Governance Contributions for the Revitalization …
487
of which the Belém river basin is a part, in involving representatives of the residents
and specifically addressing the problems of the basin. It suggests the idea that was
also supported by Bollmann and Carvalho (2008), who defend that the creation of
the Belém River Basin Committee can facilitate the negotiation of social and environmental conflicts. Therefore, the creation of the subcommittee of the Belém river
basin is another important perspective for the basin, which can result in a more effective management of its problems and make the political involvement of the residents
more apt. But beyond the prospect of improvement, urban water governance faces
challenges that need to be overcome.
The social research carried out by Procopiuck and Rosa (2015) in the Belém
river basin showed that about 89% of the population living in this basin understands
that responsibility for conservation must be shared between the government and the
population. Nevertheless, in the Belém river this has not happened in the planning,
which includes the stage of monitoring, nor in the management. A contextualization
of this fact occurs in the monitoring phase of water quality, which is essential both
for planning and for the management of water resources. This phase is centralized
by the local environmental agency, the Environmental Institute of Paraná (IAP). The
Belém River has seven monitoring points that are part of the IAP sampling network,
which are monitored three times a year (IAP 2009), although CONAMA Resolution
No. 357/2005 (CONAMA 2005) requires at least six annual samplings. In addition,
the Monitoring Program of the Belem River conducted by PUCPR in 2006 showed
the need to monitor at least 23 points to obtain an adequate diagnosis in relation to
the quality of the waters of this basin. These facts demonstrate the inability of the
IAP to meet the legal conditions regarding the monitoring stage, even though it is
one of the best structured Brazilian environmental agencies.
Decentralization of the environmental monitoring of the quality of the waters of
the Belém River can be an interesting alternative that allows a denser monitoring network and an annual frequency of sampling that meets the environmental legislation.
Even reducing the high costs that these monitoring campaigns have for IAP. The
decentralization of the environmental monitoring of the Belém river is a prominent
alternative, because it is an urban river that shelters a large part of the population
of Curitiba. But a voluntary program of environmental monitoring of water quality,
following the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) model, is
still a major challenge for the Brazilian case and for the Belém river basin. successful
environmental governance, such as that of developed countries, that is induced by a
government with consolidated and organized administrative structures. In addition,
the context of the Belém river basin is under the aegis of a water resource management
system that is flawed in decision-making processes.
According to Bracht (2008), who specifically studied the case of the Belém river
basin, it is influenced by failures of the national water resources management system. These failures mean that even the minimum that is established by the regulatory instruments is not effectively fulfilled. According to Bracht (2008), this occurs
because the Federal Constitution of 1988 establishes that there are no more municipal
rivers as determined by the former Water Code, in contrast, it defines that land use
and occupation management is a responsibility municipal. This makes the manage-
487
of which the Belém river basin is a part, in involving representatives of the residents
and specifically addressing the problems of the basin. It suggests the idea that was
also supported by Bollmann and Carvalho (2008), who defend that the creation of
the Belém River Basin Committee can facilitate the negotiation of social and environmental conflicts. Therefore, the creation of the subcommittee of the Belém river
basin is another important perspective for the basin, which can result in a more effective management of its problems and make the political involvement of the residents
more apt. But beyond the prospect of improvement, urban water governance faces
challenges that need to be overcome.
The social research carried out by Procopiuck and Rosa (2015) in the Belém
river basin showed that about 89% of the population living in this basin understands
that responsibility for conservation must be shared between the government and the
population. Nevertheless, in the Belém river this has not happened in the planning,
which includes the stage of monitoring, nor in the management. A contextualization
of this fact occurs in the monitoring phase of water quality, which is essential both
for planning and for the management of water resources. This phase is centralized
by the local environmental agency, the Environmental Institute of Paraná (IAP). The
Belém River has seven monitoring points that are part of the IAP sampling network,
which are monitored three times a year (IAP 2009), although CONAMA Resolution
No. 357/2005 (CONAMA 2005) requires at least six annual samplings. In addition,
the Monitoring Program of the Belem River conducted by PUCPR in 2006 showed
the need to monitor at least 23 points to obtain an adequate diagnosis in relation to
the quality of the waters of this basin. These facts demonstrate the inability of the
IAP to meet the legal conditions regarding the monitoring stage, even though it is
one of the best structured Brazilian environmental agencies.
Decentralization of the environmental monitoring of the quality of the waters of
the Belém River can be an interesting alternative that allows a denser monitoring network and an annual frequency of sampling that meets the environmental legislation.
Even reducing the high costs that these monitoring campaigns have for IAP. The
decentralization of the environmental monitoring of the Belém river is a prominent
alternative, because it is an urban river that shelters a large part of the population
of Curitiba. But a voluntary program of environmental monitoring of water quality,
following the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) model, is
still a major challenge for the Brazilian case and for the Belém river basin. successful
environmental governance, such as that of developed countries, that is induced by a
government with consolidated and organized administrative structures. In addition,
the context of the Belém river basin is under the aegis of a water resource management
system that is flawed in decision-making processes.
According to Bracht (2008), who specifically studied the case of the Belém river
basin, it is influenced by failures of the national water resources management system. These failures mean that even the minimum that is established by the regulatory instruments is not effectively fulfilled. According to Bracht (2008), this occurs
because the Federal Constitution of 1988 establishes that there are no more municipal
rivers as determined by the former Water Code, in contrast, it defines that land use
and occupation management is a responsibility municipal. This makes the manage-