Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Integrated water resources management: Are river basin committees in MARK

Brazil enabling effective stakeholder interaction?
⁎
Marina Costa Barbosaa,b, , Shahbaz Mushtaqb, Khorshed Alama
a
School of Commerce, Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts, and Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development, University of Southern Queensland,
West Street, 4350, Toowoomba, Australia
b
International Centre for Applied Climate Sciences, University of Southern Queensland, West Street, 4350, Toowoomba, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Adequate stakeholder involvement and interactions are essential for effective Integrated Water Resources
Integrated water resources management Management. In Brazil, the decision-making process was decentralized at the river basin committee level, which
Water policy implementation compromises both government and non-government representatives. However, until now Brazil has struggled to
River basin committees effectively implement IWRM. This paper analyses stakeholders’ perspective regarding the water policy and
Stakeholder participation and interactions
explores their interactions in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Using a mixed- methods approach, combining the
São Paulo
stakeholder and complexity theories, an exploratory case study was conducted. Data was obtained via an online
survey of 206 participants. Results identified different levels of interactions, where stakeholders from the water
sector demonstrated higher levels of interactions compared to institutions from other sectors (e.g., environment,
energy,) and from the local levels (e.g., city council). Results also indicated the importance of the river basin
committees, as they were considered to propitiate adequate participation. They are, however, not enabling
adequate interactions. This is because a significant number of stakeholders still do not have formal ways of
interaction in their institutions. The analysis led to a set of recommendations to improve water sector stake-
holder’s interactions, including interaction with stakeholders outside the water sector. This was considered a key
way to seek integration, and, most importantly, to enhance water policy implementation.

1. Introduction require difficult choices and change existing power relationships

(Wengert, 1971). Usually, the downloading of authority (decentraliza-
Due to advancements in the overall management of water resources, tion) without a transference of capacity for different stakeholders,
authorities can no longer delegate the decision making process only to weaken effective governance (Jetoo et al., 2015).
technical advisors without involving different stakeholders (Susskind, In Brazil, current water policy allows the decision-making process to
2013; Van Ast, 1999). Stakeholders’ participation is increasingly sug- the river basin committee level (Porto and Porto, 2008). The river basin
gested as an essential element for Integrated Water Resources Man- committees comprise representatives from different segments: state
agement (IWRM) (Jaspers, 2003; Jønch-Clausen and Fugl 2010; Lamers government, local government and civil society. However, their ex-
et al., 2010; Lennox et al., 2011). In general, a change from a cen- istence does not guarantee adequate stakeholders’ involvement and,
tralized (government) management approach to a decentralized (gov- especially, external support from the institutions represented in the
ernance) approach creates opportunities, which also at the same time committees (Abers and Keck, 2011). In a recent study, Barbosa et al.
poses challenges, especially because it involves the inclusion of new (2016a) have identified different levels of involvement in water policy
actors (Jetoo et al., 2015). strategy, the planning and decision-making process, and water policy
Participatory approaches are considered to improve the durability implementation by the different stakeholder groups.
and quality of decisions; create a better informed public and better Participation can be seen as complex interactions of diverse actors,
acceptance of decisions; and reduce conflicts for implementation who make decisions over a large variety of complex ecosystems (Varis
(Hooper 2006; Huitema et al., 2009; Lamers et al., 2010). On the other et al., 2014). A number of scholars argue that there is a need for more
side, introducing another layer of bureaucracy is always associated with institutional studies in the water sector, especially analysing institu-
resistance (Pahl-Wostl, 2015). It may increase tension and conflict, tional interactions across levels and sectors and stakeholders’

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Commerce, Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts, and Australian Centre for Sustainable Business and Development, University of Southern
Queensland, West Street, 4350, Toowoomba, Australia.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M.C. Barbosa).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.06.002
Received 30 May 2016; Received in revised form 1 June 2017; Accepted 2 June 2017
1462-9011/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

