Issues of governance in water resource management and spatial planning

1

|

ISSUES OF GOVERNANCE IN WATER RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT AND SPATIAL PLANNING

Roberto Rocco1 and Ryan Schweitzer2

1 _{Spatial Planning and Strategy (Delft University of Technology),}

R.C.Rocco@tudelft.nl

2_{Civil and Environmental Engineering, (University of South Florida),}

rschweit@mail.usf.edu

Keywords: regional governance, regional planning, water management, cross-sectoral integration

ABSTRACT

This paper describes governance arrangements in regional spatial planning and water resources management at the regional level from a normative point of view. It discusses the need to integrate spatial planning and resources management in order to deliver socially sustainable integral territorial management. To accomplish this, the Metropolitan Area of São Paulo (MASP) was analysed as a case study, in order to demonstrate the challenges met by public administrators and planners regarding the integration of water management and spatial planning in a highly complex urbanized regional setting. Our main observations relate to the increasing adoption and integration of multilevel-networked governance principles in water resources management. Strategies include devolution, cross-sectoral integration and public participation, which are likely to improve the governance of water resources management. However, although these strategies have achieved some degree of success, they are not yet fully integrated in all levels of water resources management and are only poorly integrated in regional spatial planning levels. The lack of

coordination of policy making and implementation across sectors and across territories is a critical factor limiting the effectiveness of water management at the regional level in São Paulo.

1. BACKGROUND

The emergence of large metropolises and complex urbanized regions presents new challenges in spatial planning and resource management at the regional level. An example of these challenges concerns the environmental sustainability of highly urbanized living environments that have a highly concentrated demand for resources in addition to a highly concentrated generation of by-products or waste.

Approximately 80% of the worlds’ population is exposed to high levels of threat to water security caused by land use changes, water resource development,

urbanisation, pollution, and global warming (Vorosmarty et al, 2010). Although sustainability is intimately related to limiting the environmental harm created by human activity in order to ensure the availability of natural resources for future generations (UN-Habitat, 1987), it is also about the reduction of deprivation and suffering caused by the inefficient management of natural resources. This is, in-turn, integrally related to the financial and economic conditions that are required for the long-term provision of services (e.g. water, sanitation, electricity). The failures in development over the past few decades have demonstrated that concerted attention to the environmental, social, and economic issues is not, in and of itself, sufficient. Rather, for sustainability to occur, it must occur simultaneously in each of these three dimensions (Larsen, 2012).

2

|

This multidimensional understanding of sustainability (environmental, social, and economic) is critically important to spatial planners and resource managers. Sustainability is closely related to the objectives of spatial planning, which are to: increase public goods, redistribute gains, increase life chances and overall prosperity (UN Habitat, 2009). A robust and substantial understanding of the social and

economic dimensions of sustainability has been advanced by spatial planning theories such as: ‘the right to the city’ (Lefebvre, 1998, Harvey, 2008b), ‘spatial justice’ (Harvey, 2008, 2009) and the ‘just city’ (Fainstein, 2000). The effective management of natural resources is also fundamentally linked to sustainability. A recent report linked global environmental stresses and the consumption patterns of cities, recognizing the needs of settlements in the developing world to overcome basic economic and social problems in order to achieve some degree of

sustainability (UNEP 2013).

Water resource management is one of the most pressing issues facing emerging urbanized regions. Water management issues are closely related to general spatial development issues, such as patterns of “regional” urbanization, informal

settlements, development of water supply source areas (e.g. catchments, riparian areas). Research has suggested that in order sustainability to be achieved, the regional governance of water resources and water supply services (e.g. drinking water systems, irrigation systems, flood control infrastructure) is critical (Herk et al 2011).

The hypothesis of this paper is that, to be effective, water resource management must be embedded in planning and decision-making systems where the roles and actions of stakeholders in policy making, resource management and service delivery are recognised and properly guided. Transparent governance and inegration in the territorial/regional planning and water resource management can reduce

environmental harm and increase public goods, promoting and facilitating economic, environmental and social sustainability in the dynamic and challenging contexts of emerging urbanized regions.

2. OBJECTIVES

This paper investigates issues of governance as related to spatial planning and water resource management. A case study of São Paulo, Brazil is used to demonstrate the challenges met by public administrators and planners regarding water management in a highly complex urbanized regional setting. The specific objectives of this paper are to:

1. To connect issues of governance and regional planning to issues of water

management in order to provide urban development professionals with an

understanding of complex governance arrangements in regional service provision.

