Water Resources Management in Mexico, Chile and Brazil: Comparative Analysis of Their Progress on SDG 6.5.1 and the Role of Governance

Abstract

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is globally regarded as a suitable alternative to adapt to the effects of Climate Change. Chile, México, and Brazil are developing countries that are highly vulnerable to climate change and have different water management models, thus presenting the strengths and challenges for IWRM compliance. Our analysis aims to compare advances in terms of the achievement of SDG 6.5.1 in these countries, in relation to the degree of implementation of IWRM and their correlation to the OECD principles on Water Governance. We used IWRM Data Portal, UNEP-DHI, including 33 indicators, and we used the proposal of Bertule et al., (2018) to analyze the relationship among IWRM and governance. Our findings indicate that the Chilean model has low social involvement in water management due to a market-based water governance system with weak state regulation and lack of legal instruments to implement watershed management programs. In Mexico and Brazil, there is greater citizen involvement in watershed organizations, and ecosystems and aquifers have been incorporated to aid with water management. These three countries show a low performance of gender indicators, deficient financing, and information in terms of decision-making, and a lack of effective mechanisms for social participation, which are key aspects of governance.

A Conceptual Model Considering Multiple Agents for Water Management

“…This fragmentation restricts our ability to consider the interactions between surface and subterranean water and ecological flow. Moreover, there need to be more instances of social participation [13,35] so that the different relevant sectors-government, private, and civil-can all be involved in decision making and the development of strategic planning according to IRWRM, so that change can take place on this basis, rather than simply in response to conflicts [36].…”

“…The proposed objectives have not yet been met though and lack a focus on integrated management. The OECD (2015) has developed 12 Principles for the Good Governance of Water, grouped into 3 key dimensions: effectiveness, efficiency, and trust and commitment [13], which are found in SDG 6.5.1 [14,15]. Underpinning our research is the need for a model that allows us to meet Principle 5, which refers to "Data & Information", and Principle 12, which refers to "Monitoring & Evaluation".…”

Segurança das águas subterrâneas (groundwater security): uma revisão dos estudos nacionais e internacionais

“…FRANCELINO et al (2022) realizaram um inventário de dados secundários sobre os compostos ativos dos pesticidas comercializados na Bacia do Rio Salgado no Ceará e aplicaram índices propostos na literatura para avaliação do potencial poluidor destes compostos, avaliando os riscos à poluição das águas superficiais e subterrâneas na bacia. TINOCO et al (2022) compararam os sistemas de gerenciamento de recursos hídricos existentes no México, Brasil e Chile, avaliando até que ponto a governança destes países era capaz de atingir o que se espera de um SGRHI, definido como sendo "um processo que promove o gerenciamento e o desenvolvimento da água, das terras e de recursos relacionados de forma coordenada de forma a maximizar o bem estar econômico e social de forma equitativa e sem comprometer a sustentabilidade de ecossistemas vitais (GLOBAL WATER PARTNERSHIP 2000). Na realidade, o grau de implementação de um SGRHI é um dos indicadores previstos na Agenda da ONU para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável.…”