involvement (Jønch-Clausen and Fugl 2010; Pahl-Wostl and Kranz Advocates of complexity theory see it as a means of simplifying
2010; Saleth 2004; Videira et al., 2006). complex systems (Manson, 2001), as the theory deals with complex
The implementation of IWRM relies on adequate involvement and inter-dependencies (Pollard and du Toit, 2011). Instead of seen the
interaction of stakeholders and adequate institutional support. Better world as a mechanistic model of inputs and outputs, the theory em-
understanding of the way stakeholders’ interact, both with the river phasises the importance of learning, feedback and adaptations, which
basin committees and also in their own institutions, is fundamental to occur through self-organising networks (Connick and Innes, 2003). Self-
assess the effectiveness of the stakeholders’ participation, most im- organization allows a system to change in order to better interact with
portantly if river basin committees are enabling effective interactions. its environment and learn through slow changes in internal structure
Considering the limited understanding of how stakeholders interact (Manson, 2001). In addition to the above idea, scholars also advocate
and how effective are these interactions, this paper builds on the sta- that agreements may be ephemeral, but relationships, practices, norms
keholder and complexity theories to evaluate the interactions of dif- and behaviours emerge and persist (Connick and Innes, 2003). Stake-
ferent stakeholder groups presented in committees in São Paulo, Brazil. holders’ engagement includes a capacity-building component. The
A complete discussion about the theoretical aspects were reviewed in process assumes that stakeholders must learn more about the scientific
this study. The paper analyses stakeholders’ perspective regarding the and technical issues at stake, as well as how they might reconcile their
water policy and its implementation process, and the river basin com- views with those of others (Susskind, 2013).
mittees as arenas to enable participation and interaction. It also ex- Water resources management can be considered a complex system.
plores stakeholders’ interactions and the existence of different levels of It deals not only with physical aspects of water, which are complex by
interaction among groups and possible fragmentation between levels itself, but also with social and economic complexities. One example is
(state government vs. local government) and sectors (water sector vs. the unpredictable characteristics of the management process, where
other sectors). The important question examined was whether the level small actions do not necessarily lead to small outcomes and vice versa.
of interaction differ for the various stakeholder groups and, if so, how to Another example regards water allocation decision, which depends
improve it? upon and are influenced by a variety of environment, social, economic
and political context. It is also known that the water sector overlaps
2. Theoretical aspects with many other sectors (Varis et al., 2014), which enhances its com-
plexity.
2.1. Stakeholders theory
2.3. Conceptual framework
Stakeholder theory was developed to address aspects in the business
ethics field aiming to identify, analyse and manage relations between This study adopted and combined statements of the complexity and
organizations and their stakeholders. Over the past decades, the theory stakeholder theories. It considered the complexity in the water re-
has also been used in other fields, such as adaptive governance and sources management system and within stakeholders' interactions
natural resources management (Achterkamp and Vos 2008; Crona and (Manson, 2001; Pollard and du Toit, 2011). The research also used the
Parker 2012; Reed et al., 2009). descriptive approach stated by Donaldson and Preston (1995), to de-
Stakeholder definition varies considerable among scholars, ap- scribe and better understand perspectives and behaviours of different
proaches and areas. Global Water Partnership (GWP) and International stakeholder groups, and explored differences among stakeholders
Network of Basin Organizations (INBO) (2009) define stakeholders as (Savage et al., 2010; Tse 2011).
entities or individuals who are involved in making decisions on water Figs. 1 and 2 are used to demonstrate the conceptual framework of
resources and land use management in a basin and/or can be affected this research.
by those decisions. This study defines stakeholders as individuals in- Fig. 1 facilitates the visualisation of the complexity within the
volved in the decision-making process through river basin committees. system and also the recognition of linkages and interactions among
It is important to highlight that participation in river basin committees different stakeholders, and especially across levels (vertical) and sectors
in Brazil is restricted to structured organisations from the civil society, (horizontal). A key aspect is that it demonstrates that levels and sectors
meaning that individuals cannot be part of the committee and will not are somehow connected, even when they are not directly linked, sug-
be categorised as stakeholders, even we know that they can and will be gesting that all parts will influence the system in some way. In this
affected by decisions. sense, establishment of, for example, river basin committees are really
Donaldson and Peston (1995) present, among others, a descriptive important as they put different stakeholders together, enhancing their
approach, where stakeholders theory can be used to describe and ex- interactions.
plain specific characteristics and behaviours. The theory additionally In Fig. 2, the stakeholder theory represents the way multiple actors
acknowledges that managing stakeholder relationships are complex, interact among themselves and with the water system they want to
because it involves multiple interests and goals. There are different influence. Furthermore, the complexity theory represents the com-
types of stakeholders, with distinct levels of involvement and diverse plexity within the system and the actors involved with the management
interests, perspectives and concerns (Savage et al., 2010; Tse 2011). process. Interrelationships between these theories emerge when we see
Even though stakeholders relationships are complex, the theory also the interactions among stakeholders as an opportunity for redefinition
brings the idea that where stakeholders’ interests conflict, there is an of stakeholders’ interest and reconciliation of their views and perspec-
opportunity to redefine interests (Freeman, 2009). tives.

2.2. Complexity theory 3. Description of the study area

Complexity theory addresses complex systems, which can be char- The State of São Paulo (Fig. 3) is located in the southeast region of
acterized by networks of independent parts that interact in a way which Brazil. For water management purposes, the State is divided into 22
cannot be explained by traditional linear theories. The theory has been river basin units. With regard to the institutional and water governance
used in different research fields and applications can be seen in areas arrangement in the state, there are secretariats who are responsible for
such as governance, tourism, health, environment and planning policy formulating and establishing plans and programs. Additionally
(Abdolvahab et al., 2012; Chettiparamb 2014; Duit and Galaz 2008; there are regulatory agencies (linked to the secretariats) with admin-
Manson 2001), and also in the water sector (Connick and Innes, 2003; istrative, financial and structural functions (Godoy, 2007). Basically,
Edelenbos and Teisman, 2013; Pollard and du Toit, 2011). the state has two major agencies responsible for water resources

2
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Fig. 1. Complex linkages among stakeholders across

levels and sectors (Adapted from Fanning et al.,
2007).

Fig. 2. Conceptual framework of the research.

management: the Water and Energy Agency (DAEE) and the Environ- society members come from professional associations, community as-
mental Agency (Cetesb). sociations, NGOs and water users.
Additionally, there are the State Council and the river basin com-
mittees, which are composed by government and non-governmental 4. Methodology
representatives. The State Council is responsible to plan, regulate,
control and preserve water use, and coordinate relations between dif- A case study approach with both qualitative and quantitative data
ferent levels (Godoy, 2007). The river basin committees, are responsible was selected as the research design. When used in combination, qua-
for setting priorities for water management, to facilitate conflict re- litative and quantitative data can produce stronger results (Borland and
solution, approve the river basin plans and design and implement Kenneth, 2001). Data was collected via an online-based survey, com-
charging systems (Abers and Keck 2011; Carvalho and Magrini 2006; bining both purposive and snow ball techniques. Ethical clearance was
Kirchhoff et al., 2012). obtained from the University of Southern Queensland in Australia be-
Currently there are 21 river basin committees established.1 They fore any data was collected. Participants were required to read the
have an equal number of representatives for each segment: one-third explanation of the research and give an electronic consent.
each from state government, local government and civil society entities. The initial plan for the survey was to invite all members of the 21
State government members include those from institutions in the water river basin committees together with some water resource specialists.
sector and from other sectors such as environment, energy, agriculture, Each river basin committee has approximately 40 members and 40
transport and industry. Usually the city mayors or representatives of the substitute members.
city council are the members from the local governments. The civil Details of potential participants and their e-mail addresses were
collected from the database maintained by the Integrated System for
Water Resources Management. However, it was not possible to obtain
1
There is only one committee for Aguapeí Basin Unit and Peixe Basin Unit (CBH-AP). the accurate details of all members of the river basin committees