2. To contrast issues of regional governance in water management to the

normative model of governance. This is useful in order to build a critique of the model, as well as to elaborate a critique of the governance arrangements concerning water management in practice.

3. Provide students and researchers of regional planning with examples for

further study in areas connected to sustainability, territorial planning and resource management in network governance.

3

|

3. GOVERNANCE: A THEORETICAL FRAMEWOK

In order to understand governance, we must acknowledge the normative and the explicative dimensions of the concept. In the normative dimension of governance, the sectors of society (civil society, public sector and private sector) and the actors within each sector ought to be in ‘positive tension’, where they simultaneously apply and are subject to pressure from other actors/sectors (Rondinelli, 2007). In doing so, the actors keep each other in check, providing mechanisms to guide each other’s actions and to promote accountability. Ideally, actors across the governance

spectrum are compelled to hold one another accountable within and across sectors. These relationships are dynamic, as actors continually find new positions in relation to changing objectives and newly formed coalitions of interest. Often actors might coalesce around objectives, enforcing accountability that complies with these objectives during the course of programmes and projects and dispersing once the objectives are reached and/or changed.

The problem with this model of governance is that it presupposes symmetry of power. In practice, not all actors have an equal voice in political arenas and there are those whose views or wishes are not taken into account or are suppressed by others. This normative dimension of the concept of governance contrasts with an explicative dimension of the concept, where the relationships between actors must be described in relation to real practices. In the explicative dimension, we must determine what the real relationships between actors are and how they influence decision-making. This is necessary if planners and other agents of urban development wish to effectively steer the actions of a large number of actors towards desired outcomes.

Governance is manifested through formal institutions, such as the rule of law, which provides the legal framework for the interactions between sectors (i.e. planning systems). However, the recognition has grown that formal institutions are only part of what constitutes the architecture of social and political relationships. A large part of this architecture is constituted by informal institutions, resulting from norms and values (Ostrom, 2005). These norms and values are not only the foundation on which legal systems develop, but norms and values also help us explain behaviours like patronage, nepotism, and corruption. Understanding these practices and traditions is an important part of understanding governance “in practice.” The understanding of this architecture of socio-political relationships implies the recognition that policy makers cannot ‘enforce things by decree’, but must act in the context of governance networks. Policy makers may then shape the attention of the public, help define priorities and courses of action, and influence the action of a multitude of agents located at different administrative levels (multilevel governance) and in different agent networks (network governance) (Papadopoulos, 2007). Awareness that planners are inserted in and must understand complex systems of governance has grown, which has unveiled new roles for planners in spatial development in relation to multi-level and network governance (Sehested, 2009). With an improved understanding of these issues, spatial planners and resource managers will be able to work towards decisions that will likely be more politically and technically realistic (Papadopoulos, 2007).

It has been recognized that often governance networks are composed of bureaucrats, policy experts and interest representatives, who may have limited accountability to citizens (Papadopoulos, 2007). However, others have suggested that accountability mechanisms extend beyond democratic electoral processes to

4

|

include: administrative accountability, fiscal and legal accountability (Grant and Keohane, 2005). Governance and decision-making are further complicated by the informal and opaque procedures often used to achieve compromise, what has been called “politics of problems” (Papadopoulos, 2007). These issues relating to

governance are further described by examining a case study of an emerging urbanized region in the developing world. The following section will outline governance systems relevant to spatial planning and the water resources management in the Greater São Paulo area.

4. SÃO PAULO: A DYNAMIC SPATIAL PLANNING AND WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CASE STUDY

4.1. Background

The city of São Paulo is the largest city in South America and the financial hub of the country. The Região Metropolitana de São Paulo or Metropolitan Area of São Paulo (MASP) consists of 39 municipalities, with a total population of over 20 million inhabitants (IBGE, 2010) (See figure 1). The largest municipalities in the MASP are São Paulo, with a population of 11.2 million, Guarulhos (1,2 million inhabitants) and Osasco (c. 780.000 inhabitants), plus several other large municipalities, including São Bernardo do Campo (c. 760.000 inhabitants), Santo André (c. 670.000

inhabitants) and São Caetano (c. 130.000 inhabitants) in the so-called ‘ABC Region’. The ABC was formerly the industrial core of the country and still retains a large share of industrial activity, with automobile production as its main activity. The metropolitan area of São Paulo together with those of Santos Lowlands and Campinas make up the extended urban agglomeration known as the Macrometropolis. This urbanised region covers 14,097 km² (Seade, 2007) with a population of 27,6 million people (2010) in 67 municipalities that are highly interdependent in economic terms (See figure 2).

