a jurisdiction), the participation and representation criteria in Type II models are
often more nuanced. When observing the constitution
of Brazilian river basin committees, a complex effort
to include representatives from different interested
groups can be identified. Public sectors (municipal,
state, and federal), civil society, and user representatives are mandatory. Nonetheless, the profile of civil
society and user representatives changes drastically
from one committee to another, as does the internal
dynamics of each committee (ABERS; KECK, 2013).
Conceptually, a gradual transformation of Type II models into reformed Type I versions is possible by redefining new geographical jurisdictions with the growth
of their specific original purposes. As to the issue of
water resources management, river basin committees
could slowly increase their responsibilities to manage
a series of policies that directly affect the availability
and quality of water resources in an area. Topics such
as sanitation, urban zoning, collection and processing
of solid waste, economic development, environmental
regulation, among many other related themes, could
be easily included in the jurisdiction of a river basin
committee. After all, everything is connected to water.
As a result, the normative conceptual debate on water
resources governance has started to think about the
nexus among different sectors, instead of focusing on
activities that affect water resources. According to Benson; Gain; Rouillard (2015), the argument in favor of
the concept of nexus is to consider the management
of resources and economic activities holistically to
achieve systemic sustainability more easily.
Given that the civic participation and engagement of
individuals are quite heterogeneous during the elections and in the interaction with politicians, the mere
possibility of participation in new arenas and institutions does not automatically lead to effective participation (COHEN; DAVIDSON, 2011). Type II organizations,
like committees, can be easily seized by specific organized interests, such as those of large companies or
even of environmental groups that oppose the interests of users in increasing the water supply coverage
In practical terms, however, this scenario usually leads
to a new coordination problem, because the effectiveness of a Type II organization requires the commitment of Type I organizations. In other words, due
to the huge legal and organizational barriers involving
the expansion of the scope of work of a Type II organization dealing with complex issues, they need to
coordinate their activities with Type I organizations,
285
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
Kasahara, Y.; Sobral, M.C.; Melo, M.G.S.
Type II governance models, acting as possible bridges
between them (BETSILL; BULKELEY, 2004; ANDONOVA;
HALE; ROGER, 2017). Nevertheless, this advantage is,
at the same time, a disadvantage, since diverging priorities and pressures at the local level often create incentives to prevent the adoption of holistic strategies.
Another typical disadvantage of municipalities is their
financial and human resource limitations due to their
subordinate political-administrative position in national States. In any case, the success of river basin committees — or any other Type II arrangement — in the sustainable management of water resources is, therefore,
directly connected to the success of municipalities.
forming a cross-governance. The example of Brazilian
river basin committees can be used once more. Even in
committees that are working effectively, a vast number
of issues that directly affect the water resources of a
region are managed by states and municipalities. For
instance, important issues such as urban zoning (especially in river banks), standards of construction, water
supply, and sewage collection and treatment are under
the responsibility of municipalities. As a result, Type II
governance arrangements are often incorporated into
Type I arrangements.
This responsibility for different areas, essential for a
holistic approach to environmental issues, puts municipalities in a privileged position. In the current debate, municipalities are identified as one of the main
potential innovation hubs for environmental policy
and for facing the challenges posed by climate change
(FUHR; HICKMAN; KERN, 2018). Besides that, municipalities are intersection points between Type I and
Hooghe and Marks (2003) emphasize that Type I and
Type II governance are suitable for different issues, and
coexist because they are complementary. A result is
the variable number of independent and operationally differentiated Type II jurisdictions, alongside a more
stable number of general Type I jurisdictions.
DIVERSITY OF LOCAL ARRANGEMENT
One of the greatest inventions that have enabled the
development of modern science was the microscope,
built by the Dutch merchant Anton van Leeuwenhoek,
known as the father of microbiology, in the 17th century. Studies based on his invention revealed to the
world aspects of the physical and biological world until
then belonging only to the realm of fantasy. If the previous section has helped us understand the tensions
between Type I and Type II governance models and the
central role of low-scale political-administrative units
like municipalities, we must now adjust the focus of
our analysis, just as with a microscope, to grasp better
the dynamics inherent to this scale.
inhabitants are, doubtlessly, greater than those of smalland medium-sized cities. In large cities, historical patterns
of urbanization and economic activity lead to different
socio-spatial settings. Brazilian metropolises, in particular,
have socioeconomic inequalities and processes of reconfiguration of the capitalist system that clearly shape the
urban infrastructure, interacting with organizational capacities and patterns of relationship with the public sector, and directly affecting the priorities of residents from
different regions of the same city (ROLNIK, 2015).
