Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp 1655–1666 | Cite as

Federalism, water, and (de)centralization in Brazil: the case of the São Francisco River water diversion

  • Vanessa Lucena Empinotti
  • Wilde Cardoso GontijoJr
  • Vanessa Elias de Oliveira
Original Article

Abstract

The Brazilian Northeastern semi-arid region’s history has been characterized by drought, water scarcity, and poor living conditions. For the last 100 years, institutions have been established to support the state sector’s different attempts to solve the water scarcity and poverty problems in the region. In the Brazilian federalist model that combines centralized decision power with a decentralized execution of public policies, the federal government promotes large-scale infrastructure interventions, such as the São Francisco River Water Diversion Project (SFRWDP). This article aims to show how intergovernmental relations, under the Brazilian federal system, enable centralized decision-making processes. We will analyze the roles of subnational and national entities and the factors influencing their interaction. Even though decentralized participatory water institutions are in place, the federal government controlled and centralized the process of approval of the SFRWDP as well as its implementation and management. While federal agencies dispute control over decision-making processes and financial resources, the states lack financial and institutional capacity to use the power that is attributed to them by the Water Law. The persistence of a federal system that perpetuates the federal government’s central role and the interstates’ power inequalities, may continue to wreck any attempt to promote decentralization and subnational and interstate collaboration in the Brazilian context.

Keywords

Water governance São Francisco River Water diversion Brazil Federalism Decentralization 