3
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Fig. 3. The state of São Paulo, Brazil

(Adapted from Lorenzeto de Abreu, 2006).
Results considering responses from 206
survey participants (42 from the water
sector, 50 from other sectors, 39 from the
local government and 75 from the civil so-
ciety).
Mean calculated considering a five-point
Likert scale, 1 = strongly disagree and
5 = strongly agree.

through this source. Therefore, an attempt was made to contact the agree). Participants answers received a score ranging between 1 and 5
members through their committee’s website or any other available (1 being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree) and the mean for
means for any missing information. In the end, information was gath- each category was calculated. The calculated means present the average
ered for participants from 12 of the 21 committees, which were invited ranks of perception, once we are dealing with an ordinal scale.
to participate in the survey. With reference to stakeholders’ interactions, five aspects were
The Internet-based survey was opened to participants between analysed: consultation of key documents, types of interactions, meet-
September 2014 and January 2015. An e-mail invitation was sent to ings, information exchange and level of interactions. For the consulta-
1100 target participants (committee members and water specialist) in tion of key documents, participants were asked to indicate how often
the first stage in September 2014: around 100 emails were returned they consulted a list of water-related documents (never consulted,
because the addresses obtained were wrong or no longer existed. consulted just once, consult when a new version is available and consult
This first survey was distributed using the Qualtrics survey dis- regularly). To explore the frequency of meetings, a five-point scale was
tributer, which created a unique ID for each participant that allowed used (never, at least once a year, between 2 and 6 times a year, between
survey completion to be tracked and for reminders to be sent in order to 7 and 12 times a year and more than 12 times a year). Participants
increase the response rate. One committee (CBH-PCJ) distributed the answers received a score between 1 and 4 (1 being never consulted and
survey using the survey link. 4 being consult regularly) and between 1 and 5 (1 being never and 5
Initially, 90 participants completed the survey. A month after the being more than 12 times a year), respectively, from which the mean
first e-mail, a first remainder was e-mailed and this increased the for each category was calculated.
number of participants to 160. A second and final reminder was sent at With reference to the exchange of water-related information, par-
the beginning of January 2015, which also helped to increase the ticipants had the option to tick or not tick boxes: receive information
number of participants. The survey was closed at the end of that month and give information. If they ticked a box they were assembled a
with 206 participants having completed the entire questionnaire; re- number 1 for that aspect, if not, 0. Percentage values for each category
presenting: state government (92: 47% from the water sector and 53% were calculated.
from other sectors), local government (39) and civil society (75). Finally, supplementary tests were performed to further explore
The quantitative data obtained were exported from Qualtrics to different levels of interaction, such as one-way ANOVA and T-tests.
both an Excel worksheet and to the IBM’s SPSS software (Statistical The qualitative data was collected through open-ended questions.
Package for the Social Sciences) and the qualitative data to NVivo Participants were asked to indicate additional types of interactions and
software (version 10). Participants were classified according to three also how to improve interactions. From the 206 participants, 86 pro-
main stakeholders groups: state government, local government and civil vided an answer regarding types of interaction and 120 for ways to
society. Members of the state government were further divided into two improve interactions. Data analysis included coding, validation of key
sectors—water and other sectors. concepts that appeared multiple times, which were classified as themes.
To understand stakeholders’ perspective regarding the water policy Finally, categories emerged by patterns identified, in similar themes.
and its implementation process, and the river basin committees as In order to improve the validity and reliability of this research and
avenue to propitiate interactions, a five-point Likert scale was used reduce bias in responses, the purpose of the research was explained
(strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, strongly clearly before the participants could progress to complete the Internet-

4
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Fig. 4. Stakeholders perspective regarding the water

policy.
Results considering responses from 206 survey par-
ticipants (42 from the water sector, 50 from other
sectors, 39 from the local government and 75 from
the civil society).
Mean calculated considering a five-point Likert scale:
1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