This internal heterogeneity of large cities represents
a unique source of studies on local factors that affect
the implementation of programs and public policies
in both Type I and Type II governance contexts. The
comparison between different sub-regions or neighborhoods of a large city allows an easier identification
of the elements that influence the success or failure
of policies or programs. A recent example of this potential is given by Silva-Sánchez and Jacobi (2016) in
their analysis of satisfaction with linear parks, adopted
as a strategy to recover urban rivers in São Paulo City.
After evaluating data from interviews with municipal
authorities and local community leaders involved in implementing the 16 linear parks in the city, the authors
listed a series of factors that contributed to greater or
lesser satisfaction with these new parks, such as local
Analytically, we should bear in mind that municipalities
can be regarded both as spaces/arenas for interaction
between different actors, and as agents acting in governance systems.
This distinction becomes evident when considering the
enormous socio-spatial heterogeneity existing in the universe of municipalities. In Brazil, for instance, when we
speak of municipalities, both megalopolises such as São
Paulo and its more than 12 million inhabitants, and the
small Serra da Saudade in Minas Gerais State, with less
than 800 residents, can be addressed. The scale and complexity of challenges faced in metropolises with millions of
286
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
The local dimension in water resources governance: the experience of inter-municipal consortia and committees on river basins
organized by municipal administrations. Recent studies
show how global metropolises are leading transnational
initiatives to combat climate change, or how large cities
are coordinating metropolitan areas to provide public
services of common interest. Administrations of smalland medium-sized cities are also potential catalysts of
regional processes, such as planning water resources
management of river basins crossing the borders of several municipalities (OLIVEIRA-ANDREOLI et al., 2019).
infrastructure, community organization, urban and environmental laws, competence of local administrators,
among others. A limitation of the study, however, was
not systematizing these differences to identify the conditions needed for a high level of satisfaction.
Although more evident, the heterogeneity of local dynamics is not exclusive to large municipalities. Smalland medium-sized municipalities, including those with
more rural characteristics, are also marked by internal
differences that affect the implementation of programs.
For instance, Cooperman (2019) shows how even small
municipalities in the inland of Ceará State present a huge
diversity in water supply between rural communities
only a few kilometers apart. According to the author, this
difference reflects a historical pattern of local community organization, in which better-organized communities
with stable leadership can coordinate their votes and
elect politicians committed to the operation of the water supply system. Contrary to a purely clientelistic logic, the author reveals that organized communities often
punish incompetent politicians by voting for other candidates. The perverse effect of this dynamic, however,
is the persistence of precarious water supply conditions
in less organized areas. This dynamic is not particular to
Brazil. Carlitz (2017) investigated processes of decentralization of investments in water supply in Tanzania, and
identified that communities with stronger organization
and contacts with local politicians had better services.
Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD, 2015) indicate that the level of
participation of municipalities in water resources collegial bodies depends on local conditions, the importance
given to water issues, the motivation of mayors and collaborators, and the specific interests at stake. In general,
this level of participation is considered low.
Thus, if on the one hand, understanding the central
role and possible actions of municipal administrations
in alternative Type II governance models is important,
on the other hand, identifying the reasons for failures
and inaction is equally relevant. Whereas the fragility
of local civil society and the incompetence of municipal
administrations are often indicated as reasons for the
lack of effective public policies, numerous tasks under
the responsibility of municipalities create practical difficulties for their implementation. The lack of trained
staff and financial resources leads to a significant discrepancy between expectations and the ability to deliver results. In this regard, finding specific mechanisms
that can facilitate or hinder the implementation of
programs requires a systematic comparison between
success and failure cases. If discussions on more comprehensive governance levels usually detect structural
barriers to be addressed in the long term, local analyses produce precise diagnoses more easily and with
greater potential for replication in other local contexts.
Particularly in our case, Type II governance models can
be considered options for the limited municipal participation in Type I models. The next section will illustrate
this potential for water resources management.
Regarding municipalities as arenas allows a better
perspective of potentials (and limitations) of civil society at the local level. As the studies mentioned above
show, the organizational capacity of communities or
neighborhoods is a determining factor for the success
of policies and, consequently, of both Type I and Type
II governance models. Understanding how this capacity
is organized in each context is essential.
From the point of view of governance models, municipalities are also important actors, usually associated to
their local administrations. Many of the governance systems classified by Hooghe and Marks (2003) as Type II are
PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTION IN WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT: EXPERIENCES OF INTER-MUNICIPAL
CONSORTIA AND RIVER BASIN COMMITTEES
The formulation and implementation of water resources policies are, by nature, highly fragmented, and in-
volve a multitude of interested parties and authorities
from different levels of government and political ar287
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
Kasahara, Y.; Sobral, M.C.; Melo, M.G.S.