Figure 1. The metropolitan area of São Paulo (MASP)

0 15 30 45 km

Core municipality: Sao Paulo Other municipalities in the MASP Urbanized area Aracariguama Pirapora Mairipora Franco da Rocha Francisco Morato Cajamar Santana de Parnaiba Barueri Itapevi Vargem Grande Cotia Embu Itapecerica da Serra Sao Lourenco da Serra Juquitiba Embu Guacu Osasco Carapicuiba Jandira _{Sao Paulo}

Sao Bernardo Salesopolis Biritiba-Mirim Mogi das Cruzes Suzano Ferraz de Vasconcelos Poa Maua Ribeirao Pires R. G. da Serra S. Andre Diadema S. Caetano do Sul Guarulhos Itaquaquecetuba Aruja Guararema Santa Isabel

5

|

Environmental sustainability, transitioning economies, spatial fragmentation, and high inequality are the challenges that have resulted from rapid growth and

ineffective spatial planning in the MASP. The intense urbanisation of this region has generated intense pressure on the environment, including the surface and

groundwater resources. Urbanization has rapidly increased the demand for water (domestic, commercial, and industrial). The simultaneous increase in water demand and decreased water availability caused by the contamination of water sources from domestic and industrial discharges and deficient urban drainage systems has led to water scarcity issues in the region (ANA, 2013). The integration of regional spatial planning and water management seems highly desirable, but policy-makers face serious challenges concerning the governance of resource management and service provision at the regional level.

4.2. Water Resource Management

Located on the headwaters of the Alto Tietê river basin, the Metropolitan Area of São Paulo is especially vulnerable to severe flood events. The geography, intense

rainfall, channelization of natural water ways, and land use changes (i.e. increase in impervious surface cover and development of protected recharge areas and

sensitive riparian habitat) in the metropolitan area has increased the frequency and severity of flooding. A recent study estimated the economic losses due to flooding in the MASP at 450 million USD per year (Haddad and Teixeira, 2013). The magnitude of these losses, which are directly related to water resource management and spatial planning, has significant implications for the national economy and that of Brazil’s primary trading partners in the region.

A major challenge in the management and regulation of water resources and critical habitat within the MASP area is informal urbanization. The principal fresh water recharge areas in the watershed, despite being designated as environmentally protected areas under local law, are nonetheless almost entirely urbanised. These developments, mostly informal, pose a serious threat to water resources by negatively impacting both water quantity and quality. In addition, the marginalized populations in these developments are extremely vulnerable to water related disease

0 15 30 45 km

Continuous urbanised area MASP

Viracopos Airport

Sorocaba Airport Congonhas Airport Campo de Marte Airport

Sao Paulo International Airport Ernesto Stumpf Airpot

Port of Santos

11. Alto Paraiba

5. Paraiba Macro- Axis

13. Mantiqueira 10. Bocaina 14. Litoral Norte 3. Santos 1. Core 2. MASP 4. Campinas 6. Sorocaba 7. Jundiai 8. Bragantina 9. Sao Roque

12. Water Sources Circuit

Santos Sao Roque

Jundiai Campinas

Sorocaba

Sao Jose dos Campos

1. Core Municipality 2. Greater Sao Paulo (MASP) 3. Metropolitan Santos 4. Metropolitan Campinas 5. Paraiba Macro Axis Proto Metropolis 6. Sorocaba Proto Metropolis 7. Jundiai Peri-Metropolitan Regional Unit

8. Bragantina Peri-Metro Regional Unit 9. Sao Roque Peri-Metro Regional Unit 10. Bocaina Peri-Metro Regional Unit

12. The 'Water Circuit' Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit 13. Mantiqueira Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit 14. Litoral Norte Homogeneous Outer Metro Unit 11. Alto Paraiba Peri-Metro Regional Unit

Main unit urban node Other important urban node Airport

Atlan tic Ocean

6

|

as the water sources on which they depend are polluted by residential and industrial wastewater and solid waste discharges (Costa, 2003).

