![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
Abstract
The last decade saw repeated attempts to adopt and implement an integrated management of water in Brazil. Internationally established principles, such as water economics and public participation, have influenced the development of a novel regulatory framework for water use and conservation in the country. However, despite changes in policies and in the legislation, the opportunity to address old and new management problems has been largely frustrated by the internal contradictions of the ongoing institutional reforms. A case study of the Paraíba do Sul River Basin demonstrates the distance between, on the one hand, calls for decentralisation and responsibility sharing and, on the other hand, the persistence of bureaucratised and exclusionary practices. The main distortion is the excessive effort expended on the introduction of water pricing and environmental charges, a controversial policy instrument that has dominated the agenda of the new river basin committee, at the expense of addressing river restoration, public mobilisation and environmental justice.
Acknowledgements
The research was developed during the first half of 2007 at the Institute of Urban and Regional Research and Planning (IPPUR) of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ). Financial support from the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq, protocol PDJ-155167/2006-5) is kindly acknowledged. Constructive comments from two anonymous reviewers were also highly appreciated.
Notes
1. SINGREH is an administrative structure that extends from the federal government to state authorities and river basin committees. More than 140 river basin committees and 10,000 professionals are currently involved in the activities of the SINGREH.
2. The river basin includes 55,500 km2 between latitudes 20°26' and 23°00'. The average flow at the river mouth is 1,118.40 m3/s, with low flow (Q95) of 353.77 m3/s. The extension of the main river is approximately 1100 km; the river network extends over 180 municipalities in the states of São Paulo, Minas Gerais and Rio de Janeiro. More than 5.4 million people live in the catchment (Coppetec Citation2006).
3. It is still possible to visit many of the lavish manor houses of the then affluent rural aristocracy, which included 32 noble titles among barons, viscounts and two earls (listed in Siqueira, in Müller Citation1969).
4. It is beyond the objectives of this paper to describe the full range of environmental problems in the Paraíba do Sul, but detailed assessment and analysis are available in Coppetec (Citation2002 and 2006).
5. Water management problems extend beyond the catchment boundaries via a complicated interconnection between the Paraíba do Sul and the Guandu Rivers. It has the capacity to transfer approximately 160 m3/s, which represents two-thirds of the Paraíba do Sul water flow at the point of abstraction. From the Guandu River, water is further diverted to serve 80% of the population of the Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Area (i.e. more than 12 million people depend on the Paraíba do Sul for their water supply). Because of the interbasin transfer, the Paraíba do Sul is significantly depleted of water in its medium section, aggravating an already precarious environmental condition.
6. Membership in the CEIVAP is distributed between water users (24 seats), representatives of the federal, state and municipal governments (21 seats) and civil society organisations (15 seats). It should be noted that civil society representation has been systematically abused by the appointment of members of business federations, professional councils and consortiums of municipalities instead of genuine civil society representatives (Projeto Marca d'Água Citation2003).
7. According to the 1988 Brazilian Constitution, water has dual ownership: (1) federal, for those rivers that cross more than one state or are shared with other countries; and (2) state responsibility, for those confined to one state territory.
8. Sub-basin committees have a legal mandate similar to the river basin committee, while municipal consortia have more targeted objectives, such as waste and sanitation.
9. Because of the importance given to this issue, the research strategy here was revised in the second month of the fieldwork and passed to consider the controversy around water user charges as the main indicator of the effectiveness of the institutional reforms in the PSRB.
10. The implementation of charges started in 2003, after an initial registration of 4500 water users in the river basin (Braga et al. Citation2008). All water uses above a certain threshold (i.e. consumptive use above 1 litre/second and hydropower bigger than 1 MW) must pay a monthly charge, calculated taking into account the extraction rate, the percentage of use and the quality of the effluent. There is a standard charge (R$0.02/m3) for industries, water supply and mining, and significant discounts for agriculture and aquaculture.
11. US$1.00 is approximately R$2.00.