Crise hídrica como unidade analítica sobre a regulação das águas brasileiras
The present article aims to analyze the regulation of Brazilian waters, proposing the water crisis as a unit of analysis. The purpose of this article is to understand the capacity of the Brazilian water regulatory model to deal with critical situations. Water crises are understood as systemic proces...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Recursos: | Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) |
| Repositorio: | Revista Desenvolvimento e Meio Ambiente (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/65212 |
| Acesso em linha: | https://revistas.ufpr.br/made/article/view/65212 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palavra-chave: | regulation water regulation water crisis institutionalism regulação regulação da água crises hídricas institucionalismo |
| Resumo: | The present article aims to analyze the regulation of Brazilian waters, proposing the water crisis as a unit of analysis. The purpose of this article is to understand the capacity of the Brazilian water regulatory model to deal with critical situations. Water crises are understood as systemic processes, which result from a chain of political and natural factors. For this, we adopted the institutionalist approach to understanding water regulation. To analyze the regulatory activity of the water regulatory authorities, we adopted, as a methodology, a survey and an analysis of the normative framework produced by federal water regulators, the National Water Agency and the National Water Council, and the instruments laid down in the Brazilian Water Law and its guidelines. This survey aimed to identify the parameters and the indicators predicted to deal with water crises. As a result, we observed that regulators understand crises as resulting from natural factors. We have also identified an incipient regulatory activity for dealing with crises, an aspect that confers a high degree of discretion on the entities responsible for water management. We conclude that this gap, while offering managers freedom to confront regional specificities, may also contribute to planning and guidelines without clear concerns about crisis, which could result in the process of water injustice and deprivation of access to the resource. |
|---|