In this context, this section intends to present cases
of different types of organizations with Type II governance that municipal administrations can use for water
resources management: inter-municipal consortia and
river basin committees. Both cases deal with organizational arrangements that attempt to make water resources management feasible, be it by focusing on the
power of municipalities or by favoring several instances of local power and decision-making. These analyses
can help us understand the difficulties and potentials
of local governance in Brazil.
eas (OECD, 2015). Several governance arrangements,
with varying degrees of local leadership, are possible
in water resources management. According to Philippi
Jr., Sobral and Carvalho (2019), governance is a mechanism of democratization and advancement of shared
management, mitigating conflicts between the multiple users spread over the different geographical jurisdictions present in a river basin. For municipal administrations, governance arrangements different from the
traditional hierarchy of Type I models also allow economies of scale in administrative and financial terms.
Inter-municipal consortia for water resources management
With the process of decentralization of public policies
started with the redemocratization of the country,
a known challenge in Brazilian cities lies in providing the numerous services under their responsibility.
Especially in small- and medium-sized cities, the scarcity of financial and human resources created opportunities for the establishment of new forms of governance.
A model designed to try alleviating these deficiencies
was the inter-municipal consortium. Originally developed in the 1980s for the health sector, consortium is a
type of formal cooperation between municipalities from
the same region to provide a service (RIBEIRO; COSTA,
2000; CUNHA, 2014). In general, its function is to share
the cost of services provided while generating financial
and administrative resources for investments that could
not be done by any participant alone. Thus, inter-municipal health consortia can be considered Type II organizations voluntarily coordinated by municipalities.
initiative in the process, just like in the case of consortia in the north of Minas Gerais State; in others, state
governments encourage the implementation of these
organizations, just like in the case in Bahia State.
The National Water Agency (Agência Nacional das
Águas — ANA, 2019c) highlights that the feasibility of
shared options usually requires coordinated actions of
greater technical, institutional, economic, and environmental complexity. Therefore, the public sector has a
strategic role in the organization of these actions, and
in the integrated analysis of the effects and benefits of
interventions. However, as demonstrated previously,
Type I governance models, such as municipal governments, have several kinds of limitations. In the case
of inter-municipal consortia, the collective municipal
management attempts to mitigate the issue of financial shortage. This fact emphasizes the need to rethink
the federative pact, taking into account the multiple
uses of water, since many public services of common
interest, such as those related to environmental sanitation, are under municipal jurisdiction, as declared
Philippi Jr., Sobral and Carvalho (2019).
The relative success of this governance model can be
seen in its dissemination beyond the provision of health
services. Currently, inter-municipal consortia are established in the most diverse fields of activity, especially
those related to environmental and water resources
management. Sanitation and environmental licensing
services are some of the thematic areas linked to the
creation of consortia, and they show a huge growth potential (CARDOSO; CARVALHO, 2016). Recognizing the
interrelation between these themes, we can observe a
recent expansion in the scope of work of existing consortia or the construction of new multi-purpose ones,
focused on the development of collective sustainable
strategies. The process of creating these consortia also
presented different catalysts. In some cases, they result
from bottom-up dynamics, in which municipalities take
Nonetheless, after analyzing data from the Survey of
Basic Municipal Information (Pesquisa de Informações
Básicas Municipais — MUNIC), conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto
Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística — IBGE) in 2017,
we found that the percentage of Brazilian municipalities that participate in inter-municipal public consortia in areas related to water resources management is
still relatively small (Table 2). Particularly with respect
to sewage, the use of consortia is incipient, reflecting
the general precarious situation of the country and
the scarcity of financial resources for the infrastruc288
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
The local dimension in water resources governance: the experience of inter-municipal consortia and committees on river basins
Table 2 – Percentage of municipalities participating in public consortia according to the field of activity.
Water Supply (%)
Sewage (%)
Solid Waste Management (%)
Brazil
12.8
8.3
22.6
North
7.8
4.2
11.1
Northeast
9.2
4.7
26.6
Alagoas State
4.9
1.0
51
Bahia State
12.7
8.6
18.2
Ceará State
7.6
7.1
41.8
Maranhão State
6.5
2.3
4.1
Paraíba State
3.6
3.1
32.7
Pernambuco State
21.1
8.1
36.8
Piauí State
5.4
5.4
1.8
Rio Grande do Norte State
9.0
4.2
36
Sergipe State
6.7
1.3
76
Southeast
13.6
11.2
20.4
South
20.2
11.5
22.1
Midwest
9.6
7.7
27
ipalities due to the sharing of costs and infrastructure
for collection and final disposal.
ture projects needed. Inter-municipal consortia for
solid waste management — an area directly related to
the quality of water resources — have become more
widespread. Although some of them are expanding
their scope to include environmental management and
urban planning themes, many seem to be limited to
waste collection and landfill management. This scenario possibly results from the requirements provided in
the National Solid Waste Policy, established by Federal
Law No. 12.305/2010 (BRASIL, 2010).
