Social capital and institutional performance: methodological and theoretical discussion on the water casin committees in metropolitan São Paulo - Brazil

Abstract

The paper analyses the institutional transformations that have taken place in the environmental management process in Brazil since the 90´s, emphasizing the enlargement of democratic spaces and popular participation, specially in the field of water management. The focus is on the water basin committees, an institutional engineering that has become one of the references of institutional innovation in the water management process in Brazil since 1997. The new watershed law presents a new framing of the issue of watershed protection, by recognizing the prime importance of a management system, by extending the protection instruments proposed and by opening the possibility of developing widespread agreement among stakeholders for the actions that are needed. The article presents an overview of the theoretical debate and the main outcomes of a survey with all members of the five subcommittees that compose the water basin. The research was developed in 2004 in the water basin of Alto Tietê that covers the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo, and is based in the framework of social capital, as a tool to evaluate the institutional development of these democratic spaces. The analysis based on the conceptual framework allows to evaluate the level of associativism, trust, reciprocity and cooperation that enables the consolidation of an effective performance. Water basin committees are the appropriate arenas to develop a comparative study of institutional performance and its relations with cooperative practices linked to preservation and spatial and environmental management.

Water Management: Constraints to and Contributions of Brazilian Watershed Management Committees1

“…Nevertheless, upon analyzing the effectiveness of this participation in specific committees, including: the committee of the Gravataí River in Rio Grande do sul state (GuTIéRREz, 2006) and the watershed committee of the upper Tietê River in são Paulo state (aLvIM;RoNCa, 2007), the studies found that although participation is called for in federal Law nº 9.433/97 and in the state public policies for water resources in the different administrative spheres, such as the watershed committees, the National Water agency and on the National Water Resources Council, this participation is still not effective, considering that on some committees, not even the minimal number of representatives was attained (aBERs et al, 2009). of the representatives that are active, many demonstrate that they defend primarily their own interests related to water use, and others lack knowledge in the field of deliberation, which prevents them from taking more prudent decisions (GaGG, 2014;GoMEs, 2008;MoNTEIRo, 2006). Jacobi;Fracalanza (2006) emphasizes that, although participation of civil society in public policies has increased in the past ten years, it is still sporadic and limited, given that although the watershed management committees were created to make decision--making more democratic, the population still does not use them as spaces for debate.…”

Os comitês de bacias hidrográficas e o gerenciamento integrado na Política Nacional de Recursos Hídricos

“…No Brasil, a gestão hídrica tem sido historicamente voltada para os setores de energia elétrica, processamento industrial e irrigação. Por muito tempo, a provisão de serviços adequados de abastecimento de água, bem como o tratamento de efluentes despejados nos rios, não foram prioridades de gestão (Jacobi, 2006). O setor elétrico mantém, ainda, um domínio significativo na gestão hídrica e, muitas vezes, aproveita os direitos de concessão de uso sobre a água sem levar em conta aspectos sociais e ambientais.…”

“…Desde a década 1980, diversas políticas setoriais brasileiras têm passado por reformas que combinam a descentralização com a instituição de conselhos -como os de educação, de habitação, de saúde, de assistência social, de meio ambiente e de recursos hídricos. A Constituição Federal (1988), estabeleceu um marco no que concerne à gestão hídrica: a extinção do direito privado sobre a água, passando o direito de propriedade da água para a União e para os Estados (Jacobi, 2006). Essa nova configuração institucional introduz complexidade na gestão, pois a tomada de decisão centralizada foi dividida por diversas agências -nem sempre com interesses convergentes.…”

Explaining successes and failures of river Basin committees in Brazil

“…found, for example, in JACOBI and MONTEIRO, 2006;JACOBI, 2009;PERKINS, 2011); a balanced view recognising its potential and the great challenges to its success (see, e.g., MARCON and PHILIPPI JR., 2007;TORTAJADA, 2001;VEIGA and MAGRINI, 2013;VICTORINO, 2003); and even more sceptical views, sometimes from opposite ideological positions, regarding the possibility of making "the participatory dream" brought about by the Law come true (see, e.g., BISWAS, 2008;BRANNSTROM, CLARKE and NEW-PORT, 2004;MEDEIROS and SANTOS, 2009;SAITO, 2011;VALENCIO, 2009). This scepticism of the nature of participation in consultative and decision-making collegiate bodies is shared by a number of authors, who have pointed out the limited participation by civil society related, among other factors, to the quality, legitimacy and accountability of representation; the oligarchisation, co-optation and control of councils; and the suppression of conflicts and diversity of conceptions, intentions and projects (AGUIAR, 2011;CARNEIRO, 2005;MELLO, 2010;RAICHELLIS and EVANGELISTA, 2009;SPOSATI and LOBO, 1992).…”