To understand the complexities of water resource management in the MASP it is first necessary to understand how water resources management is organized at the national level which traces back to a national reforms and legislation initiated in 1997.

4.2.1. National

The Law of Waters of 1997 identified water as a ‘public good and a limited natural resource with economic value’ (Brazil Federal Government, 1997). This law

recognizes water basins as the ‘territorial units for the implementation of the National Policy for Water Resources’ and stipulates that ‘management must be decentralized and should involve the public sector, users and communities’. It does not, however, make explicit provisions regarding the participation of the private sector in water resource management.

The law aims to ‘ensure the availability of water resources to current and future generations’ through the ‘rational and integrated use of water resources’ (Brazil Federal Government, 1997). The general guidelines proposed by the law are the ‘systematic management of water resources, without dissociation from quantitative and qualitative aspects’ and the ‘adaptation of management practices to specific physical, biological, demographic, economic, social and cultural realities of the diverse regions of the country’. It also sets the integration of water resources

management with environmental/ecosystem management, as well as the integration of the management of water catchment basins estuary and coastal zones.

Most importantly, the law specifies the integration of water resources with land use plans. This reflects the paradigm in Brazilian planning which is based on land use and sector-based planning, as opposed to integrated trans-sectoral spatial planning. Unfortunately, the law does not provide any guidance on how to integrate water resources management and spatial planning.

The Law of Waters created the framework for the system of governance that would guide water management in Brazil (See Figure 3). The National System for Water Resources Management (SINGREH) is a multi-level, networked management

system composed by several federal boards, state boards and water basin boards in charge of formulation and implementation of policies regarding water resources throughout the country. The Law instituted the National Council for Water Resources and the National Water Agency at the Federal level. At State level, the law created the Water Resources Councils and the Water Basin Committees, as well as Water Agencies, which can be local, regional or bound to individual states.

7

|

Figure 3: Organogram of the National System for Water Resources Management in Brazil (various sources).

4.2.2. Regional

In 1991, the State of São Paulo issued a law (State Law 7.663-1991) creating a system for the management of water resources based on principles of devolution, cross-sector integration and public participation. Devolution was implemented through 22 water basin managing units (Unidades de Gerenciamento de Recursos Hidricos, UGRHIs). Managing Units are basin-based and are governed by

committees formed by the State Government, Municipalities covered by the specific unit, as well as representatives of civil society. These committees are known as ‘River Basin Committees’.

The 1991 São Paulo Water Management Law precedes Federal regulation of the water resources management sector. It was only in 2007, ten years after the “Law of Waters” that the Federal government issued a law that sought to bring normative and technical clarity to the Water and Sanitation Provision sector in Brazil. This law (Fed. Law 11.445-2007), prompted the expanding of the existing water resources management in the state of São Paulo into an Integrated System of Waters Resources Management.

The Integrated System for Water Resources Management in the State of São Paulo is a system incorporating several agencies, companies and stakeholders in charge of policy-making and implementation of water management measures. The three mechanisms are described in Table 1. (Sao Paulo State Government, 2013),

8

|

Mechanism Acronym Questions Answered

State Plan for Water Resources (PERH) What to do? Why do it? When to do it? How

much does it cost?’

State Fund for Water Resources (FEHIDRO) Where does the money come from?

Integrated System for Water Resources Management

(SIGRH) Who does it? How to do it?

The Integrated System for Water Resources Management consists of the departments described in Table 2.

Table 2. Departments and secretaries composing the Integrated System for Water Resources Management of the State of São Paulo.

Organisation Function

State Secretary of Sanitation and Water Resources

Water and sanitation policies

State Secretary for the Environment Environmental Policies, including environmental

aspects of water resources management

The Water Resources State Council (CRH) Regulating and supervising the Integrated System

and the River Basin Committees (CBH)

CRH departments Function

Coordinating Commission for the Water Resources State Plan (CORHI) (CORHI includes: State

Secretariat of Sanitation and Water Resources (main coordinator), State Secretariat for the Environment (deputy- coordinator),

Department of Water and Electricity (Representative) and CETESB (The São Paulo Company for the Environment)

Organization of the elaboration of the State Plan for Water

Resources every four years; elaboration of yearly reports on the state of water resources, promotion of integration among agencies of the Management of Water Resources Information System; integration with the National System for Water Resources Management. São Paulo State

Sanitation and Energy Regulatory. Agency (ARSESP)

Elaboration of policies for energy provision. This agency has created several instances of public participation and public consultation, as well as the figure of an independent watchdog for water provision and sanitation affairs.