based survey. The respondents’ anonymity was ensured with an option a neutral position (neither agree nor disagree). Differently, for the
to withdraw at any time during the survey or an interview. Moreover, statement related to the implementation of instruments as being suffi-
bias in the participants’ responses for the survey was also avoided by cient to the achievement of policy objectives, groups had a more similar
monitoring the responses in order to guarantee the participation of position, staying between the disagree and neither agree nor disagree
different groups and by sending follow up e-mails. choice.
The river basin plan is an important management instrument, as
they regulate other management instruments. However, there are still
5. Findings and discussion
many questions regarding the quality and content of these plans, and
more importantly, how much influence they make in the decision
5.1. Stakeholders perspective of the water policy and its implementation
making process (Abers and Keck 2011; Alovisi and Berezuk, 2012; Porto
and Porto, 2008; Silva, 2008). Barbosa et al. (2016b) identified that
5.1.1. Water policy
there is still a centralised government with strong influence over the
Fig. 4 presents the means scores which considers a stakeholder
decision making process in the state of São Paulo. A complex institu-
group perspective of the water policy. The results show that mean
tional development is needed in order to achieve an effective im-
scores for all of the statements were above 3.0, indicating that the
plementation of water policies in Brazil (Porto and Porto, 2008).
participants tended to agree with the policy. Respondents tended to be
closer to the agree side while asked regarding the policy objectives,
fundamentals and guidelines, and closer to a neutral position (neither 5.2. Stakeholders interaction
agree nor disagree) while asked about roles and responsibilities.
Previous conclusions presented by Barbosa et al. (2016b), con- 5.2.1. Consultation of key documents
sidering qualitative results from interviews, indicated that stakeholders Fig. 6 displays the mean values regarding the consultation of key
positively supported the water policy in terms of its objectives, design documents. The results show that the majority of mean scores were
and structure. The study also identified key institutional and water between 2.5 and 3.5 (except for river basin plans of adjacent river basin
governance problems, one of them regarding confusion about institu- units), indicating that the participants had a moderately high level of
tional roles and responsibilities (Barbosa et al., 2016b). In Brazil, con- frequency of consultation. This did not occur for river basin plans of
flicts among different levels and sectors are common (Tarqui and Silva, adjacent river basin units, showing that stakeholders tend to see water
2004), what leads to concurrent jurisdictions and sometimes confusion in a compartmented way.
regarding roles and responsibilities (Oliveira 2007). The figure also shows a difference among groups, as stakeholders
from the water sector and the civil society had higher scores for all the
statements if compared to stakeholders from the other sectors and from
5.1.2. Water policy implementation process
the local government. This indicates that involvement with water re-
The water policy implementation should occur through the im-
sources management issues is higher by stakeholder from the water
plementation of management instruments (e.g. water basin plans, water
sector, followed by the civil society.
framing, information system, water use permits, and water charging).
Stakeholders’ perspective regarding the implementation of the water
policy management instruments is presented in Fig. 5 (means scores by 5.2.2. Types of interactions
group). Mean scores for both statements are below 3.0, indicating that The list of the themes and main categories that emerged during the
the participants tended not to agree that implementation is successful data analysis process regarding types of interaction are presented in
and that the proposed management instruments are sufficient to guar- Table 1.
antee implementation and achievement of policy objectives. According to the participants, there are different types and ways of
A difference in the way participants answered both statement can be interactions. Face-to-face meetings, together with information ex-
detected. When regarding the implementation of the management in- change, were the most cited categories. Other important ways of in-
struments as being successful, results differed more amongst groups, teraction were via events and communication, both direct and indirect.
with stakeholders from the water sector group reflected as closer to the The least mentioned category was associations.
disagree side and stakeholders from the local level reflecting as closer to Results reinforce the importance of meetings as a way of interaction,

5
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Fig. 5. Stakeholders perspective regarding the water

policy implementation.
Results considering responses from 206 survey par-
ticipants (42 from the water sector, 50 from other
sectors, 39 from the local government and 75 from
the civil society).
Mean calculated considering a four-point scale,
1 = never consulted and 4 = consulted regularly.

however, there is a difference between interactions through river basin all groups presenting higher mean scores for river basin committee
committee meetings (most cited) and through internal meetings (just meetings.
cited by one participant). The introduction of different stakeholders Analysing the groups separately, we can see two different patterns.
under the water resources management discussion via the river basin First, there are the water sector and civil society groups, which reflected
committee is an advance and represents one of the most important ways less difference in their mean scores for both internal and committee
stakeholders are interacting. However, discussion and interaction that meetings (water sector: 3.05 and 3.26, respectively; and civil society:
occurs inside the committees are not being passed to the institutions. 3.20 and 3.44, respectively), which indicates that they engaged ap-
In conclusion, interactions are occurring with individuals (re- proximately in the same way in their own organizations and in the river
presentatives of the institutions) but not with the institutions them- basin committees.
selves, which makes it difficult and limits integration across levels and Secondly, the other sectors and the local government groups had
sectors. If interactions are restricted inside the river basin committees, more significant differences in scores for internal and committee
integration and therefore implementation of water policy will be lim- meetings. Although local government representatives had the highest
ited. mean for participation in river basin committee meetings (3.74), this
group also had the second lowest mean score for internal meetings
5.2.3. Meetings and information exchange (2.69). The state government institutions from other sectors had the
Considering the previous discussion, the means by group regarding lowest scores for both internal (2.42) and river basin committee
frequency of internal meeting and river basin committee meetings (to meetings (3.16). In practice, results showed that both groups engaged
discuss water resources management aspects) are compared in Fig. 7. more during river basin committees then internally and have quite a
In general, participants tended to discuss water-related aspects more low internal level of discussion regarding water-related aspects in their
often during river basin committee meetings (mean scores above 3.0) own institutions.
compared to internal meetings (mean scores around or below 3.0), with In addition to the frequency of meetings, the exchange of water

Fig. 6. Frequency of consultation of key documents.

Results considering responses from 206 survey par-
ticipants (42 from the water sector, 50 from other
sectors, 39 from the local government and 75 from
the civil society).
Mean calculated considering a five-point scale,
1 = never and 5 = more than 12 times a year.

6
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Table 1 information compared to provision of information via committee.