References

  1. Abers RN, Keck M (2013) Practical authority: agency and institutional change in Brazilian water politics. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal B (2001) Participatory exclusion, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev 29:1623–1648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Almeida MHT (2005) Decentralization and centralization in a federal system: the case of democratic Brazil. Rev Social Polit 24:29–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ANA (2009) Relatório de Fiscalização da Comissão Especial de Acompanhamento do PISF criada pela Portaria ANA n° 97, de 30 de abril de 2009Google Scholar
  5. ANA (2013) Conjuntura dos Recursos Hídricos no Brasil 2013. ANA, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  6. Arretche M (2010) Federalismo e igualdade territorial: uma contradição de termos? Dados 53:587–620.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0011-52582010000300003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arretche M (2012) Democracia, federalismo e centralização no Brasil. Fiocruz, Rio de JaneiroCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bakker K (2010) Politics and biopolitics: debating ecological governance. In: Bakker K (ed) Privatizing water: governance failure and the world’s urban water crisis. Cornell University Press, London, pp 190–212Google Scholar
  9. Banco Mundial (2011) Relatório de Análise das Alternativas de Gestão da Operação da Infraestrutura de Transposição do rio São Francisco. Relatório n° 3 – Contrato n° 0.129.01/2010. Brasília. DFGoogle Scholar
  10. Batterbury SPJ, Fernando JL (2006) Rescaling governance and the impact of political and environmental decentralization: an introduction. World Dev 34:1851–1863.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boelens R, Hoogesteger J, Swyngedouw E, Vos J, Philippus W (2016) Hydrosocial territories: a political ecology perpective. Water Int 41:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2016.1134898 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brasil (2005a) Relatório do Grupo de Trabalho criado pela Portaria Interministerial n° 24, de 11 de novembro de 2004, publicado em agosto de 2005Google Scholar
  13. Brasil (2005b) Termo de Compromisso Firmado entre a União, por intermédio dos Ministérios da Integração Nacional, de Minas e Energia, do Meio Ambiente e da Casa Civil da Presidência da República, e os Estados do Ceará, Paraíba, Pernambuco e Rio Grande do Norte, para garantia da operação sustentável do Projeto de Integração do Rio São Francisco com as Bacias Hidrográficas do Nordeste Setentrional - PISF. BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  14. Brasil (2006) Decreto n° 5995, de 19 de dezembro de 2006. Institui o Sistema de Gestão do Projeto de Integração do rio São Francisco com as bacias hidrográficas do Nordeste Setentrional. BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  15. Brasil (2014) Decreto n° 8207, de 13 de março de 2014. Altera o Decreto n° 5995 que institui o Sistema de Gestão do Projeto de Integração do rio São Francisco com as bacias hidrográficas do Nordeste Setentrional. BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  16. Brosius JP, Tsing AL, Zerner C (1998) Representing communities - histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 11:157–168.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929809381069 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Budds J, Hinojosa LV (2012) Restructuring and rescaling water governance in mining context: the co-production of waterscapes in Peru. Water Alternatives 5:119–137Google Scholar
  18. Castro JD (1975) Sete Palmos de Terra e um Caixão. Seara Nova, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  19. Castro JE (2007) Water governance in the twentieth-first century. Ambiente e Sociedade 10:97–118.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2007000200007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. CBHSF (2016) Plano decenal de recursos hídricos da bacia hidrográfica do rio São Francisco. http://cbhsaofrancisco.org.br/planoderecursoshidricos/
  21. Cohen A, Davidson S (2011) The watershed approach: challenges, antecedents, and the transition from technical tool to governance Unity. Water Alternatives 4:1–13Google Scholar
  22. Cox K (1998) Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: looking for local politics. Polit Geogr 17:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. De Castro CN (2011) Transposição do Rio São Francisco: análise de oportunidade do projeto. IPEA, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  24. De Freitas C (2015) Old Chico’s new tricks: Neoliberalization and water sector reform in Brazil’s São Francisco River basin. Geoforum 64:292–303.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Delaney D, Leitner H (1997) The political construction of scale. Polit Geogr 16:93–97.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-6298(96)00045-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Demajorovic J, Caruso C, Jacobi PR (2015) Cobrança do uso da água e comportamento dos usuários na bacia hidrográfica do Piracicaba, Capivari e Jundiaí 49:1193–1214.  https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7612137792
  27. Empinotti V (2011) E se eu não quiser participar? O caso da não participação nas eleições do comitê de bacia do rio São Francisco. Ambiente e Sociedade 14:195–211.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-753X2011000100011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Estados (2017) Carta dos Governadores dos Estados do Ceará, Paraíba, Pernambuco e Rio Grande do Norte apresentando ao Governo Federal pleitos e sugestões quanto ao modelo de gestão e ao custo de operação do PISFGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischman RL (2005) Cooperative federalism and natural resources law. NYU Environmental Law Journal 14:179–231Google Scholar
  30. Furlong C, De Silva S, Guthrie L, Considine R (2016) Developing a water infrastructure planning framework for the complex modern planning environment. Util Policy 38:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2015.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Furtado C (2000) Introdução ao Desenvolvimento: enfoque histórico-estrutural. Editora Paz e Terra, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  32. Garrick DE, De Stefano L (2016) Adaptive capacity in federal rivers: coordination challenges and institutional responses. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 21:78–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gontijo Jr WC (2013) Uma avaliação da política brasileira de recursos hídricos baseada em dez casos de estudo. Dissertation, Universidade de BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  34. Gontijo Jr WC, and Trigo AJ (2013) Domínio das águas no Brasil e a gestão integrada por bacia hidrográfica: reflexões sobre o modelo vigente. 4° Encontro Internacional da Governança da Água. São PauloGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenfield G (2001) The realities of images: imperial Brazil and the great drought. American Philosophical Society, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  36. Hetherington K (2011) Guerilla auditors: the politics of transparency in neoliberal Paraguay. Duke University Press, DurhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (2010) Censo demográfico de 2010. http://www.ibge.gov.br