River Basin Committees (CBH) Policy making and implementation

The crucial institutional unit for water resource management and planning is the River Basin Committee, which reflects the importance of river basins as geographical

9

|

units for territorial management of resources. Figure 4 represents the organization of the Alto Tiete River Basin Committee, which includes the whole MASP.

Figure 4. Organogram of the Alto Tiete River Basin Committee

4.3. Regional Spatial Planning and integration with water resources management

Despite regional planning activities being carried our by the Brazilian Federal Government in several instances, the country still lacks a systematic approach to regional and metropolitan planning. It is fair to assert that, despite their legal status, the 13 major metropolitan regions of Brazil lack effective planning structures. In the case of the State of São Paulo, the State Secretary of Metropolitan

Development elaborates “specific policies for the metropolitan regions of the State [of São Paulo]” as of 2011 (State of Sao Paulo, 2013), “The role of the SDM is to

articulate policy making among the different state secretaries and to plan for the main regional challenges with the different municipalities composing the metropolitan

10

|

areas. These challenges include metropolitan mobility, transport, sanitation, waste management, flood-risk management, housing and public safety (State of Sao Paulo, 2013). The Secretary is the leading actor in a newly created State System for

Metropolitan Development, which aims to articulate metropolitan planning, as well as the execution of public works by different State departments.

The State System for Metropolitan Development houses the Chamber of Metropolitan Development, a joint committee composed by 11 different State secretaries and presided by the State governor, in charge of general policy making, with emphasis on the Macrometropolis described above.

Finally, there is a Metropolitan Region Development Council (CDRMSP) for the MASP. This council has a normative and deliberative character and must follow directives established by the Union and the State, focusing on spatial planning and land use, regional transportation and road systems, housing, environmental

sanitation etc. This council is composed by the 39 mayors of the municipalities integrating the MASP and by sectoral representatives of the State government and two representatives of the State legislature. However, the council does not integrate members of civil society or the private sector.

A key institution in the State System for Metropolitan Development is EMPLASA, the executive branch of regional spatial policies at the regional level in São Paulo. The Paulista Enterprise of Metropolitan Planning or EMPLASA is a public limited

company created in 1975, governed by an administrative council, an executive board and an audit committee. It is connected to the State Secretary of Metropolitan

Development and integrates the State System for Metropolitan Development and the Metropolitan Area Development Council (CDRMSP). Recently, the company

changed its focus to the Macrometropolis (figure 2).

As one of the participants of the Alto Tiete River Basin Committee, EMPLASA would seem to be the articulating institution for the main organizations involved in regional spatial planning and agencies involved in water resources management. EMPLASA has a special focus on integrating sectoral policies spatially and institutionally, with emphasis on sectoral articulation and feasibility. EMPLASA follows these basic guidelines: “inter-sectoral articulation, shared management and technical cooperation between public and private agents” (EMPLASA, 2013). These actions should result in the elaboration of a document outlining policies for sustainable development of the Macrometropolis, aiming to integrate the region functionally. They should also result in plans that articulate governmental action across sectors, keeping the spatial dimension as main focus. These plans ought to include a description of concrete spatial actions, projects and intervention for the Macrometropolis.

EMPLASA has delivered two main comprehensive documents in its history: the 1982 revision of the Metropolitan Plan for Integrated Development and the 1994

Metropolitan Plan for the Greater São Paulo. It has also produced a great many number of sectoral studies, surveys and policy documents. However, none of these studies and reports concerns spatial planning of the whole region in a

comprehensive, cross-sectoral way and none contemplates the integration of water resources management and spatial planning. We have not been able to identify spatial plans after 1994, but a new comprehensive plan is currently being prepared.

11

|

5. CONCLUSIONS

Our main conclusions relate to the increasing adoption and integration of multilevel-networked governance principles in water resources management by the Brazilian federal government and the São Paulo State government.