Types of interactions.*

Categories Themes Number of Number of 5.2.4. Levels of interaction

comments** comments by To answer the research question of whether the level of interaction
category***
differs across the various stakeholder groups, comparisons were made
Face-to face Committee 16 (19%) 24 (28%) across the three main stakeholders groups, and subsequently between
Meetings External (with 4 (5%) government levels and sectors. For this analysis, descriptive statistics
other institution) (mean) for the different groups are reported in Tables 2 and 3.
Council 3 (3%)
With the purpose of testing the hypothesis that stakeholder groups
Internal (in the 1 (1%)
institution) had different ways of interaction, an independent between-groups
Information Projects (e.g. 23 (27%) 24 (28%) ANOVA (for the internal meetings) was performed. It yielded a statis-
exchange reports) tically significant effect (p = 0.032). Thus, the null hypothesis of no
Research (e.g. 1 (1%)
difference between means was rejected. Results indicate that at least
research results)
Events Seminars, 19 (22%) 20 (23%)
one stakeholder group differed from the others. To evaluate the nature
conferences, of the differences between the three means, three Fisher's least sig-
forums nificant difference post-hoc tests were conducted (Hayter, 1986). The
Public hearings 1 (1%) difference between the state government group and the civil society
Direct E-mails 8 (9%) 12 (14%)
was statistically significant (p = 0.015), as was the one between the
communication Phone 3 (3%)
Call notice 1 (1%) local government group and the civil society group (p = 0.049). In-
Indirect Media, Internet 7 (8%) 11 (13%) terestingly, the same could not be said for the statistical analysis be-
communication Newsletter 4 (5%) tween the state government group and the local government group
Associations Working groups 3 (3%) 5 (6%) (p = 0.954).
Partnerships (e.g. 2 (2%)
cooperative
In the same way the analysis was conducted considering the fre-
agreements) quency of river basin committee meetings. The ANOVA yielded a sta-
tistically significant effect (p = 0.012), which was followed-up by post-
* Results considering comments from 86 stakeholders. hoc tests. The difference between the state government group and the
** Numbers in parentheses represent percentages from the total number of comments.
local government group was statistically significant (p = 0.003). But
*** Numbers in parentheses represent percentages from the total number of comments
by category.
not the ones between the state government group and the civil society
group (p = 0.116) and between the local government group and the
resources management information (both internally and in the river civil society group (p = 0.107).
basin committees) were analysed and results (means) are presented in To test the hypothesis that the water sector and other sectors were
Fig. 8. associated with statistically significant manner, independent samples t-
Following the same pattern of the frequency of meetings, the ex- tests were performed. For the frequency of internal meetings, the in-
change of water resources information was less frequent via internal dependent samples t-test was associated to a statistically significant
channels than via river basin committees. These differences were more effect (p = 0.016), but not for the participation in river basin com-
accentuated for institutions from other sectors, local government and mittee meetings (p = 0.579).
civil society. Actually, the water sector showed almost the same per- Differences in the level of interaction were identified between sta-
centage for both channels (even slightly higher via internal channels keholders groups (government and non-government stakeholders),
when compared to river basin committees). government levels (state and local) and sectors (water and other sec-
Results reinforce the importance of the river basin committees. In tors). These tests helped to support results discussed and presented
this case it is working as a forum that propitiates information exchange, earlier. Additionally, higher differences were identified in the tests
most importantly by providing information to stakeholders, as all dif- performed considering the internal meetings, when compared to river
ferent groups had higher percentages regarding the receipt of basin committee meetings. Once again, the results reinforce the im-
portance to address levels of interaction inside the institutions.

Fig. 7. Frequency of meetings (per year) to discuss

water resources management aspects.
Results considering responses from 206 survey par-
ticipants (42 from the water sector, 50 from other
sectors, 39 from the local government and 75 from
the civil society).

7
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Fig. 8. Exchange of water resources management

information.
Results considering responses from 206 survey par-
ticipants (42 from the water sector, 50 from other
sectors, 39 from the local government and 75 from
the civil society).

Table 2 was the place where most stakeholders’ interactions occurred. Results
Descriptive statistics for frequency of meetings across stakeholders' groups (levels). regarding participants’ perspective of the river basin committees are
presented in Fig. 9 below.
Stakeholders groups (levels) Internal River basin committee
meetings meetings
A significant number of participants (43%) believe the committees
propitiate adequate public participation. On the other hand, with just
State government Mean 2.71 3.21 24% participants staying on the agree side (agree or strongly agree) and
N 92 92 the majority (52%) on the disagree side (strongly disagree or disagree),
Local government Mean 2.69 3.74
it can be noticed that according to participants the committee meetings
N 39 39
Civil society Mean 3.20 3.44 are not sufficient to guarantee interactions.
N 75 75 This result can be reinforced from the previous finding, which a
good frequency of meetings and regularity of information exchange
N: number of survey participants. within the committees, did not reflect in levels of interaction outside
M: mean scores (five-point scale, 1 = never and 5 = more than 12 times a year).
the committee, and most importantly, in effective water policy im-
plementation.
Table 3
As achieving effective interaction is key to water governance and
Descriptive statistics for frequency of meetings across government (sectors).
water policy implementation (Edelenbos and Teisman, 2013; Van Ast,
Government (sectors) Internal meetings River basin committee meetings 1999) and committee meetings are not being sufficient to guarantee
interactions, additional measures should be conducted in order to en-
Water sector Mean 3.05 3.26 hance levels and effectiveness of interactions.
N 42 42
Other sectors Mean 2.42 3.16
N 50 50 5.4. Stakeholders perspective on ways to improve interactions

N: number of survey participants. Participants mentioned a comprehensive list of ways to improve