As shown by Hooghe and Marks (2003), Type II
governance models, which match the profile of inter-municipal consortia, have among their characteristics a flexible design and the possibility of acting
in specific jurisdictions with certain themes or activities. In this case, there can be a very fluid institutional arrangement to facilitate sanitation services,
according to the interests and financial investment
availability of the parties.
When we assess the distribution of these consortia between states of the same region, such as the Northeastern, we can easily identify a great heterogeneity.
Whereas states such as Maranhão and Piauí have practically no inter-municipal consortia, Pernambuco shows
the highest percentage of municipalities with water
supply consortia. In general, however, solid waste management is the main issue that mobilized these munic-
Interest in academic research on inter-municipal consortia is in solid development, mainly for the several
decentralization efforts promoted in European countries in recent decades. A volume organized by Hulst
and van Montfort (2007) analyzes various experiences
of inter-municipal cooperation in European countries.
The obvious difficulty in comparing these experienc289
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
Kasahara, Y.; Sobral, M.C.; Melo, M.G.S.
ized executive units” (unidades executivas descentralizadas — UEDs), which have executive power
and responsibilities intrinsic to river basin agencies.
Paraná shows an alternative governance model precisely because of the prominent role given to users
and municipalities.
es lies in the different legal and institutional frameworks of each country, which directly shape the possible format of these local governance arrangements.
Typical governance challenges, such as building effectiveness and legitimacy, are the most frequent diagnoses, especially in countries with weak traditions in autonomy and local cooperation (SILVA; TELES; FERREIRA,
2018). Nonetheless, analyses of waste collection and
sewage treatment services carried out in European
countries suggest that these inter-municipal cooperative arrangements are effective ways of improving coverage and reducing operational costs (SOUKOPOVÁ;
VACEKOVÁ, 2018).
In Brazil, understanding the factors that contribute
to the success (or lack thereof) and influence the
performance of these arrangements is still limited.
Whereas existing studies focus on metropolitan areas (MEZA et al., 2019), very little is known about inter-municipal consortia in small- and medium-sized
cities. With the gradual increase in these governance
models for the provision of services related to water
resources, there is a huge research agenda to be developed.
In Brazil, OECD data (2015) underline the performance
of inter-municipal consortia for water resources management in Paraná State by means of “decentral-
River basin committees for water resources management
jurisdiction. This context automatically leads to the creation of groups with distinct constitutions, practicing
not only the interdisciplinarity but also the interinstitutionality of water resources management. River basin committee is a discussion forum that decides on
issues related to water resources management of a
specific river basin (ANA, 2019a). According to Philippi
Jr., Sobral and Carvalho (2019), water resources management occurs at the federal level in river basins that
cross state and national borders, and at the state level
in river basins belonging to only one state. No specific
institutional structure has been established at the municipal level; municipalities only have a representative
role in river basins committees. This fact makes the activities of the committee and its representation even
more relevant, because it is one of the only structures
that guarantee municipal participation. Besides that,
the committee structure allows the participation of
bodies that are even more local, such as user associations, cooperatives, among others. This Type II governance model arrangement poses many challenges
precisely because it places actors from different origins
and interests in the same debate arena.
The establishment of the National Water Resources
Policy in 1997 represented progress both in the conceptual sense and in the institutionalization of an
integrated, participatory, and decentralized management, based on the integration among management
bodies, users, and other institutions in river basin
committees (SOBRAL et al., 2017). However, even
though legislation addressed the space for expansion of social participation in IWRM, ANA data
(2019b) indicate that the fulfillment of the Goal 6
target referring to the proportion of local administrative units with established policies and procedures
aimed at local participation in water and sanitation
management is not satisfactory in Brazil, because it
corresponded to 49% in 2017. This low percentage
reflects the challenges and difficulties of the institutionalization of Type II governance models when
made from top-down on a national scale. The mere
creation of governance spaces does not automatically generate engagement, decision-making and
organizational best practices of the actors involved.
Just like Abers and Keck (2013) argue, the institutionalization of river basin committees has yielded
very heterogeneous results, particularly regarding
the participation of municipalities.
On the other hand, the more “local” role of the committee as an advisory and deliberative body is extremely complex, given the diverse interests and
representation of its members. Until 2018, Brazil had
235 river basin committees — 10 federal committees
(inter-state) and 225 state committees (Figure 1).
According to ANA (2011), river basin committees are
collegial bodies formed by the public sector, representatives of users and civil society with regulatory, deliberative, and advisory power in the river basin of their
290
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
The local dimension in water resources governance: the experience of inter-municipal consortia and committees on river basins
Source: ANA (2019b).
Figure 1 – River basin committees in Brazil.