The objective of the paper was to identify the fundamental practices in regional planning and governance relative to water management at the regional level from a normative point of view. To accomplish this, the Metropolitan Area of São Paulo (MASP) was analysed as a case study. In evaluating the governance framework in MASP a number of water resource management strategies were identified. These strategies include: devolution, cross-sectoral integration and public

participation. Although these strategies have achieved some degree of success,

they are not yet integrated in all levels of water resources management and are only poorly integrated in regional spatial planning levels.

Within the MASP, networked and multilevel governance approaches are utilized in various different planning capacities. One such example is the formation of River Basin Committees. Within these committees, networked governance is manifested through joint committees and assemblies that incorporate members of civil society and the public sector. It is important to highlight the variety of civil society

organizations represented in river basin committees such as the Federations of Industries of the State of São Paulo and the Slum Dwellers Association of the State of São Paulo. Often the private sector entities are recognized as part of civil

society because the private sector is viewed as a stakeholder and not as a

prospective investor in water resource management. .

Multilevel territorial integration is an important achievement in water resources

management in the Sao Paulo Metropolitan Area. Two important examples of multilevel territorial integration are the Integrated System for Water Resources

Management and the River Basin Committees. Territorial integration is likely to

become more successful when the State System for Metropolitan Development is fully operational and manages to incorporate multilevel territorial integration into

EMPLASA, the agency in charge of delivering regional spatial plans.

Participatory forums are hosted by river basin committees and provide a forum for

the public and other stakeholders to engage in the planning process. To date, it is unclear if EMPLASA, the likely main articulator between regional planning and water resources management, or the State System for Metropolitan Development have conducted or will conduct participatory forums. EMPLASA is the crucial forum where water resources management and regional spatial planning should be articulated, but it needs to catch up with institutional reform and incorporate aspects of networked governance following the formula adopted by the River Basin Committees.

The integration of previously marginalized groups is an important

advancement towards effective spatial planning and water resource management. The inclusion of civic organisation such as the Slum Dwellers

Association of the State of São Paulo and others as part of the Alto Tietê River Basin

Committee is especially significant in light of the high incidence of informal

urbanisation and extreme socio-spatial inequalities present in Brazilian metropolises. Historically these factors have produced a condition of managerial biases in which decision-making is done in a technocratic way, without considering the factors of informal urbanization and inequality. The incorporation of marginalized groups is

12

|

essential for the delivery of less-biased, more effective policies that will produce outcomes with greater potential for long-term social sustainability.

This case study suggests the importance of stakeholder diversity and inclusivity in spatial planning and regional governance. It is important to consider non-traditional stakeholders in order to shape different spatial and managerial visions concerning water resources management. It is unclear how widespread these practices are and future research will seek to evaluate the conditions for scaling up these practices. However, the authors believe these visions might contribute to more effective and democratic resources management, as they have the potential to promote spatial

justice and long-term social sustainability. Most importantly, the inclusion of civil

society in joint committees in charge of policymaking and priority setting should contribute to democracy-building. This is the literal expression of the concept of ‘right to the city’, that is, the right to collectively shape the city to one’s own needs and desires (Harvey, 2008).

In summary, there are two very ambitious objectives in water resources management in São Paulo: delivery of more effective policy through involvement of a broad spectrum of stakeholders and effective democracy building through the incorporation of participatory instruments. However, it is

useful to highlight that the incorporation of formerly silent voices in policymaking, capable of delivering new spatial claims and visions, happens in the context of

mature social movements and public institutional reform1_.

The degree to which governance approaches are integrated into the regional

planning and water resource management in the Sao Paulo Metropolitan area is yet unclear. What is clear, are the successes that have been achieved with regard to

Alto Tietê River Basin Committee, which serves as the main forum for

policymaking in water resources management in the MASP. However, on the regional planning side, EMPLASA and other forums of regional spatial planning lag far behind in terms of a networked multi-level governance approach to policymaking and plan delivery. We have seen that EMPLASA is extremely deficient in delivering an integrated/comprehensive regional plan for the MASP, but the company is also part of the Alto Tietê river basin committee, which brings hope of some sort of sectoral integration in the future. Moreover, the implementation of a State System

for Metropolitan Development brings hope of further adoption of innovative

governance approaches.