M: mean scores (five-point scale, 1 = never and 5 = more than 12 times a year). interactions. Results were divided into two major groups: interactions
that are already occurring (listed before in Table 1); and additional
Findings may indicate a fragmentation in current institutional ar- types of interaction.
rangements. Especially because water-related discussions may not be The first block of recommendations focused on the enhancement of
affecting institutions outside the water sector. Previous studies con- interactions that are already occurring. Meaning more face-to-face
ducted in different basin units around the globe claim that both vertical meetings, information exchange, events, communication and associa-
and horizontal fragmentation are important to address water resources tions are needed. We need to keep in mind, however, that enhancement
management problems (Akhmouch 2012; Hamstead et al., 2008; of these types of interaction alone will not lead to effective interactions.
Hussey and Dovers 2006; Nesheim et al., 2010). Fragmentation is often It is unfortunate that current ways of interaction, even when considered
the result from competition between different sectors dealing with the adequate inside the river basin committees, have not been sufficient to
same policy problem (Bressers and Kuks, 2013). Vertical fragmentation influence interactions outside the committees and to improve water
refers to agencies at different levels of government (national, state or policy implementation.
local) that share responsibility for a resource; and, horizontal frag- Considering this, an important reflection emerges, as we should seek
mentation refers to the division of responsibility within one govern- not only improvements in interactions and levels of interactions, but
ment level (Nielsen et al., 2013; WMO, 2009). most importantly pay more attention to where this interactions are
Water resources management has changed and now are usually occurring.
conducted at the river basin level, which by itself creates fragmenta- The second block of recommendations brings new insights in order
tion, as even after the creation of new entities (river basin committees) to improve the effectiveness of stakeholders and institutional interac-
and new boundaries (river basin units), administrative entities like tions. Bellow there is a discussion about them, which includes some
states and municipalities do not cease to exist and keep their previous remarks provided by participants.
responsibilities (Dewulf et al., 2011). In general, decentralization
without coordination may lead to fragmentation (Pahl-Wostl et al., 5.4.1. Water resources as a government priority
2012). Water should be seen as a priority under the management process,
especially in upper government levels.
5.3. River basin committees as arenas to propitiate interactions
‘To improve the forms of interaction, the State Government should set
water resources management as a priority’ (Participant 32).
As identified above, the river basin committees hold key importance
under the water resources management system, especially because it

8
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Fig. 9. Stakeholders perspective regarding the river

basin committees.

5.4.2. Public awareness regarding water ‘The Environment Secretariat has representatives in all river basin com-
The river basin committee brought the water management discus- mittees; however the secretary agenda and positions are not disclosed to
sion and decision to another level, and an increased number of stake- their representatives, who end up representing themselves. The ideal si-
holders are being involved. However, the involvement with the broader tuation would be that all sectors define the position of the segment they
public and communities is still limited. Meaning additional engagement are representing’ (Participant 193).
should be pursued.
‘The State Government should institutionalize the way that different
‘Increased awareness and involvement of all, a culture change in the State Secretaries should work’ (Participant 32).
importance and need to preserve water resources’ (Participant 98).
‘I believe that the river basin committees and the government institutions, 5.4.6. Regional actions
at all levels, should promote more public hearings and opportunities for The local government (municipalities) were detected with lower
participation, regardless of an institutional affiliation. Thus, more people levels of interaction, indicating that additional measures should be
could be mobilized to listen and effectively participate to a sustainable taken to better involve the local level and especially enhance their in-
water resources management’ (Participant 33). teractions.
‘Events involving mainly local governments; participation of educational
5.4.3. Database and disclosure of data institutions in environmental education; various educational campaigns
There is a need to improve database and the provision and dis- to enhance knowledge regarding water resources conditions’ (Participant
closure of information (data), an essential aspect for the any water 99).
resources management system.
‘The creation of an integrated database containing information from
different sectors’ (Participant 39). 5.4.7. Technical staff and capacity
Enhancement of technical staff and adequate qualifications is also
‘We try to acquire technical information within the DAEE and often the important, especially for institutions outside the water sector, they need
data are not available. This information should be public’ (Participant to have staff with the adequate knowledge to be involved and inter-
177). acting.
‘The systems designed to provide information are very important and can ‘Hiring more employees would allow us to be more devoted’ (Participant
certainly be improved on the purpose of providing relevant water man- 27).
agement information’ (Participant 181).

6. Conclusions
5.4.4. Interactions outside the river basin committees
As previously discussed, interactions should expand and start to
Stakeholders believe that water policy implementation is not suc-
happen on a regular basis outside the river basin committees. This is an
cessful and that current management instruments are not sufficient to
important step to effective integration.
guarantee implementation. The existing types of stakeholders’ interac-
‘A closer connection between the state, municipalities and civil society tion were considered important but once again not sufficient to guar-
outside the river basin committees, as currently the interactions between antee water policy implementation. A difference in interactions among
these institutions is only possible within the committees’ (Participant59). stakeholder groups was identified, where stakeholders from the water
sector demonstrated higher levels of interaction, compared to institu-
tions from other sectors and from the local levels.
5.4.5. Representation and guidelines for institutions
Results indicate that the committees are operating as an important
Another important recommendation is to discuss representation in
avenue under the water resources management system and committee
the river basin committees. In many situations the person (theoretically
meetings are the place where most aspects are discussed. At the same
representing an institution) participate and decide in the river basin
time, results also indicate that a significant number of participants still
committee according to personal believes and motivations, instead of
do not have formal ways in their institutions to discuss water resources
bringing an institutional position. This is critical and compromises the
management issues. Meaning that what has been discussed and agreed
operation of the whole system.
in the river basin committees does not achieve institutions’ endorse-
ment outside the water sector.