Although late, the inherent difficulties of institutionalizing a complex Type II governance system, such as river
basin committees, were recognized and inspired federal actions. In 2016, the National Program for Strengthening River Basin Committees (Programa Nacional de
Fortalecimento dos Comitês de Bacias Hidrográficas
— PROCOMITÊS) was created to support state com-
mittees operationally and institutionally by providing
financial aid for their operation (ANA, 2019a). This action aims to cover the lack of financial resources whose
nature is usually voluntary in Type II organizations.
CBHSF illustrates governance with committees, with a
significant role in semi-arid Brazil.
291
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
Kasahara, Y.; Sobral, M.C.; Melo, M.G.S.
Experience of São Francisco River Basin Committee
São Francisco river basin covers part of six states (Alagoas, Bahia, Goiás, Minas Gerais, Pernambuco, and
Sergipe) and the Federal District, crosses 507 municipalities, and has a drainage area of 639,219 km2, which
corresponds to 8% of the country’s territory. Its main
river — São Francisco — is 2,863 km long (CBHSF,
2019). Among its multiple uses, water supply for the
population, irrigation, power generation, mining, fishing, and navigation are highlighted.
• Ministry of Mines and Energy;
• National Indian Foundation.
The Federal District and each of the six states that compose the basin have a seat on the Committee. The distribution of municipal representatives is:
• three for Minas Gerais;
Created in 2001, the committee operates with 62 members, divided among users, who represent 38.7% of the
total members; the public sector (federal, state, and
municipal), 32.2%; civil society, 25.8%; and traditional
communities, 3.3% (CBHSF, 2019). The total number of
members per representation is defined in the internal
rules of CBHSF (CBHSF Deliberation No. 106/2019), as
shown in the Figure 2.
• two for Bahia;
• one for Pernambuco;
• one for Alagoas;
• one for Sergipe.
National representatives correspond to the institutions:
Users of water resources of the basin have 24 representatives:
• Ministry of the Environment;
• six for urban water supply;
• Ministry of Regional Development;
• five for industry, collection, and dilution of industrial and mining effluents;
• Ministry of Economy;
Source: adapted from the CBHSF Deliberation No. 106/2019 (CBHSF, 2019).
Figure 2 – Structure of São Francisco River Basin Committee.
292
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
The local dimension in water resources governance: the experience of inter-municipal consortia and committees on river basins
This committee meets twice a year, besides the meetings of several technical chambers and four regional
groups. Despite being a top-down participatory institution, the committee is a unique opportunity for the various interested parties to meet, exchange experiences,
and build the foundations for a common understanding on water resources management (KÖPPEL; SIEGMUND-SCHULTZE, 2019).
• six for irrigation and agriculture use;
• one for fluvial transport;
• four for fishing, tourism, and leisure activities;
• two for companies with concession or authorization
to generate hydroelectric power.
The importance of tributary committees is also emphasized, which operate on an even more specific scale
and can aid the committees of the broader geographical area to which they belong. In this perspective, research conducted by Souza Junior et al. (2017) on São
Francisco river basin identified 44 water planning units
for tributary rivers within the region of São Francisco,
of which 26 — a little over 59% of the existing units —
have no committee representation. The authors also
underline the lack of guarantees that all implemented
committees are representative and active.
The 16 representatives from water resources civil entities are:
• two for inter-municipal or user consortia and associations;
• five for technical organizations for education and research or other organizations;
• eight for non-governmental organizations;
• one for traditional quilombola communities (settlements with descendants of enslaved Africans),
within the basin context.
Nonetheless, CBHSF recognized the central role of municipal administrations for a successful river basin management. In recent years, for instance, CBHSF funded
the elaboration of sanitation plans in 63 of the 270 municipalities that comprise São Francisco river basin. In
addition to providing information for municipal administrations to identify priority areas for action, the preparation of these plans is essential for municipalities to obtain federal resources for investing in water supply and
a network for sewage collection. Thus, the interaction of
a Type II organization with the structure of a Type I organization is clear, with municipalities as a common link.
The diversity of CBHSF participants is an attempt to
ensure the balance in decisions and benefits to all areas, be it geographical or thematic. However, given the
complexity and socio-environmental heterogeneity of
the river basin, the committee’s performance is often
inefficient and does not meet the most urgent needs
of the basin, favoring the wishes of groups of users.
Rodorff et al. (2015) highlight that, despite the implementation of IWRM with the creation of a participatory
committee, the challenging scenario for its establishment and operationalization is evident. In Brazil, legal
framework and policy for water as a natural resource
— primarily at the federal level, followed in greater detail by the state level — are implemented in municipalities, which have their own specificities, adopting the
principle that water management and access to clean
water are significant criteria at all levels. Bearing in
mind that each of these levels has a web of interests of
various multiusers, as well as the need to contemplate
distinct social, economic, and institutional interests,
according to a policy of social and economic growth,
the challenge lies in providing transparency for each of
these roles, and perceiving methods of strategic and
tactical management.