The lack of integration of policy making and implementation across sectors and across territories, specially concerning EMPLASA is a critical factor limiting the integration of spatial planning and water and waste management at the regional level in São Paulo. Although there are existing concerns about institutional capacity and limited political will, further research is required to make recommendations on a course of action. Currently it is not possible to measure the effectiveness of water and waste management in the city region analysed with the inclusion of

1 _{For an overview on the evolution of civil society and of progressive social movements in Brazil,}

Holston HOLSTON, J. 2008. Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil, Princeton, Princeton University Press., Holston and Caldeira CALDEIRA, T. & HOLSTON, J. 2005. State and urban space in Brazil: From Modernist Planning to Democratic Interventions. In: ONG, A. & COLLIER, S. J. (eds.) Ethics. London: Blackwell., Abers ABERS, R. 2001. From clientelism to cooperation: Local government, participatory policy, and civic organizing in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Mexico,

Central, and South America: Social movements, 3., Lavalle et al. LAVALLE, A. G., ACHARYA, A. &

HOUTZAGER, P. P. 2005. Beyond comparative anecdotalism: lessons on civil society and participation from São Paulo, Brazil. World Development, 33, 951-964. and others.

13

|

networked governance measures. Many of these systems were recently created and the evidence is insufficient to determine the impact and effectiveness of these

measures.

REFERENCES

ABERS, R. 2001. From clientelism to cooperation: Local government, participatory policy, and civic organizing in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Mexico, Central, and South America: Social

movements, 3.

BRAZIL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 1997. Lei No. 9433, Jan 8, 1997. National Policy for Water Resources. [Online]. Brasilia: Presidency of the republic of Brazil, Deputy Chief for Juridical Matters. Available: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/l9433.htm [Accessed 13.03.2013].

CALDEIRA, T. & HOLSTON, J. 2005. State and urban space in Brazil: From Modernist Planning to Democratic Interventions. In: ONG, A. & COLLIER, S. J. (eds.) Ethics. London: Blackwell.

COSTA, F. J. L. D. 2003. Estrategias de Gerenciamento de Recursos Hidricos no Brasil: Areas de Cooperacao com o Banco Mundial. In: WORLD BANK (ed.) Agua Brasil. Brasilia: World Bank.

EBERLEIN, B. & WERWER, D. 2004. New Governance in the European Union: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42.

EMPLASA 1994. PMDI: Plano Metropolitano da Grande São Paulo 1993-2010. Sao Paulo: EMPLASA.

EMPLASA. 2013. Institutional description [Online]. Sao Paulo: EMPLASA. Available: http://www.emplasa.sp.gov.br/emplasa/empresa/aempresa.asp [Accessed May 1 2013]. EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2007. Brazil: Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013. Brussels: European Commission External Actions.

FAINSTEIN, S. 2000. New Directions in Planning Theory. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 451-478. GRANT, R. & KEOHANE, R. O. 2005. Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics. American Political Science Review, 99, 29-43.

HADDAD, E. A. & TEIXEIRA, E. 2013. Economic Impacts of Natural Disasters in Megacities: The Case of Floods in São Paulo, Brazil. Habitat, Forthcoming.

HAMMOND, G. P. 2006. People, planet and prosperity’: The determinants of humanity's environmental footprint. Natural Resources Forum, 30, 27-36.

HARVEY, D. 2008. The Right to the City. New Left Review. New Left Review.

HARVEY, D. 2009. Social Justice and the City, Athens (GA), The University of Georgia Press.

HERK, S. V., ZEVENBERGEN, C., ASHLEY, R. & RIJKE, J. 2011. Learning and Action Alliances for the integration of flood risk management into urban planning: a new framework from empirical evidence from the Netherlands. Environmental Science & Policy, 14, 543-554. HOLSTON, J. 2008. Insurgent Citizenship: Disjunctions of Democracy and Modernity in Brazil, Princeton, Princeton University Press.

LARSEN, G. L. 2012. An Inquiry into the Theoretical Basis of Sustainability. In: DILLARD, J., DUJON, V. & KING, M. C. (eds.) Understanding the Social Dimension of Sustainability. London: Routledge.

LAVALLE, A. G., ACHARYA, A. & HOUTZAGER, P. P. 2005. Beyond comparative anecdotalism: lessons on civil society and participation from São Paulo, Brazil. World Development, 33, 951-964.

14

|

LEFEBVRE, C. 1998. Metropolitan government and governance in western countries: a critical review. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 22, 9-25.

LEFEBVRE, H. 1968. Le droit a la ville, Paris, Seuil.