9
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

It reinforces the idea that there is a need to better involve stake- Acknowledgements
holders from other sectors and from the local level. Representatives of
institutions need to internally transmit the discussions that occur in the This paper was drawn from the PhD research being conducted by
river basin committees and also bring back to the committees an in- the first author. The authors would like to thank the University of
stitutional position. Otherwise, the committee will keep deciding and Southern Queensland, for the scholarship, and also the Faculty of
agreeing with the individual but not with the institution. Further re- Business, Education, Law and Arts and the Australian Centre for
searches should explore in detail representation inside the river basin Sustainable Business and Development. Especial thanks go also to all
committees and how representatives act in order to bring an institu- participants, which made this study possible.
tional, not a person, position under the decision making process.
Another important reinforcing finding is the existence of a re- References
lationship between the frequency of meeting and the regularity of in-
formation exchange. This indicates that one important step to enhance Abdolvahab, B., Ghazal, T., Yaser, B., 2012. Decision-making in Australia’s healthcare
interactions may be to increase the frequency of meetings, not only in system and insights from complex adaptive systems theory. Health Scope 2012
(Spring (1)), 29–38.
the river basin committee, but most importantly internal meetings in all Abers, R.N., Keck, M.E., 2011. Comitês de bacia no Brasil: uma abordagem política no
institutions involved with water resources management. estudo da participação social. Revista Brasileira de Estudos Urbanos e Regionais 6
Participants’ perspective about the insufficiency of the committees (1), 55–68.
Achterkamp, M.C., Vos, J.F., 2008. Investigating the use of the stakeholder notion in
to guarantee interactions show its importance and at the same time project management literature, a meta-analysis. Int. J. Project Manage. 26 (7),
challenging that a water-related discussion goes beyond the water 749–757.
arena and sector. Having the committee working with some level of Akhmouch, A., 2012. Water governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: a multi-
Level approach. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2012/04. OECD
interaction would be the starting point of the change required. The next
Publishing, Paris.
step will be to see interactions inside the institutions from other sectors Alovisi Jr., V., Berezuk, A.G., 2012. ‘Análise comparativa de gestão de recursos hídricos
and in the local governments. Enhancement of water-related discus- em Portugal e no Brasil', Recursos Hidricos. J. Water Resour. 33 (1), 75–84.
Barbosa, M.C., Alam, K., Mushtaq, S., 2016a. Water policy implementation in the state of
sions and information exchange internally in these institutions is a
São Paulo, Brazil: key challenges and opportunities. Environ. Sci. Policy 60, 11–18.
challenge and should be one of the key objectives of the new era of Barbosa, M.C., Mushtaq, S., Alam, K., 2016b. Rationalising water policy and the in-
interactive water governance. stitutional and water governance arrangements in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Water Policy 8
Considering the results obtained, both structural changes and be- (6), 1353–1366.
Borland Jr., , Kenneth, W., 2001. Qualitative and quantitative research: a complementary
haviour changes should be pursued in order to improve water policy balance. New Dir. Inst. Res. 2001 (112), 5–13.
implementation. The structural one includes improvement in current Bressers, H., Kuks, S., 2013. Water governance regimes: dimensions and dynamics. Int. J.
institutional arrangements, in order to advance the definition of roles Water Gov. 1 (1–2), 133–156.
Carvalho, R.C.D., Magrini, A., 2006. Conflicts over water resource management in Brazil:
and responsibilities of organisations. And also, the establishment of a case study of inter-basin transfers. Water Resour. Manage. 20 (2), 193–213.
formal ways for interactions not only inside the river basin committees, Chettiparamb, A., 2014. Complexity theory and planning: examining ‘fractals’ for orga-
but most importantly inside institutions from different levels and sec- nising policy domains in planning practice. Plan.Theory 13 (1), 5–25.
Connick, S., Innes, J.E., 2003. Outcomes of collaborative water policy making: applying
tors. complexity thinking to evaluation. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 46 (2), 177–197.
Behaviour changes would involve changes in the way stakeholders Crona, B.I., Parker, J.N., 2012. Learning in support of governance: theories, methods, and
get involved and interact. These are not imposed changes, so are more a framework to assess how bridging organizations contribute to adaptive resource
governance. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1), 32.
complex. Stakeholders may change the way they get involved and in- Dewulf, A., Mancero, M., Cárdenas, G., Sucozhanay, D., 2011. Fragmentation and con-
teract when they start to be more aware of the importance of water. nection of frames in collaborative water governance: a case study of river catchment
With increasing scarcity and enhanced competition for water, a sus- management in Southern Ecuador. Int. Rev. Admin. Sci. 77 (1), 50–75.
Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts,
tainable management will be essential if different sectors want to suc-
evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 65–91.
ceed. Duit, A., Galaz, V., 2008. Governance and complexity—emerging issues for governance
This paper provides important theoretical contribution and also theory. Governance 21 (3), 311–335.
practical and policy contributions. The research examined the current Edelenbos, J., Teisman, G., 2013. Water governance capacity: the art of dealing with a
multiplicity of levels, sectors and domains. Int. J. Water Gov. 1 (1–2), 89–108.
water policy and stakeholders interactions from the perceptions of Fanning, L., Mahon, R., McConney, P., Angulo, J., Burrows, F., Chakalall, B., Gil, D.,
different stakeholder groups and proposed a framework that combined Haughton, M., Heileman, S., Martínez, S., 2007. A large marine ecosystem govern-
two important theories (complexity and stakeholder) by seeing inter- ance framework. Mar. Policy 31 (4), 434–443.
Freeman, R.E., 2009. Turning point. Can stakeholder theorists seize the moment? J. Corp.
actions as a link point to address the complexity. It discussed different Citizenship 2009 (36), 21–24.
ways not only to enhance current interactions but most importantly to Global Water Partnership and International Network of Basin Organizations, 2009. A
improve the quality of interactions and expand where these interactions Handbook for Integrated Water Resources Management. Basins, Global Water
Partnership (GWP) and International Network of Basin Organizations (INBO),
are occurring. Within this, stakeholders may have the opportunity to Sweden.
redefine their views and engage in a more positive and effective way Godoy, A.M.G., 2007. Reflexões sobre os comitês de bacia hidrográfica. In: Paper pre-
under the water resources management process. sented to XLV Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Economia. Administração e
Sociologia Rural, Londrina.
Several solutions have been proposed to address the barriers to the Hamstead, M., Baldwin, C., O'Keefe, V., 2008. Water Allocation Planning in Australia:
water policy implementation. An enhancement of interactions was Current Practices and Lessons Learned. National Water Commission.
considered a fundamental point to promoting integration across the Hayter, A.J., 1986. The maximum familywise error rate of Fisher’s least significant dif-
ference test. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 81 (396), 1000–1004.
levels and sectors.
Hooper, B., 2006. Integrated water resources management: governance, best practice, and
Although the research has achieved its objective and answered the research challenges. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 135 (1), 1–7.
designed research question, some limitations were identified, including Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., Yalcin, R., 2009.
the sample size, the limited number of variables analysed and the po- Adaptive water governance: assessing the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)
management from a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecol.
tential bias in the participants’ responses. Water policy implementation Soc. 14 (1), 1–19.
can be influenced by a number of variables not tested in this research, Hussey, K., Dovers, S., 2006. Trajectories in Australian water policy. J. Contemp. Water
such as power, funding, legitimacy and political will. These variables Res. Educ. 135 (1), 36–50.
Jønch-Clausen, T., Fugl, J., 2010. Firming up the conceptual basis of integrated water
could be explored in future research to better understand their re- resources management. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 17 (4), 501–510.
lationship with water policy implementation and help to overcome Jaspers, F.G.W., 2003. Institutional arrangements for integrated river basin management.
current implementation challenges. Water Policy 5 (1), 77–90.
Jetoo, S., Thorn, A., Friedman, K., Gosman, S., Krantzberg, G., 2015. Governance and
geopolitics as drivers of change in the Great Lakes? St. Lawrence basin. J. Great Lakes

