Brazil: Jaguaribe Basin

Johnsson, Rosa Maria Formiga; Kemper, Karin

doi:10.1007/978-3-540-28355-3_6

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the early 1990s, the northeastern state of Ceará implemented IWRM upon the organizing principles of decentralization, integration, and participation of stakeholders. However, as the reform of the state's water sector evolved, it progressively combined attempts to organize democratically structured stakeholder organizations, such as Users' Commissions, with growing centralization of overall management by the state water agency, Cogerh (Company for Water Resources Management, in English; Lemos and Oliveira 2004, Formiga-Johnsson and Kemper 2005, Broad et al 2007. For a while, river basin councils and users' commissions coexisted with a centralized decision making model in which Cogerh was in charge of budget decisions and allocation of resources, and participatory councils had partial input on decisions about water allocation (Lemos andOliveira 2004, Lemos 2008).…”

Section: Legacies and Tensions In Brazilian Water Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, the centralization of decisions in the hands of the technical agency may facilitate the implementation of experiments as well as afford a level of flexibility that may be incompatible with more decentralized systems. For example, state water managers were able to quickly conceive and implement the experimental Águas do Vale program (or Water of the Valley, in English) in the Jaguaribe basin from 2001-2002, which paid waterintensive agriculture producers not to irrigate during this particularly water-scarce period (Formiga-Johnsson and Kemper 2005). Despite mixed results in terms of compliance, the program increased the number of options available for water governance in the region.…”

Section: Legacies and Tensions In Brazilian Water Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrated and Adaptive Management of Water Resources: Tensions, Legacies, and the Next Best Thing

Engle¹,

Johns²,

Lemos³

et al. 2011

E&S

116

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated water resources management (IWRM) and adaptive management (AM) are two institutional and management paradigms designed to address shortcomings within water systems governance; the limits of hierarchical water institutional arrangements in the case of IWRM and the challenge of making water management decisions under uncertainty in the case of AM. Recently, there has been a trend to merge these paradigms to address the growing complexity of stressors shaping water management such as globalization and climate change. However, because many of these joint approaches have received little empirical attention, questions remain about how they might work, or not, in practice.Here, we explore a few of these issues using empirical research carried out in Brazil. We focus on highlighting the potentially negative interactions, tensions, and trade-offs between different institutions/ mechanisms perceived as desirable as research and practice attempt to make water systems management simultaneously integrated and adaptive. Our examples pertain mainly to the use of techno-scientific knowledge in water management and governance in Brazil's IWRM model and how it relates to participation, democracy, deliberation, diversity, and adaptability. We show that a legacy of technical and hierarchical management has shaped the integration of management, and subsequently, the degree to which management might also be adaptive. Although integrated systems may be more legitimate and accountable than top-down command and control ones, the mechanisms of IWRM may be at odds with the flexible, experimental, and self-organizing nature of AM.

show abstract