Although considered a reasonably institutionalized
committee with capacity for coordination, the studies
cited above show the challenges that still exist for disseminating this governance model at the local level.
An important reason for the difficulty in integrating municipalities in a more consistent way in these new multilevel governance structures is the predominance of
interests of federal or state governments, often funders
of local actions. Moreover, the lack of systematized
knowledge about what makes some experiences and
organizations successful and which of these elements
can be replicated in other contexts are pointed out.
On the other hand, there is an understanding that
the intense engagement of interested parties and the
wide social mobilization must not overlap solid tech293
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
Kasahara, Y.; Sobral, M.C.; Melo, M.G.S.
in this area. Even with dedication and effort in participating in discussions and arguments, many variables
can neutralize the entire negotiation. In this regard, Ostrom (2011) declares the need for valuing the knowledge about realities of local governance structures
and the trust among decision-makers, highlighting that
these two attributes related to individual decisions are
not often included in current analyses.
nical knowledge and the exercise of public authority.
The need to complement or even integrate bottom-up
approaches with a top-down process to ensure the fulfillment of national targets and long-term goals is also
known (OECD, 2015).
Empinotti (2011) emphasizes that participatory institutions require commitment and time to negotiate,
besides mastering the technical language that prevails
CONCLUSION
The present article aimed to present a brief and non-exhaustive summary of the current debate about water
resources governance, stressing the importance given
to the local level by the international literature. As argued, Brazil is no exception. Most challenges faced by
water resources governance in Brazil require some level of action from municipal governments. Nonetheless,
given that municipalities are multi-purpose districts,
they need to split their scarce human and financial
resources between other demands beyond the water
issue. The main challenge for the new forms of governance created for water resources management is
consistently engaging these local actors.
knowledge of which factors and strategies can lead to
the successful organization of local participation and
cooperation in these new governance arrangements is
evident. Identifying which factors are behind the success of inter-municipal consortia or better planning of
water resource management by local governments is
of utmost importance for the development of actions
and programs that can encourage the replication of
these effective cases. One way of overcoming criticism
related to the lack of political will from municipal authorities is knowing the reasons for successful cases.
Engagement of municipal leaders is obviously crucial. So are financial resources. International literature shows that these two elements walk together.
The availability of resources is a beacon for local authorities and a clear incentive for their engagement.
However, as Termeer, Dewulf and Biesbroek (2017)
state, an important element for the success of cases
of adaptive changes related to climate change is the
establishment of feasible and achievable goals, and action plans within a relatively short period. Namely, the
elaboration of small projects, so municipal authorities
can see concrete results faster, is an effective way of
building trust and foundations for larger-scale projects.
The role of the local level in water resources management, presented as committees and inter-municipal
consortia — examples of Type II governance arrangements —, reveals the expansion of local representative
action in the decision-making process. In consortia,
municipalities are protagonists and collectively define
their priorities. On the other hand, municipalities need
a more effective way of increasing their participatory
space in river basin committees. At the same time, in
these spaces, the local level can have other representations. These participatory spaces demand greater
governmental support to ensure their full operation
and autonomy of action. In addition, the functioning of
these bodies requires ongoing training for participants,
as well as financial support.
Another aspect highlighted by the authors is the usual
tendency of central authorities to dirigisme, resulting in
an underestimation of local actors. Top-down processes, typical of Type I governance models, are also likely
to occur in Type II models. Thus, river basin committees
dominated by groups insensitive to the challenges experienced by local governments and their possible contributions to finding alternative solutions weaken the
legitimacy and transformative potential of new governance models. In addition to institutional spaces, the
communication between parties must be perceived as
an effective dialog, rather than a monologue.
The review of official and national literature data shows
that municipalities do not ignore the need to adopt
new management models in response to their known
financial and technical limitations. Type II governance
structures, such as inter-municipal consortia and river basin committees, are considered opportunities to
meet these needs due to their flexibility, multilevel
scale, and polycentric nature. However, the scarcity of
294
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
The local dimension in water resources governance: the experience of inter-municipal consortia and committees on river basins
The recent Brazilian academic production is particularly valuable in identifying and describing the processes of institutionalization of new forms of water
resources governance. Systematic comparisons focused on local experiences, such as tributary basin
committees, are a still unexplored and rich source
of knowledge. Further research in this field should
consider that interdisciplinary analysis is essential.
Attempting to broaden the theoretical and analytical
concept to understand how local organizations work
and change is a necessary step to improve water resources governance.
REFERENCES
ABERS, R. N.; KECK, M. E. Practical Authority: Agency and institutional change in Brazilian water politics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2013.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ÁGUAS (ANA). Conjuntura dos recursos hídricos no Brasil 2019: informe anual. Brasília: ANA,
2019ª.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ÁGUAS (ANA). O comitê de bacia hidrográfica: o que é e o que faz? Brasília: Agência Nacional
de Águas, 2011. (Cadernos de Capacitação em Recursos Hídricos, 1.)