10
M.C. Barbosa et al. Environmental Science and Policy 76 (2017) 1–11

Res. 41, 108–118. 25 (15), 4019–4035.

Kirchhoff, C.J., Lemos, M.C., Engle, N.L., 2012. What influences climate information use Porto, M.F., Porto, R.L.L., 2008. Gestão de bacias hidrográficas'. Estudos avançados 22
in water management? The role of boundary organizations and governance regimes (63), 43–60.
in Brazil and the US. Environ. Sci. Policy 26, 6–18. Reed, M.S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C.,
Lamers, M., Ottow, B., Francois, G., von Korff, Y., 2010. Beyond dry feet? experiences Quinn, C.H., Stringer, L.C., 2009. Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder
from a participatory water-management planning case in the Netherlands. Ecol. Soc. analysis methods for natural resource management. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (5),
15 (1), 1–14. 1933–1949.
Lennox, J., Proctor, W., Russell, S., 2011. Structuring stakeholder participation in New Saleth, R.M., 2004. Introduction to special section on river basin management: eco-
Zealand's water resource governance. Ecol. Econ. 70 (7), 1381–1394. nomics, management, and policy. Water Resour. Res. 40 (8), 1–6.
Lorenzeto de Abreu, R., 2006. Map locator of Brazil’s São Paulo state. https://commons. Savage, G., Bunn, M., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E., Williams, E., 2010.
wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brazil_State_SaoPaulo.svg. Stakeholder collaboration: implications for stakeholder theory and practice. J.
Manson, S.M., 2001. Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity theory. Geoforum 32 Business Ethics 96, 21–26.
(3), 405–414. Silva, SdM, 2008. Avaliação ambiental estratégica na Política Nacional de Recursos
Nesheim, I., McNeill, D., Joy, K., Manasi, S., Nhung, D.T.K., Portela, M.M., Paranjape, S., Hídricos-PNRH. Universidade de Brasilia PhD thesis.
2010. The challenge and status of IWRM in four river basins in Europe and Asia. Irrig. Susskind, L., 2013. Water and democracy: new roles for civil society in water governance.
Drain. Syst. 24 (3), 205–221. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 29 (4), 666–677.
Nielsen, H.Ø., Frederiksen, P., Saarikoski, H., Rytkönen, A.-M., Pedersen, A.B., 2013. How Tse, T., 2011. ‘Shareholder and Stakeholder theory: after the financial crisis'. Qual. Res.
different institutional arrangements promote integrated river basin management. Financ. Markets 3 (1), 51–63.
Evidence from the Baltic Sea Region. Land Use Policy 30 (1), 437–445. Van Ast, J.A., 1999. Trends towards interactive water management; developments in
Pahl-Wostl, C., Kranz, N., 2010. Water governance in times of change. Environ. Sci. Policy international river basin management. Phys. Chem. Earth Part B 24 (6), 597–602.
13 (7), 567–570. Varis, O., Enckell, K., Keskinen, M., 2014. Integrated water resources management:
Pahl-Wostl, C., Lebel, L., Knieper, C., Nikitina, E., 2012. From applying panaceas to horizontal and vertical explorations and the ‘water in all policies’ approach. Int. J.
mastering complexity: toward adaptive water governance in river basins. Environ. Water Resour. Dev. 30 (3), 433–444.
Sci. Policy 23, 24–34. Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Lobo, G., 2006. Public and stakeholder participation
Pahl-Wostl, C., 2015. Water Policy—From panaceas towards embracing complexity. in European water policy: a critical review of project evaluation processes. Eur.
Water Governance in the Face of Global Change. Springerpp. 11–24. Environ. 16 (1), 19–31.
Pollard, S., du Toit, D., 2011. Towards adaptive integrated water resources management World Meteorological Organization, 2009. Guide to Hydrological Practices, Geneve.
in southern Africa: the role of self-organisation and multi-scale feedbacks for learning Wengert, N., 1971. Public participation in water planning: a critique of theory, doctrine,
and responsiveness in the Letaba and Crocodile catchments'. Water Resour. Manage. and practice. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 7 (1), 26–32.

11