MARCUSE, P. 2009. Spatial Justice: Derivative but Causal of Social Injustice. Justice Spatiale Spatial Justice, 1.

MULLER, J. 1998. Paradigms and planning practice: conceptual and contextual considerations. international Planning Studies, 3, 287-302.

NATIONAL WATER AGENCY (ANA). 2013. Regiao Hidrografica do Parana: A maior demanda por recursos hidricos do pais [Online]. Brasilia: ANA. Available:

http://www2.ana.gov.br/Paginas/portais/bacias/parana.aspx [Accessed 10.03 2013]. OLSON, M. 2009. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups, Harvard, Harvard University Press.

OSTROM, E. 2005. Understanding InstitutionalDiversity, Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

PAPADOPOULOS, Y. 2007. Problems of Democratic Accountability in Network and Multilevel Governance. European Law Journal, 13, 469-486.

RIBEIRO, M. s.d. Sistema Nacional de Gerenciamento de Recursos Hídricos [Online]. Ambiente Brasil (NGO). Available: http://www.ambientebrasil.com.br/?p=institucional [Accessed 13.03 2013].

RODRIGUES, R. B. 2005. Instrumentos da Politica Nacional de Recursos Hidricos e Ferramentas de Gestao

[Online]. Sao Paulo: Depto de Ecologia, IB, USP. Available:

http://ecologia.ib.usp.br/portal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=144&Itemid=4 23 [Accessed 13.03 2013].

RONDINELLI, D. 2007. Governments Serving People: The Changing Roles of Public Administration in Democratic Governance. In: RONDINELLI, D. (ed.) Public Administration and Democratic Governance: Governments Serving Citizens. Vienna: 7th Global Forum on Reinventing Government. Building Trust in Government.

SAO PAULO STATE 2007. Deliberacao CRH n.70. In: HIDRICOS, C. E. D. R. (ed.). Sao Paulo: GESP.

SAO PAULO STATE. 2013. Metropolitan regions of the state of Sao Paulo [Online]. Sao Paulo: GESP. Available: http://www.stm.sp.gov.br/index.php/metropolitan-regions [Accessed 13.03 2013].

SAO PAULO STATE GOVERNMENT 2000. Estatuto do Comite da Bacia Hidrografica do Alto Tiete. In: PAULO, S. D. M. A. D. E. D. S. (ed.). Sao Paulo: SP.

SAO PAULO STATE GOVERNMENT. 2013. Sistema Integrado de Gerenciamento de Recursos Hidricos (SIGRH): Apresentacao [Online]. Sao Paulo: Secretaria de Saneamento e Recursos Hidricos. Available:

http://www.sigrh.sp.gov.br/cgi-bin/sigrh_home_colegiado.exe?TEMA=APRESENTACAO&COLEGIADO=CRH&lwgactw=53 6600 [Accessed 05.04 2013].

SCHIFFER, S. 1998. Urban Segregation and Sustainability in Sao Paulo. Human Settlement Development, IV.

SEHESTED, K. 2009. Urban Planners as Network Managers and Metagovernors. Planning Theory and Practice, 10, 245-263.

SOJA, E. 2000. Postmetropolis: critical studies of cities and regions, Oxford, Blackwell. SOJA, E. 2010. Seeking Spatial Justice, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press. STATE OF SAO PAULO. 2013. Sobre a Secretaria (Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Metropolitano) [Online]. Sao Paulo: State of Sao Paulo, SDM. Available:

15

|

http://www.sdmetropolitano.sp.gov.br/portalsdm/sobre-a-secretaria.jsp [Accessed April 15 2013].

UN HABITAT 2009. Global Report on Human Settlements 2009: Towards a new role for urban planning. In: MUTIZWA-MANGIZA, N. D. (ed.). New York: UN Habitat.

UN-HABITAT 1987. Our Common Future, Chapter 2: Towards Sustainable Development. In: UN (ed.). Nairobi: UN-Habitat.

UNEP 2013. Promoting Sustainable Human Settlement Development. Washington DC: United Nations Environment Programme.

UNITED NATIONS 1993. Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme for Action from Rio. New York: United Nations.

VAN KEMPEN, E. T. 1994. The Dual City and the Poor: Social Polarisation, Social Segregation and Life Chances. Urban Studies, 31, 995-1015.

WORLD COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 1987. Our Common Future. In: HABITAT, U. (ed.). Oxford: UN-Habitat.