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ÁGUAS (ANA). ODS 6 no Brasil: visão da ANA sobre os indicadores. Brasília: ANA, 2019b.
AGÊNCIA NACIONAL DE ÁGUAS (ANA). Plano Nacional de Segurança Hídrica. Brasília: ANA, 2019c.
ANDONOVA, L. B.; HALE, T.; ROGER, C. B. National policy and transnational governance of climate change: Substitutes
or complements? International Studies Quarterly, v. 61, n. 2, p. 253-268, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx014
ANSELL, C.; TORFING, J. Handbook on Theories of Governance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.
BENSON, D.; GAIN, A. K.; ROUILLARD, J. J. Water governance in a comparative perspective: From IWRM to a ‘nexus’
approach? Water Alternatives, v. 8, n. 1, p. 756-773, 2015.
BETSILL, M. M.; BULKELEY, H. Transnational networks and global environmental governance: The cities for climate
protection program. International Studies Quarterly, v. 48, n. 2, p. 471-493, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.00208833.2004.00310.x
BRANNSTROM, C. Decentralising water resource management in Brazil. European Journal of Development Research,
v. 16, n. 1, p. 214-234, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810410001688815
BRASIL. Lei nº 12.305, de 2 de agosto de 2010. Institui a Política Nacional de Resíduos Sólidos e dá outras providências.
Brasil, 2010. Disponível em: <https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2007-2010/2010/lei/l12305.htm>. Acesso
em: fev. 2020.
CARDOSO, L. L.; CARVALHO, A. A. E. S. Desafios para os municípios da região metropolitana de Salvador, Bahia, frente à
descentralização do licenciamento ambiental. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais, n. 40, p. 57-68, 2016. https://
doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-9478201613314
CARLITZ, R. D. Money flows, water trickles: Understanding patterns of decentralized water provision in Tanzania. World
Development, v. 93(C), p. 16-30, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.019
COHEN, A.; DAVIDSON, S. The watershed approach: Challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to
governance unit. Water Alternatives, v. 4, n. 1, p. 1-14, 2011.
COMITÊ DE BACIA HIDROGRÁFICA DO RIO SÃO FRANCISCO (CBHSF). A bacia. Available from: <http://cbhsaofrancisco.
org.br/a-bacia/>. Accessed on: Jan. 2019.
295
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
Kasahara, Y.; Sobral, M.C.; Melo, M.G.S.
CONCA, K. Governing water: Contentious transnational politics and global institution building. Cambridge: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, 2006.
COOPERMAN, A. D. Trading favors: Local politics and development in Brazil. Thesis (Doctoring on Politics Science) –
Columbia University, New York, 2019.
CUNHA, R. E. Federalismo e relações intergovernamentais: Os consórcios públicos como instrumentos de cooperação
federativa. Revista do Serviço Público, v. 55, n. 3, p. 5-36, 2014. https://doi.org/10.21874/rsp.v55i3.249
EMPINOTTI, V. L. E se eu não quiser participar? O caso da não participação nas eleições do comitê de bacia do Rio São
Francisco. Ambiente & Sociedade, v. 14, n. 1, p. 195-211, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2011000100011
FUHR, H.; HICKMAN, T.; KERN, K. The role of cities in multi-level climate governance: local climate policies and the 1.5C
target. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, v. 30, p. 1-6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.10.006
HOOGHE, L.; MARKS, G. Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political
Science Review, v. 97, n. 2, p. 233-243, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000649
HULST, R.; VAN MONFORT, A. Inter-Municipal Cooperation in Europe. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.
JACOBI, P. R.; SPÍNOLA, A. L. G. Aspectos institucionais e conceituais da governança da água: intrdumentos, inovações
e desafios. In: PHILIPPI JR., A.; SOBRAL, M. C. M. (eds.). Gestão de bacias hidrográficas e sustentabilidade. Barueri:
Manole, 2019.
KÖPPEL, J.; SIEGMUND-SCHULTZE, M. Diversas arenas da governança das bacias hidrográficas. In: PHILIPPI JR., A.;
SOBRAL, M. C. M. (eds.). Gestão de bacias hidrográficas e sustentabilidade. Barueri: Manole, 2019.
LE GALÈS, P. À chaque ville sa gouvernance. Auxerre: Sciences Humaines, 2004. (Hors-série, n. 44.)
MANCILLA-GARCÍA, M.; HILLEMAN, J.; BODIN, Ö.; NILSSON, A.; JACOBI, P. R. The unique role of municipalities in
integrated watershed governance arrangements: A new research frontier. Ecology and Society, v. 24, n. 1, p. 28, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10793-240128
MEZA, O. D.; GRIN, E. J.; FERNANDES, A. S.; ABRUCIO, F. L. Intermunicipal cooperation in metropolitan regions
in Brazil and Mexico: Does Federalism matter? Urban Affairs Review, v. 55, n. 3, p. 887-922, 2019. https://doi.
org/10.1177%2F1078087418816433
OLIVEIRA-ANDREOLI, E. Z.; SILVA, F. L.; LÓPEZ, F. M. A.; MACHADO, R.; TEODORO, C. C.; BIANCHINI JR., I.; CUNHASANTINO, M. B.; FUSHITA, A. T.; CRESTANA, S. Importância do planejamento regional para a manutenção dos usos
múltiplos da água em bacias hidrográficas. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais, n. 52, p. 16-27, 2019. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820190479
ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT (OECD). Governança dos Recursos Hídricos no
Brasil. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264238169-pt
OSTROM, E. Reflections on “Some Unsettled Problems of Irrigation”. The American Economic Review, v. 101, n. 1,
p. 49-63, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.49
PHILIPPI JR., A.; SOBRAL, M. C. M; CARVALHO, R. M. C. M. O. Bacia hidrográfica no contexto da sustentabilidade.
In: PHILIPPI JR., A.; SOBRAL, M. C. M. (eds.). Gestão de bacias hidrográficas e sustentabilidade. Barueri: Manole, 2019.
p. 3-18.
RIBEIRO, J. M.; COSTA, N. R. Regionalização da assistência à saúde no Brasil: Os consórcios municipais no Sistema Único
de Saúde (SUS). Planejamento e Políticas Públicas, n. 22, p. 173-220, 2000.
296
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478
The local dimension in water resources governance: the experience of inter-municipal consortia and committees on river basins
RODORFF, V.; SIEGMUND-SCHULTZE, M.; KÖPPEL, J.; GOMES, E. T. A. Governança da bacia hidrográfica do Rio São
Francisco: Desafios de escala sob olhares inter e transdisciplinares. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Ambientais, n. 36,
p. 19-44, jun. 2015. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z2176-947820151003
ROLNIK, R. Guerra dos lugares: a colonização da terra e da moradia na era das finanças. São Paulo: Boitempo, 2015.
SHARMA-WALLACE, L.; VELARDE, S. J.; WREFORD, A. Adaptive governance good practice: Show me the evidence!
Journal of Environmental Management, v. 222, p. 174-184, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.05.067
SILVA, P.; TELES, F.; FERREIRA, J. Intermunicipal cooperation: The quest for governance capacity? International Review
of Administrative Sciences, v. 84, n. 4, p. 619-638, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0020852317740411
SILVA-SÁNCHEZ, S.; JACOBI, P. R. Implementation of riverside parks in the city of São Paulo - Progress and constraints.
Local Environment, v. 21, n. 1, p. 65-84, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.922060
SOBRAL, M. C. M.; MONTENEGRO, S. M. G.; CARVALHO, R. M. C. M. O.; MELO, M. G. S. Institucionalidade da
interdisciplinaridade na gestão de recursos hídricos no Brasil. In: PHILIPPI JR., A.; FERNANDES, V.; PACHECO, R. C. S.
Ensino, Pesquisa e inovação: desenvolvendo a interdisciplinaridade. Barueri: Manole, 2017. p. 463-493.
SOUKOPOVÁ, J.; VACEKOVÁ, G. Internal factors of intermunicipal cooperation: what matters most and why? Local
Government Studies, v. 44, n. 1, p. 105-126, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1395739
SOUZA JUNIOR, C. B.; SIEGMUND-SCHULTZE, M.; KÖPPEL, J.; SOBRAL, M. C. Sinais de um problema crônico: a governança
hídrica carece promover os comitês de bacias, coordenar planos e gerir informações. Revista Ambiente e Água, v. 12,
n. 6, p. 1054-1067, 2017. https://doi.org/10.4136/ambi-agua.2044
TERMEER, C. J. A. M.; DEWULF, A.; BIESBROEK, R. Transformational change: Governance internventions for climate
change adaptation from a continuous change perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, v. 60,
n. 4, p. 558-576, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168288
UNITED NATIONS ORGANIZATION (UN). Transformando nosso mundo: a Agenda 2030 para o desenvolvimento
sustentável. New York: ONU, 2015. Available at: <https://nacoesunidas.org/pos2015/ods6/>. Accessed on: Jan., 2010.
WHALEY, L.; CLEAVER, F. Can “functionality” save the community management model of rural water supply? Water
Resources and Rural Development, v. 9, p. 56-66, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wrr.2017.04.001
WOODHOUSE, P.; MULLER, M. Water governance: an historical perspective on current debates. World Development,
v. 92, p. 225-241, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.014
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons license.
297
RBCIAMB | v.55 | n.3 | set 2020 | 282-297 - ISSN 2176-9478