  38. Jacobi PR, Cibim J, Leão RS (2015) Crise hídrica na Macrometrópole Paulista e respostas da Sociedade Civil. Estudos Avançados 29:27–42.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40142015000200003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaika M (2003) Constructing scarcity and sensationalising water politics: 170 days that shook Athens. Antipode 35:919–954.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00365.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kenny ML (2002) Drought, clientelismo, fatalismo and fear in the Northeast Brazil. Ethics, Place and Environment 5:123–134.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1366879022000020194 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kincaid J (1990) From cooperative to coercive federalism. ANNALS, AAPSS 509:139–152.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716290509001013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lebel L, Garden P, Imamura M (2005) The politics of scale, position, and place in the governance of water resources in the Mekong Region. Ecol Soc 10:18–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lemos MC, Oliveira JLFD (2004) Can water reform survive politics? Institutional change and river basin management in Ceará, Northeast Brazil. World Dev 32:2121–2137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lima LC (2005) Além das águas, a discussão no Nordeste do rio São Francisco. Revista do Departamento de Geografia 17:94–100Google Scholar
  45. Marston S (2000) The social construction of scale. Prog Hum Geogr 24:219–242.  https://doi.org/10.1191/030913200674086272 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mello DL (1976) O controle dos governos municipais. Revista de Administração Municipal, Rio de Janeiro, 36:27–42Google Scholar
  47. Molle F, Mollinga PP, Wester P (2009) Hydraulic bureaucracies and the hydraulic mission: flows of water, flows of power. Water Alternatives 2:328–349Google Scholar
  48. Moreira MMMA (2010) A Atuação dos governos estaduais nos comitês de bacia. In: Abers RA (ed) Água e Política. Annablume, São Paulo, pp 137–158Google Scholar
  49. Movik S, Mehta L, Manzungu E (2016) The flow of IWRM in SADC: the role of regional dynamics, advocacy networks and external actors. Water Alternatives 9:434–455Google Scholar
  50. Nelson DR, Finan TJ (2009) Praying for drought: persistent vulnerability and the politics of patronage in Ceará, Northeast Brazil. Am Anthropol 111:302–316.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2009.01134.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Norman ES, Bakker K, Cook C (2012) Introduction to the themed section: water governance and the politics of scale. Water Alternatives 5:52–61Google Scholar
  52. Norman ES, Cook C, Cohen A (2015) Negotiating water governance: why the politics of scale matter, Ashgate, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  53. Obertreis J, Moss T, Mollinga PP, Bischsel C (2016) Water, infrastructure and political rule: introduction to the special issue. Water Alternatives 9:168–181Google Scholar
  54. PHBSF - Plano Decenal de Recursos Hídricos da Bacia Hidrográfica do rio São Francisco (2004) Comitê da Bacia Hidrográfica do rio São Francisco (CBHSF), Salvador. www.saofrancisco.cbh.gov.br
  55. Pierre J, Stoker G (2000) Towards multilevel governance. In: Dunleavy P, Gamble A, Holliday I, Peele G (eds) Developments in British politics, 6th edn. Macmillan, London, pp 29–46Google Scholar
  56. Rebouças AC (1997) Água na região Nordeste: desperdício e escassez. Estudos Avançados 11:127–154.  https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-40141997000100007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ribot J (1996) Participation without representation: chiefs, councils, and forestry law in the West African Sahel. Cultural Survival Quarterly 30:40–44Google Scholar
  58. Ribot J, Agrawal A (2006) Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev 34:1864–1886.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roman P (2017) The São Francisco interbasin water transfer in Brazil: tribulations of a megaprojects through constraints and controversy. Water Alternatives 10:395–419Google Scholar
  60. Scharpf FW (1988) The joint-decision trap: lessons from German federalism and European integration. Public Adm 66:239–278.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1988.tb00694.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Selcher W (1989) A new start toward a more decentralized federalism in Brazil? Publius 19:167–183Google Scholar
  62. Smith G (1995) Federalism: the multiethnic challenge. Longman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Schiefler FR (2010) Ecos de federalismo: centralização e federalismo no Brasil (1820-l841). Revista Três, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  64. Soares E (2013) Seca no Nordeste e a transposição do rio São Francisco. Geografia 9:75–86Google Scholar
  65. Souza C (2005) Federalismo, Desenho Constitucional e Instituições Federativas no Brasil pós -1988. Rev Sociol Polit 24:105–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Souza C (2002) Brazil: the prospects of a centre-constraining federation in a fragmented polity. Publius 32:23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stepan A (2004) Toward a new comparative politics of federalism, multinationalism, and democracy: beyond Rikerian federalism. In: Gibson E (ed) Federalism and democracy in Latin America. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 29–84Google Scholar
  68. Swyngedouw E, Page B, Kaïka M (2002) Sustainability and policy innovation in a multi-level context: crosscutting issues in the water sector. In: Heinelt H, Getimis P, Smith R, Swyngedouw E (eds) Participatory governance in multi-level context: concepts and experience. Springer, London, pp 107–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Swyngedouw E, Heynen N (2003) Urban political ecology, justice and the politics of scale. Antipode 35:898–918.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.2003.00364.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tendler J (1997) Good government in the tropics. Johns Hopkins U.P, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  71. Warner J, Wester P, Bolding A (2008) Going with the flow: river basins as the natural units for water management? Water Policy 10:121–138.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2008.210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal University of ABCSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.National Water Agency – ANABrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations