a framework for assessing freshwater sustainability at the river basin scale

A Framework for Assessing

Freshwater Sustainability

at the River Basin Scale

A Thesis Presented for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

at the University of Aberdeen

Antônio Augusto Rossotto Ioris

B. Eng. - Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil)

M.Sc. - University of Oxford

2005

ii

Disclaimer

This thesis is the result of my own work and includes nothing that is the outcome of

work done in collaboration. All quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks

and the sources of information specifically acknowledged. The work for this thesis

has not been and is not being, in part or wholly, submitted for another degree,

diploma, or similar qualification. This thesis is around 80,000 words in length,

including appendices and footnotes, but excluding bibliographical references.

_______________________________________


iii

Abstract

This thesis focuses upon understanding the process of developing water

sustainability indicators and their application for the assessment of catchment

management systems. The study deals with the assessment of environmental,

economic and social processes related to sustainable water management. In order to

develop the framework of indicators, a group of catchments was selected in

Scotland (Rivers Clyde and Dee) and in Brazil (Rivers Sinos and Pardo). Drawing

on international experience and in consultation with local water stakeholders, a list

of critical criteria of water sustainability was initially selected. These criteria were:

water quality; water quantity; system resilience; water use efficiency; user sector

productivity; institutional preparedness; equitable water services; water-related

well-being; and public participation. From these criteria a framework of

sustainability indicators was developed through an inductive and participatory

approach, which included prospective contacts with water stakeholders, a sequence

of trial exercises and a pilot-study. The proposed framework of indicators is the

product of the amalgamation of existing literature, interaction with stakeholders and

informed choices by the researcher. The calculation of indicators required the

gathering and manipulation of secondary data using both quantitative and qualitative

research techniques. The main difficulties encountered during the calculation of

indicator results were data inaccessibility and incompatibility of spatial scales. The

interpretation of the sustainability condition of the catchments was based on the

analysis of historic trends and future tendencies of the proposed indicators. The

research outcomes were mixed in all four studied catchments, with specific

achievements and deficiencies identified in the local water management approaches.

The final research stage included interviews with stakeholders to discuss both

indicator results and the appropriateness of the proposed methodology. It was

concluded that, although the proposed framework of indicators constitutes a

simplification of the studied management systems, they provide a consistent (and

positioned) explanation of catchment sustainability questions and are able to

stimulate critical thinking about the use and conservation of the water environment.

iv

Acknowledgements

This thesis is the result of more than four years of study at the Department of

Geography and Environment in this ancient, fascinating city of Aberdeen. Over the

time, the number of people who have shared their thoughts and assisted me in my

research has been large and impossible to recount in the limited space available here.

In particular, I want express all my appreciation to the numerous persons and

organisations that provided data, information and bibliography. I am specifically

indebted to those who agreed to be contacted for interview and, therefore, contributed

a great deal for the results of this research. Thank you very much indeed!

I need to mention that, since the beginning, I have received kind support from

colleagues at the United Nations in Chile, at the Ministry of Science and Technology

and at the Ministry of the Environment in Brazil and, more recently, at the Scottish

Environment Protection Agency (SEPA). I want to express my special gratitude to my

managers at SEPA, Martin Marsden and David Crookall, who always believed in the

importance of this thesis.

I would like to warmly thank my two supervisors, Colin Hunter and Sue

Walker. Their views, ideas and comments have been invaluably helpful to my

research. I also wish to thank the lecturers and my fellow colleagues in the University

of Aberdeen. I do appreciate their friendship, involvement and enthusiasm.

Finally, my most profound and deeply felt gratitude go to a long list of friends,

in so many countries, who constantly helped me to cope with numerous challenges and

difficulties. Most especially, to my beloved family: you know your importance during

these long and restless years of my life.

Aberdeen, June 2005


This thesis is dedicated to

my extraordinary grandpa and grandma,

Augusto († 02/May/2005) & Irma,

who have inspired and illuminated the whole family

for nearly 65 years of happy marriage.

(I don’t need any better example of sustainability!)

v

“We feel that even when all possible scientific

questions have been answered, the problems of life

remain completely untouched”

Ludwig Wittgenstein

“Man lives on nature – means that nature is his body, which

he must maintain in continuous interchange if he is not to die.

That man‟s physical and spiritual life is linked to nature means

simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature”.

Karl Marx

vi

Table of Contents

Disclaimer................................................................................................................. ii

Abstract ................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. iv

Table of Contents.................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures .......................................................................................................... x

List of Tables and Boxes ........................................................................................ xi

Acronyms and Abbreviations (in English) ......................................................... xiii

Units and Symbols ................................................................................................ xiv

Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................... 1

1.1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research Context and Background ................................................................. 1

1.3 Research Aims and Objectives ......................................................................... 7

1.4 Thesis Structure ................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 2 - Literature Review: Sustainable Development, Water

Sustainability and Sustainability Indicators ........................................ 10

2.1 Chapter Overview ........................................................................................... 10

2.2 Sustainable Development: The Ongoing Debate .......................................... 10

2.3 Summarising the Sustainability Concept ...................................................... 16

2.4 Water Management and Sustainability ......................................................... 17

2.5 Summarising Water Sustainability ................................................................ 25

2.6 Sustainability Assessment and Indicators ..................................................... 26

2.7 Key Themes for Water Sustainability Assessment ....................................... 31

2.7.1 Degraded water quality ................................................................................ 32

2.7.2 Excessive abstraction of water resources .................................................... 33

2.7.3 Induced variability in the water regime ....................................................... 33

2.7.4 Inefficient allocation and use of water ........................................................ 34

2.7.5 Wastage of water ......................................................................................... 35

2.7.6 Inadequate institutional framework ............................................................. 36

2.7.7 Inequitable water services ........................................................................... 36

2.7.8 Limited well-being related to water ............................................................ 37

2.7.9 Undemocratic decision-making ................................................................... 38

2.8 Examples of Approaches to Water Sustainability Assessment ................... 39

2.9 The Appropriate Approach to Water Sustainability Assessment .............. 47

2.10 Chapter Conclusions ..................................................................................... 48

vii

Chapter 3 - Research Methods and Techniques .................................. 51


3.2 Overall Research Approach: Graphical Representation............................. 51

3.3 Epistemological Bases of the Research Approach ........................................ 54

3.4 Development of the Framework of Sustainability Indicators ..................... 57

3.4.1 Selection of Catchments to Develop the Framework .................................. 57

3.4.2 Interactive Research Approach .................................................................... 59

3.4.3 Evaluation and Refinement of Indicators .................................................... 63

3.4.4 Final Indicator Expressions ......................................................................... 71

3.5 Data Gathering and Manipulation ................................................................ 72

3.5.1 Combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques ............... 73

3.5.2 Qualitative techniques ................................................................................. 74

3.5.2.1 Analysis of policy documents ................................................................... 74

3.5.2.2 Archival research ...................................................................................... 75

3.5.2.3 Development of a database to support qualitative techniques .................. 76

3.5.3 Quantitative techniques ............................................................................... 77

3.5.3.1 Gathering of quantitative data ................................................................... 77

3.5.3.2 Manipulation of quantitative data for the calculation of

sustainability indicators ........................................................................................ 78

3.5.3.3 Analysis of indicators derived from quantitative data .............................. 80

3.5.4 Interpretation of Indicator Results ............................................................... 80

3.6 Follow-up Interviews with Catchment Stakeholders ................................... 81

3.7 Chapter Conclusions ....................................................................................... 84

Chapter 4 - Framework of Sustainability Indicators .......................... 86


4.2 Indicators for the Assessment of Water Sustainability ................................ 86

4.3 The Environmental Dimension of Freshwater Sustainability ..................... 88

4.3.1 Water quality ............................................................................................... 89

4.3.2 Water quantity ............................................................................................. 91

4.3.3 System resilience ......................................................................................... 94

4.4 The Economic Dimension of Freshwater Sustainability .............................. 96

4.4.1 Water use efficiency .................................................................................... 96

4.4.2 User sector productivity ............................................................................ 100

4.4.3 Institutional preparedness .......................................................................... 102

4.5 The social dimension of freshwater sustainability...................................... 106

4.5.1 Equitable water services ............................................................................ 106

4.5.2 Well-being due to water availability ......................................................... 109

4.5.3 Public participation .................................................................................... 112


viii

Chapter 5 - National Water Policies and the Selected Catchments . 117

5.1 Chapter Overview ......................................................................................... 117

5.2 Water Management Pressures and Responses in Scotland ....................... 117

5.3 Catchments in Scotland ................................................................................ 122

5.3.1 The Clyde catchment ................................................................................. 124

5.3.2 The Dee catchment .................................................................................... 129

5.4 Water Management Pressures and Responses in Brazil ........................... 133

5.5 Catchments in Brazil ..................................................................................... 137

5.5.1 The Sinos catchment .................................................................................. 140

5.5.2 The Pardo catchment ................................................................................. 144


Chapter 6 - Applying the Water Sustainability Framework to the

Selected Catchments ............................................................................. 150


6.2 Applying the Framework to the Clyde Catchment .................................... 150

6.2.1 The environmental dimension of the Clyde catchment ............................. 150

6.2.2 The economic dimension of the Clyde catchment .................................... 158

6.2.3 The social dimension of the Clyde catchment ........................................... 163

6.2.4 Summary of results for the Clyde catchment ............................................ 169

6.2.5 Follow-up interviews in the Clyde ............................................................ 171

6.3 Applying the Framework to the Dee Catchment ........................................ 173

6.3.1 The environmental dimension of the Dee catchment ................................ 173

6.3.2 The economic dimension of the Dee catchment ........................................ 177

6.3.3 The social dimension of the Dee catchment .............................................. 184

6.3.4 Summary of results for the Dee catchment ............................................... 190

6.3.5 Follow-up interviews in the Dee ............................................................... 191

6.4 Applying the Framework to the Sinos Catchment ..................................... 193

6.4.1 The environmental dimension of the Sinos catchment .............................. 193

6.4.2 The economic dimension of the Sinos catchment ..................................... 198

6.4.3 The social dimension of the Sinos catchment ........................................... 203

6.4.4 Summary of results for the Sinos catchment ............................................. 208

6.4.5 Follow-up interviews in the Sinos ............................................................. 210

6.5 Applying the Framework to the Pardo Catchment .................................... 212

6.5.1 The environmental dimension of the Pardo catchment ............................. 212

6.5.2 The economic dimension of the Pardo catchment ..................................... 216

6.5.3 The social dimension of the Pardo catchment ........................................... 220

6.5.4 Summary of results for the Pardo catchment ............................................ 224

6.5.5 Follow-up interviews in the Pardo ............................................................ 226


ix

Chapter 7 - Discussion of Framework Appropriateness and Research

Approach ................................................................................................ 228


7.2 Explanatory Capacity of the Proposed Sustainability Indicators............. 228

7.2.1 Indicator results of the Clyde catchment ................................................... 231

7.2.2 Indicator results of the Dee catchment ...................................................... 233

7.2.3 Indicator results of the Sinos catchment .................................................... 234

7.2.4 Indicator results of the Pardo catchment ................................................... 235

7.3 The Role of the Researcher........................................................................... 236

7.4 Lessons Learned about Sustainability Indicators ...................................... 243


Chapter 8 - Conclusions ....................................................................... 252


8.2 Research Conclusions ................................................................................... 252

8.3 Recommendations for Further Research .................................................... 254

8.4 Final Words.................................................................................................... 255

Bibliography .......................................................................................... 257

Personal Communications.................................................................... 293

Appendices ............................................................................................. 294

Appendix I: Development of Water Sustainability Indicators for this

Research ............................................................................................................. 294

Appendix II: Preliminary List of Water Sustainability Topics to be

Included in Indicator Expressions ...................................................................... 295

Appendix III: Evolution of the Expressions of Water Sustainability

Indicators throughout this Research ................................................................... 297

Appendix IV: Access Database Developed for Archival Research ................... 302

Appendix V: Structure of Interviews with Catchment Stakeholders in

English and in Portuguese .................................................................................. 303

Appendix VI: Water Resources Planning in Rio Grande do Sul ........................ 307

Appendix VII: Methodology of Water Quality Classification in Scotland ........ 308

Appendix VIII: Local Authorities in the Clyde Catchment ............................... 309

Appendix IX: Altimetric Map of the Dee Catchment ........................................ 310

Appendix X: Thresholds of the Most Common Parameters of Water

Quality Monitored in the Rio Grande do Sul State ............................................ 310

Appendix XI: Maps with the Classification of the Sinos Catchment into

Water Quality Classes ........................................................................................ 311

Appendix XII: Altimetric Map of the Pardo Catchment .................................... 312

Appendix XIII: Folder of the 10th

Inter-American Water Week Promoted

in the State of Rio Grande do Sul in October 2003 ............................................ 313

x

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Thesis Structure and Interactions between Chapters……………………………... 9

Figure 2.1: Catchment Processes and Interactions.……………………………………...…………... 23

Figure 2.2: Freshwater Indicators for the United Kingdom………............................................... 42

Figure 3.1: Research Sequence and the Fulfilment of the Research Objectives….…... 53

Figure 4.1: Aggregation of Data for the Calculation of Sustainability Indicators...…. 87

Figure 5.1: Rivers Clyde and Dee in Scotland………….……………………...……...……………….. 123

Figure 5.2: Glasgow and the Clyde Area……….………………………………………………………… 124

Figure 5.3: Northeast of Scotland and the Dee Area…………..……………………...…………….. 130

Figure 5.4: Location of the Rio Grande do Sul State in the World……………...…………... 136

Figure 5.5: Location of the Guaíba Hydrological Region in the RS State

and the Situation of the Rivers Sinos and Pardo…………………………...……………… 139

Figure 5.6: Sinos Catchment…..……………………………………………………………...………………… 141

Figure 5.7: Pardo Catchment……..…………………………………………………………...………………... 145

Figure 6.1: Water Quality – Clyde (1961-2003)………………………………………...……………. 152

Figure 6.2: Water Quantity – Clyde (1957-2003)…………………………………………...……….. 154

Figure 6.3: System Resilience – Clyde (Daldowie) – (1957-2002)……………………...….. 156

Figure 6.4: System Resilience – Clyde (Hazelbank) – (1957-2002)………………………... 157

Figure 6.5: Use Efficiency – Scotland (1973-1999)………………………………………...………. 159

Figure 6.6: Sector Productivity – Scotland (metered) – (1973-1999)………………...…... 160

Figure 6.7: Sector Productivity – Scotland (unmetered) – (1973-1999)……………...…. 161

Figure 6.8: Water Quality – Dee (1980-2003)………………………………………………...……….. 174

Figure 6.9: Water Quantity – Dee (1972-2001)………………………………………….…...……….. 176

Figure 6.10: System Resilience – Dee (Park) – (1972-2001)…………………………...……… 177

Figure 6.11: Population Projections – Clyde and Dee Catchments…………………...…….. 179

Figure 6.12: Economic Output (GVA) – Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire…………...……... 180

Figure 6.13: Water Demand – North of Scotland…………………………………………...………... 181

Figure 6.14: Water Quality – Sinos (1990-2002)………………………………………………...…... 194

Figure 6.15: System Resilience – Sinos (São Leopoldo) – (1973-2001)…………...…….. 197

Figure 6.16: System Resilience – Sinos (Campo Bom) – (1939-2001)…………...………. 198

Figure 6.17: Irrigation Demand in Relation to Pardo Low Flows (1996-1997)…...….. 215

Figure 6.18: System Resilience – Pardo (Santa Cruz) – (1964-1979)……………...……… 216

xi

List of Tables and Boxes

Table 2.1: Implicit and Explicit Dimensions of Sustainability Indicators………....…… 29

Table 2.2: Example of Sustainability Assessment Methodologies……………………......... 30

Table 2.3: Example of Sustainability Indicators Applied at the National Level…....... 41

Table 2.4: Example of Sustainability Indicators Adopted by the Water Industry…… 44

Table 2.5: Example of Water Sustainability Indicators of Urban Systems………...…… 45

Table 3.1: Water Sustainability Issues Initially Discussed with Water

Stakeholders …………………………………………………………………………………...………...….. 61

Table 3.2: Organisations Involved in the Selection of Catchments, Identification

of Sustainability Issues and Preliminary Version of Indicators ...…………...….. 62

Table 3.3: First Version of Sustainability Indicators …………………………………………..….. 64

Table 3.4: Second Version of Sustainability Indicators ……………………………………..….. 67

Table 3.5: Third (final) Version of Sustainability Indicators ……………………………..….. 69

Box 3.1: Organisations that Provided Environmental Data………………………………...…... 77

Box 3.2: Organisations that Provided Socio-economic Data……………………………...…… 77

Table 3.6: Quantitative Data Necessary for the Calculation of Indicators…………...….. 79

Table 3.7: List of Interviews…………………………….………………………………..…………………...... 82

Box 3.3: Topics Covered in Interviews with Catchment Stakeholders……………...……. 84

Table 4.1: Components of the Proposed Water Sustainability Framework………...…... 87

Table 4.2: Criteria and Indicators of the Environmental Dimension……………………….. 88

Table 4.3: Criteria and Indicators of the Economic Dimension………………………………. 96

Table 4.4: Institutional Requirements, Functions and Expected Attributes………….…. 105

Table 4.5: Criteria and Indicators of the Social Dimension…………………………………….. 106

Table 4.6: Institutional Requirements, Functions and Expected Attributes….…………. 115

Table 5.1: Key Information of the Four Catchments……………………………………………...... 117

Table 5.2: Summary of Water Demand in the Clyde (1838-2003)………………………...... 128

Table 5.3: Water Demand in the Sinos Catchment………………………………………………...... 143

Table 5.4: Water Demand in the Pardo Catchment……………………………………………...….. 147

Table 6.1: Seasonal Low Flows in the Clyde (1957-2002)……………………………...……… 154

Table 6.2: Proxy Indicator No. 4 (Use Efficiency) – Clyde…………………………...………. 158

Table 6.3: Indicator No. 6 (Institutional Preparedness) – Clyde…………………………...… 162

Table 6.4: Proxy Indicator No. 7 (Equitable Services) – Clyde………………………...…….. 164

Table 6.5: Proxy Indicator No. 8 (Catchment Well-being) – Clyde………………...……… 166

Table 6.6: Selected Parameters of the Neighbourhood Statistics in the Clyde……...… 167

Table 6.7: Indicator No. 9 (Public Participation) – Clyde……………………………………...... 168

Table 6.8: Summary of the Assessment of Water Sustainability of the Clyde

Catchment………………………………………………………………………………………………...…... 169

xii

Table 6.9: Seasonal Low Flows in the Dee (1972-2001)…………………………………...……. 175

Table 6.10: Main Economic Activities Dependent on the River Dee……………...…….. 182

Table 6.11: Indicator No. 6 (Institutional Preparedness) – Dee………………………..…….. 183

Table 6.12: Indicator No. 7 (Equitable Services) – Dee……………………………………...…... 185

Table 6.13: Proxy Indicator No. 8 (Catchment Well-being) – Dee……………………...….. 187

Table 6.14: Indicator No. 9 (Public Participation) – Dee……………………………………..…. 189

Table 6.15: Summary of the Assessment of Water Sustainability of the Dee

Catchment…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 190

Table 6.16: Seasonal Low Flows in the Sinos (1973-2001)………………………………….… 195

Table 6.17: Indicator No. 2 (Water Quantity) – Sinos…………………………………………...... 196

Table 6.18: Proxy Indicator No. 4 (Use Efficiency) – Sinos……………………………...……. 199

Table 6.19: Proxy Indicator No. 5 (Sector Productivity) – Sinos……………………...…….. 200

Table 6.20: Indicator No. 6 (Institutional Preparedness) – Sinos……………………...…….. 201

Table 6.21: Indicator No. 7 (Equitable Services) – Sinos…………………………………...…… 203

Table 6.22: Public Water Supply and Sanitation Services in the Sinos……………...…… 204

Table 6.23: Proxy Indicator No. 8 (Catchment Well-being) – Sinos…………………...….. 205

Table 6.24: Indicator No. 9 (Public Participation) – Sinos………………………………...……. 207

Table 6.25: Summary of the Assessment of Water Sustainability of the Sinos

Catchment…………………………………………………………………………………………………...... 208

Table 6.26: Results of Water Quality Monitoring in the River Pardo …………………..... 213

Table 6.27: Proxy Indicator No. 1 (Water Quality) – Rivers Pardo & Pardinho….…. 213

Table 6.28 – Seasonal Low Flows at the Passo da Linha do Rio Gauging Station

(River Pardo)………………………………………………………………………………………….…….. 214

Table 6.29: Proxy Indicator No. 4 (Use Efficiency) – Pardo…………………………...……… 217

Table 6.30: Proxy Indicator No. 5 (Sector Productivity) – Pardo………………………...…. 218

Table 6.31: Indicator No. 6 (Institutional Preparedness) – Pardo………………………..….. 219

Table 6.32: Indicator No. 7 (Equitable Services) – Pardo……………………………………...... 220

Table 6.33: Public Water Supply and Sanitation Services in the Pardo…………...……... 221

Table 6.34: Proxy Indicator No. 8 (Catchment Well-being) – Pardo………………………. 222

Table 6.35: Indicator No. 9 (Public Participation) – Pardo…………………………………...… 223

Table 6.36: Summary of the Assessment of Water Sustainability of the Pardo

Catchment………………………………………………………………………………………………...…... 224

Table 7.1: Schematic Representation of the Sustainability Indicator Results……….... 231

Table 7.2: Summary of Answers from Interviews on the Framework of

Indicators……………………………………………………………………………………………...………. 241

xiii

Acronyms and Abbreviations (in English)

ABES-RS - Brazilian Association of Sanitation and Environmental

Engineering, Rio Grande do Sul Section

ABRH - Brazilian Water Resources Association

ASCE - American Society of Civil Engineers

ANA - National Water Agency, Brazil

AWRA – American Water Resources Association

Comitê Pardo – Pardo River Basin Committee

Comitesinos – Sinos River Basin Committee

CORSAN - State Water Authority, Rio Grande do Sul

CPDS – Commission of Policies for Sustainable Development and the National

Agenda 21, Brazil

CRPB - Clyde River Purification Board

DEFRA - Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

DETR - Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions

DMAE – Municipal Department of Water and Sewerage, Porto Alegre

EEA - European Environment Agency

FEE – Economic and Statistics Foundation, Rio Grande do Sul

FEPAM – State Environment Protection Foundation, Rio Grande do Sul

GDP - Gross Domestic Product

GIS - Geographical Information System

GVA - Gross Value Added (i.e. GDP as factor cost in current prices)

GRO - General Register Office, Scotland

HDI - Human Development Index

HMSO – Her Majesty‟s Stationary Office

IAHS - International Association of Hydrological Sciences

IBAMA - Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources

IBGE – Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics

IMD - Index of Multiple Deprivation

IPH - Institute of Hydrological Research of the Federal University of the Rio Grande

do Sul (UFRGS)

IRBM - Integrated river basin management

ISMA - Expanded Social Municipal Index

IUCN - International Union for Conservation of Nature

IWA - International Water Association

IWRM - Integrated water resources management

M-HDI - Municipal Human Development Index

MI - Macaulay Land Use Research Institute

MMA – Ministry of the Environment, Brazil

NERPB - North East River Purification Board

OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development

Pró-Guaíba - Guaíba Watershed Environmental Management Programme

xiv

RS State - State of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

SE – Scottish Executive

SEMA - State Secretariat of the Environment, Rio Grande do Sul

SEPA - Scottish Environment Protection Agency

SLIM - Social Learning for the Integrated Management and Sustainable

use of Water at Catchment Scale

SNH - Scottish Natural Heritage

UKTAG - United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group on the European

Water Framework Directive

UNCSD - United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development

UNDP – United Nations Development Programme

UNECLAC - United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America

and the Caribbean

UNEP - United Nations Environment Programme

UNISC - University of Santa Cruz do Sul

UNISINOS - Sinos Valley University

UNGA - United Nations General Assembly

UNWWAP - United Nations World Water Assessment Programme.

UPAN – Natural Environment Protection Union

WECD - World Commission on Environment and Development

WEWS - Water Environment and Water Services Act (Scotland)

WFD - Water Framework Directive (European Directive)

WWF - World Wildlife Fund for Nature

Units and Symbols

BOD - Biological Oxygen Demand

cumecs – cubic meters (m3) per second

MAM7 - mean annual minimum 7-day average flow (the lowest sustained flow,

in average for a 7-day period)

Ml/d – megalitres (1 million litres) per day

mm – millimetres

Q95 - discharge equalled or exceeded 95 percent of the time, as determined

from the data collected over the period of record

Q7,10 - the lowest 7-consecutive-day average flow with a probability of

occurring no more than once in 10 years

1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Chapter Overview

This Chapter introduces the context, objectives and structure of the thesis. The

Chapter points out the relevance of indicators of water sustainability for the broader

debate on sustainable development. It also describes the relevance of sustainability

indicators for water policy and management. The Chapter then identifies the purpose

of this thesis: understand the process of developing water sustainability indicators and

their application to concrete river basin experiences. At the end of this first Chapter,

there is an outline of the connections between thesis chapters, illustrated by a

schematic diagram.

1.2 Research Context and Background

The importance of considering the negative impacts of human action on the

environment is being increasingly recognised by society and by government. The

minimisation of those negative environmental impacts, while properly satisfying

human demands, is the essential element of the sustainable development paradigm.

Sustainable development seeks balance between the conservation of the ecosystem and

the satisfaction of social and economic demands: replacing processes with negative

impacts on the environment and society with new approaches that allow stable socio-

natural systems to continue indefinitely. Sustainable development links the

environmental, social and economic dimensions of the management of natural

resources and the need for balancing them when conflicts arise (OECD, 2001).

A concept such as sustainable development has currency in the modern world

because traditionally development has been mainly equated to growth in the use of

physical resources (Dower, 1998). In most circumstances, mainstream development

has promoted an unlimited use of natural resources for the accumulation of private

benefits. This unrestrained, unsustainable use of the environment creates conflicts

between the conservation of natural systems and the satisfaction of human demands –

a conflict which sustainable development seeks to address. In fact, sustainable

development could be viewed as an attempt to answer the elemental moral question on

the way of life human beings ought to pursue (Engel, 1990). As explained by Ingold

2

(2000), there should be no „radical break‟ between social and ecological relations, as

long as the former constitute a subset of the latter. Human life should be engagement

with the environment and “it is only because we live in an environment that we can

think at all” (Ingold, 2000: 60).

Because that environmental disruption created by mainstream development has

generally privileged certain social groups, sustainable development is directly related

with the emerging concept of „environmental justice‟. Ayeman and Evans (2004) point

out that environmental justice is both a vocabulary for political opportunity,

mobilization and action, and a policy principle to guide public decision-making. It

emerged initially as a new notion underpinning action by community organizations

campaigning against environmental injustices. As the environmental justice discourse

has matured, it has become increasingly evident that it should play a role in the wider

agendas for sustainable development and social inclusion. The notion of „just

sustainability‟ provides a discourse for policymakers and activists, which brings

together the key dimensions of both environmental justice and sustainable

development.

The overarching objectives of reconciling human demands and environmental

conservation can be incorporated into the management of specific territories or into the

conservation of particular natural resources. It means that there is a close correlation

between responses at both global and local scales for the achievement of sustainable

development (De Haan, 2000). One area of environmental management that can

directly benefit from the paradigm of sustainability is the management of water

resources. Water is essential not only for ecosystem functions, but it is also employed

in most social and economic activities.1 Traditional approaches to water management

have, however, resulted in hydrological, environmental and financial pressures that

create a „syndrome‟ of unsustainable allocation of water (Winpenny, 1994). The

consequence of such unsustainable pressures is the disruption of the water

environment, with negative effects on populations of living organisms and on human

well-being.

The sustainable management of water aims to maintain and improve the

aquatic environment, while adequately satisfying human needs. Water sustainability is

1 Water and freshwater are used interchangeably in this text.

3

related to the needs of the present and future generations, the carrying capacity of

supporting systems and the maintenance of water system integrity (Rijsberman and

van de Vem, 2000). The preserved integrity of the water system is one of the basic

conditions if development is meant to sustain the level of current opportunities for

future generations: one of the basic tenets of sustainable development. “Water is the

perfect example of a sustainable development challenge – encompassing

environmental, economic and social dimensions” (OECD, 2003: 19). In practice, the

operationalization of sustainable water management is not simple and regularly

involves disputes between interested parties. Most conflicts arise from the fact that

water sustainability is an elusive notion: it is difficult to define precisely what the

boundaries are, and to what extent it requires changes in human practices.

In most cases, it is not simple to reach an agreement about sustainable

strategies of allocation, use and conservation of water. Carter et al. (1999) observe that

water sustainability depends on numerous attitudinal, institutional and economic

factors. Questions related to sustainable water management inevitably address

technical, social and ethical controversies. For instance, the environmental aspect of

water sustainability requires the continuation of regulatory functions responsible for

the stability of natural processes within the river basin. The economic aspect is based

on the fact that water is not simply an economic good, but a natural good with

economic functions. The social aspect involves the promotion of human well-being

and opportunities for public engagement. According to Beck (2002), the discussion on

sustainability in the water sector can be summarised as aiming towards participatory,

democratic, holistic and integrated decision-making.

Amid conceptual and practical controversies mentioned above, there have been

growing attempts to interpret and translate the goals of sustainable development into

water legislation and management approaches (as demonstrated, for example, in the

World Water Forum, 2003). The starting point of this search for the sustainable

management of water is exactly the assessment of the environmental and socio-

economic problems related to use and conservation of the aquatic environment. The

assessment of water sustainability problems needs to address the proper spatial scale

of consideration, since the water cycle naturally describes its own unit of analysis: the

catchment space. The catchment integrates a variety of environmental and social

processes that constitute the appropriate scale for the consideration of water problems

4

and management solutions. Nevertheless, depending on the nature of the problem or

on the sensitivity of the catchment, other spatial scales can also be considered for

water management, i.e. sub-catchment or regional scales.

It will be demonstrated throughout this thesis that the assessment of water

sustainability is a positioned interpretation of the meaning of sustainable development

in relation to specific water management questions. The assessment is subjective

because it expresses the preferences in terms of the balance between nature

conservation and socio-economic development. At the same time, it reveals

judgements about the present use of natural resources and the conservation for future

generations. In other words, because sustainability is a socially constructed concept, its

assessment is dependent upon the worldview and background of those involved in the

examination, from the interpretation of sustainable development to the selection of

issues to be studied. The very method of doing research is not neutral, but intrinsically

expresses preferences and values about the objectives of sustainable development.

In practice, the assessment of sustainability is an important product of the

interference of the researcher with the object of study. Data for the assessment of

water sustainability are not acquired in an attempt to falsify hypotheses but rather to

describe situations beyond the limits of a test (Ackermann, 1976). The assessment of

water sustainability is an attempt to articulate together different forms of data about

the water systems in a way to provide an explanation of problems and obstacles for the

achievement of the sustainability goals. Sustainability assessment, thus, constitutes a

form of „epistemic reflexivity‟ (i.e. critical interpretation of the goals and foundations

of sustainable development), which can directly serve to create a „reflexive turn‟ in

environmental regulation (i.e. judicious balance of environmental, economic and

social dimensions of the processes that constitute the water environment).

Grundwald (2004) points out that the scientific contributions to sustainable

development do not follow the classical routes to cognition or the traditional concepts

of science. On the contrary, strategic knowledge for sustainable development extends

far beyond explanatory and observational cognisance, but rather consists of „problem-

oriented combinations‟ of explanatory, orienting and action-guiding knowledge. For

the last author, “above all, reflexivity and making societal learning possible are

important requirements. This has consequences, not only for the self-concept of the

sciences, but also for the relationship between science, politics and other societal

5

areas”. The explanatory knowledge of sustainability assessment has an inseparable

connection with deep-rooted societal structures and values, the long-term nature of

many forms of development, as well as often necessary inclusion of societal grounds

and actors in specific demands on scientific problem-solving contributions.

Sustainability assessment should, therefore, be understood as a learning

(shared) process rather than as a thing to be measured. The assessment of water

sustainability problems consequently requires adequate tools to identify critical

processes and foster critical thinking. The most appropriate tools for this assessment

are frameworks of water sustainability indicators (Walmsley, 2002). Sustainability

indicators articulate worldviews and interconnecting environmental and social

variables (Levett, 1998). The adoption of indicators of water sustainability can help to

quantify change, identify processes and offer a framework for setting targets and

monitoring performance. However, indicators are not absolute measures of

sustainability: the assessment depends upon the values given by society to their inputs

and outputs (Edward-Jones and Howells, 2001). The reduction of complex water

systems to a limited number of variables involves judgements and preferences, which

should be made explicit during the assessment (Peet and Bossel, 2000).

The ultimate intention of the assessment of sustainability through the use of

indicators is to critically evaluate the patterns of water management. The focus of

sustainability indicators is on processes that affect the reconciliation of the

environmental and socio-economic dimensions of sustainable development. Their

main contribution is to inform water policy and regulation by the explanation of past

processes and simulation of future trends. Indicators can also play an important role in

communicating information to different categories of stakeholders in a straightforward

and unambiguous way. Through the facilitation of better communication, indicators

can also support participatory decision-making and foster consensus building.

Astleithner and Hamedinger (2003) recommend that research on sustainability

indicators should focus on understanding the production of social meaning and

processes of social interaction within political-administrative systems.

Most current approaches to water sustainability indicators have common, but

important, weaknesses in the treatment of water questions and this will be discussed in

greater detail in the next Chapter. This current thesis specifically aimed to propose

some alternatives to those inadequacies. The first common weakness is the selection of

6

the scale of analysis: the focus of many research approaches is not the catchment

scale, but localised ecological processes. Other equivalent approaches include

indicators for the national scale only. A second common weakness is the singular

emphasis on the environmental dimension of water systems, ignoring the also relevant

economic and social aspects of water management. A third problem is the omission of

a timescale, by only considering indicator results for a specific point in time and not

for a representative sequence of years.

Fourthly, many studies, instead of providing information about the

sustainability of the water system, only deal with isolated parameters of the water

processes (it will be pointed out that appropriate indicators of sustainability

incorporate individual parameters into aggregate expressions). Conversely, a fifth

weakness of many approaches is excessive complexity or data aggregation, which

reduces the communication of results to wider groups of stakeholders. A more

fundamental weakness in most approaches to sustainability assessment is the disregard

for the socially constructed circumstances involved in the production of knowledge.

Contrarily to this supposed neutrality of sustainability assessment, the very production

of knowledge about sustainability conditions cannot be ascertained from empirical

observation alone, but depends upon criteria of analysis that have ethical, social and

political bases.

Last but not least, it must be emphasised that this thesis is affiliated with a

broader and fecund investigation on water sustainability, which takes place both in the

realm of academic work and in different levels of public involvement and

governmental decision-making. As pointed out by O‟Riordan (2004), there is

nowadays a growing need for a „science of sustainability‟, which should create not

only the scientific and technological basis for achieving sustainable development, but

also understand the political aspects of environmental management. “The consequence

of all this is that environmental science has become highly political, and geographers

need to recognize and work within an expanding political process” (O‟Riordan, 2004:

234). Fundamentally, this thesis deals with the demands of sustainability for water

management at the catchment level and is, ultimately, a contribution for the debate on

the local agenda of sustainability.

7

1.3 Research Aims and Objectives

This thesis was intended to discuss the development of water sustainability

indicators and contribute to the expanding knowledge on the subject. The basis of the

research was the debate concerning the application of the principle of sustainable

development in the management of the water environment. The overall aim of this

research was to understand the process of developing sustainability indicators

and their use in terms of assessing water sustainability conditions. A framework of

water sustainability indicators was thus proposed, tested and evaluated making use of

an inductive and interactive approach..

The research had two central objectives:

Develop a framework of indicators for the assessment of the sustainability

condition of water systems

Apply the proposed assessment framework of indicators to selected river

basins with contrasting water problems

These objectives were achieved through the detailed examination of the origins

of the critical processes affecting water sustainability. This examination focused on the

three dimensions of sustainable development in relation to the management of water

systems, namely environmental, economic and social dimensions. This separation is

mainly for analytical purposes, because, in practice, those three dimensions are

indissoluble from water use and conservation problems. At the same time, to stimulate

discussion and facilitate the critical analysis of indicator development, catchments in

different countries were selected according to established criteria. The comparison of

catchment results from different countries was designed to facilitate the reflection

about the process of indicator development.

1.4 Thesis Structure

This thesis involved a theoretical elaboration, an empirical investigation and a

final discussion of results. These three main parts are reflected in the organisation of

chapters. Chapter One has introduced the key issues related to sustainable

development and water management: the context of the thesis. Chapter Two deals with

8

the global debate on sustainable development and the fundamental conflicts and

dilemmas involved in translating sustainable development into water policy and

management. Chapter Two also discusses the controversies involved in the use of

indicators for sustainability assessment, with examples from different parts of the

world. Chapter Three sets out the theoretical and methodological basis of the research

on the development of indicators of water sustainability and explains the combination

of research methods for developing and calculating the proposed indicators. Also

described in Chapter Three is the participatory approach used in the research and the

gradual refinement of indicator expressions. Chapter Four presents the details of the

group of indicators proposed in this research for the assessment of water sustainability.

The group of indicators is not intended to be aggregated into a final index of

sustainability, but each indicator is examined individually and related with other

indicators. Chapter Five characterises the legal and institutional context of water

management in Scotland and in Brazil, which are the two selected countries for this

research, and describes the four catchments where the proposed framework was

applied. The empirical results from the indicators are presented in Chapter Six, which

describes the details of the calculation, as well as explanations about gathering and

manipulation of data. The results of follow-up interviews with stakeholders are also

included in Chapter Six. The discussion of indicator results, the role of the researcher

and the evaluation of lessons learned are presented in Chapter Seven. The conclusions

about the weaknesses and achievements of the research approach are presented in the

final Chapter. In the end of the thesis, there are included appendices and

bibliographical references.

Figure 1.1 graphically illustrates the structure of the thesis and the main

connections between chapters.

9

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Context

Objectives

Thesis overview

Chapter 2 – Literature Review

Sustainable development

Water management questions

Water sustainability

River basin complexity

Sustainability assessment

Water sustainability indicators

Chapter 5 – National Policies

and Catchment description

Clyde Sinos

Dee Pardo

Chapter 3 – Methodology

Indicator development

Combined research methods

Strategy of gathering data

Data manipulation

Chapter 4 – Framework of

Water Sustainability Indicators

Water quality

Water quantity

System resiliency

Water use efficiency

User sector productivity

Institutional preparedness

Equitable water services

Water-related well-being

Public participation

Chapter 6 – Application of the

proposed framework

Results and interviews

Diagrams and tables

Chapter 7 – Discussion

Catchment results

Role of the researcher

Lessons learned

Chapter 8 – Conclusions

Figure 1.1: Thesis Structure and Interactions between Chapters

10

Chapter 2 - Literature Review: Sustainable Development, Water

Sustainability and Sustainability Indicators


This Chapter summarises the debate on sustainable development and compares

representative approaches developed for the analysis of sustainability. It starts with a

discussion of some paradigmatic interpretations of sustainable development. The

following section reviews the repercussions of sustainable development for water

management and deals with the concept of water sustainability. This section also

justifies the importance of the catchment approach for water sustainability due to the

complexity of social and natural processes that take place in the catchment space. The

next chapter section reviews conceptual and methodological difficulties related to the

assessment of sustainability. Key themes related with the assessment of water

sustainability are then presented. Subsequently, selected methodologies to assess the

sustainability of water systems are critically evaluated. Based on the deficiencies

identified in those approaches, the final section suggests the fundamental requirements

for a study of water sustainability at the catchment scale.

2.2 Sustainable Development: The Ongoing Debate

In the last few decades, there has been increasing concern about the disruption

of the global and local environment. This recognition of mounting environmental

problems was the starting point for a contentious worldwide debate on sustainable

development. Elliot (1994) describes the roots of sustainable development extending

back into theories of „development‟ (in the post-colonial 1950s) and

„environmentalism‟ (during the ideological clashes in the 1960s). The specific

expression „sustainable development‟ was first used in the 1970s and, since the 1980s,

the debate has flourished. However, intensive investigation into the meaning of

sustainable development has not reduced its contentiousness, but, on the contrary, has

rather increased its controversy.

According to Jacobs (1999), similarly to notions like democracy, liberty or

social justice, sustainable development is a „contested concept‟. The root of the

controversy rests on the fact that the notion of sustainable development is socially and

11

discursively constructed, creating a great ambiguity between divergent concepts

(Rydin, 1999). There are authors who claim that it is first necessary to clarify the real

meaning of sustainable development in order to overcome the influence of

institutional and group interests. Other authors maintain that the imprecision of the

term allows an easy appropriation by anyone and makes it vulnerable to be distorted.

By contrast, others argue that such ambiguity creates some „common ground‟ that

allow public policies to be collectively constructed and, far from effecting

reconciliation, precisely defining what is sustainable will expose unnecessary conflicts

(Owens, 1994).

Among the innumerable publications on sustainable development, there are

three landmark documents with widely quoted definitions:

The first is the Report of the Brundtland Commission (WCED, 1987: 43),

famously known as Our Common Future, which defines sustainable development as

“development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of

the future generations to meet their own needs”.

The second landmark publication is the World Conservation Strategy,

presented by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural

Resources (IUCN, 1980: section 1), in co-operation with WWF and UNEP, with

claims that “for development to be sustainable it must take account of social and

ecological factors, as well as economic ones; of the living and non-living resource

base; and of the long term as well as the short term advantages and disadvantages of

alternative actions”.

The third definition was also put forward jointly by IUCN, UNEP and WWF in

a document called Caring for the Earth (IUCN, 1991: 10), which affirms that

sustainable development means: “improving the quality of human life while living

within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems”.

The above definitions are only three among numerous statements about

sustainable development.2 The concept has proved to be highly dynamic and, for Eden

2 For most authors, sustainability and sustainable development are taken as equivalent words.

However, according to Dobson (1998), sustainable development is a rather anthropocentric

form of sustainability, in the sense that sustainable development represents aims to fulfil a

particular framework of development, which provides conditions within which sustainability

can be guaranteed.

12

(2000), sustainability continually changes its meaning as it is analysed, reinvented and

operationalized for a host of policy documents and institutional purposes. Others have

difficulties with the concept itself, for example Clarke (2002) considers that

„conservation‟ and „development‟ are paradigms of the 19th

Century, which create a

barrier to understanding the contemporary perspectives of sustainable development.

Lumley and Armstrong (2004) also identify significant connections between

sustainability and the 19th

Century philosophical positions. Jackson (2000) argues that

our failure to conceive sustainable development within the prevailing worldview

suggests a kind of ontological incompleteness in human understanding. This is similar

to the ideas of Hamilton (2002), who affirms that the dilemma of sustainability is due

to the conflicting integration between rational knowledge (scientific) and intuitive

knowledge (traditional and empirical).

There are those who identify a more radical message on the agenda of

sustainable development. For instance, Vega and Urrutia (2001) observe that the

vitality of the new paradigm of sustainability hinges on the refutation of economic

growth as the key to development, without including social and environmental

requisites at the same level of importance. O‟Riordan (1993) points out that the causes

of non-sustainability lie in profoundly powerful systems of exploitation and

degradation that are fostered by ignorance, greed, injustice and oppression. Maiteny

(2000) affirms that a sustainable future is dependent on changes in human behaviour

and sustainable behaviour depends on structural changes in society. Those critical

interpretations of sustainable development maintain that environmental problems

cannot be understood in isolation from the political and economic contexts within

which they are created.

Following this critical point of view, Guimarães (2001) affirms that it is

meaningless to dissociate the environmental problems from development questions, as

the former are nothing other than an expression of the failures of certain development

models. That coincides with the position of Gallopín (2001), who argues that the

current crisis humankind faces is not physical, but socio-political, because it results

from highly complex interactions between space and time scales, and between human

actions and natural processes. Furthermore, Yanarella and Bartilow (2000) emphasise

that for development to be truly sustainable there must be a fundamental change in the

very pattern of global wealth and power. The critical interpretations of sustainable

13

development serve to emphasise the interdependence between environmental

conservation and socio-economic pressures.

To a great extent, the controversy about sustainable development is focused on

acceptable levels of trade-off between the ecological, economical and social

dimensions of development (Goodland and Daly, 1996). The three dimensions of

sustainable development can be represented by their equivalent forms of

environmental, economical and social „capital‟ (Munasinghe, 1993).3 The balance

between conserving and exploiting those different forms of capital gives rise to, on the

one hand, „weak sustainability‟ positions, for which the key requirement for

sustainable development is that total capital stock should not decrease over time,

without the need for a constant reserve of natural capital. Conversely, there are „strong

sustainability‟ positions, which claim that parts of the natural capital are critical and

need to be indefinitely preserved, so that essential environmental functions must be

necessarily maintained. Williams and Millington (2004) affirm that „weaker

sustainability‟ is fundamentally based on the notion that nature is a resource to be

exploited and, on the contrary, „stronger sustainability‟ is based on changing human

demands on natural resources because nature has its intrinsic rights to be

„unmolested‟.

The disagreement between weak and strong sustainability rests on the extent to

which environmental and man-made assets can be substituted. Weak sustainability

requires constancy of the aggregate of all forms of capital, while strong sustainability

requires that both the aggregate and the natural capital to be non-declining (Pearce et

al., 1990). Nevertheless, for other authors the dichotomy between weak and strong

sustainability does not resolve this debate. For instance, Holland (1999) argues that the

simple maintenance of capital is not practicable and not desirable, inasmuch as society

presently exhibits manifest inequalities of welfare and, consequently, it is simply a

way of translating present injustices into the future. Hediger (2000) proposes an

approach that goes beyond traditional conceptions of weak and strong sustainability by

integrating principles of basic human needs and Norton (1999) affirms that the core

idea of sustainability is best captured as an obligation to maintain options and

3 These can receive different classifications, such as with the inclusion of „natural resources‟

as a fourth category (DETR, 1999a) or with the distinction between „social‟ (skills and

institutions) and „human‟ (health and education) forms of capital (World Bank, 2003).

14

opportunities for well-being into the future. A similar idea is proposed by Anand and

Sen (2000) in the notion of „usufruct rights‟, which means that each generation has the

right to enjoy the fruits of accumulated capital without depleting it.

There are also attempts to define rules for the substitutability between natural

and man-made capital. For Holdren et al. (1995), a sustainable process or condition is

one that can be maintained indefinitely without progressive diminution of valued

qualities inside or outside the system in which the process operates or the condition

prevails. Daly (1991) affirms that, to be sustainable, the throughput should be limited

to a level which is at least within carrying capacity; technological progress should be

efficiency-increasing rather than throughput-increasing; renewable resources should

be exploited on a profit-maximising sustained yield basis and in general not driven to

extinction; and non-renewable resources should be exploited, but at a rate equal to the

creation of renewable substitutes. The last principle is similar to the original proposal

of Hartwick (1977), who argues that non-renewable stocks can be exploited as other

sources are made available and the rent of this use is invested in reproducible capital,

so the total return could be sustained over time.

To summarise this point about substitution of capital, Baker et al. (1997)

consider weak and strong sustainability as intermediate positions, because identify a

range of four approaches for the conservation of the environment (called „ladder of

sustainable development‟), as follows:

1) treadmill view: tenuous emphasis on environmental conservation;

2) weak sustainable development: economic development as a pre-condition

of environmental protection;

3) strong sustainable development: environmental protection as a

precondition of economic development;

4) the ideal model: radical change in the attitude of humankind towards the

conservation of nature.

As can be seen from the example of the „ladder‟ above, the convertibility of

natural capital into human advantages is subject to a range of interpretations. The

elasticity of the definition of sustainable development means that there is also

considerable debate over whether it can be effectively translated into practice (Glasby,

15

2002). Lélé (1991) asserts that the concept has too ambiguous a theoretical basis and

its focus on achieving consensus among fractious social groups disable effective

implementation. Furthermore, Lélé suggests that perhaps it is better to abandon it

altogether by reason of its „vacuity and malleability‟. Boehmer-Christiansen (2002)

points out that sustainable development denies fundamental conflicts and it is very

attractive for bureaucrats because invites state intervention in almost all spheres of

life. Haughton and Hunter (1994) observe that the obstacles to sustainable

development revolve around institutional blockages created and maintained by the

major international power players, the rich nations and their support institutions. For

Briassoulis (1999), the role of sustainable development planners is excessively

influenced by the political and decision-making system and the prevailing planning

approaches.

Other authors affirm that the problem rests with the origin of the concept. For

example, Adams (1990) argues that sustainable development is essentially reformist,

because it does not address the political economy and the distribution of power. In the

same way, Drummond and Marsden (1995) state that the prospect of operationalizing

sustainable development appears increasingly remote, because it is almost impossible

for any theory to incorporate social, environmental, economic and moral dimensions.

It corresponds with the observation of Hinterberger et al. (2000) who argue that, from

the viewpoint of natural science, it is impossible to measure if, or to what extent, the

rules of sustainability are observed and, from a social science perspective, it is

impossible to implement, accomplish and control the observance of those rules. Haque

(2000) affirms that sustainable development tends to overlook certain crucial factors

related to environment, such as the structure of international inequality, the

acceleration of economic growth based on industrial expansion and the values of

development embedded in different cultures and traditions. For Norgaard (1994) the

real challenge of sustainability is to „reframe the challenge‟, because the present goals

of sustainable development cannot be met, as long as the world is too complex for us

to perceive and establish the conditions for sustainability.

Despite the controversies about the concept of sustainable development, one of

its main tangible contributions is the potential to bridge the divide between developers

and environmentalists (Murdoch, 1993). Normally, the main point of conflict between

those two groups is the fact that more sustainable practices can lead to higher financial

16

costs in the short term, although the majority accepts that in the long run these

practices would be certainly more efficient. Therefore, most of the disputes surround

the costs associated with the transitional phase of implementing more sustainable

practices. Likewise, the distribution of such burdens normally incurs unevenly in

space and time, and unevenly by different social groups. This implies a focus upon the

politics of distribution of gains and costs associated with decisions related to

sustainable development (Owens and Owens, 1990). To bridge those two seemingly

irreconcilable fields of interests, the search for sustainable development should

address not only the management of environmental resources, but also the economic

and social structures that affect the use and conservation of the environment.

Overall, because of the difficulties to translate the notion into practice, the

transition to sustainability, according to O‟Riordan and Voisey (1998), requires

dynamic, flexible and influential strategic vision and accompanying participatory

procedures. For these authors, at the heart of sustainability lies the self-generation of

economy, polity and society, but the politics of the sustainability transition demand

thoughtful analysis of both equity and justice considerations. The plan for sustainable

development has to deal with complex issues that pose additional challenge, such as

the asymmetry of power, the fragmentation of the political groups, the inherent

uncertainty involved in environmental questions, and the appropriation of the

sustainability concept for other political purposes. The additional observation of

O‟Riordan (2002) is useful: that it is best to regard sustainable development as a

constant process of transformation of society and economy towards acting as trustees

that maintain and nurture life and habitability for future generations.

2.3 Summarising the Sustainability Concept

In an attempt to summarise the vast debate on sustainable development, which

was only touched upon above, it can be pointed out that the need for a concept like

sustainable development derives from the understanding that most of the prevailing

patterns of use and allocation of natural resources are no longer ethically, socially,

scientifically or economically acceptable. The origin of the unsustainable condition is

not simply a sum of negative impacts impinged upon nature, but it is a problem rooted

in the patterns of development, democracy and production. Therefore, the project of

translating sustainable development into practice depends upon the transformation in

17

the use and conservation of natural resources, as well as redistribution of burdens and

benefits from the appropriation of the environment.

Sustainable development is a contemporary search for alternatives that

redefine the human requisition, use and conservation of natural resources. That makes

sustainability not only a scientific but also a normative concept, which can be

expressed by two fundamental principles:

First, the search for sustainability is a continuous process towards responses

that appropriately satisfy natural and social demands. The sustainability responses

should seek to remove contradictions in the relationship between nature and society. It

involves dispute resolution between conflicting interests, and should follow

transparent and democratic approaches.

Second, a sustainable process or condition is one that can be maintained

indefinitely without progressive diminution of valued system qualities. It does not

imply that the entire system needs to be maintained in order to be sustainable, but that

a certain level of change or adjustment is acceptable, as long as the regulatory

functions of the system are not interrupted.

2.4 Water Management and Sustainability

Planning, regulation and management of water resources are examples of

human activities that can directly benefit from the paradigm of sustainable

development. Agenda 21, which is one of the milestones of the global negotiation on

environmental conservation, affirms in its Chapter 18 that water is integral part of the

ecosystem, a natural resource and a social and economic good whose quantity and

quality determine the nature of its use (UNCED, 1993). In the same way, the United

Nations Millennium Declaration called upon all member states “to stop the

unsustainable exploitation of water resources by developing water management

strategies at the regional, national and local levels, which promote both equitable

access and adequate supplies” (UNGA, 2000). The new ethic of sustainable

development reinforces and extends the main principles of water resources

management, such as the equitable distribution of costs and benefits, economic

efficiency and achievement of non-economic objectives, and environmental integrity

and elimination of irreversible effects (Simonovic, 1996).

18

The importance of sustainable development for water management is

demonstrated by the escalating negative impacts created by most of the current forms

of exploitation of the water environment (Falkenmark, 2001). The destruction of

ecosystems, loss of fish species, dislocation of human populations, inundation of

cultural sites, disruption of sedimentation processes, and contamination of water

sources have been among the hidden costs of those unsustainable paths of

development. Gleick (2000) calculates that the enormous expansion of water

resources infrastructure has led to a nearly seven-fold increase in freshwater

withdrawals. Worldwide, 1.2 billion people in developing countries lack access to safe

drinking water: 2.9 billion do not have adequate sanitation and water-related diseases

kill four million children a year (Cosgrove and Rijsberman, 1998).

According to Sophocleous (2004), humankind is projected to appropriate from

70% to 90% of all accessible freshwater by 2025. Agriculture is the dominant

component of human water use, accounting for almost 70% of all water withdrawals,

but many other factors significantly impact the increasing water demand, including

population growth, economic growth, technological development, land use and

urbanisation, rate of environmental degradation, government programs and climate

change. The problem of the exhaustion of renewable resources, such as freshwater,

remains critical, because these resources are vulnerable to human overuse and

pollution. As pointed out by Sophocleous (2004), water problems „at the global scale

do not exist‟, but all problems manifest themselves at smaller, local scales. The local

adoption of adaptive management in water resources based on monitoring and

revaluation are essential steps in making water use sustainable.

The sustainable, long-term management of water is what Postel (1997) defines

as the „last oasis‟ available for human society. In other words, the management of

water should move away from merely expanding supply and towards adopting a

responsible control of demand. According to Tyson (1995), the sustainable

management of water depends on responses in critical areas. These critical areas are,

for example, land-use planning, water use minimisation and recovery techniques,

pollution prevention, treatment options, use-related receiving water standards,

economic evaluation tools, and capacity building for professionals and general public.

However, these are only examples of numerous possible responses, as there remain

manifold ways in which society can interfere in the water environment. There is a vast

19

range of critical processes that affect the condition of the water system and, in

consequence, the achievement of sustainability.

Furthermore, the search for water sustainability does not address only

environmental questions, but also institutional, financial, distributive and participatory

responses. Sustainability has repercussions for both the environmental dimension of

water management and for the socio-economic processes related to water availability

and allocation (Schreier and Brown, 2001). The long-term resolution of local water

problems needs to be based within wider strategies, as it could be possible that the

adoption of local short-term remedies may reduce the benefits of the long-term

solutions (Gardiner, 1995). Water management requires integrated and long-term

measures, because, up to a certain point, the outcomes of changes in natural resource

management practices are not often immediately apparent (Johnson et al., 2001).

Svendsen and Meinzen-Dick (1997) add that to cope with contemporary water

problems, fundamental changes are necessary in policies and institutions. That is

because the controversy involving sustainable water management is, first and

foremost, a political challenge and requires the formulation of new basis of

management (Hufschmidt and Tejwany, 1993).

Due to the complex interaction between human and hydrological processes, it

is not easy to put forward a complete definition that summarises the relation between

sustainable development and the management of water. As affirmed by Cocklin and

Blunden (1998), there are innumerable competing water sustainability interpretations

seeking legitimisation. This is because more and more authors have attempted to

incorporate aspects of sustainability into the formulation of decision support systems

for water management. For Jonker (2002: 719) a suitable definition for the

management of water would be “managing people‟s activities in a manner that

promotes sustainable development”. On the one hand, it is possible to identify

interpretations of water sustainability that focus on the balance of resources and the

mitigation of environmental impacts, without considering political and participatory

requirements in the same level of importance.

In an example of a definition centred on the environmental dimension of

sustainability, Rennings and Wiggering (1997) affirm that, in order to be sustainable,

the harvest rates of renewable resources should not exceed regeneration rates, waste

emissions should not exceed relevant assimilative capacities of ecosystems, and non-

20

renewable resources should be exploited in a quasi-sustainable manner by limiting

their rate of depletion to the rate of creation of renewable substitutes. Another example

is provided by Lundin (1999) who claims that a sustainable water system should not

have negative environmental effects even over a long time period, while providing

required services, protecting human health and the environment with a minimum of

scarce resources use. For ASCE (1998), sustainable freshwater resource systems are

adaptive, robust, resilient to uncertain changes, fulfilling positive rates of

improvement: implying that the frequency and severity of threats to society are

decreasing over time, leaving people more prepared to cope with water stresses when

they occur.

On the other hand, more holistic interpretations of water sustainability place

equivalent emphasis on public participation and on the relation between water

management and the overarching aspects of sustainable development. Legge (2000)

points out that water sustainability is tied up with good regulation, through access to

information, consultation and participation in decision-making. According to this

holistic view, the agenda of water sustainability must include social and environmental

issues that are not regularly considered in the traditional management process (as

pointed out by Dourojeanni, 2000; Rauch, 1998; and Tortajada, 2001). For Bernhardi

et al. (2000), sustainable water management should be addressed from a broader

perspective than focusing only on the resource, in a way that managers also become

acquainted with a broader set of analytical concepts for problem management.

Any interpretation of sustainable water management entails the consideration

of long-term consequences of present action, as well as the consideration of external

pressures, risks and uncertainties (Varis, 1999; Varis and Somlyódy, 1997). It is

relevant to note that, although some level of uncertainty in the understanding of the

management water systems is inescapable, it must not hinder the pursuit of water

sustainability (Clark and Gardiner, 1994). To cope with complexity and uncertainty,

Kay (2000) affirms that it is necessary to choose a dynamic, rather that a static view of

the sustainability concept, that is, sustainability as a process rather than as an end-

point. Likewise, Newson et al. (2000) suggest that it is not necessary to maintain the

entire water system in order to be sustainable, but certain level of change or

adjustment is acceptable, as long as the „spontaneous regulation functions‟ are not

interrupted.

21

An important aspect of environmental management, which is not always

properly understood, is that the search for sustainable development needs to take into

account issues of spatial scale for the formulation of management responses. For

instance, Rydin et al. (2003) affirm that the new agenda of research on sustainability

assessment and response must emphasise the sub-national level and the understanding

of the local context. Backhaus et al. (2002) reinforce the need for long-term

monitoring of landscape dynamics that supports the understanding of water processes

and the examination of responses. In the same way, Ferrier and Edwards (2002) point

out that the sustainability of water requires an appreciation of the temporal and spatial

assessment of the resource. In this regard, water sustainability is a privileged case in

terms of environmental management, inasmuch as the water processes take place

fundamentally in the river basin, a space naturally created by the hydrological cycle.4

River basins are functional geographical areas that integrate a variety of

environmental processes and human impacts on landscapes (Aspinall and Pearson,

2000) and are, therefore, the appropriate units for the sustainable management of

water. Gardiner (1997) adds that sustainability principles need to be extended to our

use of rivers and the quality of river landscapes provides an identifiable measure of

sustainability. According to Jones (1997), the problems of quantity and quality in

water supply are now seen as a single entity and, at least since the 1970s, it has been

recognised the principle that the „natural river basin‟ should be the basic unit for water

administration and development. Therefore, “by recognizing the essential unit of the

cycle of water use within the administrative structure, it may be possible to select

alternative solutions more easily, or to reduce reprocessing costs” (Jones, 1997: 03).

Ioris (2001: 24) defines the sustainable water management at the river basin

level as a “continuous process of managing river basin natural and artificial resources,

considering the human dependency on the cyclical flow of water as implication for

integrated efforts and environmental stewardship”. According to Lee (1992),

sustainable watershed management requires knowledge about ecologically effective

forms of social organisation and a major reason for the failure of human societies to

develop sustainable resource management activities has been the limitations on their

4 The river basin comprises the area naturally drained by the main river and its tributaries.

Conventionally, the river basin is the same as a large catchment or watershed. The word

watershed is also used to refer to the ridgeline or elevation that defines the catchment.

22

ability to acquire and process ecological information. Ecological and socio-political

processes that affect collective action and property rights related to water should, thus,

be understood at the social-spatial scale of the river basin (Swaloow et al., 2001).

The physical territory, together with a constant movement of society and

nature, gives to the river basin the characteristics of „absolute‟ and „relative‟ spaces. It

means that the river basin is both a physically determined space as well as a socially

constructed space. According to Soja (1989: 5), “spatiality is simultaneously a social

product (or outcome) and a shaping force (or medium) in social life”. Space is

dynamic and social relations are simultaneously and conflictually space-forming and

space-contingent, there is a growing awareness of the possibility of spatial praxis, an

increasingly recognised need to rethink social theory as to incorporate more centrally

the fundamental spatiality of social life (Soja, 1989). The river basin is an „absolute

space‟ affected and transformed by the constant reconstruction of „relative spaces‟

within or beyond its boundaries.

There is, thus, a physical construction of a river basin by anthropogenic

changes in land use, water abstraction and diversion, inter-basin transfers,

sedimentation and release of substances on water, dredging and channelisation, etc. At

the same time, there is also a construction of meanings about the river basin is

consequence of socio-economic activities, transportation alternatives, material

production, and cultural and linguistical representations. Swyngedouw (1999)

observes that traditional approaches tend to separate the various aspects of the

hydrological cycle into discrete and independent objects of study. This neglects the

fact that nature and society are deeply intertwined, what is demonstrated by the

„hybrid character‟ of water landscape (called „waterscape‟), made evident by the

intense human intervention in the water cycle. The phenomenon of hybridisation

between society and nature in a river basin is defined as the production of

„socionature‟.

According to this concept, society and nature are in permanent metabolism,

one affecting and being affected by the other. Nature is not the mere substratum for

the unfolding of social relations, but is an integral part of the process of production.

The use and conservation of water is not unidirectional, but it is always a relation

condition shaped by economic and social determinants. Sustainability implies a non-

contradictory condition of the „socionature‟ relation. In this sense, sustainability

23

means that nature and society are not external to each other, but dialectically

transformed. In other words, a sustainable situation for the use and conservation of

water depends on society recognising itself as intimately related to the existence of the

water system. The sustainability of water resources is fundamentally constructed

through the removal of barriers that prevent the achievement of this unified condition

between the demands of human groups and the requirements of the water

environment.

Figure 2.1 summarises the complexity of processes taking place in the

catchment space, as well as the connections of the catchment with regional and sub-

catchment scales that affect the sustainability of the water environment.

Figure 2.1: Catchment Processes and Interactions

It is important to observe that because of specific local demands, the

sustainability condition may not necessarily be uniform throughout the river basin, but

in some sub-units a higher level of environmental impact may be acceptable. Within

certain limits, the decision to allow negative impacts in certain parts of the catchment

is still in accordance with the goals of sustainable development (as defined in the last

24

Chapter section). For instance, a water supply dam can be built in one section of the

river basin, therefore producing local negative impacts, to benefit the rest of the

catchment. That is what Brown and Harper (1999) define as the outcome being bigger

than the sum of the parts and the construction of sustainable development

incorporating a dialogue between local, sectoral demands and the progress of the

whole. To be able to make decisions on this balance between conservation and use of

the catchment environment, it is essential that stakeholders are democratically

involved in the decision-making process.

Water management must involve the river basin community in an effective

way to promote the sustainable use of water. Democratic approaches to water

sustainability are often termed community-based catchment management, which

involves an adaptive planning framework that first seeks consensus on environmental

planning, its implementation and its operation, maintenance and monitoring (van

Horen, 2001). Naiman (1992) affirms that watershed management requires strong co-

ordination of human and natural issues, as technology cannot resolve problems when it

is isolated from a fundamental understanding of the properties of natural, social, and

ecological systems. Furthermore, Gonzales-Anton and Arias (2001) argue that river

community-based management implies reallocation of power among administrative

bodies and the definition of the role of the competent authorities.

The catchment scale is the fundamental scale of intervention to establish

sustainable trade-offs between use and conservation of resources, as well as for

determining compensation measures. In many cases decisions on the use and

conservation of water will involve consideration being given to the interdependence

between the catchment and national or global scales of intervention.5 To cope with

such interdependence, Therivel et al. (1992) propose a sectoral or regional

sustainability-led assessment of plans and programmes affecting the environment. The

management of water is a good example of a sectoral demand that may require the

connection between catchment, regional and national scales of assessment.

Furthermore, Elhance (1999) emphasises that hydrological cycles are primary

examples of phenomena that transcend national borders. In the case of cross-border

5 Buller (1996) affirms that the British and French experiences in water management along the

20th century were precursors of river basin management and sustainability, although facing

successive stages of conflicts between local and regional water management approaches.

25

catchments, international co-operation is fundamental for the sustainability of water

management.

2.5 Summarising Water Sustainability

Form the various concepts described above, it can be inferred that the

sustainability of water systems is related to good water quality and satisfactory

resource availability, equitable allocation of resources, rational and judicious use,

public engagement and adequate institutional framework. The sustainable

management of water is a social construction, a gradual, iterative and dialectical

revision of dominant trends and disruptive driving-forces. There are social, economic

and environmental dimensions that need to be considered together. The sustainability

of water resources is constructed through the removal of barriers that prevent the

achievement of common conditions that serve both the demands of human groups and

the requirements of the water environment.

The core requirements of water sustainability can be expressed by the

following three principles:

First, the search for water sustainability is the application of sustainable

development principles to resource allocation and management in order that nature

conservation and social demands are concurrently and appropriately satisfied.

Second, the sustainable use and conservation of the water environment

presupposes the indefinite continuation of resilient catchment systems and the

maintenance of critical ecological functions.

Third, water sustainability requires a fair and equitable distribution of

opportunities across groups and generations allowing all to benefit from the shared

water environment, what must be achieved through participatory approaches, adaptive

management and robust institutional framework.

These three principles of water sustainability will be relevant for the

development of the framework of indicators and also for the analysis of indicator

results in the following chapters.

26

2.6 Sustainability Assessment and Indicators

The relevance of sustainable development for environmental policy and

management means that there are increasing attempts to assess and compare

sustainability trends. The assessment of water sustainability is fundamentally a critical

evaluation of trends and tendencies in the use and conservation of the catchment

environment. It is a positioned analysis of the geography of water development in a

specific catchment and can make use of a range of complimentary research tools

(including quantitative and qualitative methods). Bosshard (2000) describes

sustainability assessment as a heuristic procedure, involving socio-cultural discourses

in relation to practical experiences. Sustainability assessment is, therefore, an

opportunity to critically reflect upon current practices and search for alternatives.

Starkl and Bruneer (2004) affirm that an integrative assessment of sustainability

should force decision makers to make their chosen premise more visible and adaptable

to the circumstances of a specific project in a way that is accepted by the stakeholders.

Such an assessment is normally carried out using appropriate frameworks of

sustainability indicators (Malkina-Pykh, 2002). Indicators must be useful for research

purposes, as a source of information for the general public and specifically to

strengthen environmental policy (Brugmann, 1997). Agenda 21 (Chapter 40) stated

that “indicators of sustainable development need to be developed to provide solid

bases for decision-making at all levels and to contribute to the self-regulating

sustainability of integrated environmental and development systems” (UNCED, 1993).

According to the EEA (2003), sustainability indicators are variable, and act as a

pointer, or an index of a complex phenomenon. Maclaren (1996) affirms that

sustainability indicators can be distinguished from simple environmental, economic

and social indicators by the fact that they are integrating (linkages between economic,

environmental and social dimensions), forward-looking (measuring progress towards

achieving intergenerational equity), distributional (measure not only intergenerational

equity, but also intragenerational equity), and developed with input from multiple

stakeholders.

For Shields et al. (2002) sustainability indicators can help package complex

information into a usable form for public policy. Bossel (1999) argues that indicators

should provide essential information on the viability of a system and its rate of change,

27

and on how that contributes to sustainable development of the overall system. There

is, currently, abundant number of approaches aiming to assess and communicate

sustainability. Most key sustainability indicators are quotient (ratios) and

measurements are normally independent of scale (Gillbert, 1996; Nilsson and

Bergstrom, 1995). In some cases, individual environmental processes have separate

treatments, while in others the processes are considered together to produce aggregate

indices. For OECD (1998), the decision to choose appropriate indicators for

sustainability assessment involves a balance between complexity (number of

indicators to explain the system) and compromise (sustainability framework must

allow the analysis of trade-offs between indicators).

Briassoulis (2001) divides the evolution of sustainable development indicators

into three phases:

1) mid 1980s: environmental indicators as quantitative, descriptive measures

of either human pressures on the environment or of environmental

conditions (mono-disciplinary approaches);

2) early 1990s: focus on green accounting; differentiation between indicators

related to strong or weak sustainability; inclusion of social indicators;

assessment as a continuous process (multi-disciplinary);

3) most recently: environment, economic and other dimensions of sustainable

development considered together; more integrated and combined

indicators; interest from global to local or urban, and even micro-level.

It is fundamental to note that there are theoretical and operational difficulties in

objectively demonstrating progress towards sustainable development. Friend (1996)

affirms that the ontology of sustainable development indicators demonstrates that they

represent more than just an ad hoc set of presumptive data points, but are still a great

simplification of the reality. The assessment of sustainability must consider the fact

that we do not really know exactly how the systems under analysis perform (Hardi and

Zedan, 1997). Levett (1998) observes that sustainability indicators bring the challenge

to articulate worldviews, interconnecting environmental and social variables.

Stevenson and Ball (1998) affirm that the assessment should include subjective

28

process of cultural traditions and the objective analysis of resource use. Crabtree and

Bayfield (1998) state that sustainability indicators should be developed to link human

activity to environmental change and policy response, although indicators have

limitations as foundation for informing policy. Riley (2001a) points out that

sustainability indicators are related to patterns of change and are only measurable if

sufficient periods of time are monitored.

These analyses coincide with the observation of Pinfield (1996, 1997), who

sees little evidence that sustainability indicators lead to substantial shifts in policy at

national or local level, because a greater integration of environmental, social and

economic policies is necessary. Riley (2001b) identifies some critical problems with

sustainability indicators, such as the numerous frameworks which have been

proposed, and most of which have no direct correspondence. Furthermore, indicators

are often numerous but inconsistent across studies, often based upon different

definitions; sometimes presented merely as data values or variables with no regard for

their specific role in measuring change and thresholds and reference points have not

been identified. At the same time, indicators are frequently proposed without rigorous

testing on a range of data sets; compound indicators involve combination of indicators

for different system components, often with weights that are meaningless; and

components interact to each other, but their patter of interaction are unclear. Bell and

Morse (1999) argue that indicators have played a limited role in management and the

setting of policy and, in the last two decades, efforts were placed on developing

indicators for measurement rather than on using them.

In an attempt to classify the vast array of proposed indicators, Hanley et al.

(1999) recognize three main groups, namely economic indicators (e.g. water

consumption per capita), socio-political indicators (e.g. number of deaths associated

with deficient sanitation) and environmental (e.g. oxygen depletion). Taking a

different approach, both Atkinson et al. (1997) and Pearce and Barbier (2000) classify

the methods into weak sustainability indicators (e.g. green national account and

genuine savings) and methods of strong sustainability (e.g. species richness,

ecosystem resilience and ecological carrying capacity). For Niemeijer (2002),

indicators can be divided into data-driven approaches (whereby data availability is the

central criterion for indicator development and data is provided for all selected

indicators) and theory-driven approaches (focused on selecting the best possible

29

indicators from a theoretical point of view, while data availability is only considered

one of many aspects to take into account).

According to Bell and Morse (2001), sustainability indicators can be either

quantitative and explicit (i.e. clearly stated and with a defined methodology) or more

qualitative and implicit (i.e. „understood‟ to apply in vaguer terms, with no defined

methodology). The first group is represented by the „reductionist paradigm‟ of

sustainability assessment, which means a reduction of information conveyed and

presentation of information according to the assumptions and mindset of the

researcher. The second group belongs to the „conversational paradigm‟, which

comprises those attempts of sustainability assessment adopted in discussions over

political power and participatory learning or action. There are innumerable

intermediate possibilities between those two types of sustainability indicators. Table

2.1 summarises those different methodologies behind the development of

sustainability indicators. A more recent publication of the same authors (Bell and

Morse, 2003) claim that the future of sustainability indicators is in the hybridisation of

both groups, in a continuum of possible indicator expressions and associated research

methodologies. This is called the „multiple perspective‟ of sustainability indicators.

Table 2.1: Implicit and Explicit Dimensions of Sustainability Indicators

Type of methodology behind indicators Example

1. Explicit SIs based on a defined and

replicable methodology

Highly defined techniques for measuring

car density based on observation at key

junctions or car sales per year

Allows replication of measurements so as

to follow time-series measurements or for

data checking

2. SIs based on a methodology that is

stated but not well defined, and therefore

open to being assessed in different ways

with different results

Less well defined or published techniques

(relative to 1) for measuring car density

Time-series data or validation may not be

possible as methodologies could be

different

3. Implicit SIs not based on a defined and

published methodology as such, but one‟s

perception (based on experience, media

coverage, pressure group statements, etc.)

suggests that a particular trend is occurring

No explicit methodology. Equates more

to an impression of „gut feeling‟ as to

what is happening with car density

Source: Bell and Morse (2001)

30

Among the many informational levers indicators could participate to, the

following usages have for instance been identified by Aal et al. (2002: 32): indicators

for the clarification of development trends (trend analysis); indicators comparing

performance (benchmarking); indicators for reporting upwards in a decision-making

hierarchy (reporting); indicators for clarifying the impacts of planed initiatives and

actions (impact assessment); indicators for registering and evaluating the effects of

executed initiatives (evaluation); indicators for registering and monitoring the

development of a condition (environmental control). There are listed in Table 2.2

examples of sustainability assessment approaches.

Table 2.2: Examples of Sustainability Assessment Methodologies

Barometer of Sustainability Prescott-Allen, 1995

Material Intensity of Products and Services (MIPS) Hinterberger and Schmidt-

Bleek, 1999; Lewan, 1999

Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) Daly and Cobb, 1989

Ecological Footprints Wackernagel and Rees, 1996

Sustainability Gap Ekins and Simon, 1999, 2000

Indicators of Sustainable Development (national) UNCSD, 2001

Environmental Sustainability Index (national) YCELP, 2001

Promoting Action for Sustainability Through Indicators

at the Local Level in Europe Pastille, 2002

Sustainability Indicators Research Project LGMB, 1995 6

Indicators of Sustainable Development for Scotland Scottish Executive, 2003a

Series of Alternative Indicators for Scotland Hanley et al., 1999

Sustainability of Remote Rural Scotland Copus and Crabtree, 1998

Aberdeenshire Sustainability Research Trust ASRT, 2002

National Brazilian Sustainability Indicators IBGE, 2002

Indicators to Assess Urban Sustainability, Brazil Fehr et al., 2004

Áridas Project in the Semi-Arid Brazilian Northeast Vieira, 1998

MESMIS Project, Mexico López-Ridaura et al., 2002 ;

Masera et al., 1999

Sustainable Development Index, Coatzacoalcos,

Mexico

Barrera-Roldán and

Sandívar-Valdés, 2002

6 The Local Government Management Board was a pioneer project carried out by 10 local

authorities in the United Kingdom. The average number of indicators was 23 per site and the

total number of indicators used was 160, divided into 13 themes. Among the 160 indicators,

there are 17 directly related to water resources use and conservation, including the most

curious water sustainability indicator ever formulated: the number of domestic ponds with

frogs (sic).

31

On the desirable characteristics of adequate sustainability indicators, Harger

and Meyer (1996) suggest that these should include simplicity, scope (cover

environmental, economic and social issues), quantification (measurability),

assessment (should allow trend analysis), sensitivity (sensitive to change) and

timeliness (should allow timely identification of the trends). Moreover, there are other

criteria recommended for selecting indicators. For instance, Walmsley (2002)

maintains that indicators should be simple, quantifiable and communicable. Bossel

(1999) argues that the number of indicators should be as small as possible, but not

smaller than necessary. According to Bell and Morse (2003), an indicator should be

specific (must clearly relate to outcomes), measurable (must be quantifiable), usable

(practical), sensitive (must readily change as circumstances change), available

(relatively straightforward to collect the necessary data) and cost-effective (should not

be a very expensive task to access the necessary data).

Based on such requirements and on the examples mentioned above, the critical

qualities of sound indicators of sustainability can be summarised as:

Grounded on robust scientific and technical basis

Include manageable number of variables

Require data that are readily available or easily made available

Flexible to utilise local data and local thresholds

Relate the present environmental condition with past processes

Are forward-looking and capable of informing policy-making

This list of critical requirements for sustainability indicators will underpin the

development of indicators in the next chapters of this study.

2.7 Key Themes for Water Sustainability Assessment

The search for water sustainability deals with multiple problems involved in

the management of the river basin. In most cases, there is a complex interconnection

between the various causes of the sustainability problems. This interconnection

creates difficulties for the analysis of the pressures and formulation of solutions.

Therefore, to facilitate the understanding of the sustainability demands, the water

32

management problems can be organised by groups of themes. This identification of

themes constitutes a schematic representation of critical processes affecting

sustainability (although many interrelations exist between processes).

Following such approach, an interpretation of the crucial water management

problems that prevent the achievement of water sustainability is detailed below. This

summary is based on the available publications and reported experiences of water

management at the catchment scale. It constitutes a generic compilation of themes,

which regularly occur in most catchment management experiences. The summary

includes themes that are equally distributed between the three dimensions of water

sustainability (environmental, economic and social). Despite the fact that this is a

subjectively developed, it provides a framework of the key management demands and

will facilitate the discussion on indicators of water sustainability later in this thesis:

2.7.1 Degraded water quality

Human activities interfere in water quality at either a concentrated scale (point

sources) or at a relative smaller and scattered scale (non-point/diffuse sources). The

extension of the human impact is directly dependent upon the natural characteristics of

the river system and the intensity of the intervention. However, due to the importance

of water for life maintenance, ecosystem functions, standards of human existence and

economic activities, the conservation of good water quality is a fundamental pillar of

the construction of sustainable development. According to Perry and Vanderklein

(1996), the ways in which a society manages water quality is a telling reflection of

political, cultural, and economic processes within that society. It means that the water

condition is ultimately the outcome of social behaviour, preferences and attitudes.

The quality of water is characterised by a range of concentrations and reactions

of organic and inorganic substances. The dynamic nature of the water environment,

means each reaction is specific to space and time. Therefore, the characteristics of

water can demonstrate significant variation when comparing different seasons or

years, as well as by comparing upstream and downstream locations. Every river

system has particular hydrological characteristics and physico-chemical patterns,

which essentially depend on climate, geology and geomorphology. Likewise, the

water environment is a complex system with non-linear relations between biotic and

33

abiotic components. Despite such natural complexity, a sustainable condition of water

quality requires the long-term maintenance of levels of chemical and biological

components in order to meet environmental and societal water objectives.

2.7.2 Excessive abstraction of water resources

A sustainable level of water abstraction presupposes limits to prevent negative

impacts on the spontaneous regulatory functions of the aquatic environment. Water

must be allocated and used in a way that does not compromise human health or the

aquatic ecosystem (Lallana et al., 2001). To be sustainable, the volumes allocated for

human use should not disrupt river flows, stocks accumulated in lakes, reservoirs and

wetlands, as well as water stored in aquifers and glaciers. It means that water

abstraction must respect the hydrologic features of the river basin, not creating barriers

to the recovering capacity of natural processes. The specific amount of water that can

be used or removed from the water bodies to satisfy those human activities depends on

the ecological sensitivity of the river basin or the stocks of groundwater.

The management of abstraction for the achievement of sustainability

specifically requires the preservation of minimum flows and natural patterns of the

hydrological regime. To achieve this sustainable level of water abstraction, a range of

integrated actions related to the management of demand can be used. The management

of water abstraction according to the environmental limits is not only a technical issue,

but it is rather part of social negotiation, often associated with political disputes

(Metha, 2003). Demand management includes reduction in water consumption, reuse

of water, and reduction in distribution losses. Syme et al. (1999) affirm that a fair

decision-making processes is of paramount importance to community acceptance of

decisions about quantities of water allocated for individual uses.

2.7.3 Induced variability in the water regime

Human activities can modify the water regime through either local or global

forms of environmental change. The former include a number of localised human

interventions in the river basin (such as land use change, land sealing, engineering

constructions, river channeling, water diversions, soil erosion and channel siltation,

34

afforestation or wetland reclamation) and the latter include broader anthropogenic

impacts on the climatic regime. Nevertheless, the management of water should not

produce pressures that result in the modification of regulatory functions. It means that

human action should not modify the regular pattern of critical water processes. In

particular, the natural system variability between seasons and periods of years should

be maintained. This natural succession of high and low flow processes is critical for

the preservation of ecosystem functions, and consequently for the achievement of

sustainability.

A sustainable water system is resilient enough to return to normal, long-term

regime after exceptional periods of excess or scarcity. The human interference can

reduced system resilience and, thus, magnify the impacts of extreme events, such as

floods and droughts. The human interference in hydrological processes can cause

adverse periods not only to become recurrent, but can also aggravate their negative

consequences. Newson (1994: 64) argues that the human intervention can alter both

the „vulnerability‟ and the „hazard‟ of critical events. Aggravated extreme events are

the result of a combination of meteorological, physical and human factors. For

example, changes in the landscape can lead to more intense floods and over

abstraction of water can lead to more severe droughts.

2.7.4 Inefficient allocation and use of water

Sustainability requires efficient use of water that satisfies both environmental

and socio-economic requirements. The challenge for achieving an efficient use resides

on the fact that water resources exhibit the characteristics of both public and private

goods (Savenije, 2002). The characteristic of public goods means that the benefits that

one person derives from water do not reduce the possibility of someone else

benefiting. On the contrary, private goods are only available for individual

consumption, which means that when one person consumes a unit of water, that unit is

not available for another person to consume. According to Savenije (2002), this

duality makes water a unique commercial good: it is scarce and fugitive; it is a system;

it is bulky; it cannot be substituted or freely traded; and it is complex.

Wichelns (1999) emphasises that water-use efficiency is achieved when limited

resources are allocated and used in a manner that generates the greatest net value (i.e.

35

to guarantee that resources are used to generate the largest possible net benefit). Cai et

al. (2001) affirm that enhanced efficiency can be achieved through both physical and

managerial measures. Examples of approaches that contribute to an efficient use of

water are the metering and charging of water (Dalhuisen et al., 2003). However,

Savenije (2002) points out that the simple application of regular economic theories to

water resources management is not always efficient. Similarly, Pearce (1998) observes

that there are many economic actions that can be taken which will benefit the

environment and for which there is no particular need for philosophising or

quantification, economic or otherwise.

2.7.5 Wastage of water

The wasteful use of water resources is a clear contradiction of the sustainable

management of water systems, because it involves the removal of resources from the

environment without the production of correspondent socio-economic benefits. In this

regard, Merrett (1997) points out that the supply of water for the domestic,

agricultural and industrial sectors are all part of planning for a sustainable society, but

must also include water husbandry through the reduction of supply losses and demand

management. Each sector requires amounts and quality of water according to the

nature of the use. Moreover, regardless of the specific nature of the demand, there are

best management practices that can be adopted by each user. Those best practices

contribute to save water and, therefore, reduce the human impact on the environment.

The management of water demand through the reduction of waste and

improvement of water productivity are important factors for the protection of the

environment due to reduction in abstraction. A number of potential measures that can

reduce the level of water abstraction, such as reduction of leakage in distribution

systems and improvements in production processes are normally available. To

improve the productivity of water use, the search for technological improvements by

each user sector, such as the substitution of input materials, process redesign, and final

product reformulation is particularly important. Exchange of experiences between

stakeholders can provide a framework for technical innovation, although in practice

there are substantial difficulties to achieve collective responses from the groups of

water users (Margerum and Whitall, 2004).

36

2.7.6 Inadequate institutional framework

An inadequate set of institutions creates contradictions that obstruct the

realisation of the sustainable management of water. Dodds (1997) argues that

sustainable development must have primary focus on the cultivation of appropriate

institutions. Sustainable development requires institutions that facilitate co-operation

and co-ordination between stakeholder sectors (Wood et al., 1999). In terms of water

management, the institutional framework is the combination of legislation and

regulation, policies and guidelines, administrative structures, economic and financial

arrangements, political structures and processes, historical and traditional customs and

values, and key participants or actors (Mitchell and Pigram, 1989). This institutional

framework defines the patterns of intervention and conservation of water in the river

basin (Jong et al., 1995). Institutions also refer to the manner in which stakeholders

interact with organisations, the processes by which decisions are made, and the way in

which activities are undertaken to implement their goals (Challen, 2000).

Lord and Israel (1996) consider institutions those rules that serve to liberate

involved actors for the improvement of water management. The role of institutions for

sustainable development is pivotal in achieving growth and improved distribution of

income and wealth, in understanding environmental degradation and in seeking

improved policy (Veeman and Politylo, 2003). Livingston (1995) argues that the

institutional arrangement should set the ground rules for resource use and facilitates

the achievement of economic and social goals. An adequate institutional framework

must also foster local capacity building and reduction of external human resources

(Lamoree and Harlin, 2002). One fundamental aspect of the institutional framework is

the legislation related to water management in response to sustainability demands

(Wouters, 2001). Also the improvement of local human capacity is a strategic element

in the sustainable development of the water sector (Hamdy et al., 1998).

2.7.7 Inequitable water services

The inequitable access to good quality water resources is also an indication of

a lack of sustainability. The social dimension of water sustainability requires universal

and reliable water supply and sanitation services to all groups of stakeholders in urban

and rural areas (Komives, 2001). Equitable water services constitute an important

37

element of social justice, which is a fundamental element of sustainable development

(Agyeman and Evans, 2004). Harvey (2001) argues that deficient public services are

not exclusively a problem of physical shortage of resource, but normally the result of

unequal allocation and distribution of opportunities. It means that scarcity presupposes

certain social ends, in the sense that, in most cases, scarcities do not arise out of nature

but are created by human activity and managed by social organisations. To be

equitable, any charging scheme must treat different groups differently, as long as

lower income households are comparatively more vulnerable to water shortage and

service cuts due to difficulties to cope with charges (Herbert and Kempson, 1995).

Following the approach proposed by Rawls (1999), social justice does not

mean equal, but fair distribution of responsibilities for environmental impacts.

According to this interpretation of justice, responsibilities should be allocated in the

direct proportion to the damage caused and in the indirect proportion to the economic

and social status of the person causing the damage (i.e. richer and stronger social

groups should bear a larger proportion of burden). Bakker (2001) also points out the

difference between „economic equity‟ (the principle that users of a utility should pay,

as near as possible, the costs they individually impose on the system) and „social

equity‟ (the principle that users should be charged according to their ability to pay).

The three dimensions of sustainability mean the sustainable management of water

needs to reconcile both the economic and the social forms of equity. Furthermore,

Kansiime (2002) affirms water equity is directly related to public participation,

bottom-up decision-making and conservation attitudes that reduce water use.

2.7.8 Limited well-being related to water

Poor quality of the water environment affects many aspects related to human

well-being, such as health, economic prosperity and personal contentment. Despite the

fact that some elements of well-being are mainly subjective, such as personal

satisfaction, most features of well-being can be objectively described, such as the

fulfilment of healthy living conditions. Lundqvist (2000) states that lack of access to

safe water is a significant drawback for human well-being. One of the main reasons is

the fact that many infectious diseases, health problems and disabilities are directly

related to insufficiency of water quantity and quality. High levels of well-being are

also associated with precautionary measures to cope with adverse periods of floods

38

and droughts. In addition, there is a direct correlation between equity and well-being,

because degraded water quality and quantity are normally associated with poverty in

urban and rural areas (Hillman, 2002). It means that the improved condition of the

water environment is normally not fairly distributed through social groups, but the

most degraded environmental condition is concentrated in deprived settlements.

There is not a fixed, universal figure for the appropriate volume of water per

capita for the promotion of well-being, because different countries and cultures have

dissimilar factors to determine the demand of water. For Beukman (2002), the well-

being created by water can be taken as the degree to which the needs and wants of the

population are being met. Moreover, human preferences can greatly vary across

cultures or regions, with a relationship between social sustainability and the more

subjective and cultural aspects of local distinctiveness (Hargreaves and Webster,

2000). The understanding of the relationship between the physical extent of water

availability and the level of household and community well-being induce more

rational and equitable decisions about water allocation (Sullivan, 2001). On the other

hand, after the satisfaction of basic needs and requirements for economic activity,

additional water use does not lead to additional well-being, but becomes luxurious and

unjustifiable.

2.7.9 Undemocratic decision-making

Gomez and Nakat (2002) point out that the traditional approaches to

community participation in water and sanitation projects have been distinctly top-

down and undemocratic. There exist several factors that can obstruct the participation

of water stakeholders, such as the paternalistic posture of authorities, enduring and

unresolved conflicts between groups, excessive pressure for immediate results and

disinterest within the beneficiary community. However, if rivers are to be managed

sustainably and the potential to resolve conflicts of use realised, the general public

must be more involved in their management (House, 1999). The justification of public

participation for water sustainability is due to both the right to participate and the

responsibility to collaborate in the management of water systems. Public participation

requires the active and co-ordinated involvement of water uses and civil society in the

various scales of water regulation, planning and management.

39

Participatory decision-making is expected to improve system performance by

incorporating users into the process as a way to encourage changes among

beneficiaries themselves. It ultimately facilitates the implementation of policies and

projects, reinforces changes in established practices and offers alternatives to deal

with complexity and uncertainty (Mosley, 1996). At the same time, the interaction

enables exchange of information which can lead to a better understanding of the ins

and outs of the specific situation and in this way contribute to public support (van Ast

and Boot, 2003). Smith (1994) observes that public involvement is a way of

promoting greater environmental awareness and understanding by local communities.

It is ultimately an attempt to build „environmental citizenship‟ (i.e. the right to benefit

from the environment and the duty to enhance environmental protection).

2.8 Examples of Approaches to Water Sustainability Assessment

The list of themes set out in the last section serves as a basic framework for the

assessment of water sustainability. After the identification of crucial themes, the next

step for the assessment of sustainability is the formulation of methodologies that

appropriately combine water related indicators (Kerr and Chung, 2001). The United

Nations, through the UNWWAP (2003), stated that “indicators must present the

complex phenomena of the water sector in a meaningful and understandable way, to

decision-makers as well as to the public. (…) New indicators have to be tested and

modified in the light of experience”. In the same way that the assessment of

sustainable development is subject to controversy, there are conflicting approaches

proposed for the assessment of water sustainability. Each method is based on a

number of assumptions and is designed to fulfil specific objectives: this will be

discussed in more detail below. One of the most common problems is the restricted

focus on hydrological and environmental aspects of water management, neglecting the

equally important economic and social dimensions.

Loucks and Gladwell (1999) propose a methodology to consider hydrological

and environmental aspects of the water management systems (also available in

40

Loucks, 1994, 1997 and 2000; Loucks et al., 2000).

7 This methodology expresses the

level of sustainability as separate combinations of reliability (the probability that any

particular value will be within the range of values considered satisfactory), resilience

(the speed of recovery from an unsatisfactory condition or the probability that a

satisfactory value will follow an unsatisfactory value) and vulnerability (a statistical

measure of the extent or duration of failure, should a failure occur). This approach

deals with only three indicators, and because of this it has the advantage of being

simple and easily replicable. However, the method has the disadvantage of reducing

the sustainability question to three fixed principles (resilience, reliability and

vulnerability) without addressing the core debate about equity, social responsibility

and trade-offs between the constituting dimensions of sustainability.

A comparable approach that focuses exclusively on physical parameters of

water management is the Physical Unsustainability Index (PhUI), which was

developed by Aguirre-Muñoz et al. (2001) to measure the utilisation of the most

limiting environmental resources . The PhUI considers mass balance and rate of water

use by sector. Likewise, Xu et al. (2002) proposed a model that assesses the balance

between demand and supply of water. Kondratyev et al. (2002) put forward a method

related to the use of water and the ecological condition of the water body. This

approach can be useful for planning and decision-making regarding allocation of

permissions to use water resources. However, sustainability is narrowly understood in

those three approaches as merely the satisfaction of future water balance demands.

There are also studies that address water sustainability at the national level,

such as the Eurowater Project described by Correia (2000) and applied to France, the

United Kingdom, Germany, Portugal and the Netherlands. Water sustainability is

taken as a multi-dimensional concept identified with three key dimensions:

environment, economics and ethics. However, there are no specific indicators in this

approach, only generic themes of sustainability criteria. A similar national assessment

of water policy was proposed by Kheireldin and Fahmy (2001) for evaluating long-

term national strategies in Egypt, including indicators of five main categories: food,

economy, water, socio-economy and environment. The disadvantage of this method is

7 This landmark approach is based on previous works of Hashimoto et al. (1982) and Pezzey

(1992), and has since than been adopted, for example, by Kay (2000) and Kjeldsen and

Rosbjerg (2001).

41

that only a small number of indicators are directly related to water questions, while for

the majority of indicators the connection with water is indirect (e.g. employment per

economic sector or use of pesticide by farmers).

In another example, Bell and Morse (2003) considered water resources

management as one of the five themes of the sustainability analysis of the island of

Malta (see Table 2.3). These authors applied the SPSA approach for the production

and development of sustainability indicators in Malta (SPSA stands for „systemic and

prospective sustainability analysis‟, which is an organised methodology with „12-point

processes‟ divided into the phases of „reflection‟, „connection‟, „modelling‟ and

„doing‟).8 Water quantity was one of the five themes of the sustainability analysis

under the influence of the Mediterranean Action Plan in Malta. This study addressed

water management at the national scale, which was the appropriate scale for the

unique characteristics of the country of Malta (i.e. a small territory of only 316 km2,

river runoff mainly during the rainy season, and water supply basically depending on

groundwater, desalination plants and water recycling). Another problem related with

the catchment approach in this particular country is lack of data, since there are only

five gauging stations in the 107 Malta and Gozo semi-arid catchments (Malta, 2002).

Table 2.3: Example of Sustainability Indicators Applied at the National Level

Indicator Parameters and Units

Quality of drinking water Chloride level (mg/l)

Nitrate level (mg/l)

Use Index % of total users

Water consumption Litres per capita per day

Pollution in groundwater Nitrate levels (mg/l)

Water affordability Currency units per m3

Recycled water % of water consumed

Quantity of produced water Million m3/year

Piezometric levels Metres

Leaked water m3/year

Source: Bell and Morse (2003)

8 SPSA is an improvement of the previous approach SSA („systemic sustainability analysis‟,

Bell and Morse, 1999), “with „prospective‟ stressing extrapolation in order to consider

multiple scenarios” (Bell and Morse, 2003: 80).

42

Likewise, the British government has produced annual reports with core

indicators of sustainable development (called „Quality of Life Counts‟), which have

been brought together again with updated data and assessments of progress. This

report provides a baseline assessment, providing a benchmark against which future

progress can be measured. Where specific targets do not exist, the aim is for the

headline indicators to move in the right direction over time. Within Quality of Life

Counts the indicators are grouped into six „themes‟ (including „managing the

environment and resources‟) and 18 „families‟ (including „freshwater‟). The results for

the 2003 update are presented in Figure 2.2 (symbols represent the outputs of each

indicator and are explained in the legend below). Those results indicate improvements,

since 1990, in both chemical and biological river quality, reduction in abstractions for

public water supply and reduction in leakage (DEFRA, 2002a, 2002b; DETR, 1999a).

Figure 2.2: Freshwater Indicators for the United Kingdom (Source: DEFRA, 2004)

Legend:

43

A common problem with national approaches to water sustainability is the

focus on spaces other than the river basin, which is the fundamental unit of

management for water resources. Most proposed indicators are merely physical or

chemical parameters of the water cycle, rather than indicators of sustainability (i.e. it

means that they do not address the long-term continuation of the water system, but

only isolated aspects of the current condition). Taking a different approach, there are

attempts to assess sustainability that consider the water as a form of economic capital,

as the Critical Natural Capital Framework (Ekins and Simon, 2003). The framework

classifies the characteristics of critical natural capital and the environmental functions

to which it gives rise. After the identification of environmental functions in four

themes (resource depletion, pollution, ecosystem performance, and human heath and

welfare), the standards of sustainability are defined. The main problem with the

method is the requirement of extensive amounts of data, because it covers several

areas and deals with many aspects of sustainability.

Other approaches deal with the performance of water companies. Foxon et al.

(2002) (also in Water UK, 2000), developed an approach to facilitate the decision-

making process of the water industry. It initially used focus groups to understand

current decision-making processes and then developed seven phases to facilitate the

inclusion of the selected criteria. The final stage is the validation of indicators in a

series of local workshops (see Table 2.4). A similar effort was undertaken by the West

of Scotland Water Authority (WoSWA, 2000) and the North of Scotland Water

Authority (NoWA, 2001) with headline indicators covering four environmentally

related issues: the provisions of water services to standards acceptable to society; good

environmental management; energy and material flow through the organisation; and

the local environment and biodiversity. However, the underpinning interpretation of

sustainability is closely associated with business efficiency, lacking other social and

economic aspects of water services. A comparable approach is that used in Australia

by Lenzen et al. (2003) for the assessment of the Sydney Water Corporation.

44

Table 2.4: Example of Sustainability Indicators Adopted by the Water Industry

Issue Indicator

Water services

Water demand and availability

Population with sufficient water

UK population growth possible with

current resources

Household water demand Per capita water consumption

Non-household water use Water efficiency

Leakage Total leakage from the network

Foul flooding Properties flooded

Combined sewer overflows Overflows in satisfactory condition

Wastewater treatment works Population serves by works meeting

numerical standards

Good environmental management

Environmental engagement Sectoral ranking

Convictions for public health

and environmental offences Number of „category 1‟ convictions

Biodiversity and the environment

Species Priority species with action plans

Habitats Priority habitats with action plans

River water quality Rivers in classes A-D

Bathing water quality

Designated waters achieving:

mandatory standards

guideline values

Energy and materials

Energy use at fixes sites Energy use per Ml water supplied

Energy use per Ml wastewater treated

Renewable energy at fixed sites Renewable energy as a percentage of total

energy used

CO2 emissions at fixed sites Emissions per head population

CO2 emissions from road

transport Emissions per head population

Sludge management Sludge recycled/reused

Source: Foxon et al. (2002)

There are also sustainability assessment approaches restricted to urban water

systems, as proposed by Hellström et al. (2000), Icke et al. (1999), Krebs and Larsen

45

(1997), Lundin et al. (1999), and Lundin and Morrison (2002). Such methodologies

place emphasis only on the performance of urban supply and sanitation systems,

ignoring the impacts on catchment processes or the interconnection with other urban

systems. An example of urban sustainability indicators is provided in Table 2.5.

Similarly to urban methods, Raju et al. (2000) analyse the sustainability of irrigation

water systems in Spain. The main weakness of this study is the focus on the efficient

use of resources, neglecting the river basin scale and other environmental processes.

Table 2.5: Example of Water Sustainability Indicators of Urban Systems

Criterion Indicator

Health and hygiene criteria

Availability to clean water Acceptable drinking water quality

Non-access to drinking water

Risk of infection Number of waterborne outbreaks

Number of affected persons

Exposure to toxic compounds Drinking water quality

Working compounds Number of accidents

Social and cultural criteria

Easy to understand (not described)

Work demand (not described)

Acceptance

Violation

Omission

Ignorance

Availability (not described)

Environmental criteria

Groundwater preservation Groundwater level

Eutrophication

N to water

P to water

Oxygen Consumption Potential

Contribution to acidification Hydrogen-equivalent

Contribution to global warming CO2-equivalent

Spreading of toxic compounds to

water Cd, Hg, Cu, Pb

Spreading of toxic compounds to

arable soil

Use of natural resources

Utilisation of available land

Use of electricity and fossil fuels

Total energy consumption

Use of freshwater

Use of chemicals: Fe, Al

Use of materials for construction of infrastructure

Potential recycling of phosphorus

46

Economical criteria

Total cost Capital cost

Operational and maintenance

Functional and technical criteria

Robustness

Overflow

Non-access to clean water

Sewer stoppage

Flooding of basements

Performance Out-leakage

In-leakage

Flexibility (not described)

Source: Hellström et al. (2000)

Finally, it should be mentioned those assessments that focus specifically on the

river basin scale. For example Wagner et al. (2002) compared case studies in Brazil,

USA, Japan and Switzerland, relying on compilation of data on water withdrawal,

water demand, pollution and ecological integrity of each area. Cash et al. (1996)

studied the Northern River Basin in Canada through ecosystem indicators. Here the

focus was on aquatic and water environment monitoring, modelling and management,

and indicators were proposed to underpin a programme of ecosystem monitoring.

Aspinall and Pearson (2000) proposed a suite of indicators with Geographic

Information System (GIS) tools to represent the state (condition) and trend (change

across space and time) of ecological properties of water catchments. The main

weakness of those catchment methodologies is the focus exclusively on physical and

biological indicators. To overcome such deficiency, Walmsley (2002) proposes a

framework for developing indicators of water sustainability for catchment

management. This approach is based on the division of issues between Driving-forces,

Pressures, State, Impacts and Response categories (i.e. the so-called „DPSIR

framework‟). The main limitation of such an approach is the excessive complexity that

results from the attempt to comprehensively include those five categories. In practice,

the method developed by Walmsley (2002) is extremely demanding in terms of data

and is difficult to operationalize.

Another example of an applied river basin approach, the Environment Agency

(2002a and 2002b) has used the „Sustainability Appraisal‟ in the development of

Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies (CAMS) in England and Wales:

serving to inform the water abstraction regime and to set abstraction licences. CAMS

involve the assessment of resource availability and demands present in the catchment.

47

The attainment of ecological objectives is considered alongside environmental, social,

economic and natural resource use. CAMS consider the resource availability status for

each water resource management unit (operational sub-divisions of the catchment that

can be managed in the same way). Options are screened and refined to identify those

that achieve the greatest environmental benefits with the lowest social and economic

impacts. However, the crucial problem with this approach it the fact that it is largely

based on qualitative assessments, instead of following straightforward indicators. The

methodology is complex and time-consuming and, only in some cases, it can involve a

quantification of the costs to abstractors of the options under consideration.

2.9 The Appropriate Approach to Water Sustainability Assessment

As can be inferred from the examples of assessment in the previous section, it

is a major challenge to deal with the three dimensions of water sustainability in a

simple, balanced and straightforward manner. The main weaknesses of most indicator

methodologies are the restricted focus on ecological processes, the consideration of

other scales than the river basin (national or project specific scales), and the

formulation of indicators that require extensive databases and complex mathematical

models. A more fundamental problem with mainstream approaches to assess

sustainability is the „unreflexive situatedness‟ of such top-down, conventional

interpretations of sustainability. This problem is described by Breuer et al. (2002),

who affirm that traditional scientific practice usually tries to create the impression that

the results of their research have an objective character (i.e. scientific results are

independent from the person who produced the knowledge). According to Harrison

and Davis (1998), much existing research has defined sustainability as a set of issues

identified through modern scientific enquiry, with an approach that privileges the

knowledge and authority of experts.

Trying to overcome such limitations, this present thesis was intended to

formulate indicators that make an analysis of past tendencies and future scenarios

much easier, allowing the discussion of water questions at the catchment scale. The

proposed framework of assessment was, by definition, subjectively constructed and

value-laden (trying to incorporate the values of the researcher and a number of

contacted stakeholders). The development of indicators constantly questioned how the

processes of research and analysis have an effect on research outcomes. It was made

48

clear, since the initial stages of interaction with catchment stakeholders, that

subjectivity is a determinant of the qualitative research process and epistemological

reflexivity as an important tool to access and to develop scientific knowledge. The

adoption of indicators for the assessment of sustainability was justified as tools for

critical thinking about water problems.

The proposed research approach includes some innovative aspects and

methodological adjustments that are necessary to fulfil its aims and objectives. It will

be demonstrated later that the focus of analysis is centred on a small, manageable

group of sustainability criteria, covering environmental, social and economic

dimensions. For each criterion, an equivalent indicator that summarises critical

processes affecting sustainability was developed. This number of criteria and

indicators is deliberately small to facilitate the analysis and places the same emphasis

on each dimension of water sustainability. This proposed approach is situated in an

intermediate level, between analysis of local ecological and hydrological processes

(excessively detailed to consider the sustainability tendency of the catchment as a

whole) and regional or national indicators of water management (excessively

aggregated to allow conclusions at the catchment level).

The analysis of the proposed indicators can be done by either taking into

account local thresholds or by associating tendencies and trends in the same river

basin and between comparable river basins. The conclusions about the sustainability

of freshwater systems are drawn from the examination of qualitative and quantitative

sources of information. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that the

framework of indicators has conceptual and practical limitations. The method is a

simplification of complex real processes and includes a limited set of parameters

related to water sustainability. Each sustainability indicator has its own rationale and

the results have different units and scales. In addition, the inputs considered in the

analysis are secondary data and, as such, the method incorporates the uncertainties and

systemic errors of the original data collection.

2.10 Chapter Conclusions

A vast debate on sustainable development is taking place currently in different

spheres of government and society. Most of the controversy surrounds the acceptable

levels of trade-offs between the use of the environment and the conservation of natural

49

resources. The conservation requirement associated with sustainable development is

justified on the rights of future generations and presently excluded groups to make use

of common resources. To deal with those controversies, sustainable development has

not only an environmental dimension, but also economic and social dimensions that

must be considered together. Consequently, the focus of sustainable development is

not only on the rate of conservation of natural resources, but also on the economic and

political foundations of the environmental problems.

After the consideration of the relevant literature, sustainable development was

summarised in two central statements. On the one hand, that the search for

sustainability is a continuous process towards common responses that appropriately

satisfy natural and social demands. This involves the resolution of disputes between

conflicting interests, which should follow transparent and democratic approaches. On

the other hand, a sustainable process or condition is one that can be maintained

indefinitely without progressive diminution of valued system qualities. This does not

necessarily imply that the entire system should be maintained, but that sustainability

requires the continuation of critical regulatory functions of the environment.

Sustainable water management can be considered as a sectoral approach of the

overall goals of sustainable development. There are two crucial justifications for the

connection between water resources and sustainability. On the one hand, water is a

natural resource, which is indispensable for the structure, activity and constancy of

natural ecosystems. On the other hand, water performs basic economic and social

services. Water is concomitantly an element of nature and an element of society,

which makes the use and conservation of water an essentially component of the

agenda of sustainable development. The sustainability of water systems must be

preferentially considered in the river basin, where, due to interconnections between

upstream and downstream processes and demands, there is a shared responsibility for

wisely using and conserving water.

Three core principles of water sustainability were identified to be relevant for

the purposes of this study and will support the development of the framework of

indicators. The first principle is that the search for water sustainability can be

summarised by the application of sustainable development principles to resource

allocation and management, conflict resolution and public participation in order that

the demands of nature and society are concurrently satisfied. The second principle

50

maintains that the sustainable use and conservation of the water environment

presupposes the indefinite continuation of resilient water systems and the maintenance

of critical ecological functions. Finally, the third principle is that water sustainability

requires a fair and equitable distribution of opportunities across groups and

generations allowing all to benefit from the shared water environment, what must be

achieved through participatory approaches, adaptive management and robust

institutional framework.

This chapter also reviewed the strengths and weaknesses related to the

assessment of progress towards sustainable development, as proposed by different

authors to deal with different geographical scales and environmental media. The main

tool for this assessment is normally the use of a framework of indicators that integrate

the three dimensions of sustainability and relate internal parameters of the system.

Appropriate sustainability should satisfy a number of requirements, such as to be

adequately founded on scientific and technical basis, include a manageable number of

variables, require data that is readily available, be flexible to adapt to local monitoring

or classification methods, be able to describe past tendencies and future perspectives.

Sustainability indicators can play an important role in a discussion about the

environmental system and should be relevant for policy making.

Many deficiencies were identified in the examples of sustainability indicators

applied to water systems. The most common weaknesses are the restricted focus on

ecological processes, lack of focus on the river basin and the formulation of indicators

that require extensive amount of data. A more fundamental problem has been the lack

of reflexive discussion about the limits and capabilities of sustainability assessment.

To deal with such deficiencies, this study proposes a framework of sustainability that

includes some innovative aspects and methodological adjustments. This proposed

approach is situated in an intermediate level between local and national indicators of

water management. The conclusions about the sustainability of freshwater systems

derive from the examination of qualitative and quantitative sources of information.

However, the inputs considered are secondary data and, in being so, the method

incorporates the uncertainties and systemic errors of the original data collection.

The next two chapters will describe the research methodology and the

framework of water sustainability indicators proposed in this study.

51

Chapter 3 - Research Methods and Techniques


This Chapter describes the sequence of research methods and techniques

employed in the study to satisfy its aims and objectives. The central focus of the

research was on understanding the development of a framework of water

sustainability indicators for the assessment and discussion of catchment sustainability.

The research involved an organised strategy of interactions with local stakeholders,

data gathering and interpretation of results, which is graphically represented in the

first Chapter section. The second Chapter section expounds the epistemological

references of the research approach. The next section explains how the catchments

involved in the development of the framework of indicators were selected and how the

sustainability indicators were proposed and refined. The fourth section describes the

analytical and participatory research techniques and the justification for the adoption

of combined qualitative and quantitative research methods. The fifth and final Chapter

section gives the details of follow-up interviews with catchment stakeholders, when

the framework of indicators was discussed and evaluated.

3.2 Overall Research Approach: Graphical Representation

This research was designed to understand the process of developing

sustainability indicators and had two fundamental objectives, as explained in the first

Chapter: the development of a framework of water sustainability indicators and the

application of the proposed framework in selected river basins. In order to fulfil those

objectives, a sequence of conceptual and empirical activities was organised, which

includes:

1) Description of the context of the areas under analysis

2) Selection of key water sustainability criteria

3) Development of indicators through an inductive approach

4) Gathering of data for the calculation of indicator results

5) Interpretation of indicator results

6) Follow-up interviews with water stakeholders

7) Overall assessment of the development of indicators

52

The activities included in the research are represented in Figure 3.1 and were

carried out in the different countries and catchments. The first stage comprised the

review of the extensive literature on sustainable development, sustainability indicators

and water sustainability. A tentative list of water sustainability criteria and possible

assessment issues was then prepared based on the specific context of the selected

catchments. After a process of testing and evaluation, which involved local water

stakeholders, the preliminary criteria and indicators were refined. The catchments

included in the analysis are situated in countries with different institutional systems

and, therefore, it was necessary to have carefully co-ordination of local contacts and

sources of information. It was also necessary to rigorously co-ordinate fieldtrips to

optimise time and material resources.

The indicators were then applied to the four selected river basins, what

required persistent research efforts to obtain data for the environmental, economic and

social indicators of water sustainability. The combination of methods adopted in this

research was proved particularly useful for new, contemporary phenomena, like water

sustainability, with a complex range of variables involved (cf. Yin, 1989). The final

stage was the discussion of the indicator results and the overall framework of

sustainability indicators in interviews with catchment stakeholders. The next sections

of this Chapter will describe the theoretical framework, the details of indicator

development and will expand on the research approaches and techniques briefly

mentioned so far.

53

Literature Review:

Water sustainability

Sustainability indicators

First Version of Water

Sustainability Indicators

Pilot Study

Final Version of the

Framework of Water


Site visits

Data Manipulation for the

calculation of indicator

results

Second Version of Water


Analysis of Sustainability

Trends and Tendencies

Follow-up

Interviews with

Stakeholders to Discuss

the Framework of

Indicators

Conclusions about the

Proposed Framework of

Indicators and about the

Sustainability Condition

of the Catchments

OBJECTIVE 2 –

APPLY AND

EVALUATE THE

FRAMEWORK

Figure 3.1: Research Sequence and the Fulfilment of the Research Objectives

OBJECTIVE 1 –

DEVELOP A

FRAMEWORK OF

INDICATORS

Prospective

Contacts

Selection of Catchments

for the Development of

the Sustainability

Framework

Discussions

with

Stakeholders

Series of

Interviews

Legend:

Participatory Approach

Development and

Testing of Indicators

Data gathering

Data Gathering

Data Gathering

54

3.3 Epistemological Bases of the Research Approach

The assessment of the water sustainability condition, as proposed in this

research, is situated in the field of „political ecology‟, which is an area of science that

focuses on the relationship between environmental change, socio-economic demands

and political processes. According to Bryant and Bailey (1997), political ecology

studies claim that environmental problems are not simply a reflection of policy or

market failures, but are rather a manifestation of broader political and economic

forces. The solution to those problems will not occur without considerable struggle,

since they necessitate the transformation of a series of highly unequal power

relationships upon which the present (unsustainable) system is based. Swyngedouw

(1999) maintains that political ecology is the appropriate treatment of water

development problems, because knowledge and practice are always situated in the

web of social power relations that defines and produces the water landscape.

Consequently, the unsustainability of water management needs to be examined by

considering the socio-economic origins of the environmental problems.

It was important to grapple with the philosophical issues and underlying

assumptions that forge and give purpose to the research methods adopted for the

analysis of the political ecology of water sustainability. As discussed in the previous

Chapter, the problems of water use and conservation are socially constructed and, as a

result, their analysis is subjectively described. It means that the assessment of

sustainability is necessarily „positioned‟, in the sense that there are no objective

parameters that can be gauged to demonstrate the sustainability condition. Because of

this subjective nature of water sustainability, its assessment depends, to a great extent,

upon the perspective of the researcher, who is not separated from the environmental

and social objects of study (Smith and Deemer, 2000). The researcher is not a neutral

observer, but has an integral relationship with the system and the questions being

studied. Scientific explanation is shaped by the background and personal preferences

of those involved in the scientific practice and the scientific activities are always

embedded in the cultural matrix that gives purpose to the enterprise (O‟Connor, 1999).

The assessment of water sustainability is, thus, a combined and coherent

approach to build a positioned argument about the use and conservation of the water

environment. The assessment requires a judicious research approach that is consistent

55

with the theory of water sustainability and capable of explaining the origins of

catchment water problems. As proposed by O‟Riordan (2002), the assessment of

sustainability is fundamentally a process of connecting and revealing the multiple

causes of environmental questions. Sustainability assessment must describe trends and

trade-offs between the internal components of the water system. It is related to the

understanding of how natural and social systems interact over long time periods and

along spatial scales. The assessment needs to be substantiated in mechanisms that can

deal with continuous change, uncertainty and multiple public perspectives (Stagl,

2004). The assessment of the sustainability of water systems is therefore highly

dynamic, requiring the analysis to be flexible and adaptive in nature (cf. De Marchi et

al., 2000).

Because of the value judgement intrinsically present in the research, the

assessment of water sustainability involves manifold controversies about the scientific

production on the relation between environment and society. Specifically about the

„sociology of science‟, Bourdieu (2004) emphasises the inseparable scientific and

social character of any research strategy. According to Bourdieu, the scientific fact is

made not only by the person who produces and proposes it, but also by the persons

who receive it. In the particularly case of water sustainability assessment, it means that

the reality of the river catchment can be perceived and interpreted in different ways by

the researcher or by those directly involved in the use and conservation of the water

environment. In his last book, Bourdieu (2004: 04) gives a paradigmatic account of the

subjectivity involved in the scientific praxis:

“One cannot talk about such an object without exposing oneself to a

permanent mirror effect: every word that can be uttered about scientific

practice can be turned back on the person who utters it. This echo, this

reflexivity, it no reducible to the reflexion on itself of a „I think‟ (cogito)

thinking an object (cogitatum) that is nothing other than itself. It is the

image sent back to a knowing subject. Far from fearing this mirror – or

boomerang – effect, in taking science as the object of my analysis I am

deliberately aiming to expose myself, and all those who write about the

social world, to a generalised reflexivity.”

Nevertheless, numerous approaches to sustainability assessment, probably the

majority, have neglected this social construction of science, as exemplified in the

previous Chapter (Sections 2.8 and 2.9), preponderantly adopting instead a positivistic

56

research strategy. Positivism, according to Robinson (1998), is a process that begins

with an externally developed research design, proceeds with the extraction of data

from the examined reality and their transportation to distant research institutes for

lengthy processing by the researcher. Positivistic (or „deductive‟) positions claim that

the world can be objectively measured and the social reality can be studied in a similar

approach to the way in which we study the natural world. The knowledge thus

produced is seen as valid because it has been generated rigorously by the specialist

researcher and, thus, can be useful to other experts and decision-makers (Oppenheim,

1992; Smith, 1998). Because this positivistic approach centralises control in the hands

of the researcher, it tends (regardless of which particular techniques are used) to

distance other stakeholders from the process of knowledge production, and minimises

the benefit the researcher can gain from local understanding and insights.

Avoiding a positivistic research strategy, this study tried to take an inductive

approach in which, as originally suggested by Sauer (1925), the geographer

continually exercises freedom of choice as to the materials which he includes in his

observations, but is also continually drawing inferences as to their relation. In this

present research, the inductive approach started with the inventory of catchment

features and then those features were grouped and aggregated in such a way that

allowed the analysis of sustainability. Throughout the study, the inductive approach

permanently related the social and natural elements of the water landscape with the

open-ended questions of sustainable development. More specifically, the assessment

of sustainability was not intended to draw a boundary line between truth and non-truth.

On the contrary, the outcomes of the sustainability research are not right or wrong in

itself, but, because the reality is socially and personally constructed, within any

situation multiple realities can exist.

One of the key features of this inductive approach was the inclusion of a

participatory strategy as the main feature for the development of the framework of

sustainability indicators. Following a participatory strategy, the researcher invited

people to get involved in the explanation of processes and construction of conclusions.

The central purpose of adopting an inductive, participatory approach for sustainability

assessment was to promote the kind of outcomes that other conventional

methodologies regard as fortuitous side effects, such as communication among

participants, sharing of experiences and collective learning (cf. May, 1997). This

57

inductive (dialogical) form of integration of different opinions sought reconciliation of

perspectives and understanding as coexisting in society in their (irreducible) plurality

(cf. Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). Overall, the pursuit of knowledge about the water

sustainability condition was framed in relation to the challenge of reconciling different

points of view. To summarise this section, the epistemological bases of the study were

the recognition of the political ecology nature of water problems, the positioned

construction of scientific arguments and the requirement of an inductive, interactive

approach to explain water sustainability questions.

3.4 Development of the Framework of Sustainability Indicators

The research involved the development and evaluation of appropriate

sustainability indicators. Such indicators were intended to be consistent with the

sustainability theory, as well as capable of easily communicating the results and

stimulating critical thinking. The background to each indicator was the available

international literature on water management questions, supported by some practical

experience of the researcher of water policy and management and interaction with

stakeholders in the areas under analysis.

3.4.1 Selection of Catchments to Develop the Framework

Following the inductive approach mentioned above, the proposed framework

of water sustainability indicators was developed taking into account the context of

catchments selected in different countries and with contrasting water management

experiences. The starting point to select those catchments was the identification of

different countries and with contrasting water development issues, as well as with

dissimilar water sustainability questions. Due to logistical and operational convenience

the countries selected were Brazil, Italy and Scotland, justified as follows:

Scotland – location of the University of Aberdeen and, in particular, because of

the ongoing transformation of water management due to the implementation of new

legislation (2003) and the recent political devolution to the Scottish Parliament (1999)

58

Brazil – previous professional experience of the researcher in the private and

governmental water sectors; contrasting natural and institutional context in

comparison with Scotland; also under transformation of the water management sector

due to new legislation (1997)

Italy – previous contacts of the researcher; second European country with

contrasting experience in relation to Scotland, but also due to implement European

directives on water management

After the collection of information from prospective contacts (see below) and

additional supporting literature, a preliminary list with 3-4 potential catchments in

each country was prepared. The fundamental aim was to select catchments with

contrasting water problems, but with comparable size and equivalent water

management experiences. The selection of catchments followed a set of requirements,

which took into account the ultimate purpose of developing and testing the proposed

framework of indicators in different situations and in sites that could be realistically

examined within the timeframe available. The requirements to select catchments were:

Medium-size9 catchments (between 2,000 and 5,000 km

2)

Contrasting water development experiences (to test the indicators with

different water management questions)

Likelihood of data available from governmental organisations, non-

governmental organisations and/or academic institutions (based on the

available literature and prospective contacts with local organisations)

Existence of some form of water management organisations and/or some

coordination of response to the local water problems (to facilitate the final

discussion of results with catchment stakeholders)

9 Medium-size catchments are the most suitable scale for the application of the proposed

indicators, because are catchment that include a range of socio-economic and environmental

questions without excessive complexity. In other words, it is likely that smaller catchments

have lower probability of having enough information about the three dimensions of

sustainability and larger catchments have higher probability of excessive complexity, as

discussed by Ioris (1999) for the analysis of water problems in large catchments.

59

In total, the preliminary list included ten potential catchments that satisfied the

above requirements in the three countries under consideration (Brazil, Italy and

Scotland). After careful assessment of resources available and the effective number of

catchments needed to develop the sustainability indicators, it was decided that this

preliminary list should be reduced. An additional problem was fact that, since the

beginning of the prospective contacts for this study, it became evident that socio-

economic data at the catchment scale would represent a particular challenge. Owing to

the constraints of time and resource, it was, then, decided to reduce the number of

catchments and intensify the analysis in the remaining catchments. The research,

therefore, continued in the two most contrasting national experiences, Scotland and

Brazil, and the gathering of data about catchments in the second European country

(Italy) was stopped.

Four final catchments were then chosen in Scotland and in Brazil during the

first stage of interaction with local water stakeholders. This decision to have four

catchments in two countries was based on the fact that this would be a manageable

number of study areas, but would still provide the opportunity to crosscheck

catchments under the same national institutional framework. The two selected

catchments in Scotland were the Clyde (urbanised, industrialised, heavily modified by

human action) and the Dee (mostly rural and relatively pristine). As Brazil is a

federation of relatively autonomous states10

, it was decided to include the State of Rio

Grande do Sul, in the most Southern region. The catchments selected in Brazil were

the Sinos River (urbanised and industrialised) and the Pardo River (export agriculture

and subsistence rural production). Chapter 5 describes the institutional situation in the

two countries and the general characteristics of each selected catchment.

3.4.2 Interactive Research Approach

The proposed framework of sustainability indicators was developed in

successive stages of formulating, testing, evaluation and redesign. The selection and

refinement of indicators was done in close interaction with water stakeholders in the

chosen catchments. These very catchments that were studied were also selected

10 The Scottish autonomy is, to a great extent, comparable to the administrative autonomy of

the Brazilian states.

60

through discussions about the local context of water problems. It means that the

research was designed to allow successive opportunities for incorporating inputs from

stakeholders into the development of sustainability indicators.

Initial contacts with local organisations and field trips were conducted in Brazil

(2001), Scotland (2002) and Italy (2002). Prospective contacts were made by phone,

letter or email. International phone calls were organised previously by email and were

normally carried out in the evenings (i.e. due to four hours of time difference between

Brazil and Scotland). As graphically represented in Figure 3.1 above, the three main

stages of the research local water professionals were approached to contribute to the

development and evaluation of indicators were:

1st Interactive Phase – At the selection of catchments and discussion about water

sustainability criteria and related sustainability issues (to formulate the first version of

indicators)

The initial list of water sustainability criteria and key management issues was

discussed with water stakeholders during the selection of catchments. These

discussions covered an initial list proposed by the researcher, which included around

50 issues related to water sustainability and quoted in most water sustainability

assessments publicly available. To make this list manageable, the issues were

organised and classified in ten criteria of water sustainability distributed in the three

dimensions of sustainable development. Subsequently, following the discussions, the

initial list was reduced and adjusted to nine criteria (Table 3.1), because it was realised

that the list incorporated some repetition and omission of critical aspects of the

sustainability of water systems. From this initial interaction with stakeholders, the first

version of water sustainability indicators was proposed.

61

Table 3.1: Water Sustainability Issues Initially Discussed with Water Stakeholders

CRITERION WATER SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED IN THE

FORMULATION OF SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

Water

Quality

Impact on biochemical water properties (extension of the river course with

good or bad environmental conditions related to catchment economic

activity, etc.)

Alteration in organisms and in life patterns (bioindicator organisms,

reduction of fish population, biological indicators, etc.)

Water

Quantity

Use of renewable water resources (annual water abstraction per sector,

total water available, etc.)

Use of non-renewable water resources (annual non-renewable

groundwater abstraction, total non-renewable water available, etc.)

Changes in hydrologic patterns (alteration in water flows [maximum,

minimum, & mean flow], alteration in river channel, alteration in

hydrogram characteristics, etc.)

Environmental

Quality

Changes in the catchment environment (land use changes, land cover

changes, impacts on wetlands, urbanisation, etc.)

Impacts on ecosystem health (reduction in biodiversity, endangered

species, erosion, etc.)

Well-Being

Well-being promoted by water management (public health, water costs,

improvements in real state figures, flood control, etc.)

Well-being reduced by defensive expenditures („water capital

accountability’ [net water revenues = water revenues – defensive water

expenditures – depreciation of natural water capital])

Efficiency

Efficiency of water uses (economic valuation of water capital in

comparison to water revenues, etc.)

Efficiency of the water business (reduction in unitary or marginal costs of

the water services, etc.)

Public

Participation

Opportunities available to participation (institutional and legal spaces to

legitimate participation)

Participation of the public (meetings, audiences, polls, referendum, etc.)

Equity Index of equity (people served by supply, sanitation, sewer treatment, etc.)

Equity of the water development (revenues created by water business

compared to the catchment GDP, etc.)

Institutional

Preparedness

Institutional framework (organisation, charges, decision-making,

management instruments, legislation, role of private entrepreneurs,

communication technology, demonstration of advances towards the

sustainable water management mode, etc.)

Conflict solving and negotiation processes (form of implementation of

water development projects, changes in water management, etc.)

Risks Level of risk involved in the water decisions (drought risk, flood risk,

supply reliability, etc.)

Perception of risk (form of risk mitigation, risk management, etc.)

62

2

nd Interactive Phase – At the selection of water sustainability indicators to be used in

the pilot-study (to formulate the second version of indicators)

The first version of indicators was formulated by the researcher after the

preliminary contacts to discuss sustainability issues and select catchments. The initial

indicator expressions were subsequently discussed with water stakeholders (mainly the

same included in the first interactive phase) to permit its refinement e use in the pilot-

study. In total, seven organisations in Brazil, seven in Scotland and three in Italy

(Table 3.2) were contacted in the initial two interactive stages (i.e. first for the

selection of catchments and identification of key sustainability issues and, second, for

the improvement of the preliminary water sustainability indicators). Water

stakeholders were identified according to previous knowledge about the main

organisations in each country, and also according to publications available and, in

many cases, following suggestions of those already contacted (i.e. „snow-ball

approach‟).

In some of those organisations, more than one person was approached at this

stage of the research, because it was not always immediately evident who was the best

interlocutor. Face to face discussions took a conversational style, which means that the

discussion was flexible enough to choose the wording and sequence of questions

according to the specific circumstances. Notes were taken after each contact and some

respondents were contacted more than once (some respondents approached in this

prospective stage also contributed with data and agreed to be interviewed in the end of

the research, as it will be explained later).

Table 3.2: Organisations Involved in the Selection of Catchments, Identification of

Sustainability Issues and Preliminary Version of Indicators

BRAZIL SCOTLAND ITALY

State Water Council Macaulay Institute Direzione

Pianificazione delle

Risorse Idriche

(Regione Piemonte)

Comitesinos SEPA, Aberdeen

Proguaíba Programme SEPA, Glasgow

Private consultancy

(working in the Guaíba

River Basin)

Private consultancy

(working in the

Cairngorms)

Istituto di Ricerca per la

Protezione

Idrogeologica

(Sezione di Torino) CORSAN Glasgow University

IBAMA Scottish Executive University of Turin

FEPAM Scottish Water

63

3

rd Interactive Phase – At follow-up interviews to discuss the appropriateness of the

proposed framework of indicators

The third opportunity of involving water stakeholders in the assessment of the

proposed framework of indicators was at follow-up interviews to present and discuss

the results of each studied catchment (this will be explained in detail in Section 3.6

below). In addition to these three interactive stages of the research, additional contacts

were made with governmental, academic and non-governmental organisations for data

gathering and bibliographical search.

3.4.3 Evaluation and Refinement of Indicators

The selection and refinement of water sustainability indicators involved the

consideration of the local catchment context and interaction with water stakeholders.

This was an intensive process of analysis and reflection, which fundamentally aimed

to construct a framework of indicators that could assist the explanation of water

sustainability problems. The initial list of indicators reflects the evolution from the

broader list of water sustainability issues (identified from the international literature)

to the specific context of the selected countries and catchments (analysed in the

discussions with stakeholders).

A key contribution of stakeholders for the initial set of indicators was the

suggestion that the framework could have one indicator per sustainability criterion, in

order to make it simpler and facilitate comparison between catchments and countries.

The preliminary broad list of issues was, thus, reduced to nine fundamental indicators

(Table 3.3) to allow a manageable number of expressions, but still maintaining the

explanatory capacity about the sustainability condition. At this point, it was realised

that the indicator of „risk‟ would not be easily calculated or would not offer the same

level of explanation as the other indicators. The risk criterion was, thus, excluded from

the framework. The list of parameters to be incorporated in the indicators was also

reduced to those issues most commonly addressed in the literature and with more

directly related to the key water management problems (described in Section 2.7).

64

Table 3.3: First Version of Sustainability Indicators (selected by the researcher based on the

international literature and the context of the catchments)

Water

Quality

( y / x )

y = total extension of river segments with satisfactory water

conditions for human consumption

x = total stream system of the river basin

Water

Quantity

[( x – y ) / x ] * [( Imp + z + r ) / ( Exp + z )]

x = annual available volume of freshwater

(discounting the ecological reserve)

y = annual water withdrawal from ground and surface water

Imp = annual water flow imported to the basin

z = mean annual discharge at the river mouth

r = annual flow of recycled (reused) water

Exp = total water flow exported from the basin

Soil Use

Change

{ 3-1

* [(a – a‟) / a + (p – p‟) / p + (w1 – w2) / w1] } + cons / basin

a = total arable land

a‟ = total arable land without conservation practices

(unsustainable agriculture use)

p = total pasture land

p‟ = total pasture land without conservation practices

(unsustainable pasture use)

w1 = original wetland area

w2 = area of wetlands lost by human impact and reclamation

cons = total surface confined in conservation units

basin = total river basin area

Economic

Efficiency

[ (GDP2 – GDP1) / GDP2 ] – [ (use2 – use 1 )/ use2 ]

GDP2 = gross domestic product of the current year

GDP1 = gross domestic product of the previous year

use 2 = annual water withdrawal from ground and surface water for the

current year

use 1 = annual water withdrawal from ground and surface water for the

previous year

Water

Reliability

1 – [( ROPx – ROPm)2]0.5

ROPx = ratio between annual runoff and annul rainfall

ROPm = ratio between mean runoff and mean rainfall

65

Institutional

Preparedness

10

Σ Xi / 10 i =1

X1 = river basin plans

X2 = river basin committee

X3 = river basin agency

X4 = public awareness and education

X5 = norms and regulation

X6 = monitoring and enforcement

X7 = water permits and/or charges

X8 = regulation of services

X9 = soil and water interaction

X10 = risk management

Equitable

Water

Services

[100-1

* (x + y ) / 2 ] * Indcon

x = percentage of population with access to reliable and safe water supply

y = percentage of population with access to reliable water sanitation

Indcon = index of sector concentration of water uses

Indcon = 1 + [( 1 / var2 ) – ( 1 / var1 )]

var2 = variance of water uses for the current year

var1 = variance of water uses for the previous year

Water

Well-being

( y / x ) * HDI

y = total daily domestic consumption of freshwater

x = river basin population

HDI = Human Development Index (or proxy)

Public

Participation

10

Σ Xi / 10 i =1

X1 = mechanisms for public participation

X2 = opportunities to participate

X3 = regular activities

X4 = convocation attendance

X5 = stakeholder preparedness

X6 = participatory planning and set of priorities

X7 = decentralised decision-making

X8 = conflict solving

X9 = independent auditing

X10 = indicators for collective monitoring

The second version of indicators (Table 3.4) was chosen in further discussions

with local water stakeholders. Because the interviews were conducted in sequence, in

many occasions it was necessary to consult the same person more than once to discuss

suggestions provided by others. It is relevant to report that it was not always easy to

66

have in depth discussions with some respondents, due to time constraints or, more

probably, conflicts between personal opinions and the position of the respective

organisations (to minimise this problem, anonymity was offer in all interviews). In

some cases, the respondent asked for additional time to provide answers to some

questions, because wanted to clarify some points with colleagues or managers.

Stakeholders provided extremely helpful insights and suggestions, for instance

that the indicators should be closely related with new regulatory regimes and should

address historic water management problems in the catchments (such as water quality

fluctuation or lack of public participation). A crucial attribute recommended for the

selection of indicators was a clear explanatory capacity (i.e. the capacity to relate the

sustainability problems to the human interventions in the water systems). Another

critical requirements were expression simplicity and likelihood of data availability for

the calculation of data. There was a strong opinion in favour of reducing the

complexity of indicators and keeping a disaggregate treatment of each indicator (i.e.

instead of aggregate indices).

In comparison with Tables 3.1 and 3.3, it can be seen in Table 3.4 that it was

suggested by many stakeholders that the framework of indicators should have a more

balanced approach to the three dimensions of sustainable development (environmental,

economic and social). That is because stakeholders pointed out that the initial list of

criteria comprised more environmental and social issues than respective economic

ones. In consequence, the criterion of „water reliability‟ was transformed into „sector

use productivity‟. To avoid over-emphasising the environmental dimension and keep

the focus on water management issues, „soil use change‟ was transformed into „system

resilience‟ (i.e. rainfall-runoff model).

The second version of indicators (Table 3.4) also simplified the indicator of

„water quantity‟ (instead of mixing water balance and flow, only flow equivalent was

included). „Institutional preparedness‟ was expanded from 10 to 12 items in the

respective checklist. The indicator „equitable water services‟ removed the „factor of

concentration of water use‟ by dominant sectors and adopted an average between

water supply and sanitation (because this specific „factor‟ was considered

controversial by some stakeholders). Finally, the indicator „water well-being‟ was

transformed from water demand per person multiplied by an indicator of well-being to

a quotient between an indicator of well-being and water demand.

67

The second version of indicators was tested in a pilot study in the Don

catchment, Northeast of Scotland. This pilot exercise was meant to be as realistic as

possible and involved efforts to obtain real data from governmental and scientific

organisations (e.g. Scottish Executive, Aberdeenshire Council, Scottish Water, SEPA

and Macaulay Institute). The pilot study was carried out in the end of 2002 and

anticipated the future difficulties in terms of data gathering, in particular the

significant time needed to obtain and validate data for analysis (mainly due to

incompatible units or format of data, as well as incomplete data series and inconsistent

data sets).

Table 3.4: Second Version of Sustainability Indicators (selected in discussions with

catchment stakeholders)

Water

Quality

( y / x )

y = total extension of river segments with drinkable or almost drinkable

conditions

(excellent or good quality standard)


Water

Quantity

[( x – y ) / x ] * [( Imp + x + r ) / ( Exp + x )]

x = annual water flow of 95% frequency (m3/s)

y = annual water withdrawal (m3/s)

Imp = annual water flow imported to the basin (m3/s)

r = annual flow of recycled (reused) water (m3/s)

Exp = annual water flow exported from the basin (m3/s)

System

Resilience

1 – [( ROPx – ROPm)2]0.5

ROPx = ratio between annual runoff and annual rainfall

ROPm = ratio between mean runoff and mean rainfall

Water

Use

Efficiency

[ (GDP2 – GDP1) / GDP2 ] – [ (use2 – use 1 )/ use2 ]

GDP2 = gross domestic product of the current year

GDP1 = gross domestic product of the previous year

use 2 = annual water withdrawal from ground and

surface water for the current year

use 1 = annual water withdrawal from ground and

surface water for the previous year

User Sector

Productivity

( y / x )

y = Annual Gross Domestic Product (or proxy)

x = total annual demand of freshwater by manufacturing

68

Institutional

Preparedness

12

Σ Xi / 12 i =1

X1 = water allocation observes priority uses

X2 = norms and directives of water use efficiency

X3 = systematic revision of norms and regulation

X4 = regulation of services of water supply and sanitation

X5 = water permits system

X6 = water permits and/or water charges follow volumetric variations

X7 = river basin master plans

X8 = regular revision of river basin master plans

X9 = integration of water management with land use management



X12 = programme of information for

stakeholders which focuses the river basin

Equitable

Water

Services

[100-1

* (x + y ) / 2 ]

x = percentage of population with access to reliable and safe water supply

y = percentage of population with access to reliable water sanitation

Water

Well-being

HDI / x

HDI = Human Development Index

x = annual average of daily water withdrawal

from ground and surface water

Public

Participation

10

Σ Xi / 10 i =1

X1 = stakeholder representation in the river basin committee

X2 = democratic nomination of stakeholder representation

X3 = local public consultation preceded river basin legislation

X4 = local public consultation preceded changes in river basin legislation

X5 = local public consultation preceded water supply and sanitation

legislation

X6 = river basin master plans included the participation of stakeholders

X7 = participatory budgeting

X8 = participatory mechanisms for conflict solving

X9 = independent auditing and monitoring

X10 = collective monitoring of water management

Continuing to follow the same reflexive approach for the development of

indicators, the results of the pilot-study prompted further adjustments in the indicator

expressions and were useful for the development of the third (final) version of

indicators (Table 3.5). It can be seen that the indicator „water quality‟ was modified to

facilitate the communication and comparability of results. „System resilience‟ was

69

transformed from a rainfall-runoff model to an expression that considers deviations in

mean river flows. „Water use efficiency‟ shifted from water use to an emphasis on

water demand. „User sector productivity‟ was adjusted to an expression similar to

„water use efficiency‟ to allow an easier demonstration of inter-annual changes in

economic productivity.

The indicator „equitable water services‟ was simplified and, instead of the

calculation of the average between the coverage of water supply and sanitation, these

were calculated individually. „Water-related well-being‟ was renamed and adjusted to

allow an easier demonstration of inter-annual changes in well-being indicators and

water demand. Finally, the indicators „institutional preparedness‟ and „public

participation‟ were rationalised into eight items each, because some of the previous

items were considered to be redundant or less relevant. The result presentation of

these two indicators also changed to the total items with positive answers (instead of

the previous positive answers divided by the total possible answers).

Table 3.5: Third (final) Version of Sustainability Indicators (based on the pilot-study)

Water

Quality

( y / x )

y = extension of river stretches into water quality categories according to the

official classification methodology adopted locally

x = total extension of river stretches

Water

Quantity

[( y ) / x ] * { 100 / [ 100 - (Exp - Imp - Rec) ] }

y = seasonal water abstraction (m3/s)

x = seasonal flow exceeded 95% of the time (m3/s)

Exp = percentage of abstracted water

that is exported from the river basin (%)

Imp = percentage of abstracted water that is imported to the river basin (%)

Rec = percentage of abstracted water that is recycled in river basin (%)

System

Resilience

12

[ Σ (Qi – Qimean

) / si ] / 12 i =1

Qi = moth river flow (month „i‟)

Qimean

= long-term month mean flow for month „i‟

si = standard deviation for month „i‟

70

Water

Use

Efficiency

[ 100 * (GDP2 – GDP1) / GDP2 ] -

[ 100* (demand2 – demand1 )/ demand2 ]

GDP2 = catchment Gross Domestic Product of the current period

GDP1 = catchment Gross Domestic Product of the previous period

demand 2 = water demand from ground

and surface water for the current period


and surface water for the previous period

User

Sector

Productivity

[ 100 * (turnover2 – turnover1) / turnover2 ] -

[ 100 * (sector demand2 – sector demand1 ) / sector demand2 ]

turnover2 = economic result of the productive sector

during the current period


during the previous period

sector demand2 = water demand by the sector in the catchment

for the current period

sector demand 1 = water demand by the sector in the catchment

for the previous period

Institutional

Preparedness

08

Σ Xi i = 1

X1 = legislation addresses water management at the river basin level

X2 = river basin management is formally connected with the

regional / national system of water management

X3 = river basin management is organised / regulated by

specific plans and programmes

X4 = water allocation mechanism is based on local hydrologic

Assessments and appropriate criteria

X5 = allocation of water takes into account social

and environmental priorities of use

X6 = existence of a river basin organisation with

specific water management duties

X7 = hydrologic and water quality monitoring with

satisfactory space and time coverage

X8 = capacity building activities at the catchment level

Equitable

Water Services

( x * 100-1

)

x = percentage of population served by potable water supply

(or by adequate sanitation services)

Water-related

Well-being

[100 * (well-being2 – well-being 1) / well-being 2] -

[100 * (demand2 – demand1 )/ demand2]

well-being2 = indicator of well-being related to water of the current period

well-being1 = indicator of well-being related to water of the previous period

demand 2 = per capita demand of the current period

demand 1 = per capita demand of previous period

71

Public

Participation

08

Σ Xi i =1

X1 = legislation delegate water management decision-making

to water users and civil society

X2 = practice / mechanism of water management includes stakeholder

participation

X3 = opportunities for public participation at the


X4 = river basin planning is conducted via participatory approaches

X5 = the majority / totality of stakeholder sectors are

Properly involved in the river basin management

X6 = policy making is influenced by river basin public participation

X7 = conflicts among water users are considered

and dealt at the river basin level

X8 = campaigns / activities that aim to involve

the river basin population at large

3.4.4 Final Indicator Expressions

At the end of the process of indicator development (evaluation of the pilot-

study results) the framework of water sustainability comprised nine criteria and

corresponding indicators (these will be described in detail in Chapter 4). The proposed

indicators are the result of a balance between the sustainability theory, stakeholder

inputs and the practicalities of an empirical assessment. Although it was agreed not to

calculate a final aggregate index, it was also decided that the three dimensions of

sustainability (environmental, economic and social) should have the same number of

indicators. From this point onwards in the research, there was an operational

coincidence between criteria and indicators. It means that, although each proposed

indicator was not intended to give a full account of the equivalent criterion, the final

list of indicators expressed quantifiable measurements of the nine selected criteria.

Those proposed indicators are capable of incorporating central parameters of

the water sustainability condition and, at the same time, avoid excessively demanding

expressions in terms of data and time coverage. The development of appropriate

indicators required sensible judgement over expressions that had robust scientific

justification and expressions that were operational (for time and resources available).

As emphasised by Stein et al. (2001), indicators are dependent upon data availability

and also upon the scale for which statements are required. It is important to emphasise

that the research was intended to compare situations in different catchments and

72

address historical trends of water processes and, for this reason, the indicators were

developed to produce results specifically from the manipulation of secondary data. It

should be mentioned that each indicator aims to describe critical processes related to

the specific criterion, but this did not preclude the need for additional sources of

evidence for the interpretation of indicator results.

3.5 Data Gathering and Manipulation

After developing the research framework, it was necessary to collect and

manipulate empirical data to calculate the proposed indicators of sustainability. To

provide a context for the indicator calculation, it was necessary to first describe the

catchment geography, the history of water development, the main uses of water and

the main conflicts between stakeholders. Old books and maps were consulted in the

different libraries visited throughout the research period. In the case of the Clyde River

Basin, special permission was obtained to use publications of the 18th

and 19th

Century

stored in the Mitchell Library, Glasgow. For all four river basins, the use of GIS

techniques added the spatial dimension to environmental and socio-economic

variables. GIS images were obtained from the environmental regulators (SEPA in

Scotland, ANA and FEPAM in Brazil) and were analysed using the programmes

ArcExplorer and MapExplorer.

The calculation of sustainability indicators involved secondary data sets,

covering environmental, economic and social aspects of the catchments under

analysis. The use of secondary data analysis was justified on the basis that the

sustainability indicators required a straightforward manipulation of data and aimed for

an easy communication of results. As pointed out by Hakim (1982), the use of

secondary data allows both, efficiency in data collection and comparison across time

and space that otherwise would be impossible. Bryman (2001) summarises the

advantages of secondary data as follows: the creation of conditions for reduced costs

and economy of time; the production of high quality data; opportunities for

longitudinal analyses; opportunities for subgroup analysis; opportunities for cross-

cultural analyses; more time for data analysis; reanalysis of the same data to offer new

interpretations; and the use of the same data by more than one researcher. There were,

73

thus, significant advantages in the use of secondary analysis in this research, notably

the comparison between catchments and analysis of historic trends.

In the case of this research, secondary data was obtained from hydrology

monitoring, environmental databases, demographic and economic statistics, water

service companies, governmental publications, among others. However, it is important

to observe that a number of problems were identified with those sources of data. First,

because of the various sources, there are limitations in terms of comparability of data.

This was a particular problem for indicators that combine a group of variables,

requiring that data for each one of the variables should cover the same period of time

and should not present missing values. The second limitation is the fact that secondary

data were initially collected for purposes other than sustainability indicators, and their

usefulness to the problem at hand may be limited. Thirdly, secondary data

incorporates the uncertainties and systemic errors of the primary sources (i.e. data

quality depends much upon the rigour with which they are generated).

The next sub-sections describe the details of the combined techniques adopted

for data gathering, as well as the list of data sources and the specific forms of

manipulation required for the calculation of the indicator results.

3.5.1 Combination of qualitative and quantitative research techniques

The assessment of water sustainability is research situated on the boundary

between human and physical geography and proposes to integrate techniques from

both disciplines. According to Kitchin and Tate (2000), this field of investigation can

be considered as „resources geography‟, which is an example of mixed human and

physical geography. It integrates quantitative and qualitative approaches, to produce

complementary perspectives of the sustainability condition. Quantitative and

qualitative methods can be combined or used separately in doing critical research.

While quantitative techniques are aimed to provide measurement and quantification of

parameters, mainly done through statistical methods and mathematical modelling,

qualitative techniques are used to assess how the world is viewed, perceived and

constructed by social actors (Devine and Heath, 1999). Quantitative and qualitative

approaches have, thus, complementary properties that were explored to allow the

understanding of the socio-environmental processes of the water management system.

74

For this specific research, the combination of research techniques was the

following:

Qualitative techniques (employed in the characterisation of the catchments, in

the calculation of two „check-list‟ indicators and in the participatory research

approach): policy documents, archival research and semi-structured interviews

Quantitative techniques (employed in the calculation of the other seven

indicators): manipulation of secondary data sets of environmental,

hydrological and socio-economic statistics

The combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques in geography is not

exclusive to water research and there is a growing tendency towards combining

aspects of qualitative and quantitative approaches, overcoming the dichotomy that, in

the past, used to distinctively separate those two groups of research methodologies

(Ragin, 1987). Nonetheless, the combination of methods can be particularly

complicated, since qualitative and quantitative research methods have different

theoretical foundations. Oppenheim (1992) observes that while we can make good use

of all existing research methods, we must not forget that human lives and human

causality are not composed of layers of regression coefficients. There are also

limitations such as insufficient information to determine potential sources of bias,

errors or problems with internal and external validity (Frankfort-Nachmias and

Nachmias, 1992). It is beyond the possibilities of science to eliminate all risks and

uncertainties, which can be only minimised and should be adequately treated

(Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993). Those methodological limitations are due to synergies

and feedback between the many constituent elements of the water system, which pose

barriers for the assessment of the sustainability condition.

3.5.2 Qualitative techniques

3.5.2.1 Analysis of policy documents

Documents related to management, use and conservation of water resources

were collected in the four areas under analysis. In addition, relevant technical studies,

75

plans, and projects were also consulted. The most relevant policy documents included

in this research were legislation and bye-laws, official documents commenting or

assisting the implementation of legislation, institutional documents about the statutory

role of the regulatory agencies, public consultation documents, discussion papers, as

well as folders, leaflets, websites and annual reports. It is important to observe that

both in Scotland and in Brazil there are two levels of government (i.e. Scotland is part

of the United Kingdom, as much as the Rio Grande do Sul State is part of the Brazilian

federation of states) that do not necessarily have coherent policies for all issues or

during the implementation period for new legislation. This possible source of

contradiction required constant comparison between central and local policy

documents.

The analysis of policy documents had to consider not only the text, but also the

format and additional details associated with the production of the document (Blaxter

et al., 1996). This is also specifically noted by Jupp (1996), who affirmed that there

are three separate component parts of a single policy document. One is the physical

appearance of the document, the medium on which the message is stored. The second

is the message that is conveyed through the symbols, which constitute writing. The

third is the discourse, encompassing ideas, statements or knowledge that are dominant

at a particular time among particular sets of people and which are held in relation to

other sets of individuals. At the same time, much of the significance and interest in

documents is revealed when they are considered in relation to each other. There are

questions related to the authenticity (whether it is original and genuine), credibility

(whether it is accurate), representativeness (whether it is representative of the totality

of documents of its class) and meaning (what it is intended to say) of policy

documents (Scott, 1990).

3.5.2.2 Archival research

This research technique involved the consultation and interpretation of a

diversity of texts, including not only conventional documents and publications, but

also literature writing, historic maps, old pictures, commercial publications, Internet

material, commemorative documents, museum exhibitions, political speeches,

newspaper interviews, proceedings of conferences about the catchment problems, and

paintings of the rivers in Scotland and in Brazil. The reason is that archives have a

76

dynamic role in representing views and opinions about the river basins considered.

Kurtz (2001) observes that archives are broadly related to issues of representation and

power in society. In consequence, the consultation of archival data necessarily requires

interpretation, because archival texts are nothing more than a representation of the

social reality. It means that not only the message of the text is important, but also the

style, the context and the purposes must be considered.

There are advantages to the use of archival documents for the analysis of water

sustainability, for example that it can be accessed at a time convenient to researcher, it

represents data that informants have given attention to compiling and it enables the

researcher to obtain the language and the words of informants. However, there are also

limitations, such as documents may be protected and/or information is unavailable to

public or private access. It may also require the researcher to seek out information in

hard-to-find places. The material may be incomplete or the document may not be

authentic or accurate (Creswell, 1994). It must be assessed where the data comes from

and what the reasons for collecting it were, as well as what users of the archival data

exist.

3.5.2.3 Development of a database to support qualitative techniques

A database was specifically developed to organise the varied forms of texts

obtained during the data gathering process, alongside the scientific literature about

water sustainability and about the four catchments. This database was developed in

Access at the initial stages of the research process (an example of a report from this

database is available in Appendix IV). Including papers, books, publications,

brochures, leaflets, and Internet documents, this database accumulated more than 800

entries between 2001 and 2004. Each document was registered in the database and

then stored in a correspondence file. Depending on the format of the document, it was

stored either in electronic files or in hard copy files. Such files were indexed according

to a) sustainability criteria, b) country or catchment, or c) approach to sustainability

assessment. Following such methodology, it was relatively easy to retrieve documents

obtained in different stages of the research and this facilitated the easy identification of

topics that were lacking information. As a whole, this organisation of documents

according to the database index aided the comparison between catchments and the

discussion of results.

77

3.5.3 Quantitative techniques

3.5.3.1 Gathering of quantitative data

Most of the proposed sustainability indicators (i.e. seven indicators) needed

quantitative environmental and socio-economic data. In order to calculate those seven

indicators it was necessary to carry out a collection of quantitative data about the four

selected river basins. The research mainly included data that were either in the public

domain, such as published reports and on-line databases, or data that were available at

request from the responsible agencies. Some sensitive material was also used, such as

information collected by consultants about the likely business impacts of new

regulation. In those circumstances, both anonymity and confidentiality on the use of

data were assured, as well as the guarantee that data would be used exclusively for

academic purposes and only for this research. The organisations that provided

quantitative data are related in Boxes 3.1 and 3.2.

Box 3.2: Organisations that Provided Socio-economic Data:

In Scotland: Scottish Executive, Scottish Office, Aberdeen City Council,

Aberdeenshire Council, Glasgow and Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan

Committee, Her Majesty's Stationery Office

In Brazil: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Economic and

Statistics Foundation (FEE), Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics

(IBGE), Guaíba Watershed Environmental Management Programme (Pró-

Guaíba Programme)

Box 3.1: Organisations that Provided Environmental Data:

In Scotland: Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Scottish

Executive, Scottish Water Plc., Clyde River Foundation, Macaulay Land Use

Research Institute (MI)

In Brazil: State Environment Protection Foundation (FEPAM), State

Secretariat of the Environment (SEMA), Ecoplan Engineering Ltd., Pardo

River Basin Committee, Sinos River Basin Committee (Comitesinos),

Institute of Hydrological Research of the Federal University of the Rio

Grande do Sul (IPH/UFRGS), National Water Authority (ANA)

78

In the effort to acquire data many difficulties were encountered and, in some

circumstances, it was impossible to obtain enough or satisfactory data. The most

common problem was the fragmentation, throughout different organisations, of data

necessary for the same indicator. In many cases, socio-economic data was not

available at the catchment scale or did not cover the same time periods for all

parameters included in the indicator. Some parameters have only small periods of

monitoring, while others suffered from interruptions or changes in methodology from

time to time. Specific problems with the manipulation of data are discussed in Chapter

6 where the detailed calculation of each indicator will be presented.

3.5.3.2 Manipulation of quantitative data for the calculation of sustainability indicators

After an initial checking of format and time coverage, gathered data were

normally stored as Excel document (data retrieved from Access and Oracle databases

were converted into Excel). Before storing the data, it thus was necessary to convert

different formats and units into common basis of comparison. After being stored in a

comparable format, data was crosschecked to ensure consistency. When enough data

were available, these data were validated against other sources. However, due to lack

of data, in many cases it was not possible to validate the dataset. In those

circumstances, when validation was not possible, one alternative was to relate the

available data with comparable sites in neighbouring catchments. Another alternative

was to compare the catchment information with regional or national trends.

For the cases where data was not available for indicator calculation or where

there were restrictions with existing data (i.e. missing periods, data compatibility or

lack of confidence on data validity), „proxy indicators‟ were used to provide an

indirect assessment of the main indicator. Proxy indicators are alternative expressions

that have direct relation with the issues included in the sustainability indicators

initially proposed for this research. The same proxy indicators were not necessarily

used in all catchments, as it depended on the local availability of data. For the cases

where data were particularly scarce or poor for the calculation of the indicator (or even

for the calculation of proxy indicators), this situation was compensated with other

indirect sources of information related to the scope of the indicator (such as scientific

publications, academic thesis or technical reports).

79

Specific data manipulation tools were employed to calculate the indicators,

such as water quality monitoring and classification methodologies, hydrological

models, manipulation of economic and socio-economic statistics, manipulation of

water services statistics (supply and sanitation), and manipulation of demographic

statistics. For most indicators, data had to be adjusted to the catchment scale. In

Scotland, it required the adjustment of national data or local authority data. In Brazil,

it required the adjustment of state or municipal data to the catchment scale (each state

in the Brazilian Federation comprises municipalities, which have political and

administrative autonomy). The specific data sets that were used in the calculation of

indicators are summarised in Table 3.6 and cover the three dimensions of water

sustainability.

Table 3.6: Quantitative Data Necessary for the Calculation of Indicators

Sustainability Dimension Quantitative Data

Environmental

water quality samples

daily river flow

daily water demand

interbasin transfer flows

volumes of recycled water

Economic

total water demand

catchment economic output

economic output per water user sector

water demand per water user sector

Social

water supply services

water sanitation services

quality of life indicators

Generally, data sets were already in a digital format and were easily entered

into the computer packages (although in many cases it was necessary to first convert

units and formats). Errors and missing data were checked before the indicators were

calculated. For the cases where enough registers were available and covered a

sufficient time period, it was possible to describe the pattern of dynamics over time (as

proposed by Hamilton, 1994). Apart form the Excel programme already mentioned,

the statistical package Minitab was also employed for the manipulation of data (used

to calculate moving average and carry out time series analysis). For the specific

manipulation of water quality data, the computer programme Aardvark was used (for

80

the estimation of quality percentiles through parametric methods, assuming normal or

log-normal distribution for different chemical parameters). These three computer

packages (i.e. Excel, Minitab and Aardvark) were useful in providing graphical

representations of results (as it will be seen in Chapter 6).

3.5.3.3 Analysis of indicators derived from quantitative data

The sustainability indicators were primarily analysed by taking into account

historical trends and tendencies of the results. The indicator expressions were

proposed to produce results giving a clear indication of whether contributes to

sustainability were being made or not. For instance, some indicators produce results

with positive or negative signals. Other indicators have a possible range between zero

and one, which means that the results can be interpreted according to that scale of

results. Another alternative was to consider local thresholds, which are available for

those sustainability indicators that are adjustments of existing local indicators. A third

alternative for the interpretation of results was to compare the four catchments against

each other or relate the results with existing data about comparable indicators. It is

important to emphasise that the analysis of each indicator needed to provide

knowledge on the water sustainability criterion and also information about the

catchment management.

3.5.4 Interpretation of Indicator Results

The results obtained from the indicators provided an explanation about water

problems and achievements in the studied areas. This explanation did not claim

objectivity or correctness, but, on the contrary, was directly related with the process of

indicator development and data available for indicator calculation. The indicators were

fundamentally tools for highlighting trends and tendencies in key areas of water

management. The indicators were tailored expressions developed for the local reality

and that required additional data about the local context for their interpretation. To

interpret the indicator results it was necessary to consider the local context of each

catchment, in particular the political ecology affecting water development and

81

environmental conservation (for example, present and past economic activities that

may have affected the use of the water environment).

It means that the indicators were not considered as the only source of

information about the local water sustainability problems. Historic and geographic

material, including old books and documents, was considered for the interpretation of

indicator results. At the same time, field trips to the studied areas facilitated the access

to non-published materials and, in some cases, confidential consultancy reports.

Fortuitous interaction with local catchment residents, pictures taken during the field

trips and, in some occasions, attendance at local events (public meetings, conferences

and campaigns) also contributed for the interpretation of the sustainability condition

by the researcher. Ultimately, the interpretation of results, as well as the development

of indicators, was a subjective, value-laden procedure that was based on the indicators

and supported by those other source of information.

3.6 Follow-up Interviews with Catchment Stakeholders

After data gathering and the calculation of indicators, a round of interviews

was conducted with selected local stakeholders to help to evaluate sustainability trends

in the specific catchment and the appropriateness of the proposed framework. For each

study area, an average of ten people was contacted (i.e. 14 in the Dee, 10 in the Clyde,

6 in the Sinos and 8 in the Pardo catchments) and some of these respondents already

contributed for the development of the framework of indicators in the beginning of the

research. Interviewees were asked a semi-structured and standardised sequence of

questions about water problems and management alternatives. Responses were not

constrained to categories provided by the researcher, but, according to this interview

approach, the questions were standardised, with the conversation mostly controlled by

the interviewer. This strategy was used in an attempt to increase the comparability of

responses. Following this approach, the organisation of interview responses for

analysis was relatively straightforward (based on Kitchin and Tate, 2000).

The respondents of the interview included stakeholders with direct

involvement in the catchment management or specific interest in water issues.

Respondents were selected according the importance of the organisation regarding

water management, taking into account the previous contacts in the catchments.

82

Interviews were arranged at the convenience of the respondent. However, not all

people and organisations were available for the follow-up interviews during the

suggested period of time (particularly in the case of the Brazilian fieldtrip, which took

a relatively short period of time in December 2003/January 2004). In certain cases,

additional contacts were entailed by phone or email if specific topics required further

explanation.

Table 3.7 has the list of people contacted in the approximate chronological

order (in order to preserve anonymity, only job titles will be indicated here).

Table 3.7: List of Interviews (approximately in chronological order)

Dee River Basin

SEPA, Aberdeen and Perth

Offices

Senior hydrologist

Water quality manager

Water quality planner

Water quality manger (Perth)

Macaulay Institute Senior environmental researcher

Environmental economist researcher

Aberdeenshire Council Information and research manager

Information and research assistant

Aberdeen City Council Agenda 21 manager

Scottish Water, Aberdeen and

Headquarter Offices

Water planner

Water planning assistant

Water quality scientist

River Fishery Board Senior scientist

National Farmers Union

Scotland Regional manager

Clyde River Basin

Scottish Executive, Drinking water quality officer

Analytical services officer

Clyde River Foundation Catchment manger

SEPA, East Kilbride Office Environmental Quality Planner

Scottish Water, Headquarter and

Glasgow Offices

Water resources coordinator

Southwest area coordinator

Scottish Natural Heritage Freshwater officer

Glasgow University Senior lecturer (fish researcher)

EnviroCentre, Glasgow Scientific advisor

Mott McDonald Plc, Glasgow Senior consultant (water supply)

83

Sinos River Basin

Sinos River Basin Committee Executive secretary

Water Resources Council Executive secretary

FEPAM Water quality scientist

ABES Director (water quality expert)

Pro-Guaíba Communication officer

ANA Senior consultant

Pardo River Basin

Pardo River Basin Committee Director (agricultural engineer)

Executive secretary

Ecoplan Engenharia Ltd. Senior consultant

UNISC (University of Santa

Cruz do Sul)

Professor (geography)

Senior lecturer (geography)

Lecturer (geography)

Research assistant (water resources)

UFSM (Federal University of

Santa Maria) Senior lecturer (hydrology)

For the interviews with stakeholders, a standard questionnaire was adopted,

which is summarised in Box 3.3 (the full version of the interview questions and

accessory material in English and in Portuguese is available in Appendix V). This

questionnaire was developed to organise and stimulate discussion about both the

catchment sustainability and the proposed framework. During the interviews, two

tables with the considered criteria and the related indicators were presented to the

interviewees (i.e. the same tables were shown to every respondent to guarantee

interview consistency). The sequence of questions was not necessarily the same in

each interview, but depended on the flow of each session and the interest of the

respondent. Written notes about the interview were taken and later copied to computer

files (organised by catchment and question, in addition to general comments made by

the respondent). The results of the interviews will be used for both the analysis of the

sustainability condition of each catchment (included in Chapter 6) and also for the

discussion about the adequacy of the framework of sustainability indicators (presented

in Chapter 7).

84


This Chapter described the approach to water sustainability assessment

adopted in the research, which was designed to understand the development of

sustainability indicators through the critical analysis of the political ecology of water

problems. The research activities comprised the development of sustainability

indicators in a process of successive testing and evaluation. A group of catchments

was chosen (in pre-determined countries) to support the development of the

framework of indicators. Water stakeholders were identified in those countries to

discuss the selection of catchments and, afterwards, to provide inputs into the

development of indicators. The development of the indicators required systematic

analysis of the catchment context and the final framework of indicators was the

product of the amalgamation of existing literature, interaction with stakeholders and

the personal interpretation of water sustainability by the researcher.

It was emphasised that the selection of appropriate indicators involved

subjective judgement of the possible issues that could be included in the indicator

expressions. At the same time, the indicators were also selected by considering

explanatory capacity and straightforward communication of results. Because of the

contested, positioned nature of sustainability indicators, it was central for the

Box 3.3: Topics Covered in Interviews with Catchment Stakeholders:

(After presenting the list of water sustainability criteria and indicators)

1) Ask about the appropriateness of the water sustainability criteria and

indicators

2) Ask about the appropriateness of the research strategy and techniques

3) Ask about difficulties in terms of availability of environmental and socio-

economic in the catchment

4) Ask about long-term solutions to facilitate the production of data at the

catchment

5) The main issues related to water sustainability identified in this

research were ___________ (specific of each catchment). Ask if the

respondent agrees with this conclusion; ask about the main challenges to

the catchment conservation and management

85

researcher to reflect about the preferences behind criteria and indicators. It was

recognised that the most appropriate manner to deal with the intrinsic subjectivity of

sustainability assessment was to make the background assumptions explicit to those

contacted during the research. The research basically followed an interactive strategy

to allow the inclusion of different points of view throughout the development of the

indicators.

A combination of research methods was used for the characterisation of the

catchments and for the calculation of the proposed water sustainability indicators. The

Chapter described those different research techniques and the computer programmes

employed in data gathering and manipulation. Finally, the Chapter described the

interviews conducted with stakeholders in the selected catchments to discuss the

indicator results and the appropriateness of the methodology. The proposed „water

sustainability indicators‟ essentially served as a tool to organise the positioned analysis

of water problems, working as „measures of change‟ rather than claiming objectivity

or truth about the catchment condition. The next chapter will present the details of the

indicator expressions, including advantages, innovative aspects and limitations of each

indicator.

86

Chapter 4 - Framework of Sustainability Indicators


This Chapter presents the criteria of water sustainability selected in this study

and the related indicators developed through a series of trial stages and in discussion

with local catchment stakeholders (as described in the last chapter). This group of

indicators forms the central element of the developed framework, which covers the

environmental, economic and social dimensions of water sustainability. All

dimensions and indicators are treated equally, assuming that they are all independently

essential for a sustainable condition of the water systems. For each indicator described

in this Chapter, there is an initial explanation about the relevance to water

sustainability and examples of comparable assessment approaches, followed by the

technical details about the proposed indicator formulation. The Chapter also contains

references from works included earlier in the literature review (Chapter 2).

4.2 Indicators for the Assessment of Water Sustainability

A sustainable condition is the result of the balance between environmental,

economic and social dimensions of water use and conservation. Questions related to

the allocation and use of water evoke those three dimensions, which must be

adequately assessed in order to understand the difficulties and achievements in terms

of sustainability. To facilitate the understanding of the internal relationships between

the three dimensions, a group of nine indicators of water sustainability is proposed

here (Table 4.1). Indicator results were analysed together with other additional sources

of information about local water problems. As explained in the previous Chapter, this

list of indicators derived from the review of the available literature and was chosen

through a process of testing and refining. The justification of the indicators is based on

the discussion presented on Section 2.7 above. The starting point was the definition of

key sustainability criteria and related management issues. From this broad list of

criteria and issues, the most critical, but still easily manageable, group of sustainability

indicators was eventually defined.

87

Table 4.1: Components of the Proposed Water Sustainability Framework

Sustainability

Dimension Water Sustainability Criteria

Environmental

Water Quality

Water Quantity

System Resilience

Economic

Water Use Efficiency

User Sector Productivity

Institutional Preparedness

Social

Equitable Water Services

Water-related Well-being

Public Participation

For each criterion presented in the above table, there is a correspondent

sustainability indicator. These proposed indicators were developed for the catchment

scale, however, it is also possible to apply them to other scales of analysis (i.e.

national, regional or sub-catchment levels). The indicators are combinations of

subsidiary environmental and socio-economic indicators, which incorporate data about

individual parameters of the water system. There is, thus, a gradual aggregation of data

for the production sustainability indicator results, according to the following scheme

(Figure 4.1):

Figure 4.1: Aggregation of Data for the Calculation of Sustainability Indicators (SI)

It is important to acknowledge that the proposed framework of indicators

represents a simplification of complex catchment processes and expresses personal

preferences of the researcher. As proposed by Walmsley (2002), a framework of

Subsidiary

Indicators

Raw Data

S.I.

A

G

G

R

E

G

A

T

E

88

indicators is essential as it assists in developing and reporting on indicators in a logical

fashion in order that key issues can be readily identified and summarised. Frameworks

are required to organise the indicators and to logically grouping related sets of

information, thus promoting interpretation and integration and helping to identify data

collection needs and data gaps.

The emphasis of this proposed approach is the high-level combinations of

processes that are responsible for the overall sustainability of the water system. The

indicators are intended to identify trends in the critical elements that affect water

sustainability in the catchment. The selection of this list of indicators had fundamental

methodological and operational justifications. It involved a trade-off between the

extensive number of parameters related to the management of the water system and

the need to provide explanation for the sustainability condition of the catchment.

Water stakeholders were involved in the selection of water sustainability issues and

associated indicators during the development of the framework.

The next sub-sections describe the indicator expressions, which are the result

of the interactive process mentioned above.

4.3 The Environmental Dimension of Freshwater Sustainability

The environmental dimension of freshwater sustainability is considered in this

framework of analysis by the three criteria and indicators below (Table 4.2). For

catchments where data is not available for the calculation of these three core

formulations, proxy (alternative) indicators can be adopted according to the specific

circumstance:

Table 4.2: Criteria and Indicators of the Environmental Dimension

Water

Sustainability

Criteria

Sustainability Indicators Examples of Proxy

Indicators

Water Quality Relative Proportion of Water Quality

Conditions of River Stretches

River stretches with

individual water quality

parameters

Water Quantity

Ratio between Water Demand and

Seasonal Low Flow, Related to

Water Import, Export and Recycling

Ratio between annual

abstraction and annual

low flow

Rate of groundwater use

System Resilience Deviation from Average Monthly

Flows

Frequency of extreme

flow events

89

4.3.1 Water quality

The first criterion of water sustainability included in this framework is the

conservation of the chemical, physical and biological properties of both the aqueous

matrix and the aquatic environment. Those properties characterise the ability of a

water body to support all appropriate beneficial uses (EPA, 1998). Those beneficial

uses are the ways in which water is utilised by humans, wildlife and the environment.

It means that a good water quality is not restricted to chemical parameters, but must

also consider the ecological integrity of the water environment. The precautionary

conservation of good water quality is important for the sustainability of the entire

water system, because it is not easy to determine the specific threshold when the

system reaches an irreversible deteriorated condition. Therefore, to avoid an

irreversible deterioration of the water system it is essential to maintain the quality of

its chemical, physical and biological properties in the long-term.

The condition of water quality is determined through extensive research and

long-term data collection, due to the complexity of the water system and the different

resilience of individual species. Water quality status is determined by comparing

physical, chemical, microbiological, hydro-biological and eco-toxicological

parameters with reference conditions. The comparison between sampled values and

reference conditions represents the best scientific judgement about the impacts of

water quality changes on human health and on the environment. Modern monitoring

methods are able to relate the levels of various constituents, especially nutrients, with

the condition of the aquatic ecosystem. In order to understand the complex dynamics

of water quality, monitoring procedures have evolved from being mono-dimensional

to more realistic representations of continuity of processes happening in the river

system (Huang and Xia, 2001).

An indicator of water quality that can be used for the assessment of

sustainability should be able to describe historic trends and relations between

parameters. It requires a temporal and spatial analysis of parameters, as well

thresholds that can be adjusted considering local environmental conditions. An

indicator should be able to relate oscillations in water quality with anthropogenic

interventions in the catchment. The most common representation of water quality for

sustainability assessment is the length of river stretches that fall into specific condition

classes („bands‟). Normally, the most stringent parameter defines the band, and is in

other words, a classification by default.

90

Sustainability

Indicator No. 1:

RELATIVE PROPORTION OF WATER

QUALITY CONDITIONS OF RIVER STRETCHES

Equation 1: ( y / x )

where:

y = extension of river stretches into water quality categories

according to the official classification methodology

adopted locally


Definition

Proportion of stretches with specific water quality conditions, in relation to the total

extension of river stretches.

Unit of measurement

Variable units: (x) and (y) in kilometres (km)

Result: percentage (%) or extension (km) of river stretches under

specific quality categories

Purpose

Assess the degree to which water quality is being affected by human activities in

the river basin, considering stressing processes that can disrupt the auto-depuration

capacity of water bodies and the stability of water ecosystems.

Notes

This indicator provides information about the expansion of human impacts

throughout the river basin that are able to produce changes in long-term water

quality of river stretches

Based on the data available, each stretch of the river is classified according to

quality classes (bands of water quality condition separated by thresholds). The

indicator considers data accumulated during a significant time period (normally

between one and three years) and, therefore, does not consider short-time events

and seasonal changes

91

Each river system has its own hydrologic characteristics and particular physico-

chemical patterns, which depend on the climate, geology and geomorphology of

the surrounding land and riverbed composition. It is not possible to establish

universal thresholds for water quality, but the analysis of water quality condition

considers the thresholds developed and adopted nationally or locally

Innovation and advantages of the indicator

The indicator is similar to the approaches of environmental regulators (for instance

in the United Kingdom)

The indicator has the advantage of providing standardised information about the

water quality condition (i.e. classes of water quality), therefore facilitating the

comparison between river stretches and between years

The indicator provides easily communicable results about the evolution of the water

quality condition and facilitates the establishment of management targets

Limitations of the indicator

Because of the aggregation of different river stretches, it is not possible to infer,

from the final result, the specific points where water quality is improving or

deteriorating in the catchment

River water quality monitoring does not include evaluation of ground water

pollution (moreover, due to the close interaction between ground and surface

water, this is, to a certain extent, covered by the assessment of river stretches)

4.3.2 Water quantity

The second criterion of sustainability is the conservation of the water balance

in the river basin in order to maintain the long-term environmental integrity, while

appropriately satisfying human needs. A sustainable condition requires the long-term

conservation of river flows, groundwater stocks and surface reservoirs. Not only must

the quantity be maintained, but the patterns of hydrological regime must also be

satisfactory conserved. In particular, sustainability requires the maintenance of critical

ecological flows (high and low flows) in order to preserve ecosystem structure and

92

environmental processes. Sustainable water quantities are not only related to

abstraction of water, but also interbasin transfers and physical interventions must

respect hydrologic features of the river basin, not creating barriers that affect the

recovering capacity of the water system.

To analyse whether water abstraction satisfies the quantitative requisites of

water sustainability, it is necessary to make a comparison of reference conditions with

changes in the hydrological regime due to human action. There is a long list of

hydrological indicators that can be used to describe changes in water regime.

However, over complexity must be avoided, especially because changes in some

parameters may not necessarily have significant impact on sustainability. For example,

Black et al. (2000) propose a method that considers any direct interventions in the

drainage network, which cause a material change to the hydrological regime of a river

or lake. Petts (1996) also suggests that floodplain flow, channel maintenance flow,

minimum flows and optimum flows are the attributes that deserve consideration in the

assessment of anthropogenic impacts on the water cycle.

Sustainability

Indicator No. 2:

RATIO BETWEEN WATER DEMAND AND

SEASONAL LOW FLOW, RELATED TO WATER

IMPORT, EXPORT AND RECYCLING

Equation 2: [ y / x ] * { 100 / [ 100 - (Exp - Imp - Rec) ] }

where:


x = seasonal flow of exceeded 95% of the time (m3/s)

Exp = percentage of abstracted water that

is exported from the river basin (%)

Imp = percentage of abstracted water that

is imported to the river basin (%)

Rec = percentage of abstracted water that

is recycled in river basin (%)

Definition

Rate of withdrawal in relation to seasonal low flows, considering imported and

recycled flows and discounting exported flows.

93

Unit of measurement

Variable units: water flow (m3/s)

Result: proportion of water abstraction

Purpose

Assess the degree to which freshwater has been appropriated for human uses within

the river basin, recycled and exchanged with neighbouring areas.

Notes

The rate of withdrawal includes, in principle, water abstraction for consumptive

uses (domestic supply, irrigation, industry, etc). If necessary, non-consumptive

uses (hydropower, fish farms, recreation, etc) can be considered separately.

Seasonal low flows are the river flows that are exceeded 95% of the time (Q95),

which are calculated from daily mean flow data (estimated at the downstream

catchment outflow point)

For the cases where other ecological minimum flow was specifically estimated, this

must be used as the threshold instead of Q95

Flows imported and exported include human activities that bring water to or take

water away from the river basin (interbasin transfers)

The recycle flow includes water already used for certain purposes that, instead of

being discharged back into the environment is used again for the same or for a

different purpose


The indicator adopted for this study includes in the same expression the rate of

abstraction regarding seasonal low flows, and incorporates an additional factor

related to interbasin transfers and recycling of water

The indicator has the advantage of relating the level of water abstraction to the

periods of critical (low) flows, therefore informing about demand pressures that

can potentially disrupt the environmental equilibrium

There is flexibility to establish an acceptable level of abstraction according to the

environmental sensitivity of the catchment

94

The indicator gives a positive rate to the recycling and transfer of water into the

catchment, as well as gives a negative rate to transfers of water to other areas

The indicator provides easily communicable results about the evolution of the water

balance and facilitates the establishment of management targets


The indicator only relates human uses with low flows and not with all points of the

flow duration curve

The indicator aggregates water withdrawals present in the river basin

Transfers of water to the catchment are not always positive to the catchment

sustainability, as long as it can bring invasive species and affect the chemical

properties of the receiver catchment

4.3.3 System resilience

The third criterion of sustainability is the maintenance of the natural speed of

recovery from unsatisfactory conditions (i.e. unsatisfactory conditions are events

occurring beyond the range of values considered satisfactory). The recovery from

unsatisfactory conditions is defined as the rate of system resilience (Loucks and

Gladwell, 1999). Due to the dynamic characteristics of the water cycle, there is a

natural level of variability in its internal processes, but a sustainable water system

must recovery from exceptional conditions to guarantee the preservation of

ecosystems, the stability of economic activity and the maintenance of quality of life. A

low resilience condition, for example, can be the results of modification in land use in

the catchment, construction of impoundments or changes in the climate.

The assessment of system resilience needs to evaluate the variability of the

hydrologic regime. This assessment can include deviations in the average of recorded

parameters or in parameter dispersion. There are different methodologies that can

quantify hydrological changes and indicate the level of system resilience. For instance,

Krasovskaia (1995) analyses the stability in flow regimes on the basis of the

seasonality shown in monthly flow data. Backhaus et al. (2002) proposed an approach

to assess catchment landscape sustainability that considers the long term monitoring of

the dynamics of water flow and matter load. Still Richter et al. (1996) formulated a

95

method for assessing hydrological alteration using 32 parameters, which compare

measures of central tendency and dispersion of each parameter.

Sustainability

Indicator No. 3: DEVIATION FROM AVERAGE MONTHLY FLOWS

Equation 3:

12

[ Σ (Qi – QMi ) / si ] / 12

i =1

where:


QMi = long-term monthly mean flow for month „i‟

si = standard deviation for month „i‟

Definition

Annual average of standardised month flow deviations from the month average.

Unit of measurement

Variable units: water flow (m3/s)

Result: dispersion from the average

Purpose

Assess the long-term reliability of the river flow (i.e. no tendency towards increased

wetness or dryness).

Notes

The basic principle behind this indicator is that higher variability means lower

system resilience

The indicator is calculated from mean daily flow, which serves to derive individual

month average, historic month flow and historic standard deviation


This is a new hydrological indicator, which considers the rate of deviation from

average river flow

96

The indicator consolidates daily river flow into a single annual output, which

facilitates the understanding of the water system condition for that specific year

The indicator providing standardised information about the water quality condition

for the whole period of analysis, therefore facilitating the comparison between

years

The indicator provides easily communicable results about the resilience and

stability of the water system


The indicator does not separate the influence of climate change from the influence

of land cover change on runoff-rainfall figures (although such differentiation is not

necessary for the assessment of trends of system sustainability)

Because the indicator only takes into account annual figures, it does not show

details about the severity and length of individual adverse events (floods and

droughts)

4.4 The Economic Dimension of Freshwater Sustainability

The economic dimension of freshwater sustainability is considered in the

framework of analysis by the following criteria and related indicators (Table 4.3):

Table 4.3: Criteria and Indicators of the Economic Dimension

Water Sustainability

Criteria Sustainability Indicators

Examples of Proxy

Indicators

Water Use Efficiency Economic Growth in Relation

to Water Demand

Regional (broader than the

river basin) economic growth

regarding water demand

User Sector Productivity

Sectoral Production in

Relation to Sectoral Water

Demand

Ration between water

demand and economic output

Institutional Preparedness Checklist of Institutional

Requirements

Structure and organisational

details of water institutions

4.4.1 Water use efficiency

The first criterion of the economic dimension of water sustainability is the

requirement of an efficient and judicious use of water in the river basin. The

satisfaction of human needs is a fundamental objective of sustainable development,

97

but at the same time it requires that economic benefits should not be achieved at the

expense of excessive demand for water. The water system tends towards a more

sustainable condition when the aggregate economic outputs are produced with a

relative reduction in the use of water. In other words, there is a tendency towards a

sustainable condition if economic development is not dependent on an incremental

demand for water. However, such equivalence between rates of economic outcome

and rates of water use can be considered only within certain limits because, beyond a

determined point, reductions in water withdrawal affect the social dimension of water

sustainability.

The level of water use efficiency can be assessed by the considering the

relation between water resource use per unit of product or service. It means the

maximisation of marginal economic benefits derived from water use. The most

common indicator of economic output is GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

Alternatively, GDP can be adjusted with purchase power parity [i.e. by adopting the

formula: GDP = (actual value – minimum value)/(maximum value – minimum value)].

However, Daly (1996) points out that GDP is rather an index of cost, benefits and

changes in accumulation and suggests the adoption of „Green GDP‟. This new

formulation of GDP discounts „defensive expenditures‟ (costs of all environmental

protection activities and expenditures for environmental damage compensation) and

„depletion of natural capital‟ (reduction in flow of products and ecosystem services).

Sustainability

Indicator No. 4:

ECONOMIC GROWTH IN RELATION

TO WATER DEMAND

Equation 4: [ 100 *(GDP2 – GDP1) / GDP2 ] -

[ 100 * (demand2 – demand1 )/ demand2 ]

where:

GDP2 = catchment Gross Domestic Product

of the current period

GDP1 = catchment Gross Domestic Product

of the previous period

demand2 = water demand from ground and surface water

for the current period

demand1 = water demand from ground and surface water

for the previous period

98

Definition

Difference between the relative variation in GDP and the relative variation in water

demand (i.e. elasticity economic growth-water use).

Unit of measurement

Variable units: GDP in national currency;

water demand in volume (Ml/d) or flow (m3/s)

Result: balance between economic growth and water demand

Purpose

Assess to what degree there is a relation between gains or losses in terms of

catchment GDP figures and increases/decreases in water demand.

Notes

This indicator includes in the same expression two processes related to different

dimensions of water sustainability: GDP, as a proxy of economic production, and

water demand, as a proxy of human appropriation of water resources. Water

demand considers abstraction from surface and groundwater sources and water

transference from other river basins

The basic concept behind this indicator is that the relative variation in GDP and

water demand affects the level of sustainability. This indicator assesses trends of

decoupling water consumption from economic growth. If the increase (or

reduction) in the rate of water use is equivalent with the increase (or reduction) in

economic output there is a stable water productivity condition

According to this interpretation, if the relative increase in GDP happens to be

higher than the relative expansion of water demand, there is a positive contribution

towards water sustainability. Likewise, if the relative increase in GDP is smaller

than the relative expansion of water demand, there is a negative contribution

towards water sustainability. In other words, it means that part of the gain in GDP

has been done at the expense of overexploitation of water

In the long run, the expansion of GDP and reduction of water demand indicate

gains in terms of sustainability. However, there is no necessary connection

99

between both processes for every individual year, as long as there are other

technological, climatic and structural constraints


This is a new indicator that relates the annual rate of variation in the catchment

economic output to the annual rate of change in water demand

The indicator calculation intrinsically incorporates the evolution of economic

output and water demand, therefore facilitating the analysis of trends and

tendencies

The indicator results easily communicate if there is a tendency towards a more

efficient use of water (i.e. a positive result of the indicator indicates that economic

growth is higher than growth in water demand, therefore suggesting a tendency

towards efficiency. On the contrary, a negative result of the indicator indicates that

economic growth is achieved at the expense of higher rates of water demand,

suggesting a tendency towards inefficiency)


This indicator formulation does not include threshold values for the natural limits to

the expansion of water demand (i.e. threshold values for water abstraction that

does not encroach upon the carrying capacity of the water system)

GDP is an economic index widely used and well known, which makes it very easily

accessible. Moreover, there are serious limitations with the use of GDP as

measurement of economic productivity, since this is more an index of cost,

benefits and changes in accumulation

The evolution of GDP indicates changes in economic productivity rather than

changes in economic efficiency. GDP also fails to reflect the environmental

damage done in generating income

Particularly for sustainability analyses, it would be preferred to make use of other

more environmentally coherent indices that include a discount for defensive

expenditures (e.g. costs of all environmental protection activities, expenditures for

environmental damage compensation, depletion of resources and quality of life),

such as „Green GDP‟.

100

4.4.2 User sector productivity

The second economic criterion of water sustainability is the requirement for

efficient use of water by the individual user sectors. The aggregate efficient use of

water is required for a sustainable condition, but it also presupposes a correspondent

effort of each individual user sector in the river basin. That effort is required for

sectors that use either large or small volumes of water. This common requirement for

all sectors is based on the fact that sustainability is a long-term goal and the relative

water demand of each sector can change in space and in time. Gains in productivity by

individual sectors and individual users depend on the willingness to change practices

and on the opportunities available to improve efficiency, such as technological

improvements and investment capacity.

Sectoral water productivity can be assessed by relating the units of water used

with the units of economic outcome. Alternatively, it can assess water used against the

use of other inputs, such as raw materials or energy, as well as with pollution

generation. Another way of addressing sector productivity is by considering the

volumes of water used with the output of the respective sectors in monetary terms to

evaluate in the way in which water is utilised in more general terms (Krinner et al.,

1999). In a different approach, Cai et al. (2002) propose to address the sustainability

of water uses by taking into account the cumulative effects of short-term water use

decisions and trade-offs between the benefits of current and future generations.

Sustainability

Indicator No. 5:

ECONOMIC GROWTH IN RELATION

TO SECTORAL WATER DEMAND

Equation 5: [ 100 * (turnover2 – turnover1) / turnover2 ] -

[ 100 * (sector demand2 – sector demand1 )/ sector demand2 ]

where:





sector demand2 = water demand by the sector in

the catchment for the current period

sector demand1 = water demand by the sector in

the catchment for the previous period

101

Definition

Balance between relative variation in turnover of the economic sectors and relative

variation in water use.

Unit of measurement

Variable units: GDP in national currency;


Result: balance between turnover and water demand

Purpose

Assess to what degree there is a relation between gains or losses in sector

production and increases or decreases in sector water demand.

Notes

Turnover is the amount of money taken by the productive sector within a certain

period of time, in this case a year

Water demand considers metered and unmetered user sectors (i.e. the former is

charged by the metered volume of water use and the latter is charged by a fixed

amount, normally related to the size of the activity)

The fundamental concept behind this indicator is that a positive tendency towards

sustainability depends on increases in economic production (represented by the

rate of turnover) at higher rates than the increases in water demand. Consequently,

where rates of water demand are higher than rates of economic growth there is a

negative tendency towards sustainability


This is a new indicator that relates the annual rate of variation in the economic

results of the water user sectors to the annual rate of change in water demand per

user sector



tendencies

102

The result easily communicates if there is a tendency towards more productive use

of water by the economic sector


The rate of turnover depends on market conditions and does not directly represent

gains in economic efficiency

The indicator needs to be related to other sources of information on the use of water

by the individual productive sectors, such as expansion of productive capacity or

technological changes

Household water demand includes both the satisfaction of basic human needs and

also luxurious uses of water (such as water gardening or private swimming pools),

which may not be socially acceptable under scarcity conditions)

4.4.3 Institutional preparedness

The third economic criterion of sustainability is the requirement of an adequate

institutional framework to regulate water use and conservation. Sustainability depends

on capable institutions to cope with social, economic and environmental questions

associated with water. Appropriate institutions are necessary, among other things, for

fair allocation, efficient management and conservation of water resources. In

particular, robust institutions aim to provide sets of rules for allocation of water across

user sectors and, thereby, administer conflicting demands. An effective institutional

arrangement maximises benefits to local populations and, at the same time, promotes

sound environmental management in order to minimise negative impacts.

The institutional preparedness can be assessed against a range of legal,

administrative and technical aspects that are basic for the management of water in the

river basin. An indicator of institutional sustainability can gauge whether a certain

character is given or not, the hierarchy of qualitative states or still quantitative

information linked to specific targets. Spangenberg et al. (2002) affirm that indicators

of sustainable institutions must consider not only the existence of organisations, but

also their effectiveness. Another example was proposed by Ostrom et al. (1993) as a

framework to evaluate the different institutional arrangements based on five criteria:

1) economic efficiency; 2) equity through fiscal equivalence; 3) redistributional

equity; 4) accountability; and 5) adaptability.

103

Sustainability

Indicator No. 6: CHECKLIST OF INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS

Equation 6:

08

Σ Xi

i = 1

where:

X1 = Legislation addresses water management

at the river basin level

X2 = River basin management is formally connected with the


X3 = River basin management is organised / regulated

by specific plans and programmes

X4 = Water allocation mechanism is based on local

hydrologic assessments and appropriate criteria

X5 = Allocation of water takes into account social

and environmental priorities of use

X6 = Existence of a river basin organisation

with specific water management duties

X7 = Hydrologic and water quality monitoring with

satisfactory space and time coverage

X8 = Capacity building activities at the catchment level

Definition

Number of institutional requirements that are properly satisfied, according to a list

with eight basic requirements.

Unit of measurement

Result: sum of checklist items

Purpose

Assess the level of adequacy to which institutions are organised in order to

implement an integrated river basin management approach that contributes to the

construction of water sustainability.

104

Notes

In order to represent the main issues related to institutional arrangement, this

particular indicator relies on eight fundamental requirements of the river basin

institutional preparedness and performance. The list includes aspects that

summarise the range of technical, administrative, economic and socio-political

challenges posed for river basin institutions. It addresses the responsibilities of

both river basin authorities and other governmental organisations.

River basin institutions covers not only agencies or organisations, but also includes

the way in which stakeholders interact with organisations, the processes by which

decisions are made, and activities undertaken to implement their goals

(encompassing technical and normative instruments). The institution arrangement

of a river basin is thus defined as the combination of administrative structures, key

participants, legislation, policies, economic arrangements, political structures,

traditional customs and values

In terms of administrative structures, the river basin institutional arrangement

encompasses two kinds of different regulators: there is a first group that operate

exclusively at the river basin scale (like agencies and committees); there is a

second group that operate as part of other government agents (affiliated to local,

state, or national administrative spheres). The latter group includes environmental

agencies, local authorities, agricultural service, forestry service, water supply and

sanitation, etc. Part of those functions under the responsibility of governmental

agencies can be opened to private enterprise

The river basin scale is the adequate level of governance for the management of

water resources and requires some form of institutional organisation to deal with

the river basin specific questions. The main justification for having a separate

administrative structure is the fact that public management agencies have shared

and fragmented responsibilities, either from one level of government to another

(local, state, national) or among agencies at the same level of government (water,

agriculture, forestry, etc.). This normally creates incomplete response or excessive

distance between the problem source and the government agent in charge

105

Table 4.4 lists the group of requirements to be taken into account for the

analysis of institutional preparedness and performance. The particular function that

each requirement describes for the river basin management process is also described,

as well as the main attributes can be expected

Table 4.4: Institutional Requirements, Functions and Expected Attributes

Institutional requirement Functions Expected attributes

Legislation addresses water management at

the river basin level Regulatory

Comprehensive and

updated

River basin management is formally

connected with the regional/national

system of water management

Strategic Integrated and co-

operative

River basin management is

organised/regulated by specific plans and

programmes

Planning Systematic and

effective

Water allocation mechanism is based on

local hydrologic assessments and

appropriate criteria

Efficiency Rigorous and

efficient

Allocation of water takes into account

social and environmental priorities of use Justice

Judicious and

consequent

Existence of a river basin organisation

with specific water management duties Responsibility

Competent and

representative

Hydrologic and water quality monitoring

with satisfactory space and time coverage Information

Accurate and

continuous

Capacity building activities at the

catchment level Pedagogic

Informative and

formative


This is a new indicator formulation that assesses the institutional preparedness

against a set of selected parameters

The indicator summarises the most critical requirements that an institutional

framework should include for the promotion of the sustainable management of

water

Despite the fact that this indicator included qualitative aspects of the institutional

framework, the assessment of those aspects is straightforward


This list of institutional requirements included in the indicator formulation

describes an ideal conceptual model of river basin management, which is based on

106

some successful experiences around the world. Moreover, it demonstrates an

affiliation with certain preferences in terms of river basin institutional

arrangements. Those preferences favour participatory approaches, comprehensive

governmental regulation and some governmental direct provision of services

4.5 The social dimension of freshwater sustainability

The social dimension of freshwater sustainability is considered in the

framework of analysis by the following three criteria, which are related to three core

sustainability indicators and, if necessary, potential proxy indicators (Table 4.5):

Table 4.5: Criteria and Indicators of the Social Dimension

Water Sustainability

Criteria Sustainability Indicators

Examples of Proxy

Indicators

Equitable Water Services Access to Water Services

Urban and rural access to

water services

Drinking Water Standards

Water-Related Well-being Well-being in Relation to

Water Demand

Water use per capita

Catchment indicators of

quality of life

Public Participation Checklist of Participatory

Requirements

Number of meetings or

events related to water

management

Number of water users

involved in setting water

management targets

4.5.1 Equitable water services

The first criterion of the social dimension of water sustainability is the requisite

that all persons, regardless of social characteristics or position in the catchment, have

access to satisfactory water supply. Avoiding social exclusion and securing durable

water services is not an end in itself, but means to alleviate poverty and improve

quality of life. To fulfil those requirements of sustainability, water must be equitably

allocated to permit the satisfaction of human needs, as well as to meet ecosystem

demands. This implies that every person has access to satisfactory amounts of good

quality water, but also takes proportional responsibilities for the maintenance of the

water system.

107

In addition, this criterion of sustainability presupposes that the access to good

water supply is affordable to all and charges should compensate disadvantaged social

groups. The assessment of equity in supply and sanitation services can comprise

differences in resource distribution or can address a particular system structure. It can

also include the size of the community served and the cost of services. Mukherjee

(2002) proposes an approach based on parameters that indicate the minimum

sustainability levels and, at the same time, demonstrate socially empowering, such as

demand rate structures, landscape water use, plumbing and irrigation systems and

education programs. A straightforward indicator is the satisfaction of minimal

performance standards of water services.

Sustainability

Indicator No. 7: ACCESS TO WATER SERVICES

Equation 7: ( x * 100-1

)

where:

x = percentage of population served by potable water supply


Definition

Percentage of catchment population with access to water supply (or by improved

sanitation).

Unit of measurement

Variable units: (x) in percentage of the catchment population

Result: percentage (%) of service coverage

Purpose

Assess the degree to which water supply and sanitation services satisfactory attend

the local population.

Notes

Potable water supply means the existence of opportunities to satisfy the basic needs

of the population with reasonable regularity, without contamination risks and with

108

no abusive charges. It includes public and private supply systems, and also diffuse

sources of water for the rural or peri-urban population

Adequate sanitation means the existence of opportunities to connect domestic water

system with the sewerage network. It includes public and private sewerage

systems, as well as alternative, small-scale schemes

There are economic and operational reasons to accept that total coverage is unlikely

to be attained, because it is simply inappropriate in many circumstances for rural

consumers to be connected. Those not connected rely on sources such as private

wells, public water fountains, and private water vendors. There are, thus, limits for

connecting population to water supply and wastewater treatment plants

This indicator fundamentally addresses intra-generation equity (between people of

the same generation). The basic underlying concept is that a more equitable

condition is created if more people have access to water and sanitation services.

Inter-generation equity can be inferred by considering the tendency of indicator

results along the years. In other words, if the indicator demonstrates a steady

increase in supply and sanitation services along the time, a lasting result in terms

of equity can be expected


The indicator is similar to the approaches adopted by environmental regulators and

international organisations (for instance by development programmes in

developing countries)

The indicator addresses a basic aspect of the social dimension of water

sustainability, which is the access to potable drinking water and adequate

sanitation services

The indicator easily communicates the proportion of the population that is not

served by water services


The indicator does not provide explanation if improvements water services are the

result of redistribution of the same amount of water or more resource being

explored

109

The indicator does not consider other factors that influence equitable water

services, such as tariffs and subsidies, macro-economic policies, or leakage rate of

the water distribution system

The indicator does not address technical aspects of the quality of water supply and

difference between urban and rural access to water

4.5.2 Well-being due to water availability

The second criterion of the social dimension of water sustainability is an

adequate level of social well-being derived from water availability and its direct and

indirect utilisation. Water is fundamental for health and hygiene, as well as providing

recreation and enjoyment services. Human well-being is the cumulative result of many

factors related to water availability, such as diet, household environment and

pleasurable landscape. Well-being and water are also associated with the prevention of

floods and droughts. Satisfactory water availability is, therefore, paramount for public

health, quality of life, food security and household safety. There are no universal

figures on the water needed to promote well-being, because it differs from one culture

or local conditions to another.

It terms of well-being assessment, Neumayer (2001) observes that the relation

between indicators of well-being and sustainability can be problematic, because

sustainability is most commonly defined as non-declining utility or well-being over

time. This means that the orientation towards indefinite system continuation makes

most indicators of sustainability rather focused on the capacity to provide utility in the

future, rather than including the measurement of current well-being. In order to

overcome such contrast, more recent indicators have attempted to fully integrate the

measurement of current welfare with that of intergenerational sustainability into one

single indicator. For example, Desai (1995) proposes that the intensity of

environmental exploitation should be discounted from well-being indicators (which

means that well-being in the present due to environmental exploitation reduces the

well-being in the future). Other authors integrate environmental degradation into the

calculation of well-being indicators, such as the pollution-sensitive index proposed by

Vega and Urrutia (2001).

110

Sustainability

Indicator No. 8: WELL-BEING IN RELATION TO WATER DEMAND

Equation 8: [100 * (well-being2 – well-being 1) / well-being 2] -

[ 100 * (demand2 – demand1 )/ demand2]

where:

well-being2 = indicator of well-being related to

water of the current period

well-being1 = indicator of well-being related to

water of the previous period

demand 2 = per capita water demand of the current period

demand 1 = per capita water demand of the previous period

Definition

Difference between relative variation of well-being indicators related to water and

the relative variation in water demand.

Unit of measurement

Variable units: HID is a dimensionless index with a range between 0 and 1;


Result: balance between well-being and water demand

Purpose

The indicator relates the evolution of an index of well-being and the expansion of

water demand. It assesses to what degree there is a relation between gains or losses

in terms of catchment well-being and increases or decreases in water demand.

Notes

The basic assumption behind this particular indicator is that water contributes as

one of the very basic aspects of human well-being and, up to certain limits, more

domestic consumption of water represents a better quality of life.

111

For the assessment of well-being in the river basin indicators of well-being that are

related to water availability, such as frequency of gastric diseases, gastro-enteritis,

diarrhoea, and intestinal-worm infestation are adopted. It can also include more

subjective issues, such as level of personal satisfaction or values conferred to water

bodies

An international indicator of well-being, which can be easily adjusted for the

catchment scale, is the Human Development Index (HDI), calculated by the UN-

Development Programme. HDI comprises three variables, which are aggregated

via simple arithmetic average: per capita income, life expectancy (a as proxy for

health achievement) and adult literacy together with education enrolment (as a

proxy for education attainment).11

Although HDI does not address well-being in

relation to water availability, the three variables included in its expression have an

indirect relation with the quality of water supply


This is a new indicator that relates the annual rate of variation in well-being

parameters with the annual rate of change in water demand



tendencies

The indicator results easily communicate if there is a tendency towards a more

efficient use of water (i.e. a positive result of the indicator indicates that economic

growth is higher than growth in water demand, therefore suggesting a tendency

towards efficiency. A negative result of the indicator indicates that economic

growth is achieved at the expense of higher rates of water demand, therefore

suggesting a tendency towards inefficiency)


The indicator fundamentally addresses the quantifiable elements of well-being

associated with the use of water (such as improvements in health or longevity)

11 Nevertheless, Morse (2003a) identified substantial differences in the HDI results of 114

countries when recalculated the indicator using the various methodologies employed by the

UNDP; such deviations make temporal comparisons of progress difficult.

112

It is relatively difficult to quantify other subjective elements of well-being

associated with water availability (such as improvements in amenity)

4.5.3 Public participation

The third social criterion of water sustainability is the effective participation of

the river basin society in the decision-making process related to water management.

Sustainability is a social construction of more sensible approaches to common

resources and, therefore, it requires mechanisms for the legitimate representation of

multiple interests and opinions that contribute for the achievement of common goals.

Social involvement aims to improve the level of confidence in the decision by sharing

information and uncertainties with all those affected, facilitating changes in

established practices. Participatory decision-making is expected to improve system

performance by involving users in the process as a way to encourage changes among

beneficiaries themselves (Parkes and Panelli, 2001). Public participation also plays an

important role in disseminating information and raising awareness about water

sustainability problems. It facilitates the promotion of behaviour changes that are

necessary to curb overuse and pollution of water (Corral-Verdugo et al., 2002).

Lockie et al. (2002) observe that the complexity of relationships between social

change and natural resource management has generated interest in the identification of

indicators that provide more streamlined means for monitoring and planning. For

example, Healey (1997) identifies five parameters for participatory and democratic

governance: range and variety of stakeholders concerned with local environmental

quality; spread power from formal agencies of government; framework for informal

intervention and local initiatives; inclusion of all members of the community,

recognising diversity; and continuity and accountability. Morrissey (2000) separates

groups of participation indicators aiming to address the level and quality of

participation (process indicators), the impact of participation on self-development and

community capacity (development indicators), and the impact of participation on

policy or change (instrumental indicators). Watson (2001) makes use of five elements

to analyse public participation in water management: compatible motives, equitable

representation and power, adaptive capacity, adequate resources and the final outputs

and outcomes.

113

Sustainability

Indicator No. 9: CHECKLIST OF PARTICIPATORY REQUIREMENTS

Equation 9:

08

Σ Xi

i =1

where:

X1 = Legislation delegate water management

decision-making to water users and civil society

X2 = Practice/mechanism of water management

includes stakeholder participation

X3 = Opportunities for public participation at the

regional/national system of water management

X4 = River basin planning is conducted via participatory

approaches

X5 = The majority/totality of stakeholder sectors

are properly involved in the river basin management

X6 = Policy making is influenced by river basin

public participation

X7 = Conflicts among water users are considered

and dealt at the river basin level

X8 = Campaigns/activities that aim to involve

the river basin population at large

Definition

Number of public participation requirements that are properly satisfied, according

to a list with eight basic requirements.

Unit of measurement

Results: sum of checklist items

Purpose

Assess the level of participation available for the different stakeholder groups and

their options to become effectively involved in the decision-making process for the

river basin management.

114

Notes

Participatory river basin management means that water users and civil society

representatives contribute to define problems, set priorities, select technologies and

policies, and monitor and evaluate impacts. Sustainable management gives equal

opportunity for minorities and excluded groups to participate in the decision-

making. It creates the conditions for the empowerment of water users and civil

society stakeholders, and very often ends up challenging traditional power

structures

The appropriate level of participation depends on specific goals and circumstances

of the river basin context, as well as on the expectations and capabilities of the

beneficiaries themselves. It constitutes an adaptive process, which progressively

searches to design mechanisms for organising stakeholders and facilitating

collective action. It takes into consideration the interaction in time and space not

only between individuals but also between individuals and the natural dynamics of

water resources. It means that the management of a complex system like a

watershed must be associated with a process of individual and social learning. For

this reason, there is not one single possible framework for public participation, but

it varies according to the level of inputs provided by stakeholders, the control over

decision-making, and the authority and responsibility that rest with society

There are internal and external obstacles that hinder the development of

participation within a river basin. These include governmental interference and

economic interests, as well as non-cooperative social groups and cultural conflicts.

Public participation produces better outcomes when it is able to recognise the

range and variety of stakeholders. It means fostering social inclusion and

maintaining management decisions continually and openly accountable

Table 4.6 lists the group of requirements to be taken into account for the

analysis of public participation in relation to water management. The particular

function that each requirement describes for the river basin management process is

identified, as well as the main attributes that are expected to be achieved.

115

Table 4.6: Institutional Requirements, Functions and Expected Attributes

Institutional requirement Functions Expected

attributes

Legislation delegate water management

decision-making to water users and civil

society

Regulatory Comprehensive and

updated

Practice/mechanism of water management

includes stakeholder participation Inclusiveness

Democratic and

unrestricted

Opportunities for public participation at the

regional/national system of water

management

Integration Real and

independent

River basin planning is conducted via

participatory approaches Empowerment

Representative and

reflective

The majority/totality of stakeholder sectors

are properly involved in the river basin

management

Engagement Qualified and

critical

Policy making is influenced by river basin

public participation Responsiveness

Effective and

comprehensive

Conflicts among water users are considered

and dealt at the river basin level Dialogical

Legitimate and

equitable

Campaigns/activities that aim to involve

the river basin population at large Educational

Frequent and

organised


This is a new indicator formulation that assesses the level of public participation

against a set of selected parameters

The indicator summarises the most critical opportunities for public involvement

that are needed for the sustainable management of water

Despite the fact that this indicator included qualitative aspects of public

participation, the assessment of those aspects is straightforward


This list of requirements for public participation, included in the indicator

formulation, describes an ideal conceptual model of river basin management,

which is based on successful experiences. It demonstrates affiliation with certain

preferences for the participatory process. Those preferences are in favour of

bottom-up, critical approaches and ample opportunities for public engagement

116


This Chapter presented the framework of sustainability criteria and the related

indicators that were developed for this study. The group of nine indicators was

selected taking into account the local context of the selected catchments. These

indicators cover the environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainable

development, which should be considered together for the assessment of the

sustainability of water systems. The indicator expressions were defined by establishing

trade-offs between the critical parameters of water sustainability and the requirement

of an easy calculation and clear communication of results. It was decided to give the

same treatment to all indicators, since they incorporate equally important requirements

for sustainable water systems. The Chapter presented the relevance of the indicator for

water sustainability, the definition and equation, underlying concepts, advantages and

limitations of the proposed indicators, as well as examples of proxy (substitute)

indicators. This framework of sustainability indicators was applied to four catchments

to test its appropriateness. The next Chapter will describe the catchments for which the

indicators were developed, preceded by an explanation of the national institutional

context of water management in Scotland and in Brazil.

117

Chapter 5 - National Water Policies and the Selected Catchments


This Chapter gives the historical and institutional context of the water

sustainability problems in Scotland and in Brazil: the two countries chosen for this

research. The Chapter describes the four catchments selected, Clyde, Dee, Sinos and

Pardo, provides general information about the physical characteristics of the

catchments and includes a brief overview of the economic development, related

environmental conflicts and regulatory framework in each country. This background

of water sustainability problems provided the context for the development of the

framework of indicators and underpinned the calculation of the individual indicators

of sustainability in the next Chapter. Table 5.1 summarises the four catchments chosen

for this study.

Table 5.1: Key Information of the Four Catchments

Item units Clyde Dee Sinos Pardo

Population n 1,803,110 247,928 1,248,716 202,932

Area km2 3,376 2,100 3,729 3,749

River length km 171 126 190 117

Mean yearly

precipitation mm/yr 930 - 1,300 810 - 2,100 1,810 1,656

Mean yearly flow

(at the most

downstream point)

cumecs 49 47 80 66

Main uses of water

Dilution of

effluents,

water supply,

navigation

and

hydropower

Public

supply,

private

supply

fisheries and

tourism

Dilution of

effluents,

public

supply,

irrigation and

hydropower

Irrigation

and public

supply

Data Sources: Ecoplan (1997), RS (2002), GRO (2003), Magna (1996),

SEPA (2000a), SEPA database, SPJC (2003) and Warren (1985)

5.2 Water Management Pressures and Responses in Scotland

Scotland has, at the beginning of the 21st Century, been reorganising its public

administration and, in particular, environmental regulation under the new conditions

118

created by political devolution in 1999. Post-devolution, a range of previously

centralised responsibilities, including water regulation, was transferred from London

to Edinburgh. The transition towards devolved administration, understandably,

produced tensions and uncertainties and also major administrative challenges related

to the recent establishment of a semi-autonomous parliament and executive

government. As argued by Jones et al. (2004) devolution is shaped by, and also

shapes, the actions and strategies of a variety of state personnel, who are active in

producing the new territories and scales of governance in the United Kingdom. At the

same time, Devolution raises opportunities for enhanced ownership of the decision-

making involved in water regulation, with potentially positive results in terms of

efficiency, transparency and equity.

Scotland is a country with a general abundance of water resources when the

annual average of rainfall and runoff is taken into consideration. However, while the

overall national situation is certainly satisfactory, there are regional imbalances, which

justify the need for improved management and, in particular, control over water

abstractions (Adeloye and Low, 1996). The great majority of the Scottish population

and economic activities are concentrated in a relatively small area surrounding

Glasgow and Edinburgh, commonly termed the „Central Belt‟. The high population

density in the Central Belt is the cause of most of the problems in relation to water

supply and water pollution. There are relatively low rates of rainfall along the East

Coast of Scotland, putting additional pressures in those areas, particularly in small

catchments with high water demand. This all serves to reinforce the importance of

promoting appropriate management of water resources in Scotland (Dunn et al., 2003).

In addition to local environmental pressures, there are uncertainties related to

changes in the climatic and hydrological regimes in Scotland. For instance, Doughty et

al. (2002) affirm that the mean annual flows in rivers and the frequency of flood

events in western catchments of Scotland have increased in recent years as a result of

climate change rather than catchment-related processes. Bennett and Smith (1994)

show an increasing wetness over Scotland of approximately 40% in terms of yearly

mean flow during 1970-89. Anderson et al. (1997) calculated that for the period 1973-

94 the mean discharge of the Tay River increased by 13% in comparison to the period

covering 1960-72. In terms of aggravated scarcity, Werritty (2002) argues that a drier

summer condition could increase the demand for public water supplies by 5% over the

119

period 1990-2021 and with an even higher increase in the amounts of water used for

spray irrigation, which could raise by up to 115%. On the other hand, Price and

McInally (2001) argue that in Scotland a defence against a flood with 1:100 years

return period built in 1990 may only protect against floods with 1:60 years return

period in 2050.

Due to the reorganisation related to political devolution and in order to cope

with those local pressures and climatic variability, the management of water resources

in Scotland has been in a state of rapid change. Nevertheless, some basic problems still

remain, such as the notoriously fragmented framework of water management (Soulsby

et al., 2002) and the hesitation to adopt catchment management approaches (Werritty,

1997). Warren (2002) explains that management of water in Scotland has been

characterised by specifically targeted organisations, allowing for focused, locally

oriented management, but lacking a more holistic perspective.

Historically, the right to abstract water from surface and groundwater in

Scotland has been founded in common law, without the need for previous

authorisations or licences (Wright, 1995). The only exceptions have been public water

supply, large hydro schemes, special buildings requiring planning permission and a

few catchments with irrigation in the East Coast. However, the practical reason for not

developing a proper abstraction control system was widely held belief that Scotland

had excess water resources, so a widespread regulatory framework was considered

unnecessary (Fox and Walker, 2002).

This fragmented water management framework started to improve in 1996,

prior to devolution, when the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) was

constituted. The new agency incorporated the responsibilities of seven predecessor

River Purification Boards, the Island councils and Her Majesty‟s Industrial Pollution

Inspectorate. After devolution, SEPA became accountable to the Scottish Minister of

the Environment and the Scottish Parliament. The water services were also

reorganised with three public water authorities established in 1996 and later merged, in

2002, to give rise to a single water authority called Scottish Water. Other

organisations, such as Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), District Salmon Fisheries

Boards and 32 local authorities retain complementary responsibilities for water

management. In particular the conservation of aquatic landscapes, habitats and biota is

120

shared between SEPA, SNH, and the water authority. Flood defence and land drainage

remain primarily the responsibility of local authorities and landowners.12

Simultaneously to this rearrangement of public agencies, recent advances in the

legislation have emphasised river basin management, and have also placed priority on

public involvement and integrated water management approaches. With repercussions

for all European countries, the Water Framework Directive (WFD), came into force in

December 2000 and institutionalised ecosystem-based objectives and planning

processes at the catchment level (Kallis and Butler, 2001).13

According to Blöch

(1999), European waters were in need of more protection and the WFD came as a

response because it combines approaches of emission limit values and quality

standards, stimulating economic efficiency and public involvement. At the beginning

of 2003 Scotland became the first European country to transpose the WFD into

national legislation. The Water Environment and Water Services (WEWS) Act

established, for the first time, a source-to-sea planning framework for river basin

management designed to reduce levels of pollution and enhance habitats supporting

wildlife. The new Act specifically requires SEPA to consult communities, businesses

and other interested parties (Scottish Parliament, 2003; WWF, 2003a).

The direction proposed by the Scottish WEWS Act coincides with most of the

objectives of water sustainability. It aims to achieve the conservation and

improvement of quantity and quality of water resources while considering the

environmental and social requirements at large. Moreover, Hendry (2003) warns that,

being an ambitious piece of legislation, it requires a profound change in the structure

and culture of organisations that deal with water management. It may create fierce

disputes over costs to reduce impacts on water resources, which would require serious

negotiation. The implementation of the WEWS Act presents numerous challenges,

12 The privatisation of water services seems to have attracted increasing support in Scotland.

For instance, in 1994 a postal referendum showed that 97% of the population rejected the

privatisation (The Economist, 2003). However, in 2004 a new poll by the Scottish Consumer

Council (SCC) found that the percentage has dropped to 70%. The reduction has been

attributed to concerns about levels of investment, inefficiencies in the industry and high water

tariffs (BBC News, 2004). 13

White and Howe (2003) point out that the WFD can have far-reaching implications due to

the recognition of the river basin as a new administrative unit of management. Chave (2001)

argues that the most important features of the Directive are: 1) the management of water on

river basin basis, 2) the use of combined approaches for the control of pollution, setting

emission limits and water quality, 3) the provision that users bear the costs of providing and

water use reflects its true costs, and 4) the involvement of the public in making decisions.

121

politically and institutionally. Government activity at any level that is related to water,

and is likely to increase costs, will be met with opposition. This attitude may cause

problems as decision-makers attempt to increase effective participation in water

management. However, citizen participation is a key principle of the modern water

legislation, inextricably bound up with sustainable development, but it may be the

hardest principle of all to put into effect in water management in Scotland (Hendry,

2003).

Those new political, institutional and legal processes have gradually invited

Scotland to incorporate water sustainability into policies and programmes. It is worth

mentioning an ongoing initiative of measuring progress towards sustainability called

Indicators of Sustainable Development for Scotland (water quality is one of the 24

indicators of sustainable development monitored). The ultimate purpose of this

methodology is the reduction of the impact of present actions on future generations by

radically reducing the use of resources and minimising environmental impacts

(Scottish Executive, 2003a). For the Scottish government, “sustainable development is

about holistic thinking and promoting integration rather than about making trade-offs.

It will not be achieved simply by weighing competing demands in the balance. It is not

a matter of economic development versus environment but of development based on

proper management of environmental resources and consideration of full life cycle

impacts and costs” (Scottish Executive, 2002a: 5) The same document states that a

strategic approach to water catchment management under the Water Framework

Directive will improve the water environment for the whole of Scotland, bringing

benefits across the board from communities to biodiversity.

The non-governmental organisations of Scotland have also been directly

involved in translating sustainable development into local action and relating it to the

management of natural resources. For example, Friends of the Earth emphasise the

connection between sustainability and environmental justice in Scotland, demanding a

„decent‟ environment for all, with no more than a fair share of the natural resources

(Scandrett, 2000). WWF highlight the urgent need to promote integrated river basin

management in order to tackle poverty and meet the challenges of sustainable

development, as well as to arrest the wasteful use of scarce water resources. According

to WWF, using the river basin as the unit of management allows the plight of

interconnected parties to be considered in order to balance the costs and benefits of

122

different interventions to deliver the most efficient, equitable and sustainable option

for development (McNally and Tongetti, 2002).

5.3 Catchments in Scotland

The section above described the overall context for the application of the

proposed framework of water sustainability indicators in the two catchments in

Scotland. The following description of the river problems will provide the basis for the

calculation of the respective indicators in the next chapter. The first selected

catchment is the Clyde in the West of Scotland, a region that played a fundamental

role in the industrialisation of the country. The rapid economic growth and relaxed

environmental control meant that the river faced progressive deterioration of water

quality, as will be discussed later in the next chapter. The second catchment is the Dee,

in the Northeast of Scotland. The headwaters of the River Dee are located in high

mountains with outstanding environmental importance and of significant for tourism

and recreation. On its lower reaches, however, the Dee has suffered from growing

levels of urbanisation and industrialisation. Figure 5.1 illustrates the location of the

two Scottish rivers analysed in this study.

123

Figure 5.1: Rivers Clyde and Dee in Scotland (Source: SEPA, 2003a)

RIVER

CLYDE

RIVER

DEE

124

5.3.1 The Clyde catchment

Munro (1907: 08) observed that “the Clyde (...), when one comes to think of it,

is not one river, but three, so wholly different are her character and destiny at different

parts”. The river geography demonstrates remarkable hydrological and environmental

variation throughout its 171 km length, as described by Bean (2001). The river has its

origins in the North Lower Uplands and the upper reaches are nutrient poor with low

biological production. Moving downstream (to the north), water flow and nutrient

concentration increase significantly. In its middle reaches, the river offers supporting

habitat to a range of terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna. Further downstream, the

lower river comprises the estuary around the Glasgow metropolitan area, where the

river morphology is carefully controlled and the progression of saline waters is

prevented by the presence of a tidal weir. The Clyde estuary has only partially mixed

water circulation and relatively shallow depths. Finally, more downstream, the vast

firth is formed by a large number of fjordic sealochs.

Figure 5.2: Glasgow and the Clyde Area

History shows that there were unique opportunities for capital accumulation in

the lower Clyde in the 18th

and 19th

centuries. Due to economic expansion, the river

had to be modified to satisfy the needs of trade and industry. Trade started to improve

in Scotland, particularly after the Act of Union in 1707, when Scottish merchants were

125

given rights to trade freely with English colonies in America (Herman, 2003). The

Clyde was transformed into the main backdrop of the industrial revolution in Scotland,

particularly due to gradual improvement in shipbuilding (Marwick, 1898). Schwerin

(2004) demonstrates the emergence of complex regional innovation systems in the

Clyde shipbuilding industry in the 19th

Century, both in technological and financial

terms. The industrial and trade demands forced a succession of efforts to make the

river more accessible for ships ever increasing in size and, since the beginning of the

industrialisation of the region, there was a constant concern with the geographic limits

imposed by the river on navigation and trade (House, 1975; Riddell, 2000; Robertson,

1949; Walker, 1984). James Deas, one of its most distinguished navigation engineers,

stated in 1873 that probably for no river in Great Britain has so much been done „by

art and man‟s device‟ as for the river Clyde.

After the Second World War, the economy in the Clyde faced a dramatic

transformation with the continuous decrease in shipbuilding industry. Smith (1985a)

observes that, from being a river lined with shipyards, only a handful remained and the

Clyde lost its international position in the global market. Shipbuilding continued to

decline and manufacturing followed suit (OECD, 2002). The region became

characterised by the social ills of an appalling housing environment, chronic

overcrowding and the industrial problems of a collapsing manufacturing base. Around

80% of the most disadvantaged communities in Scotland are located within the City of

Glasgow itself and similar problems of social polarisation occur across the Clyde

River Basin (CWWG, 2002). On the other hand, in the most recent decades the river

Clyde has provided the context for the regeneration of Glasgow area and has been

identified as one of the key assets of the region (OECD, 2002). The Glasgow and

Clyde Valley Joint Structure Plan has been an attempt to deal with the social and

environmental restoration of the river basin (Goodstadt, 2001). This Plan identified

crucial challenges, such as re-establishing the River Clyde as a major contributor to

economic life, creating opportunities for further riverside housing developments, and

redefining the physical, social, cultural and economic relationship between the river,

its neighbouring districts and the metropolitan core (SPJC, 2003).

The intensification of economic activities produced not only negative social

consequences, but also the environmental condition of the catchment was significantly

impaired. As a direct consequence of industrial and urban expansion, water quality

126

gradually became, in the end of the 19

th Century, a matter of serious concern, as

reported by Gillespie (1876), Glaister (1907), Pollock (1898), Randolph (1871) and

Rivers Pollution Commission (1872). The Clyde and its many tributaries became so

polluted that since 1834 the City of Glasgow started to look for alternative sources of

public supply. In 1859, drinking water for the larger urban areas in the Clyde came

from Loch Katrine: a neighbouring catchment. The Loch Katrine project was the

largest in Scotland (343.20 Ml/d) from the time of the construction to the opening of

the analogous Loch Lomond scheme in 1975 (Scottish Water, 2002). Throughout the

years, it has been recurrently declared that water is abundant and the existing sources

are sufficient to satisfy a rising demand (e.g. Hunter, 1933), but this belief in the

abundance of water resources has lead to a highly overstretched supply system in the

Glasgow conurbation. Likewise, the lower Clyde is an area naturally prone to floods,

but human action has had major influences on flooding, such as siltation, reduced

channel capacity and changed flow regime (WWF, 2002). Fleming (2002) produced a

map that shows the Lower Clyde with very restricted floodplain storage available,

aggravating the potential of flood impacts. Werritty et al. (2002) highlight the social

and health costs in the area, due to a combination of local environmental change and

increased climatic variability

Nowadays, the environmental condition of the Clyde is a mixed picture of

problems and achievements. After a century of deterioration of water quality due to

domestic and industrial pollution, and the subsequent loss of numerous species of fish

and invertebrates, the situation has been improving since the 1960s. The River Clyde,

which had lost its entire migratory fish population in the 1860s and was virtually

fishless in the lower reaches, has recovered to the point that salmon and other

migratory species are now returning. The migratory fish first reappeared in the 1980s,

but only in 2002 the survey was sufficient to show that salmon have come back in

healthy numbers (W. Yeomans, pers. comm.) Although commercial salmon fishing

was never widespread on the Clyde, the return of salmon is symbolically important

and is also a sign of big improvements to water quality: like sea trout, which have also

reappeared in the Clyde system in recent years, salmon are very sensitive to

environmental conditions and require cool, well-oxygenated water to thrive. However,

according to McAlpine (1999), there are still considerable threats to the quality of

Clyde waters, such as diffuse pollution from agricultural and urban sources,

127

aggravated by changes in the pattern of rainfall. Moss (2003) still doubts whether

water quality results can really show any improvement at all in the past 20 years,

affirming that present systems only accurately represent the solution to the largely 19th

Century problem of gross organic pollution and ignore much greater current problems.

Apart from water quality problems, Table 5.2 demonstrates the overall

tendency of increasing water demand in the Clyde catchment for approximately 165

years. In addition to the consumptive uses of water included in that Table, three small

hydroelectric power schemes are located at Bonnington and Stonebyres, which divert

25 cumecs of the river through the turbines. A more recent scheme was installed at

Blantyre Weir and makes use of 22 cumecs (CRPB, 1985a). It is relevant to mention

here three specific studies commissioned to assess the water balance in Scotland due

to increasing water demand. The first study (SDD, 1973) calculated that the demand of

water in the Lower Clyde was 163 l/head/day and 319 l/head/day for respectively

domestic and trade uses. For the Upper Clyde (Lanarkshire), the respective figures

were 249 and 115. This document projected a geometric expansion in water

consumption for the following decades: 32.8% in average from 1971 to 2001 for

Lanarkshire and 13.8% for the Lower Clyde. Those forecasts were not confirmed and

the second study (SDD, 1984) concluded that developed water resources were

adequate to meet demands, although local problems still persisted. The second report

stated that a net decrease in demand was expected on the basis of static industrial

consumption and reduced levels of leakage. One decade later, the third study (Scottish

Office, 1994) calculated a total water demand of 1,067.50 Ml/d in 1991 (and a rate of

leakage of 290.31 Ml/d)14

for the Strathclyde area (including other parts of the West of

Scotland).

14 Unfortunately, the territorial boundaries considered in those three different reports and the

assumptions behind the results make it difficult to compare the figures.

128

Table 5.2: Summary of Water Demand in the Clyde (1838-2003)

Year

Total Daily

Demand*

(l/head/day)

Coverage Area Source of Information

1838 118.2 Glasgow Burnet, 1869

1852 177.3 Glasgow Burnet, 1869

1871 218.2 Glasgow Glasgow Corporation, 1955




1971 364.0 Lanarkshire

SDD, 1973 482.0 Lower Clyde

1991 482.0 Strathclyde Scottish Office, 1994

1998 503.4 West of Scotland Scottish Executive, 2000a

1999 136.0 ** West of Scotland SWA, 2000

1999 505.4 West of Scotland Scottish Executive, 2001a

2000 523.9 West of Scotland Scottish Executive, 2001b

2001 517.6 West of Scotland Scottish Executive, 2003b

2003 452.5 Lanarkshire (private consultancy)

* Includes metered and unmetered demand

** Domestic demand only

There has been an institutional evolution in the regulation of water

management in the Clyde, however, one of the main problems for the regeneration of

the river is the absence of co-ordinated action by the local authorities located in the

river basin, and between those and the national environmental agencies (Scottish

Executive, 2002b). The serious pollution condition prompted the establishment, in

1956, of the Clyde River Purification Board, which brought the whole river basin

under a single independent regulator with new powers to control discharges by means

of legally enforceable standards. However, it was not until the enactment of a new Act

in 1965 that the Board acquired adequate control over all existing discharges to inland

waters and new discharges to tidal waters. A ten year plan was then drawn up

establishing a list of priority targets comprising both sewage and industrial effluents.

129

A third piece of related legislation was passed in 1972 and provided powers for

the control of pollution discharges to underground strata and of sand and gravel

extraction (CRPB, 1983). The Clyde River Purification Board was restructured in

1975 due to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, replacing the previous Clyde

and Ayrshire Boards (CRPB, 1975). Eventually, the Clyde Board was incorporated

into the aforementioned SEPA in 1996.

5.3.2 The Dee catchment

The River Dee exhibits a range of channel patterns reflecting fluvial processes

operating in a variety of bed and bank materials. In many places, it has floodplains that

permit meandering and also moderate downstream flooding (Maizels, 1985). The Dee

is one of the few large rivers in the UK that rise above 1,000 m of altitude: a fact of

considerable ecological importance. The headwaters of the Dee are situated in the

Braeriach Plateau at about 1,200 metres, a point that is included in the recently

established Cairngorms National Park (SNH, 2000), which can be seen in Figure 5.3.15

The area of the Dee Catchment can be clearly differentiated between western upper

lands (>300 m of altitude) and eastern lowlands (<300 m of altitude). The exact rate of

rainfall in the Dee is difficult to assess accurately due to the mountainous topography

and the high quantity that falls as snow. Above 800 m of altitude, snow can account

for approximately 30% of annual precipitation. The approximate annual rates of

precipitation are 810 mm in the lowlands, but over 2,100 mm in the uplands, which

means that the lower reaches are highly dependent on the upper reaches for the

maintenance of river flows (Warren, 1985). The gradient of increase in precipitation

with distance from the coast is also responsible for a water chemistry dilution factor

towards the West. The natural flow regime in the Dee is very variable, as high flows

can exceed 1,000 cumecs and baseflows can fall bellow 10 cumecs (Langan et al.,

1997).

15 A study of the conservation of the Cairngorms area has been carried out. With the

provocative title, „Common sense and sustainability: a partnership for the Cairngorms‟, the

study expresses concerns about the future needs for water abstraction in the River Dee, due to

expanding population, increasing personal water consumption and industrial requirements

(Scottish Office, 1992). This report does not mention Thomas Reid, the famous philosopher of

Aberdeen University, who advocated the fundamental importance of common sense for human

agency. Despite its controversy and complexity, the construction of water sustainability seems

to require a good deal of common sense.

130

Figure 5.3: Northeast of Scotland and the Dee Area

Smith (1985b) affirms that there has been human exploitation in the Dee for at

least the last 5,000 years. Over such a large period, minor impacts were produced

throughout the catchment, notably on the characteristics of soil and plant communities.

A great part of the catchment comprises upper areas with moorland and grassland and

there is only one major urban settlement (Aberdeen), which is situated around the river

mouth. Most of the impacts had been localised at the lower catchment level where

agrarian efforts have been concentrated and where the intensity of usage has been

greatest. In the upper parts of the catchment, the frontier of permanent settlement has

receded since the middle of the 18th

century and the intensity of usage has

subsequently diminished. Historical changes in land use were not dramatic or rapid

enough to have substantially modified the discharge or water quality, although a

number of natural habitats were either reduced in area or eliminated (Smith, 1985b).

This predominantly rural landscape began to be transformed after the discovery

of oil and gas in the North Sea in the 1960s. Oil soon became the main regional

industry, together with an associated expansion of urban infrastructure and

transportation services. NERPB (1992) reports that, aside from the impact of sewage

discharges and agricultural activities, there are the impacts of wood preserving

chemicals and discharges from industrial complexes. MacDonald (1997) mentions

131

evidences that nitrate concentration increased from 1958 to 1992, which appears to be

strongly related to the increase in the percentage of agriculture areas in the catchment,

and rising phosphate concentrations due to inputs from human settlements. Smart et al.

(1998) monitored 59 sites in the catchment for a year and concluded that there is a

general downstream increase in determined concentrations. Moreover, Ferrier et al.

(2001) identified less clear trends in terms of increase trend in nitrate concentration.

There are also sources of water pollution due to tourism activity in the upper Dee

(Bryan, 2002).

The condition of the tributaries is reported to be different by a survey carried

out in 2000 (mentioned by Aberdeen City Council, 2002 and SEPA, 2002a). This

specific survey identified tributaries with less satisfactory conditions around Aberdeen

City, such as the Elrick Burn (class B), the Hol Burn (class B) and the Auchinyell

Burn (class C). The same survey found class C (poor) in the Dee estuary, mainly due

to discharge and spillage produced by the movement of more than 9,000 vessels a

year. In some sub-catchments with intensive agriculture, there are symptoms of

eutrophication in standing waters and in some upland areas acidification is detected in

watercourses (Owen, 1995). Acidification is one of the major issues in the Dee

catchment due to deposition of air pollution on poorly buffered soils and granite

bedrock. Soulsby et al. (1997) report results of a decade of monitoring of tributaries in

the upper Dee, which shows impoverished macro invertebrate faunas due to

acidification caused by air pollution, which can be aggravated by reforestation of

extensive areas of low-lying soils with native Scots pine and birch. Wade et al. (2001)

argues that potentially damaging stream water acidification is unlikely to occur in

response to afforestation, but conclusive results still depend on long-term monitoring.

Recent increases in temperature mean that there are indications of ongoing

changes in snow accumulation in the river basin. Dunn et al. (2001) emphasise the

importance of snowpack in the initial section of the Dee Catchment to sustain

baseflows, acting as a natural reservoir of water, long after snow has melted from the

rest of the catchment. The authors express concern about the impacts of climate

change in areas like the Dee, where annual snowpack accumulation is intermittent

under the present climate. Langan et al. (2002) observe that in the Girnock, a tributary

of the River Dee, there are indications that winter and spring maximum and spring

mean temperatures have increased over the 32 years of record. Werritty (2002)

132

indicates a significant decrease in summer precipitation at Braemer station between

1872 and 1996. On the other hand, Smith and Bennett (1994) observed a tendency of

increase in the frequency and magnitude of floods since the early 1990s and a more

rapid propagation of floods through the river system. The flow gauging station at

Woodend has the longest records in Scotland, dating back to 1929, and it was seen that

three of the five lowest flows recorded at Woodend occurred in the 1980s, with

exceptionally low river flows occur after periods of deficient rainfall lasting only a

few weeks (SEPA, 2000a).

Urban and industrial expansion has been responsible for increasing water

demand from the river system. Until the early 1800s the urban area of Aberdeen used

to make use of wells, springs and a local loch, but the rate of abstraction from the Dee

has gradually expanded in the last two centuries. Through the years, new pumping and

distribution schemes were instated in the Dee to satisfy the Aberdeen population

(Brown, 1985; Grampian Regional Council, n/d; Grampian Regional Council, 1977).

The area with higher water demand in the Dee catchment is the city and the

surroundings of Aberdeen. To supply this urban agglomeration, drinking water is

taken exclusively from the River Dee. Because of this direct dependency on the river

as exclusive supply, in the 1970s it was predicted that the peak demand of water from

the River Dee would be 120 Ml/d in the year 2000 (MacDonald et al., 1975). The

government put forward similar projections, which forecasted severe water deficits for

the year 2001 (SDD, 1973). Those levels of demand were not proved correct, since

neither population, nor personal demand grew according to projected rates.

There are two main Water Treatment Works in the Dee, which are Cairnton

(with treatment work at Invercannie) and Inchgarth (with pumping station at Cults and

treatment works at Mannofield).16

The authorised levels of abstraction for the two

main public supply points are 70 Ml/d for Cairnton and 75 Ml/d for Inchgarth. For the

period 1999-2000, the average daily volume of water treated and delivered is 60.30

Ml/d for Cairnton/Invercannie and 27.77 Ml/d for Inchgarth/Mannofield (according to

C. Christie, pers. comm.). It means that the operational values informed by Scottish

Water for the years 1999 and 200 were around 61% of the total authorised (145 Ml/d).

16 In addition to the two main treatment plants, there are other relatively smaller public supply

schemes throughout the Dee catchment operated by Scottish Water, which are Aboyne (0.74

Ml/d), Ballater (0.12 Ml/d), Braemar (0.24 Ml/d), Crathie (0.01 Ml/d), Glendye (4 .00 Ml/d)

and Glenkindie (0.003 Ml/d).

133

Those two abstraction points supply water to a population of 320,621 in the Northeast

area of Scotland. Scottish Water calculated, specifically for this current research, that

26% of the total abstraction is transferred to other areas out of the Dee catchment (A.

Wood, pers. comm.).

In terms of water management and regulation, the Dee Catchment was

previously the responsibility of the North-East River Purification Board, which was

established in 1975. The Board was responsible not only for this catchment, but had to

cover an area consisting of more than 10,000 km2 bounded by 257 km of coastline.

The original Board membership was modified in 1992 (NERPB, 1995) and was

eventually incorporated by SEPA, in the same way that happened to the Clyde and the

other boards in 1996. In addition, because of its ecological importance, large areas in

the catchment are designed as conservation units, following different national and

international legislation. Also due to the importance of the Dee for sport fishing, the

Salmon Fishery Board makes a considerable contribution towards the conservation of

the catchment and promotion of angling industry internationally. There are also some

recent initiatives about the environmental conservation and management of the Dee

catchment associated with the Cairngorms National Park, which will be mentioned in

the next Chapter.

5.4 Water Management Pressures and Responses in Brazil

Brazil is the country with the highest absolute amount of water available in the

world (5,418 km3/year), which represents 12.54 % of the renewable freshwater

resources of the entire planet, and is primarily due to the extraordinary reserves in the

Amazon and Plata River Basins (World Resources Institute, 2003). To understand how

such a country has water problems, including occasional water scarcity, it is important

to note that most of those reserves are located thousands of kilometres away from the

heavily populated areas along the South and Southeast Atlantic coast. There are

growing water sustainability issues in Brazil, in particular an increasing rate of

demand to satisfy urban, industrial and agricultural needs, conflicts between

approaches emphasising supply instead of demand management, and the worrisome

advance of environmental degradation in rivers and lakes (ANA, 2002). In addition, a

study by Tucci (2002) affirms that the likely consequences of global warming in

134

Brazil would be higher levels of conflicts on water availability, deterioration of water

quality during dry spells and more people being affected by floods.

In large countries like Brazil, water problems are markedly different from one

geographical region to another. The climate ranges from super-humid in the Amazon

to semi-arid in the Northeast and tropical altitude in the central savannas. In addition

to natural differences between regions, the country is a federation of states with semi-

autonomous executive, legislative and judicial systems. Each state is subdivided into

hundreds of municipalities, which also have executive and legislative responsibilities

over local issues. The legislative tradition in Brazil follows the Civil Law system

(instead of the British Common Law), which means that legislation comes prior to

practice. In terms of water regulation, the first legal instrument was the Water Code of

1934, which offered an early view on demand priorities, pollution control and

headwater conservation. The new Federal Constitution in 1988 changed the ownership

of water, established in the Water Code. Private ownership of water was eliminated

and all water bodies are now defined as public property of either the national or state

governments.

Since democracy was „devolved‟ in 1979 (i.e. end of the dictatorship period), a

new institutional setting for water management is being consolidated at federal, state

and local levels. In recent years, there has been a shift away from previous supply-led

approaches towards demand-responsive approaches based upon the principle of water

as an economic, environmental and social good. As a result, water users are

increasingly expected to bear the cost of water schemes (i.e. user/polluter-pays

principle) and to become engaged in the management. The National Water Resources

Policy Law was passed in 1997, which has the following basic principles: integrated

management; multiple uses of water; public participation and subsidiarity; river basin

planning and management; and the economic value of water (Barth, 1999). This new

water legislation establishes the river basin committees as the local „water parliament‟,

with advisory and executive tasks, and sets daily water administration, including

tariffs and charges, to be carried out by water agencies. Such management approach is

defined as the „systemic model of participatory integration‟ (Lanna, 1997).

It can be argued that the new legislation of 1997 is the equivalent in Brazil to

the Water Framework Directive in Europe, because it provides an alternative to

traditional approaches. Biswas (1998) affirms that the Brazilian water institutions can

135

serve as example to other developing countries, which should learn from such success

stories, instead of relying exclusively on western experiences and technology to solve

their water and wastewater management problems. In practice, however, Brazil has an

advanced legal framework, but this is still only partially implemented and not fully

enforced (Senra, 2001). Porto (1998) mentions the many difficulties in translating the

legislation into practice and the challenge of directing the decision-making process

towards its lowest appropriate level. Brannstrom (2002) observes that, so far, the

discourse of „decentralisation‟ and „participation‟ has resulted, in practice, in

administrative, but not yet political decentralisation. The traditional management is

still based on bulk water being provided virtually free to users, almost all resources

raised by government through general tax revenues and borrowing, and the

management centralised in command and control instruments (Kelman, 1999).

Due to the scale of problems related to water use and conservation, there are

growing attempts to translate the goals of sustainable development into action. The

decision to incorporate the concept of sustainable development into governmental

plans led to formulation of the national Agenda 21, which was published in 2000 after

a comprehensive debate (UNECLAC, 2000). The conservation of water quantity and

the improvement of water quality at the catchment scale were included as one of the

21 objectives of the national Agenda 21. One specific recommendation was the

adoption of so-called „sustainable development of hydrographic basins and sub-basins

indicators‟ (CPDS, 2002). One of the most urgent water sustainability problems is the

low rate of supply and sanitation coverage. This is a clear problem of environmental

injustice, because this rate is unevenly distributed in terms of income (Seroa da Motta,

2004). To improve this situation, the last author points out that better regulation and

more private investments will not be enough to incorporate low-income families, but it

will also require public investments in the form of social subsidies.

Moving from the national to the regional scale, the two Brazilian river basins

analysed in this study are located in the southernmost state of the Brazilian

Federation17

, called Rio Grande do Sul (henceforth the „RS State‟). Figure 5.4 shows

the location of the RS State in South America and in the world. The climate in the RS

17 The autonomy of the Brazilian states can be compared with the present condition of

Scotland after Devolution in 1999, although it can be argued that the Scottish autonomy is

nowadays less restrictive than that of the Brazilian states.

136

State differs from the vast majority of the Brazilian territory and is sub-tropical in the

lower lands and temperate in higher altitudes. During colonial times, the RS State was

subject to dispute between Portugal and Spain over the international borders, which

were only defined in the beginning of the 19th

Century (Vellinho, 1963). After the

independence of Brazil from Portugal, in 1822, this part of the country was subject to

massive immigration from central and eastern European nations, especially from Italy

and Germany. Nowadays, apart from human supply, the main uses of water in the RS

State are irrigation (the largest area in the country), industry supply, cattle and fish

production, navigation and hydropower (RS, 2002).

Figure 5.4: Location of the Rio Grande do Sul State in the World (Source: Cruz, 2003)

Lanna (1995) affirms that the water regulation experience of the RS State is the

one that most closely resembles the process conducted by the national government.

The state legislation has been pioneering in some aspects, for example, the 1989 State

Constitution included that the revenue from water charges should be invested in the

same river basin where it was collected. In this case, it was clearly defined that water

charges were to improve the environmental condition in the catchment rather than to

137

recover costs incurred by the government in water regulation. Another example of a

pioneering approach was the approval of the state water law in 1994, three years ahead

of the approval of the national law. The state law was the first in Brazil to set river

basin committees with powers to decide whether or not to increase charges, using pre-

established criteria (Asad et al. 1999). The state legislation maintains that water is a

public good, limited and with economic value and that its management should be

decentralised and participatory. The same law determines that each river basin should

have a water committee with representation from users, civil society and governmental

agencies, according to the proportion of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively.

The water planning process is divided into a State Plan of Water Resources (a

long-term document, adjusted every four years under the mandate of the state

governor) and local River Basin Plans (a short- and medium-term document, with

adjustments every two years). Appendix VI contains the scheme of water planning in

the RS State. The state water policies are decided at the Water Resources Council,

which has member from governmental agencies and from the river basin committees.

One of the practical weaknesses of the state system is that the environmental agency

(FEPAM), which is responsible for water quality monitoring, is separated from the

water resources agency (the Department of Water Resources). Another structural

problem in the RS State has been the modest allocation of public investments for

environmental expenditures, a situation that is no different from that of the other parts

of Brazil (Young and Roncisvalle, 2002).

5.5 Catchments in Brazil

The two Brazilian catchments considered in this study are situated in the

Guaíba Hydrological Region, which includes the Guaíba Lake and eight tributaries.

Among those tributaries, there are the Rivers Sinos and Pardo on the north side of the

Region. The Guaíba Hydrological Region has a total area of approximately

85,000 km2 in the centre-east of the RS State. The region has a total population of

6.5 million people, distributed throughout 257 municipalities (including the state

capital, Porto Alegre) and covering around 32% of the RS State territory. The most

common negative impacts on water in the Region are untreated domestic and

industrial effluent, soil erosion, solid waste and various sources of diffuse pollution

(RS, 2002). Figure 5.5 illustrates the location of the Guaíba Hydrological Region in

138

the RS State and the geographical position of the Pardo and Sinos catchments. It is

relevant to mention that, since these two rivers are entirely confined within the borders

of the RS State, water regulation is responsibility of the state government.

139

Figure 5.5: Location of the Guaíba Hydrological Region in the RS State

and the Situation of the Rivers Sinos and Pardo

(Source: Modified from Pró-Guaíba, 2004)

Rivers Pardo and Sinos

in the Guaíba

Hydrological Region

Nine Catchments that

Comprise the Guaíba

Hydrological Region in

the RS State

140

5.5.1 The Sinos catchment

The River Sinos is a complex hydrological system with waterbody channels,

river confluences and islands, which create meanders and sedimentation zones.

According to Silveira (1980), the main river channel can be divided into three

sections: headwaters (with around 25 km of extension and between the altitudes of

600 m and 60 m), middle section (with approximately 125 km of extension and

confluence with the main tributaries) and the lower river (with 40 km of a flat

floodplain and with 5 m of altitude in the lowest point). Tucci and Moretti (1982)

report that the river presents a non-permanent regime, due to a natural process called

„seiche‟, which is similar to a tidal effect. It means that during low flow periods in the

Sinos River the wind provokes the inversion of the water flux and the river starts to

receive water from the Guaíba Lake downstream. The water flow changes

continuously, because of this natural process which also has direct effects on water

chemistry.

The climate in most of the catchment is sub-tropical, with some temperate

areas in the headwaters. The original vegetation was made up of forests and

grasslands, but most of the remaining vegetation is now found only in the hilly

headwaters, which nowadays account for only 10% of the original vegetation (Paula,

1995). The catchment wetlands are hotspots of significant ecological importance due

to the genetic diversity and occurrence of endemic species (Maltchik et al., 2003). The

Sinos River Basin is distributed across 33 municipalities, with most of the population

and economic activities concentrated in the lower sections of the catchment. Figure 5.6

illustrates the river basin hydrological network.

141

Figure 5.6: Sinos Catchment (Source: RS, 2002)

The first Portuguese settlement in the Sinos River Basin was established

around the year 1735 and a number of farms were reported to exist around the mouth

of the river in 1788 (Paula, 1995). New forms of colonisation were attempted in the

beginning of the 19th

Century, when the Sinos River Basin was the first part of Brazil

to receive German immigrants in 1824. Magalhães (2003) points out that the area of

the Sinos River Basin was on one of the borders of the Portuguese occupation of the

territory and this was a process fraught with conflicts over the use of land and natural

resources. The river network was fundamental for the early colonisation of the RS

State, and strategically helped the foundation of settlements along the watercourses. It

was important for the transportation of passengers and goods between the newly

established communities. Reinheimer (1999) observes that fluvial navigation was

responsible for the consolidation of capital of the state as the regional economic

centre. There are registers of navigation by steam vessels in the region since 1832 and

the peak of fluvial transportation was the 1940s. Gradually, Sinos navigation was

surpassed by other forms of transport and, nowadays, the navigation in the Sinos plays

a secondary role in the regional commercial transportation (Hidrovias do Rio Grande

do Sul, 2003).

142

The industrialisation of the Sinos Valley occurred in the decades of 1930 and

1940, based on the accumulation of capital from agriculture and technological

expertise brought by European migrants. The region developed an important industrial

sector with relevance in the leather footwear market. Since 1960, the river basin has

been the main shoe producer in Brazil and, according to Schmitz (1999), over the last

30 years the Sinos Valley has become a major exporter of shoes to the United States

and Europe. Apart from shoes and textile companies, the local industrial sector is

highly diversified, and includes metallurgy and chemical production. With the

industrialisation, there was a dramatic shift from a predominantly rural population in

1940 to an essentially urban population since 1970 (IBGE, 2003). The river basin

GDP reached US$ 15.4 billion in 1998 and was responsible for 36.59% of the state

industrial production, 22.75% of the state GDP and generates 25.06% of the state taxes

(as mentioned by Pereira, 2002). The river basin is still responsible for 6.86% of the

state energy generated, but uses 22.24% of the total energy available in the RS State,

representing a net import of the economic value of water from other rivers (RS, 2002).

There are also serious negative consequences associated with the urban and

industrial expansion in the Sinos River Basin. One of the most acute environmental

problems is the deterioration of water quality, which has brought about fierce reactions

from various sectors of the local society. According to Lutzenberger (1979), the grave

environmental condition of the Sinos River, common to other watercourses in the RS

State, derives from the combination of agriculture and industrial impacts, but the

causes are fundamentally political, rather than technical. Becker (1995) explains that

the Sinos River had satisfactory water quality until the 1940s, but after this period the

fast deterioration was due to the expansion of population and industry without

appropriate treatment of effluents. According to Haase and Silva (2003) only a small

proportion of the river basin population has a complete and adequate sanitation

system. The situation is even worse, considering that the majority of the sanitation

system is formed of domestic units with connections to sub-normal sanitation

networks (the urban drainage system). Garcia and Tucci (2000) affirm that the dilution

capacity of the Sinos River is insufficient to maintain the water quality under the

requirements of the legislation and a reduction of 90% of pollution emissions would

be necessary.

143

The recommendation of the last authors is significantly higher than the

proposal of Milano (1988), who had a few years before observed that at least 60% of

the effluent discharge should be eliminated if the objective is to maintain the level of

oxygen above legal thresholds. Casartelli (1999) affirms that the water quality

deterioration in the Sinos River is caused by high load of organic pollutants and heavy

metals in both dissolved and particulate forms. The situation is worse during periods

of low flow and high temperatures. In similar assessments, Hatje and Baish (1993)

identified sediments contaminated by heavy metals in the lower-middle section of the

Sinos River. The most serious element was chromium, because the level of

contamination was ten times the natural expected level. Spanemberg et al. (1997) also

identified high seasonal concentration of chromium during low flow periods. Future

scenarios, such as those described by Prates and De Luca (1997), project

improvements, due to plans announced for investment to improve the water quality

condition of the Sinos River in 2010 for most monitored parameters, with the

exception of the concentration of coliforms.

Regarding the water uses in the catchment, the results obtained by Magna

(1996) show a total consumptive demand of 5.382 cumecs in the Sinos River, as can

be seen in Table 5.3. Other recent assessment estimated lower figures of water

demand: 4.402 cumecs for FEE (1995) and 4.355 cumecs according to Aplan-Corsan

(1995), as mentioned by Magna (1996).

Table 5.3: Water Demand in the Sinos Catchment

Water User sector Annual Mean Percentage

Household supply

Urban 3.198 cumecs 59.4

Rural 0.149 cumecs 2.8

Industrial Supply 0.363 cumecs 6.7

Irrigation (rice paddle) 1.440 cumecs 26.8

Aquaculture 0.003 cumecs 0.05

Watering of animals 0.230 cumecs 4.3

TOTAL 5.382 cumecs 100 %

Source: Modified from Magna (1996)

144

The first comprehensive technical assessment of the Sinos River Basin was

commissioned from the Agrar consultancy in 1969. This is a massive document with

16 volumes, produced with official German support, giving a detailed evaluation of

the water problems, future demands and engineering responses. Another study was

commissioned in 1974 by the water authority of the RS State (CORSAN) from

Italconsult-Latinoconsult, with support from the Italian government. This second

assessment was intended to evaluate the infrastructure demands for the improvement

of basic sanitation, including effluent treatment. The overall conclusion of the second

study projected a level of water conflicts higher than later verified. A more recent

evaluation of the water balance, restoration and purification of the river in the Sinos

River Basin was commissioned by the State Government in 1994. The company

responsible for the assessment (Magna Engineering Ltd.) received technical support

from the Institute of Hydrological Research of the Federal University of the Rio

Grande do Sul (IPH/UFRGS).

Finally, it should be mentioned that the Sinos is one of the nine beneficiary

catchments of a programme of investments carried out by the state government called

„Pró-Guaíba. This programme is partially funded by international loans and has the

overall objective of improving the environmental quality of the Guaíba Hydrological

Region by improving water services and preserving its natural resources. The

programme also involves institutional strengthening, environmental monitoring (with

the installation of the Pró-Guaíba Monitoring Network), soil conservation, industrial

technology, public education and management of conservation units. Between 1989

and 2001, US$ 202 million had been invested (Pró-Guaíba, 2003), but so far with

modest results. One of the major problems of this programme has been the substantial

amount of investments required in sewerage systems and sewage treatment. Also the

institutional weakness of the municipal governments has posed additional difficulties

to the improvement of the water supply and sanitation services (Pró-Guaíba, 1998).

5.5.2 The Pardo catchment

The Pardo River Basin is located upstream to the River Sinos in the same Guaíba

Hydrological Region. The catchment has a distinct differentiation between steep

headwater stretches in the north, and large floodplains in the lower sections, in the

145

south. The larger tributary of the Pardo is the River Pardinho on its left margin, which

has almost the same extension of the main river. Figure 5.7 illustrates the river basin

watercourses. Since the 18th

Century the region has been altered to form a complex,

irregular and fragmented landscape mosaic. The history of the European colonisation

of the Pardo River Basin can be divided into three periods. The first was the arrival of

Portuguese (from the Azores) in the 18th

Century, followed by Germans (since 1848)

and Italians (since 1891) in the 19th

Century (Silveira and Silveira, 2002). Cruz (2003)

affirms that the main effects of the human use and occupation of the Pardo River

Basin is the drastic fragmentation of the area originally covered with forests: by far the

most important damaging result. More recently, the reforestation with exotic species

has been responsible for the increase of 26% in forested areas (Rehbein et al., 2001).

Figure 5.7: Pardo Catchment (Source: Silveira and Silveira, 2002)

Elaboração : Alexandre Rauber - Abril/ 98

BACIA HIDROGRÁFICA DO RIO PARDO

ESCALA: 1:200.000

146

National and international market pressures were responsible for the

transformation of the river basin economy since the Second World War, particularly

with the transition from predominant subsistence agriculture into rice and tobacco

agribusiness (Hanefeld, 2002). Nowadays, the leading economic activity in the region

is the commercial production of tobacco which accounts for more than 64% of the

region GDP (Spies, 1997). The Pardo River Basin is currently one of the most

important tobacco producer regions in the world. The great majority of rural properties

in the catchment are small family units with tobacco productions associated with

subsistence agriculture. As much as 91% of the properties have less than 50 hectares

and 70% have less than 20 hectares (Brinckmann, 1997). The Pardo Catchment also

still has a significant population living in rural areas. In 2000, when the river basin

population comprised 202,932 persons, there were 60.18% in urban centres and

39.82% of living in the countryside (IBGE, 2000, quoted by RS, 2002). Most of the

inhabitants were concentrated along the main tributary, the Pardinho River.

The economic intensification of the last decades has been responsible for a

number of social and environmental consequences.18

According to Lobo and Costa

(1997), the level of effluent discharge released by agro-industrial centres in the Pardo

River Basin is far beyond acceptable levels. Another important environmental problem

is the inappropriate disposal and treatment of solid waste in the Pardo River Basin.

Most of the waste generated is simply discharged in open areas without any control

(Delevati et al. 2002). Wentzel (1997)19

analysed the quantitative and qualitative

aspects of water supply in the main urban area of the Pardo River Basin and concluded

that, during periods of low flow, the quality of surface water is seriously affected, in

particular due to eutrophication and high levels of faecal coliform. Describing future

water balance scenarios, Wentzel (1997) affirms that it would be possible to satisfy

water demands until 2020 if water storage is improved. Without such additional water

storage, systematic failures in supply are expected to occur from 2008 onwards.

18 Delevati (2001) summarises the economic development of the Pardo. The first phase lasted

from 1880 until 1940 and was characterised by the small family production. Between 1940

and 1960 the production of tobacco initiates. The period between 1960 and 1985 is

characterised by intensification of tobacco production and decrease in subsistence agriculture.

Contradictions created by the expansion of tobacco industry foster reactions during the last

period (1985–2000), when farmers start to seek for alternatives to the tobacco monoculture. 19

José Alberto Wentzel held a cabinet position in the RS State government as the State

Secretary of the Environment from January 2003 until May 2004.

147

However, this solution to water supply may not be possible because, in practice, there

are limited options for improving water storage in the Pardo River Basin. H. Kotzian

(pers. comm.) points out that, because of the geomorphology of the catchment and the

number of people living in rural areas, the construction of major water supply

impoundments is neither socially, nor technically justifiable.

To deal with the water questions in the catchment, a comprehensive technical

study was commissioned to support the regulation of management and conservation.

The study was conducted by Ecoplan Engineering, a consultancy, between 1995 and

1997 Ltd. The assessment evaluated the demands of the 850 main water users in the

Pardo River Basin. It also carried out qualitative analysis of different seasons during

the study. Overall, Ecoplan (1997) identified critical water sustainability problems in

the Pardo River Basin, such as: 1) the effects of floods and droughts are intense due to

the very steep slope in the upper and medium reaches; 2) the great majority of

effluents do not receive appropriate treatment before being released to the

environment; 3) water quality is seriously affected by the large quantities of urban

effluents and agriculture runoff; 4) water courses have suffered from the extraction of

mineral resources (sand, gravel and stones) from riverbank, floodplain and riverbed.

This same study evaluated the uses of water in the catchment and the results

are included in Table 5.4, which shows the annual average demand of the main users

and the predominance of rice irrigation, which is responsible for 82.6% of the

consumptive uses of water.

Table 5.4: Water Demand in the Pardo Catchment

Water Use Sector Annual Mean

(1996-1997) Percentage

Public supply 0.302 cumecs 7.6

Industrial supply 0.296 cumecs 7.5

Irrigation 3.279 cumecs 82.6

Animal consumption 0.092 cumecs 2.3

TOTAL 3.969 cumecs 100 %

Source: Ecoplan (1997)

A new technical assessment was launched in 2003 to update and expand the

first one carried out in 1997. In December 2003 (at the time of the fieldwork for this

research), this second study was open for bidding (total budget of US$ 650,000) and

148

the successful consultancy was to be appointed in the first semester of 2004. The new

study will assess the condition of natural resources, describe future scenarios and

propose a programme of measures with focus on the Pardinho tributary (where most of

the water problems are located). Similarly to the Sinos River, the Pardo River is also

one of the areas covered by the above mentioned „Pró-Guaíba Programme‟, with

ongoing projects related to water quality and quantity assessments, waste water

treatment, reforestation, solid waste, agroecology and natural reserves. The Pró-

Guaíba also includes the support to local water management practices in the Pardo

River Basin.

A noteworthy attempt of mobilisation of the local civil society was the

formation of the Regional Council for the Development of the Pardo River Valley

(COREDE-VRP) in 1997. After its constitution, the COREDE-VRP prepared the

Strategic Plan of Development of the Pardo River Valley, together with the Regional

Agenda 21. Silveira (2002) pointed out that the preparation of the Plan has been

relatively successful, with good public engagement in a series of regional workshops.

However, the same author observes serious the weaknesses during the process, such as

lack of data, difficulties of encouraging some sectors to participate and contribute,

parochial thinking, lack of support from the national government, lack of monitoring

of results and, fundamentally, lack of financial resources. One of the main problems

identified by Silveira (2002) was the absence of indicators of sustainability, which

prevented the evaluation of the patterns of development adopted in the river basin.

This observation gives additional justification for the development of the framework

of sustainability indicators in the manner proposed in this thesis.


The Chapter described the four river basins included in this research for the

development of the framework of water sustainability indicators. From the above

summaries of the catchments, it can be concluded that there are important

environmental and socio-economic questions in the four areas under analysis. As a

consequence of misconceived development strategies, the four catchments have

suffered alteration in water quality, streamflow and biotic resources. The extent of the

social consequences of those water-related problems varies substantially in the

149

different areas, leading to specific sustainability questions. In Scotland water

management has primarily consisted of finance intensive approaches, allowing the

country to meet water requirements while minimising human health risk. For a

sustainability point of view, however, the management of water has not aimed at

reaching solutions that appropriately provide long-term environmental conservation

and satisfaction of growing human demands. In a newly industrialised country like

Brazil, expensive technologies for water management are not always economically

feasible, which limits the extent to which traditional expertise from industrialised

countries can be used. Brazil still faces serious problems with the lack of effluent

treatment and uncontrolled effects of economic pressures. Both Scotland and Brazil

are dealing with the implementation of ambitious water regulatory regimes, which can

respectively contribute towards advances in sustainability. The next Chapter will

present the calculation of the proposed indicators, where questions related to water

sustainability will become more evident.

150

Chapter 6 - Applying the Water Sustainability Framework to the

Selected Catchments


This Chapter presents the results of the application of the proposed water

sustainability framework to catchments in Scotland and in Brazil. As explained in

Chapters 3 and 4, the framework is divided into nine criteria of water sustainability

and, for each criterion, a specific sustainability indicator has been developed. The

selection of indicators considered the local context of water sustainability, in order to

guarantee the explanatory capacity of the framework of indicators. This Chapter

describes the sources of data for the calculation of these sustainability indicators and,

when necessary, the reasons for adopting proxy formulas instead of the proposed

indicators. The chapter also explains the manipulation of data and the thresholds

adopted for the interpretation of indicator results. Together with the interpretation of

the results, some relevant technical reports and official publications were included to

support the indicator outcomes. At the end of the analysis of each catchment, there is a

summary of the follow-up interviews with local water stakeholders about the proposed

framework of indicators. There is also a table with a summary of the main findings

and future trends of the water sustainability criteria included in the framework.

6.2 Applying the Framework to the Clyde Catchment

6.2.1 The environmental dimension of the Clyde catchment

The development that has taken place in the Clyde catchment since the 18

th

Century has had negative ramifications on the water environment: this will be

demonstrated below by the three proposed indicators for the environmental dimension

of water sustainability. The first indicator will describe the water quality situation in

the last four decades. Subsequently, the second indicator will reveal the particulars of

water abstraction and water supply in the Clyde catchment. Finally, the third indicator

will show increasing system resilience problems in the Clyde.

151

a) Water quality

The calculation of the First Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „proportion

of stretches with specific water quality conditions, in relation to the total extension of

river stretches‟) used water quality data provided by the environment agency (SEPA).

The classification methodology used by SEPA considers five quality classes,

according to chemical, biological and aesthetic parameters (as can be seen in

Appendix VII). However, in order to produce an indication of the long-term trends of

water quality this methodology had to be adjusted to data currently available (i.e. data

about the invertebrates and aesthetic are not available for the entire period). A

specialised computer programme (Aardvark) was used for the manipulation of the

sampled parameters (i.e. estimation of percentiles by parametric methods, assuming

oxygen and pH are normal distribution and BOD and ammoniacal nitrogen are log

normal).

The historic tendencies of water quality in the Clyde are shown in Figure 6.1

below. This graph is a synthesis of almost 20,000 samples between 1961 and 2003,

although the distribution of water samples is not uniform throughout the period (i.e.

recent years have more samples than the initial years during the period). The short and

erratic time series available for the Clyde estuary did not allow a similar calculation

for this lower section of the catchment. It is important to point out that there are

methodological problems in comparing water quality samples processed in different

decades (i.e. due to changes in sampling procedures or laboratory equipment). Despite

these methodological problems, the results are sufficient to give a reasonable

indication of the water quality trends.

It can be seen in the graph below that water quality continually deteriorated in

the 1960s and 1970s (i.e. increasing in stretches with class C, disappearance of

stretches A1 and A2, and presence of stretches of class D). The situation changed

significantly in the 1980s and 1990s (i.e. increasing stretches with class A1, reduction

of class C) and, at the turn of the century, stretches of class A1 reappeared after 36

years. Nevertheless, the water quality recovery since the end of the 1970s has not been

linear. For instance, there were periods of interruption in the recovery in the beginning

of the 1990s. This discontinuity in water quality improvement is consistent with the

problems and challenges annually described in the series of Clyde River Purification

Board (CRPB) reports from 1975 to 1995.

152

Figure 6.1: Water Quality – Clyde – 1961-2003 (Data Source: SEPA database)

The results presented in the graph above corroborate the findings of Doughty et

al. (2002), who observed that, in the lower River Clyde, water quality improved from

class D in 1980 to class C in 2000. The same authors argue that some tributaries also

improved their quality condition, such as the South Calder (from D to A2); the River

Kelvin (from C to A2); and the North Calder (from D to B). McAlpine (1999) affirms

that water quality in the upper Clyde recovered steadily during the 1980s, but

deteriorated in the early 1990s. McAlpine argues that in the middle Clyde quality was

poorer in the early 1980s, improved locally in the late 1980s but deteriorated in the

early 1990s. In addition, in the lower Clyde water quality improved during the 1980s,

but deteriorated in the early 1990s.

Considering the trends shown in the graph and the additional sources of

evidence, it can be inferred that there is a distinctive direction of improvement in

water quality in the Clyde, which is a process that does not have a single explanation.

On the contrary, it was argued by McAlpine (1999) that gains in water quality in the

Clyde catchment in recent years can be attributed to many factors, namely: increased

river flows, changes in pattern of industry, improvements in wastewater and effluent

treatment, as well as increased mean temperature in the catchment. CRPB (1990) also

observed that around one third of the improvements in some water quality parameters

(both in the freshwater and the tidal Clyde) may be attributable to increased freshwater

dilution.

Indicator No. 1 (Water Quality) - Clyde

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

61-63 64-66 67-69 70-72 73-75 76-78 79-81 82-84 85-87 88-90 91-93 94-96 97-99 00-03

Cla

ss Q

uali

ty P

erc

en

tag

e (

%)

A1 A2 B C D

153

b) Water quantity

Due to restricted availability of data, there were major difficulties in

quantifying the impacts of water abstraction in the Clyde, as included in the Second

Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „rate of withdrawal in relation to seasonal low

flows, considering imported and recycled flows and discounting exported flows‟). It

was, therefore, necessary to adjust the indicator to the available data, which in this

case means making use of a proxy indicator. The only figures of abstraction available

for the Clyde are those of the water supply schemes under operation in the catchment:

Daer, Camps, Logan, Glengavel-Kype, and Coulter.20

The annual average demand of

those five reservoirs oscillates between 180 Ml/d (SEPA, 2000b) and 191.8 Ml/d

(Scottish Office, 1994)21

for the area upstream of the Daldowie gauging station (the

most downstream gauging station in the catchment).

The calculation of the Second Indicator considered the more conservative of

the two demand figures: 180 Ml/d (= 2.083 cumecs). In addition, this indicator also

required the calculation of seasonal low flow (Q95), which was produced here for the

period 1957 to 2002, for the Daldowie gauging station. The indicator formula still

required the balance between water imported, exported and recycled. However,

because the import of water from other catchments occurs downstream to Daldowie

and there is no indication of water being recycled, these parameters were not included

in the indicator calculation. Table 6.1 shows the results of these calculations as the

percentage of low flows represented by the average water demand (2.083 cumecs).

The interpretation of the results of this indicator followed the methodology

proposed by Water Framework Directive Technical Advisory Group for the

characterisation of the environmental impact of water abstraction (Environment

Agency, 2003; UKTAG 2004). Based on this methodology, it was assumed that the

20 Other smaller reservoirs and water supply schemes are Cowgill Upper, Cowgill Lower and

Talla. These schemes were not considered in the indicator calculation, because of the poor

quality of the data available. 21

Contacts with Scottish Water in 2003 indicated a total abstraction around 200 Ml/d, peaks of

4.8 cumecs (considering a population of 1 million people, average consumption of 272 l/day)

and level of leakage around 55% of the total abstracted from the environment. These figures

are from a consultancy report, which has restricted circulation (because of the commercial

value of the information) and, therefore, cannot be quoted.

154

maximum acceptable water abstraction that does not cause environmental impact on

the Clyde is 25% of low flows (seasonal Q95).22

The conclusion is that abstraction

during low flow periods is potentially causing negative environmental impacts on the

Clyde, because for three-quarters of the year (Mar-Nov) the amount of abstraction

may exceed the threshold proposed by UKTAG (25%). Figure 6.2 graphically

illustrates these results.

Table 6.1: Seasonal Low Flows in the Clyde (1957-2002)

Dec – Feb Mar – May Jun –Aug Sep – Nov

Q95

(cumecs) 11.38 7.95 5.26 6.08

2.083 cumecs

of abstraction

(as % of Q95)

18.3% 26.2% 39.5% 34.2%

Data Source: SEPA database

Proxy Indicator No. 2 (Water Quantity) - Clyde

11.38

7.95

5.266.08

0.00

4.00

8.00

12.00

DEC-FEB MAR-MAY JUN-AUG SEP-NOV

Seaso

nal Q

95 (

cu

mecs)

Figure 6.2: Water Quantity – Clyde – 1957-2003 (Data Source: SEPA database)

The results of this indicator suggest a different condition from the equivalent

water quality indicator described earlier. It means that, while water quality is

22 The threshold figures suggested by UKTAG (i.e. maximum abstraction without causing

environmental impact) are 25% of Q95 for rivers of Low Ecological Sensitivity, 15% for rivers

of Moderate Ecological Sensitivity and 10% for rivers of High Ecological Sensitivity.

Dashed line

(average annual

demand) =

2.083 cumecs

155

improving, there are mounting pressures on water resources in the Clyde, particularly

during the periods of lower flows (Jun-Aug). Furthermore, it is necessary to consider

other important, but not easily quantifiable, processes affecting the trends of water

quantity in the Clyde. First and foremost, there are many points of abstraction that are

reported to exist, but for which data is not available, and there are probably hundreds

of smaller abstraction points which remain unreported. The individual volumetric

impact of those smaller abstractions is less significant than the bigger urban supply

schemes, but the cumulative impact is also certainly very important. In addition to

that, the available figures of abstraction (i.e. 180 – 200 Ml/d) are annual averages, but

in the summer the rate of rural and urban consumption increases, exactly when the

river flows are lower.

Furthermore, there is an important characteristic of the water supply that takes

place in the Clyde catchment and that is relevant for the interpretation of the second

criterion of water sustainability. As described in Chapter 5, since the middle of the 19th

century, the supply of the metropolitan Glasgow has come from other sources than the

Clyde River itself. The supply has relied on Loch Katrine, which is still responsible for

72.3% of the water services of Glasgow metropolitan area. As a direct consequence of

the heavy water demand from Loch Katrine, its condition is the most critical among

water supply sites in Scotland (Crabtree et al., 2002). According to those last authors,

abstraction from Loch Katrine corresponded to 44% of the annual natural runoff in

1989, 38% in 1991 and 40% in 1998. It can be concluded that the over abstraction of

Loch Katrine and transference of water to the Clyde is responsible for creating a

contradictory sustainability condition, as long as it avoids additional impacts on the

aquatic ecology of the Clyde (already suffering from poor water quality), but, at the

same time, contributes to the environmental deterioration of Loch Katrine (i.e. it is,

ultimately, an extension of the unsustainable water management of the Clyde to other

parts of Scotland).23

23

The water authority (Scottish Water) is promoting further interconnection of the supply

system with sources from other catchments interconnecting Loch Katrine with Loch Lomond.

Around 50 Ml/d already come from Loch Lomond to supply Glasgow. In the opposite

direction, there are proposals to use water from the Clyde river basin in other areas (e.g. BP

petrochemical refinery at Grangemouth is negotiating with British Waterways a supply of

27Ml/d from the Forth and Clyde canal, according to BBC News, 2003).

156

c) System resilience

The calculation of the Third Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „annual

average of standardised month flow deviations from the month average‟) considered

daily flow available for two gauging stations: Daldowie (period 1957-2002) and

Hazelbank (1957-2002). Two stations were selected, rather than a single one, to

minimise monitoring discrepancies (for example, Daldowie was flooded both on

31/10/1977 and on 12/12/1994) and to minimise the effect of local environmental

change in comparison with climatic variation. The results presented in Figures 6.3 and

6.4 indicate a trend of increasing wetness in the Clyde and, therefore, lower system

resilience.

Indicator No. 3 (System Resilience) - Clyde at Daldowie

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

19

57

19

59

19

61

19

63

19

65

19

67

19

69

19

71

19

73

19

75

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

Years

Ind

icato

r V

alu

e

five years movingaverage

Figure 6.3: System Resilience – Clyde (Daldowie) – 1957-2002

(Data Source: SEPA database)

Grey line = five

years moving

average

157

Indicator No. 3 (System Resilience) - Clyde at Hazelbank

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1957

1959

1961

1963

1965

1967

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Years

Ind

icato

r V

alu

e


Figure 6.4: System Resilience – Clyde (Hazelbank) – 1957-2002


The results of this indicator of water sustainability corroborates the findings of

similar analysis carried out in the Clyde, which suggest a tendency of wetter and

stormier conditions in the winter, as well as drier in the summer (i.e. increase in

maximum flows and decrease in minimum flows). For instance, CRPB (1990)

reported that during the period 1969 to 1988, the mean annual flow in the River Clyde

has exhibited a fairly steady increase, which was related to the gradual rise in annual

rainfall. Statistical tests indicate a significant level for the presence of an upward trend

and regression suggests that the mean annual flow has increased by 42% from 36.5 to

55.8 cumecs over the 20-year period. In contrast, the trend in 95% exceedance flow

shows a decline from 9.7 to 8.9 cumecs.

C. McPhail (pers. comm.) affirmed that there are clear indications of increase

in winter flows in the Clyde, what can be as much as 50% since the year 1960. Curran

and Robertson (1991) observed increasing annual flows over the period 1969 to 1988

in rivers draining to the Clyde Estuary. Smith and Bennett (1994) studied the Blairston

flow station in the Clyde (for the period 1970-1989) and identified statistical

significant increases in winter, spring and mean maximum monthly flows, but also

non-significant increases in the summer and autumn. Black and Burns (2002) estimate

that the annual high flow frequency has increased in western rivers in Scotland in the

1980s/1990s, but the Clyde is the only river in the South of Scotland to have recorded

a new maximum flood since 1989.

158

6.2.2 The economic dimension of the Clyde catchment

The economic development in the Clyde has directly benefited from the water

environment not only in terms of urban water supply, but also in terms of non-

consumptive uses of water, such as navigation, recreation and hydropower generation.

The results of the first two indicators of the economic dimension will demonstrate

different tendencies of water use efficiency and user sector productivity. The last

indicator will show changes in the institutional framework regarding water allocation

and management.

d) Water use efficiency

There were no data available to relate the expansion of water demand to

economic growth of most catchments in Scotland, as included in the Fourth Indicator

of Water Sustainability (i.e. „difference between the relative variation in GDP and the

relative variation in water demand‟). Aspinall (2001) already pointed out that one of

the main obstacles to more integrated management on the Clyde is the lack of common

information available in an accessible form. To compensate the lack of data, the proxy

of the Fourth Indicator considered the figure of water demand and the economic

output in the geographical area supplied by water from the Clyde (i.e. the local

authorities of South Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire). The only year with GDP data

available was 2000, which prevents the temporal consideration of economic activity.

Table 6.2 shows the result of the proxy indicator with the ratio between water use and

economic output.

Table 6.2: Proxy Indicator No. 4 (Use Efficiency) – Clyde

Ratio between water use and economic output (2000)

Water use

(Ml/day)

Gross Value

Added (£)

Indicator

(m3 / million £)

180 5,190,000,000 12,659

Data Sources: Scottish Executive (2000b) and SEPA (2000b)

In addition to the last Table that related economic output to water use in the

Clyde, the expression initially proposed for the Fourth Indicator was calculated for the

Scotland as a whole. The results for the aggregate Scottish economy and water use are

159

presented in Figure 6.5 and cover the period 1973-1999. The interpretation from this

graph is that the use of water in Scotland has a slight positive tendency towards more

efficient use, although with high annual variability during the period of analysis. This

graph can be explained by a steady economic performance of the Scottish economy, as

well as stabilisation in average daily demand (some studies also report decline in

household demand) and reduction in industrial activity (therefore, reduction in

industrial demand).

Indicator No. 4 (Use Efficiency) - Scotland

-3.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

Years

Ind

icato

r V

alu

e

five yearsmoving average

Figure 6.5: Use Efficiency – Scotland – 1973-1999

(Data Sources: Scottish Executive, 2000b, 2002c, 2002d and 2003b)

There are two important factors that can contribute to the continuous

improvement in water use efficiency in the Clyde for the next few years. One is the

significant volume of water that can be saved with leakage control, which can reach

figures between 50 and 70 Ml/d (Scottish Water, 2002). The overall level of leakage in

the West of Scotland is considerable, with figures oscillating between 37% and 53%

(according to Scottish Executive, 2001a; 2001b; 2002c; 2003b). The second factor that

has the potential to reduce pressures on water resources is the expected decline in

population in the Clyde. There are different scenarios for the evolution of population

and, for instance, GRO (2003) projects a reduction of 2.4% in the population in the

Clyde area for the year 2016 (when compared with 2000). Population projections are

illustrated below in Figure 6.11.

160

e) User sector productivity

Similarly to the last calculation, the Fifth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e.

„balance between relative variation in turnover of the economic sectors and relative

variation in water use‟) was calculated for Scotland as a whole, considering the

metered and unmetered user sectors. The unmetered demand accounts for 78% of

daily demand in 2001-2002, compared with 70% in 1981-1982. In consequence, the

metered demand decreased from 28% to 22% of daily demand (Scottish Executive,

2003c). Figures 6.6 and 6.7 show this dual picture of water productivity: first, a

significant improvement in the productivity of the metered sector (industry and trade)

and, second, some discrete improvement in the unmetered sector (domestic use, small

industries, other public uses). Therefore, sectors with metered demand have

demonstrated a clear tendency towards higher productivity, which can be explained by

the fact that these are charged on metric basis and have economic incentives to reduce

water use.

Indicator No. 5 (Sector Productivity) - Scotland - metered

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

19

73

19

75

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

Years

Ind

icato

r V

alu

e


Figure 6.6: Sector Productivity – Scotland (metered) – 1973-1999

(Data Sources: Scottish Executive, 2001a, 2001b and 2001c)

161

Indicator No. 5 (Sector Productivity) - Scotland - unmetered

-6.00

-4.00

-2.00

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

19

73

19

75

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

Years

Ind

icat

or

Val

ue

five years

moving average

Figure 6.7: Sector Productivity – Scotland (unmetered) – 1973-1999

(Data Sources: Scottish Executive, 2001a, 2001b and 2001c)

The two graphs above cover the economic of Scotland as a whole and serve

only as an indirect indication of the situation in the Clyde. According to A. Keiller

(pers. comm.) it is difficult to have precise forecasts for future levels of demand in the

Clyde because of the complex social and economic context. However, it is possible to

foresee options in terms of demand management that could be put into practice to

improve productivity, particularly the expansion of water metering. A. Keiller (pers.

comm.) also affirmed that there is room for water demand reduction in most user

sectors. For instance, due to changes in personal habits and family structure, the

median household per capita consumption in Scotland was 6% less in 1999 than in

1991 (SWA, 2000). However, not all productive sectors have the same opportunities

to improve water efficiency, since this ultimately depends on technology, investments

and specific local circumstances.

f) Institutional preparedness

Considering the items included in the Sixth Indicator of Water Sustainability

(i.e. „institutional requirements that are properly satisfied, according to a list with eight

basic requirements‟), the institutional arrangement for the management of the Clyde is

under profound transformation at the beginning of the 21st century due to the

implementation of the new water legislation (described in Chapter 5). Table 6.3

162

presents the results of the checklist developed for this indicator. It can be seen in the

Table that the effective management of water abstraction and the adoption of

catchment approaches are still not effective in the Clyde, although the new legislation,

when implemented, will represent a significant improvement. However, it is still not

clear how stakeholders will react to the decision-making mechanism of water

management and how the new institutional framework can resolve stakeholder

conflicts.

Table 6.3: Indicator No. 6 (Institutional Preparedness) – Clyde

Item Yes/No Since Justification

X1 = Legislation

addresses water

management at the

river basin level

yes 2003

- The Water Environment and Water Services

Act (WEWS), Article 4, says that a river basin

district is an area comprising one or more river

basins, groundwater and coastal water bodies.

Article 15 gives the option to divide a district

into sub-districts, which may comprise individual

catchments.

- The WEWS Act requires planning to be done

within river basin districts, but it does not require

that each basin has its own plan, although basins

themselves may not be split.

X2 = River basin

management is

formally connected

with the regional /

national system of

water management

no

(although

included in

the law)

2003

- The new legislation includes the preparation of

supra-catchment management plans (River Basin.

- Management Plans or Sub-Basin Management

Plans), according to Article 10 of the WEWS Act.

X3 = River basin

management is

organised / regulated

by specific plans /

programmes

no -

- There were some initiatives in the past

regarding the management of the Clyde

catchment (e.g. Clyde Valley Regional Plan in

1946) but previous attempts were not exactly

river basin plans of water management.

X4 = Water

allocation

mechanism is based

on local hydrologic

assessments and

sensible criteria

no

(although

included in

the law)

-

- Water abstraction licences are still not adopted

in the Clyde river basin.

- Water orders for public abstraction were issued

without detailed consideration of water balance

or negative effects on the aquatic ecosystem.

- The new legislation will require the issuing of

licences for all abstractions above a minimum

threshold (still to be defined).

X5 = Allocation of

water uses considers

social and

environmental

priorities

no

(although

included in

the law)

-

- There is no reference to priority uses on the

new water legislation, but the WEWS Act makes

reference to „sustainable use‟ and requires an

economic analysis of water use (Article 5).

163

X6 = River basin

authority / agency /

committee with

specific water

management roles

no -

- There is no single organisation with specific

responsibility for managing the Clyde.

- The new legislation does not require the

establishment of such organisations.

X7 = Hydrologic

and water quality

monitoring with

satisfactory space

and time coverage

yes early

1960s

- SEPA considers only the freshwater section of

the catchment, which has an area of 1,903 km2

and 19 hydrologic stations.24

- That gives a station density of one per 100 km2,

which is more than the international

recommendation.25

X8 = Capacity

building activities at

the catchment level

yes 1990s

- There have been conferences and campaigns

promoted by local authorities, environmental

agencies and NGOs (although there is no

comprehensive strategy for the catchment).

Total of items with Positive Results = 3 items (out of 8)

6.2.3 The social dimension of the Clyde catchment

The relevance of water resources for the social development of the Clyde has

been evident since the beginning of the expansion of international trade and

shipbuilding industry centuries ago. Nevertheless, in publications about the Clyde

there are scant references about water resources in relation to quality of life. The

exception is, in most of the cases, some concerns about the contamination of drinking

water, as described below in the first indicator of the social dimension of water

sustainability. The second indicator will reveal that the Clyde has a relatively low level

of social development, when compared with other areas of Scotland. Finally, the third

indicator will show the changing framework of public participation in water

management in the Clyde.

24 Gauging stations: Duneaton at Maidencots; Douglas Water at Happendon; Clyde at Tuliford

Mill; Clyde at Sills of Clyde; Clyde at Hazelbank; Cander Water at Candermill; Avon Water at

Fairholm; South Calder Water at Forgewood; North Calder Water at Calderbank; North Calder

Water at Hillend; Nethan at Kirkmuirhill; Rotten Calder Water at Redless; North Calder at

Calderpark; Clyde at Blairston; Dumpellier (Monkland Canal); Cairnhill (Monkland Canal);

Woodhall (Monkland Canal); Watstone Burn; and Clyde at Daldowie

164

g) Equitable water services

The coverage of public water supply and sanitation is practically universal in

Scotland, even more in highly urbanised areas like the Clyde catchment. According to

WCC (2003), around 98.5% of the Scottish population (2.2 million dwellings) is

connected to the public water system, leaving only 1.5% (about 80,000) to be served

by private water supply. In addition, there are 68,000 private commercial units served

by private supply. Around 92.5% of the population (2.16 million dwellings) is also

connected to the public sewer system.

This universal rate of public supply and sanitation does not provide sufficient

elements for the assessment of sustainability trends, as required for the Seventh

Indicator (i.e. „percentage of catchment population with access to water services‟).

Therefore, the proxy of this indicator considered the percentage of drinking water

samples complying with the human health standards. The official standards of

compliance are the „prescribed condition or value‟ (PCV)26

. Information is available

for the period 1995-2000 for the West of Scotland, as can be seen in Table 6.4 below:

Table 6.4: Proxy Indicator No. 7 (Equitable Services) – Clyde

Percentage of Drinking Water Complying with Heath Standards

Year Determinations

performed

Determinations

exceeding PCV

Determinations

exceeding PCV (%)

1995 67,437 1,059 1.57

1996 68,067 1,186 1.74

1997 61,544 1,209 1.96

1998 55,880 1,200 2.15

1999 48,445 944 1.95

2000 48,623 594 1.22

Total = 349,996 Total = 6,192 Average = 1.77 %

Data Source: SESO (2003)

25 The recommendation for the European network is approximately one station per 20,000 km

to one per 5,000 km2 (Marcuello and Menéndez, 2003).

26 The standards of PCV in Scotland are (maximum unless otherwise stated): Total coliforms

= 0 (number/100ml), Faecal coliforms = 0 (number/100ml), Colour = 20 (mg/l Pt/Co scale),

Turbidity (including suspended solids) = 4 (Formazin turbidity units), Hydrogen ions = 9.5

maximum/5.5 minimum (pH value), Aluminium = 200 (µg Al/l), Iron = 200 (µg Fe/l),

Manganese = 50 (µg Mn/l), Lead = 50 (µg Pb/l), Total trihalomethanes 100 (µg/l).

165

The results of Table 6.4 indicate a good performance of the water supply

system in terms of public health. The Scottish Executive (2002e) presents additional

results of constant decline in the number of microbiological tests on tap samples

containing coliforms and faecal coliforms from 1991 to 2001 in Scotland and from

1996 to 2001 for the West of Scotland Water Authority. However, the levels of

compliance achieved so far also indicate that there is still room for improving the

quality of drinking water delivered to customers. The simple forms of treatment

traditionally used are deficient in some aspects and the SRC (1995) points out that

drinking water compliance has been improved significantly during the 1990s in the

Strathclyde area, but the situation is worsening in rural areas and could easily

deteriorate if there were a single dry year.

h) Water-related well-being

There were no data available to relate trends in water use with trends in well-

being, as included in the proposed Eighth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e.

„difference between relative variation of well-being indicators related to water and the

relative variation in water demand‟). To compensate such deficiency, the „Index of

Multiple Deprivation‟ was adopted as an expression of the well-being condition of the

human population living in the river basin.27

The results of Index of Multiple

Deprivation are available at the ward level, which can be aggregated to specific

geographical scales, such as the catchment scale used here.

The proxy of the Eighth Indicator was the Index of Multiple Deprivation for

the Clyde catchment. This indicator was calculated by considering the relative

proportion of the population of the local authorities that constitute the Clyde

catchment (Appendix VIII illustrates the local authorities in the Clyde). The results are

presented in Table 6.5, with the total Index of Deprivation of 438 for the Clyde

catchment, which demonstrates a comparatively low level of well-being when

27 The Index of Deprivation has been used and revised in Scotland, since the first version in

1995. Its second methodology (Gibb et al., 1998) conceptualised deprivation in broader terms

by developing a comprehensive set of domains of deprivation (including housing, health,

education, crime, labour market and material poverty). The methodology was recently

improved and the new formulation is the „Index of Multiple Deprivation‟, which now includes

income, employment, health, education and access to services (SDRC, 2003).

166

compared with other parts of Scotland (the Index of Deprivation ranges from 1, the

worst situation, to 1222, the best level of well-being).28

Table 6.5: Proxy Indicator No. 8 (Catchment Well-being) – Clyde

Index of Multiple Deprivation of the Clyde Catchment

Local Authority Population

(2001)

Population

(% of total)

Index

Deprivation

East Dunbartonshire 108,250 6.18 966

East Renfrewshire 89,410 5.11 970

Glasgow City 578,710 33.07 257

Inverclyde 84,150 4.81 393

North Lanarkshire 321,180 18.35 358

Renfrewshire 172,850 9.88 515

South Lanarkshire 302,340 17.27 533

West Dunbartonshire 93,320 5.33 306

TOTAL 1,750,210 100% 438

Data Source: SDRC (2003)

A similar approach that also serves as proxy indicator is the methodology of

the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics (SNS, 2003), composed of indicators of well-

being calculated for local territorial scales. Table 6.6 presents some selected statistics

of the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics that are indirectly associated to well-being

related to water: diseases of the digestive system, average gross weekly earnings and

qualification of working age people. As for the results of Table 6.5, the results of well-

being parameters included in the Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics for the Clyde are

below the Scottish average.

28 The reason for this range of oscillation in the Index of Multiple Deprivation is because there

are a total of 1,222 wards in Scotland and, therefore, the Index oscillates between “1” (worst

condition) and “1,222” (best condition).

167

Table 6.6: Selected Parameters of the Neighbourhood Statistics in the Clyde

Local Authority

Diseases of the Digestive

System (2001)

Average Gross Weekly

Earnings (2002) People with

known

qualifications

(2002)

Hospital

admissions

Rate/

100,000

For full-time

employees (£)

% of

Scotland's

average

East Dunbartonshire 3,545 3,275 - - 65,500

East Renfrewshire 2,006 2,244 - - 53,400 Glasgow City 20,253 3,500 421.4 99 366,500

Inverclyde 2,703 3,212 354.7 83 54,000

North Lanarkshire 11,157 3,474 413.2 97 207,200

Renfrewshire 5,501 3,183 447.7 105 112,900

South Lanarkshire 9,126 3,018 434.2 102 184,800

W. Dunbartonshire 3,453 3,700 376.5 88 62,500

Total or average 57,744

(total)

3,201

(average)

407.95

(average)

96

(average)

1,106,800

(~63% of

population)

Data Source: SNS (2003)

i) Public participation

The results of the Ninth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „public

participation requirements that are properly satisfied, according to a list with eight

basic requirements‟) are presented in Table 6.7 below. It can be seen in this Table that

public participation remains a very challenging aspect related to water management in

the Clyde, because there are scarce opportunities in terms of sharing responsibilities

and decision-making. Historically, there has been a sequence of planning initiatives in

the Clyde catchment, mainly dealing with urban expansion and economic

development, which have all offered limited space for public participation on water

management. One important exception has been the Firth of Clyde Forum, set up in

the early 1990s to promote the integrated management of its coastal zone, as a

voluntary partnership of local authorities, organisations, businesses and communities.

Another example is the Clyde River Foundation, founded in 1999 to deal with fish

management and raise environmental awareness.

168

Table 6.7: Indicator No. 9 (Public Participation) - Clyde


X1 = Legislation

includes / promotes

public participation in

the decision-making

related to water

management

yes 2003

- WEWS Act includes the promotion of public

consultation (Article 11), the creation of River

Basin Advisory Groups (Article 17) and power

to the public to obtain documents from official

agencies (Article 18).

X2 = Practical

mechanisms of water

management include

stakeholder

participation

no -

- A specific river basin management process

does not as such exist yet and it is not clear

if the Clyde will be managed at

the catchment scale.

X3 = The majority /

totality of stakeholder

sectors are properly

represented in the river

basin management

process

no -

- A specific river basin management process

does not as such exist yet and it is not clear

if the Clyde will be managed at the

catchment scale.

X4 = There are proves

that policy making is

influenced by river

basin public

participation

no -

- Plans and policies related to water management

in the Clyde have been open for public

consultation, but it is not clear to which extent

the comments raised by the public influenced the

final documents.

X5 = Conflicts among

water users are

considered and dealt at

the river basin level

no - There is no forum to deal with conflicts

between water users.

X6 = There are regular

campaigns / activities

that aim to involve the

river basin population

yes 1992

- The Clyde Pride initiative was launched to

involve volunteers to clean up streams,

riverbanks, loch shores and coastlines

(CRPB, 1994).

X7 = There are

opportunities for public

participation at the

regional / national

system of water

management (supra

catchment level)

yes 2003

- SEPA promoted a series of seminars in 2003 to

discuss the possible strategies for the preparation

of sub-district management plans in a

participatory way, as part of the River Basin

Management Planning process.

X8 = Water resources

planning is conducted

via participatory

approaches

no

- A specific river basin planning as such does

not exist yet and it is not clear if it will be done

at the catchment scale.


169

6.2.4 Summary of results for the Clyde catchment

Table 6.8 summarises the main findings regarding the nine selected criteria of

water sustainability, covering the environmental, economic and social dimensions.

The conclusions included in this Table are based on the indicator results and on

additional information from other sources, as mentioned above.

Table 6.8: Summary of the Assessment of Water Sustainability of the Clyde Catchment

Criteria Sustainability Assessment Sustainability Tendency

Water

Quality

- Deterioration of water quality

until 1970s.

- Consistent recovery in the last 20

years, but with various interruptions

during this period.

- Further improvements will depend on

additional investments on sewage

treatment and, particularly, on an

integrated management of the catchment

to organise conflicting abstraction uses.

- New threats to sustainability arise

mainly from diffuse sources of pollution

in urban and rural areas.

Water

Quantity

- The supply of water to the Clyde

has been mainly guaranteed by

interbasin transfers from Loch

Katrine since 1859.

- In the upper reaches (upstream to

Daldowie gauging station) the

present level of abstraction is above

technical recommended thresholds,

posing stress to the river system in

periods of low flows.

- The sustainability tendency shows a

mixed picture: there are pressures on the

available resources, but there is also a

possible reduction in future abstractions

(due to population and industry decline).

- There are conflicts between upstream

and downstream abstractors, but the

level of uncertainty related to the

volumes abstracted does not allow any

precise evaluation.

System

Resilience

- The river flow regime is becoming

more variable (i.e. wetter) and, in

consequence, less reliable.

- This more variable system

condition seems to be a combination

of local environmental change and

global climatic change (as suggested

in the technical literature).

- Due to the uncertainties of climate

change, it is difficult to predict future

trends, but there are suggestions of

increased wetness in the catchment in

the next few decades.

- There is a tendency towards more

widespread and impacting floods, but

the level of damage depends on the use

of the soil and the preparation for

adverse events.

- The positive consequence of the wetter

condition is a contribution for the

dilution of pollutants.

170

Water

Use

Efficiency

- The aggregate results for Scotland

indicate a tendency towards higher

efficiency in the last three decades,

but with high interannual variability.

- There is no reduction in the long-

term tendency of increasing water

demand.

- The tendency is uncertain, because

the pattern of domestic and industry

water use does not indicate substantial

reductions in the near future.

- Reductions in the rate of economic

growth may not be followed by

proportional reductions in

water demand.

User

Sector

Productivity

- There are contrasting results

between the metered sector (with

gradual reduction in demand) and the

unmetered sector (with gradual

expansion in demand).

- Tendency is uncertain for the

unmetered (domestic) sector.

- The adoption of domestic metering

system would certainly induce

gains in use efficiency.

Institutional

Preparedness

- There have been significant

advances in the last few years with

the preparation to implement the new

water legislation but the Clyde

catchment still has weak institutional

arrangements regarding water use

and conservation.

- Positive tendency towards a more

comprehensive and integrated

consideration of the management of the

river basin.

- However, the success of the new

institutional structure will depend

on complex negotiation between

governmental and

non-governmental organisations.

Equitable

Water

Services

- The access to water supply and

sanitation is practically universal,

especially considering that the Clyde

is a heavily urbanised river basin.

- The quality of drinking water has

improved.

- The ongoing reorganisation of the

water industry has the potential to

achieve additional gains in economic

and environmental efficiency.

Water-related

Well-being

- The Clyde river basin (particularly

in Glasgow area) has the most

deprived area in Scotland, which is

the result of the economic depression

that followed the collapse of

shipbuilding industry.

- The economic revitalisation creates

conditions for improving water related

well-being, specially due to renovation

of urban areas along the Clyde river

banks (well-being due to recreation and

amenity uses of the river) and

improvement in water quality (well-

being due to healthy water supply

and better environmental condition).

Public

Participation

- There will be new possibilities for

public participation when the

instruments of the new water

legislation are in place.

- At the Clyde river basin level, there

have been only some isolated

attempts to involve water

stakeholders.

- The more direct involvement of the

public in decision-making is part of

broader transformations in the political

and representative arrangement of

Scotland after political devolution.

- It is not certain whether the public

participation approaches will move

towards a more effective and

systematic engagement of the

stakeholders and the public.

171

6.2.5 Follow-up interviews in the Clyde

In the interviews conducted in the Clyde catchment it was possible to identify

common answers to the list of asked questions. Most stakeholders mention

improvements in the environmental condition of the Clyde, such as the recovering

water quality, the new water management framework and the recent attempts to

involve water stakeholders (especially in events and projects related to the river).

Almost all respondents mentioned the return of salmon population to the river as a

fundamental demonstration of recovered water quality. On the contrary, the negative

aspects about the water sustainability most alluded to were the remaining water quality

problems in many tributaries around Glasgow (particularly due to increasing diffuse

pollution), the difficulty to connect water management with ecological conservation,

increasing river flow variability (maybe aggravated by climate change) and the

specific problems of individual tributaries not properly addressed yet. One respondent

emphasised the need to improve water quality monitoring, particularly with telemetric

transmission of data to the environmental regulator.

Many respondents observed that the new water legislation provides the basis

for the sustainable development of water resources. However, there is a general

perception that the level of uncertainty involved in the implementation of the new

regulatory regime is still extremely high, and that the catchment problems are

complex. It means that hard decisions will still have to be made, particularly in terms

of limits for the use of the environment and for the allocation of water use

authorisations. It was also observed that, in the case of the Clyde, specific water

management answers are needed in each one of the three main divisions of the river

basin: the upper river, the middle section around Glasgow and the estuary. Each

segment of the river has specific environmental questions, which require appropriate

answers, although still keeping the river basin as the ultimate unit of management. It

was mentioned by many respondents that the water development in the Clyde cannot

be dissociated from centuries of shipbuilding and river engineering that inexorably

marked public perception about the problems and solutions for the river.

Some respondents mentioned that there is not yet a consistent approach from

official agencies and non-governmental organisations in using the Clyde River Basin

as the scale for environmental management. The example given was the overwhelming

172

political and economic preponderance of the lower Clyde over the rest of the

catchment. This is perceived to prevent the adoption of the catchment geography as the

principal scale of planning for the solution of environmental problems and conflicts. It

was mentioned that the environmental regulator still considers only the upstream half

of the catchment as unit for management and monitoring purposes, relegating the

downstream half to be considered as its estuary. This approach is responsible for a

dichotomy in the assessment of problems and in the proposal of solutions. In

consequence, it was pointed out that the rationale of the river basin approach, as

proposed by the new water legislation, seems to be a major challenge for the

government and environmental agencies alike.

173

6.3 Applying the Framework to the Dee Catchment

6.3.1 The environmental dimension of the Dee catchment

When compared with the Clyde, the environmental quality of the Dee

catchment demonstrates a significantly better condition. The first indicator of the

environmental dimension will show good results of water quality for the period

analysed in this study. The second indicator will reveal that abstraction represents

lower pressures on the water environment than in the Clyde. The third indicator will

finally describe the variability of river flow, with a slight tendency towards an overall

more variable condition.

a) Water quality

The methodology of water quality adopted in Scotland by the environment

agency (SEPA) was described above for the assessment of the River Clyde and

basically comprises five boundaries of results for a relatively small number of

parameters. The River Dee has been subject to continuous and systematic monitoring

of water quality since 1980. Despite the fact that data is available since 1980 for the

Dee, it was has never been attempted to apply the present classification thresholds for

the entire period of surveillance (G. Rose, pers. comm.). That is exactly what was

adopted here to produce the First Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „proportion of

stretches with specific water quality conditions, in relation to the total extension of

river stretches‟), as can be seen in Figure 6.8. This graph is the result of more then

7,500 samples, processed with the computer programme Aardvark.

174

Indicator No. 1 (Water Quality) - Dee

98

99

100

101

102

80-82 83-85 86-88 89-91 92-94 95-97 98-00 01-03

Cla

ss Q

uali

ty P

erc

en

tag

e (

%)

A1

Figure 6.8: Water Quality – Dee – 1980-2003 (Data Source: SEPA database)

According to the results of Figure 6.8 above, the overall water quality in the

River Dee has maintained excellent results from 1980 to 2003 (class A1). However, it

is important to observe that the methodology covers a three year period of analysis,

which can hide short-term pollution events. Despite the overall good water quality, S.

Langan (pers. comm.) pointed out that there are two main issues of concern in the Dee

in terms of water quality. One is the sensitivity of some of the upland catchment to

acidification (the River Dee has a high sensitivity to relatively small inputs of

pollution due to the relatively low buffer capacity of the catchment soils). The second

is the progressive increase in diffuse pollution in lowland parts of the catchments

where most of the population, industry and agriculture are concentrated. Appendix IX

shows the differences in altitude between the upper and lower Dee River Basin.

b) Water quantity

For the Second Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „rate of withdrawal in

relation to seasonal low flows, considering imported and recycled flows and

discounting exported flows‟) the rate of water abstraction was considered in relation to

seasonal low water flows at Park gauging station for the period 1972-2001. For this

indicator the abstraction at Inchgarth was excluded, because it is located downstream

175

from Park, but the total of smaller abstraction points by both Scottish Water and

private supply upstream to Park were included. It was calculated that private water

supply supports 6,170 persons in the Dee catchment and an average abstraction of

148.6 l/head/day was assumed, as mentioned by SWA (2000) for the North of

Scotland.

The total abstraction included in the indicator calculation was 66.33 Ml/d (=

0.768 cumecs), which is the sum of 60.300 Ml/d (Cairnton/Invercannie), 5.113 Ml/d

(small Scottish Water abstractions) and 0.917 Ml/d (additional private water supply).

However, data was not available on historical trends of water abstraction, or for

seasonal variation, which restricted the proper calculation of the Second Indicator. The

lack of temporal evolution of abstraction also prevented the consideration of the export

of water from the Dee catchment (26% of abstraction is exported to other catchments,

as mentioned in Chapter 5).

Despite that limitation, the results of the proxy of the Second Indicator of

Water Sustainability are presented in Table 6.9 and Figure 6.9. The indicator showed a

rate of abstraction below the thresholds adopted in this study for the interpretation of

the results (25% of Q95).

Table 6.9: Seasonal Low Flows in the Dee (1972-2001)


Q95

(cumecs) 18.09 17.69 6.56 8.79

0.768 cumecs

of abstraction

(as % of Q95) 4.25 % 4.34 % 11.71 % 8.74 %

Data Source: SEPA database

176

Proxy Indicator No. 2 (Water Quantity) - Dee

18.09 17.69

6.56

8.79

0.00

3.00

6.00

9.00

12.00

15.00

18.00

21.00

DEC-FEB MAR-MAY JUN-AUG SEP-NOV

Seaso

nal Q

95 (

cu

mecs)

Figure 6.9: Water Quantity – Dee – 1972-2001 (Data Source: SEPA database)


The Third Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „annual average of

standardised month flow deviations from the month average‟) was calculated for the

period 1972-2001, making use of data available for the Park gauging station. The

results are shown in Figure 6.10 and indicate an increase in the variability of the river

flow. It means a slightly wetter annual condition, although less evident than for the

same indicator when considered the Clyde.

Dashed line

(average annual

demand) =

0.768 cumecs

177

Indicator No. 3 (System Resilience) - Dee

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Years

Ind

icato

r V

alu

e


Figure 6.10: System Resilience – Dee (Park) – 1972-2001


This graph is corroborated by the related technical literature, which argues that

the flows of the River Dee are becoming more variable in the last few years due not

only to increased floods, but also increased periods of low flows. For instance, SEPA

(2003a) informs that the biggest recorded floods on the River Dee occurred in the

autumn of 2002. However, in the following year, a new month minimum was

registered at Park gauging station in September 2003 and, in October 2003, the River

Dee was recorded at only 14% of long term average flow (CEH-BGS, 2003). This has

also triggered a higher level of dependency on groundwater and reservoir stocks

(NHMP, 2003a and 2003b). This situation caused ecological stresses, such as

salmonid fatalities in the River Dee. WWF (2003b) argues that salmonids die in the

Dee as a consequence of climbing summer temperatures, aggravated by water

pollution, angling pressure and the amount of water taken out of the river.

6.3.2 The economic dimension of the Dee catchment

The relevance of the economic dimension of water sustainability in Dee will be

demonstrated below by the income generated from activities directly and indirectly

related with the river. The first indicator of the economic dimension will suggest a

tendency towards gains in water use efficiency in the catchment. The second indicator

178

will demonstrate the decline in water demand by most user sectors, but at the same

time the opportunities for improving water use productivity. Finally, the last indicator

will describe the institutional preparedness for the management of water in the

catchment.


The Fourth Indicator of Water Sustainability compares the relation between

economic outputs and water demand (i.e. „difference between the relative variation in

GDP and the relative variation in water demand‟). However, the only available

information covers the geographical areas of Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire, which

makes the consideration of the catchment in the calculation of this indicator

impossible (i.e. Aberdeen City is mostly located within the Dee catchment, but

Aberdeenshire includes other areas in the Northeast of Scotland, which are not

exclusively supplied by water from the River Dee). For this reason, the Fourth

Indicator could only be addressed by indirect regional trends available for the North of

Scotland, which is an area that ultimately includes the Dee catchment.

These indirect regional trends suggest an increase in water use efficiency in the

North of Scotland. For instance, the metered water demand showed gradual reduction

from 97.88 Ml/d in 1998 to 87.40 Ml/d in 2002. Another example is the reduction in

the demand of large users from 64.00 Ml/d in 1998 to 62.20 Ml/d in 2002 (Scottish

Executive, 2000a, 2001a, 2001b and 2003a). In addition, in the last two decades of the

20th century population stabilised in Aberdeen and had a tenuous increase in

Aberdeenshire (GRO, 2003). The population projections for 2016 indicate an overall

tendency of stabilisation in the Dee (considering Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire), which

can be compared with a projected decline in the Clyde, as can be see in Figure 6.11.

179

Population Projections for 2016

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

2,000,000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Years

Po

pu

lati

on Clyde

Abdn-Abdnshire

Figure 6.11: Population Projections – Clyde and Dee Catchments

(Data Source: GRO, 2003)

The stabilisation of the population and the improvement in use efficiency

suggest a reduction in the pressure on water resources in the Dee catchment. However,

the main question about the long-term water supply from the Dee is the single source

dominance, as long as most of the water for the Northeast of Scotland is pumped from

Cairnton in the middle course of the River Dee. Because of this overwhelmingly

dependency on a single source of raw water, M. Banks (pers. comm.) affirmed that the

Northeast of Scotland is the most risky drinking water supply area under Scottish

Water operation. The water authority also affirmed that potential alternative sources

for water supply to the Northeast of Scotland are very limited and onerous (SEPA,

2000a).


Due to lack of catchment data for the Fifth Indicator of Water Sustainability

(i.e. „balance between relative variation in turnover of the economic sectors and

relative variation in water use‟), it was necessary to consider other the geographical

scales that have economic and water demand data available. The metered uses of water

in the North of Scotland and the economic outcome in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire

were, therefore, considered. Those two sets of data served as proxy of the Fifth

180

Indicator, because ultimately include the economy of the Dee River Basin. It was not

possible to incorporate into the initially proposed indicator expression, since the scales

of the North of Scotland and Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire are evidently different.

The results presented in Figure 6.12 show that the economic output, in terms of

GVA, remained practically constant between 1996 and 2000. Figure 6.13 presents the

tendency of water demand between 1998 and 2002. The only sectors in the North of

Scotland with a continuous increase were „Electricity, gas and other energy product

and distribution‟, „Food and drink‟, and „Hotel and communication‟. Sectors with

decrease in metered demand were „Wholesale and retail distribution‟ and „Banking,

finance, insurance, leasing and business services‟. When considered together, the

results of Figures 6.12 and 6.13 suggest a positive tendency towards user sector

productivity.

Proxy Indicator No. 5 (Sector Productivity) - Dee

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

1998-99 2000-01 2001-02

Ml/d

Food & Drink

Textiles & Leather

Oil and Chemicals

Metals, MechanicalEngineering & Transport

Electrical & InstEngineering

Figure 6.12: Economic Output (GVA) – Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire

(Data Source: Scottish Executive database)

181

Figure 6.13: Water Demand – North of Scotland

Data Sources: Scottish Executive, 2000a, 2001a, 2001b, 2001d and 2003b)

To further illustrate this economic criterion of water sustainability, it should be

noted that, apart from the consumptive use of water by households and industry, the

Dee is important for amenity and tourism activities. The catchment supports one of

most important salmon fisheries in Scotland and has the ability to offer angling early

in the season. Table 6.10 presents a summary with the main activities that depend on

the water resources of the Dee River Basin and an indication of the annual economic

output. The interests of different sectors can also give rise to conflicts related to the

use of the river. AECS (2003) concludes that relations amongst user groups on the

River Dee are on the whole very cordial, but there are number of hotspots where there

is more pressure of use and, therefore, a higher degree of management is required.

Proxy Indicator No. 5 (Sector Productivity) - Dee

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

£ (

millio

n)

Food & Drink

Textiles & Leather

Oil and Chemicals

Metals, MechanicalEngineering & Transport

Electrical & InstEngineering

182

Table 6.10 – Main Economic Activities Dependent on the River Dee

Activity Annual economic output Comment

Water

abstraction £ 42.3 million

Considering a supply of 65.413 Ml/d

and the present level of water charges for

metered supply (67 pence for water

and 110 pence for sewage)

Game fishing £ 6 million The Dee is described as the best spring river

for salmon in the United Kingdom

Conservation - Significant areas designated for conservation

Forestry

£ 1.3 million

(approximate production of

44,000 tonnes)

Main forestry areas in the Cairngorms

(woodlands account for 18% of the total

land area of the Cairngorms)

Farming £ 46 million 33 million from livestock and 13 million from

crops (including subsidy payments)

Navigation - 9,000 vessels a year utilise the port

infrastructure at the mouth of the River Dee

Tourism

A significant proportion of

the £ 300 million

expenditure in Grampian

Principal attractions are opportunities

for walking, climbing, skiing, sight-seeing

and fishing

Adapted from Aberdeen City Council (2002), Langan et al. (1997) and Scottish Water (2004)


Considering the institutional arrangement for the management of the Dee

catchment, there is not yet a comprehensive, systematic mechanism to deal with

demands and conflicts over water quantity and quality. The monitoring of water

quality and river flow covers the main stretches of the river basin, but there is

restricted integration between with land use and virtually no control of water

abstraction. The smaller population and lower level of environmental impacts, means

that the institutional demands in the Dee are relatively less critical than in the Clyde.

That is facilitated by the fact that almost the entire river basin is located within a single

local authority (Aberdeenshire) and most of the population lives around one city

located in another local authority (Aberdeen City). The upland of the river basin is

located in the recently created Cairngorms National Park, where the main economic

activity is tourism. There are also only two main water abstraction points along the

river and both operated by Scottish Water (Cairnton/Invercannie and

Inchgarth/Mannofield).

183

In a landmark symposium promoted in 1985 to discuss the River Dee (Jenkins,

1985) it was concluded that there should be moves towards a more integrated type of

environmental management. This same event made clear the need for setting up an

advisory group, which would provide the opportunity for all interests to interact and

work towards the integration of management activities. More recently, in 1999, the

Dee Catchment Management Plan was established with the purpose of generating

partnerships and promoting integrated catchment management (SEPA, 2000a). This

Plan mobilised most of the social actors involved with the river and was able to

summarise the problems and address respective responsibilities. Walker (2001)

identifies important issues arising from the experience of the Dee Catchment

Management Plan, such as the need to operate at a catchment basis, the long-term

view on river basin planning, the co-operation within and between river basins and the

strategic role of working to establish consensus among stakeholders at an early stage.

In a tributary of the Dee, there is the Tarland Catchment Initiative (TCI)

implemented since 2000 as a demonstrative project to deal with ecological aspects of

sustainability and complementary activities with the local community (Langan, 2004).

The TCI aims to bring scientists, regulators and the local community together to both

understand the relationship between land management and how it can be improved

using simple pragmatic measures. Table 6.11 below presents the Sixth Indicator of

Water Sustainability (i.e. „institutional requirements that are properly satisfied,

according to a list with eight basic requirements‟), which summarises the institutional

arrangement related to the management of the Dee.

Table 6.11: Indicator No. 6 (Institutional Preparedness) – Dee


X1 = Legislation addresses

water management at the

river basin level

yes 2003

- The WFD requires planning to be done

within river basin districts, but it does not

require that each basin has its own plan.

- The Water Environment and Water Services

Act (WEWS), Article 4, says that a river basin

district is an area comprising one or more river

basins, groundwater and coastal water bodies.

X2 = River basin

management is formally

connected with the regional

/ national system of water

management

no

(although

included

in the law)

2003

- The new legislation includes the preparation

of supra-catchment management plans (River

Basin Management Plans or Sub-Basin

Management Plans), according to Article 10

of the WEWS Act.

184

X3 = River basin

management is organised /

regulated by specific plans /

programmes

yes 2000

- A Catchment Management Plan was

produced in 2000 and opened for public

consultation, which identified conservation

issues and addressed responsibilities.

X4 = Water allocation

mechanism is based on local

hydrologic assessments and

sensible criteria

no

(although

included

in the law)

-

- Water abstraction licences are still not

adopted in the Dee catchment.

- Water Orders for public abstraction have

been issued without considering in detail the

likely negative effects on the aquatic

ecosystem.

X5 = Allocation of water

uses considers social and

environmental priorities

no

(although

included

in the law)

-

- There is no reference to priority uses on the

new water legislation, but the WEWS Act

makes reference to „sustainable use‟ and

requires an economic analysis of water use.

X6 = River basin authority /

agency / committee with

specific water

management roles

no -

- No single organisation holds specific

responsibility for managing the Dee

catchment.

- The Catchment Management Plan was

developed by a pool of organisations that

could be seen as the starting point of a

representative river basin authority.

X7 = Hydrologic and water

quality monitoring with

satisfactory space and time

coverage

yes early

1960s

- The catchment has an area of 2100 km and

12 gauging stations.29

That gives a station

density of one per 175 km2.

X8 = Capacity building

activities at the catchment

level

yes 1990s

- Activities related with the conservation of the

Cairngorms and the creation of the National

Park; Tarland Catchment Initiative since 2001.


6.3.3 The social dimension of the Dee catchment

It will be described in the first indicator below that public supply services have

a higher level of health compliance than private abstractions in the Dee catchment.

Those attended by private supply are more likely to be under threat from

microbiological contamination, which implies a lack of equity between stakeholders

attended by public and private supply. The second indicator of the social dimension

will show an overall good well-being condition in the Dee catchment, which, to a

29 Gauging stations: Cults (water level only); Park; Woodend; Dinnet (water level only);

Polhollick; Balmoral (water level only); Mar Lodge; River Feugh (tributary) at Heugh Head;

Water of Dye (tributary) at Charr (water level only); Muick (tributary) at Invermuick; Gairn

(tributary) at Invergairn; and Girnock Burn (tributary) at Littlemill.

185

certain extent, can be related to the quality of the local environment. In terms of public

participation, the final indicator will reveal recent mobilisation initiatives by the local

society.


Reid et al. (2003) estimate that Aberdeenshire has the largest population served

by private water supplies in Scotland and that the Dee area represents around 20% of

these properties. According to figures available for the year 2000, there are 321

persons in Aberdeen City and 29,244 persons in the whole Aberdeenshire that are

served by private water supply (Scottish Executive, 2001d). Considering 20% of the

Aberdeenshire population served by private water supply together with the population

in Aberdeen, the total number of people in the Dee catchment with private supply of

water amounts to 6,170 persons (i.e. 5,849 [20% of 29,244] + 321). This number was

considered against the total catchment population to satisfy the Seventh Indicator of

Water Sustainability (i.e. „percentage of catchment population with access to water

services‟), as presented in Table 6.12.

To calculate this indicator, the population of the Dee River Basin was derived

from the 2001 Census (GRO, 2003), considering the totality of the Aberdeen City (it is

operationally difficult to differentiate between the Dee and the neighbouring Don

Catchment, which occupies part of the north of the city) and the wards of

Aberdeenshire within the catchment (Echt, Kinellar and Westhill North, Westhill

Central, Elrick, Upper Deeside, Aboyne, Banchory West, Banchory East and Crathes,

Mid Deeside and Lower Deeside). The final result is a population of 247,928 persons

living in the Dee River Basin area in 2001.

Table 6.12: Indicator No. 7 (Equitable Services) – Dee

Private and Public Water Supply in the Dee River Basin

Total River Basin Population 247,928

Population served by Scottish Water 241,758

Population served by private water supply 6,170

= 2.49 %

Data Sources: GRO (2003) and Scottish Water database

186

As can bee seen in the Table, the indicator result was 2.49% of the catchment

under private water supply. Moreover, in Aberdeenshire alone the percentage is

16.24%, because there are 5,849 persons with private supply against a total of a

population of only 36,018 persons. This social inequality is aggravated by suggestions

that water quality of the private supply is lower than the equivalent service of the

public supply. The main reason for poorer performance of private supplies is the

deficient regulation carried out by the responsible agencies (local authorities), which

have not been able to properly enforce public health requirements (Reid et al., 2001).

Reid et al. (2003) affirm that the quality of private water supply within

Aberdeenshire between 1992 and 1998 showed a combined rate of failure of 48%

(41% for total coliforms, 30% for faecal coliforms and 15% for nitrate). In

comparison, a report in 2000-2001 indicates that 99.2% of taps tested with supply

from Scottish Water were compliant with standards in Aberdeen City (Aberdeen City

Council, 2002).


For the Eighth Indicator of Water Sustainability the „Index of Multiple

Deprivation‟, was considered similarly to the approach taken for the Clyde, as proxy

of the indicator initially proposed (i.e. „difference between relative variation of well-

being indicators related to water and the relative variation in water demand‟). The

results for the Dee River Basin are presented in Table 6.13 below, which demonstrate

a comparatively high level of well-being. The Index of Multiple Deprivation of the

Dee catchment was calculated as 801, which means a relatively high indicator result

when compared with other areas in Scotland (the Index of Multiple Deprivation ranges

from 1 to 1,222).

187

Table 6.13: Proxy Indicator No. 8 (Catchment Well-being) – Dee

Index of Multiple Deprivation of the Dee Catchment

Local

Authority Ward

Population

(2001)

Population

(% of total)

Index

Deprivation

Aberdeen (all) 211,910 85.472 750.20

Aberdeenshire

Echt 3,344 1.349 1,034

Kinellar and

Westhill North 3,905 1.575 1,142

Westhill

Central 4,51 1.836 1,218

Elrick 3,278 1.322 1,194

Upper Deeside 3,190 1.287 949

Aboyne 3,486 1.406 1,042

Mid Deeside 3,876 1.563 1,054

Banchory West 3,431 1.384 1,175

Banchory East

and Crathes 3,304 1.333 1,127

Lower Deeside 3,652 1.473 1,049

TOTAL 247,928 100 % 801

Data Source: SDRC (2003)


Regarding the involvement of the public in the planning and management of

the Dee River Basin, the most common mechanism in the last few years has been the

consultation of documents and public meetings. However, these forms of public

involvement are not sufficient to contemplate the requirements of sustainability in

terms of active and critical sharing of water management responsibilities. It means that

the participatory management of water at the river basin scale is still a challenge for

the governmental and non-governmental organisations alike.

The most successful attempt to involve the public in setting priorities for

environmental management in the Dee was the recent mobilisation for the

conservation of the Cairngorms Mountains. The area of the Cairngorms includes the

headwater of major river systems in the Northeast of Scotland, including the Dee. As

headwaters exert a strong influence on the hydrology and ecology of downstream

areas, a consistent approach to the sustainable management of upper catchments can

help underpin catchment-based initiatives (Walker, 2002). In addition, the „Dee

188

Catchment Steering Group‟, has been formed and is intended to contribute to the

conservation of the river basin. This initiative has involved practitioners, academics

and scientists in the debate about the environmental management of the river basin (S.

Langan, pers. comm.).

There are also localised initiatives in the catchment, such as the Dee Habitat

Enhancement Project, which has targeted landowners interested in environmental

conservation. Work included positive management of bankside woodlands; fencing off

areas to exclude livestock and minimise erosion and pollution; planting trees, shrubs

and hedges to stabilise banks and enhance the habitat; and installing troughs and

animal nose-operated pasture water pumps so the stock need not access the river

(Scenes, 2004). The public participation related to water management in the Dee is

summarised in Table 6.14, as the Ninth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „public


basic requirements‟).

189

Table 6.14: Indicator No. 9 (Public Participation) – Dee


X1 = Legislation includes /

promotes public participation in

the decision-making related to

water management

yes 2003

- WEWS Act includes the promotion

of public consultation (Article 11), the

creation of River Basin Advisory

Groups (Article 17) and power to the

public to obtain documents from

official agencies (Article 18).

X2 = Practical mechanisms of

water management include

stakeholder participation

no -

- A specific river basin

management process has not

been established for the Dee.

X3 = The majority / totality of

stakeholder sectors are properly

represented in the river basin

management process

yes 2000

- The preparation of the Dee Catchment

Management Plan involved most of the

stakeholder groups and governmental

organisations.

X4 = There are proves that

policy making is influenced by

river basin public participation

no -

- There is no evidence that the

proposals raised by the Dee Catchment

Management Pan have been

followed by official agencies

or even the public at large.

X5 = Conflicts among water

users are considered and dealt

at the river basin level

no - - There is not yet a forum to deal with

conflicts between water users.


campaigns / activities that aim

to involve the river basin

population

yes 1992

- There has been some mobilisation

regarding the conservation of the

Cairngorms and the creation of the

National Park.

X7 = There are opportunities

for public participation at the

regional / national system of

water management (supra

catchment level)

yes 2003

- SEPA promoted a series of seminars

in 2003 to discuss the possible

strategies for the preparation of sub-

district management plans in a

participatory way, as part of the River

Basin Management Planning process.

X8 = Water resources planning

is conducted via participatory

approaches

no -

- A specific river basin planning

programme, as such, does not exist yet

and it is not clear if it will be done at

the catchment scale.


190

6.3.4 Summary of results for the Dee catchment

Based on the above discussion, Table 6.15 summarises the nine selected

criteria of water sustainability, covering the environmental, economic and social

dimensions of the Dee River Basin:

Table 6.15: Summary of the Assessment of Water Sustainability of the Dee Catchment


Water

Quality

- For most of its extension, the River Dee is

maintained in a relatively pristine and good

water quality condition.

- Some tributaries in the middle and lower

reaches experience nutrient enrichment by

fertiliser, runoff, and/or effluent discharge

from scattered sceptic tanks and local

sewage works.

- The waters of the catchment are poorly

buffered and exhibit low concentrations of

base and trace metals, reflecting a condition

prone to acidification due to air pollution.

- The historic tendency is one of

continuous maintenance of good

quality.

- Management must be careful to

preserve a fine example of a river

which is oligotrophic from

source to mouth.

- Growing concerns about levels

of diffuse pollution from

agriculture fields and urban

zones.

Water

Quantity

- Present level of abstractions is below the

threshold, therefore sustainable.

- 26% of the abstracted volume is

exported from the river basin.

- No indication that abstraction

will rise above thresholds in the

foreseeable future.

- The main problem is the

dependency on one main source

of water localised in the River

Dee for most of the distribution

system in the Northeast of

Scotland.

System

Resilience

- Overall increase in wetness, together with

higher probability of drier summer spells.

- Growing concerns about the

increasing variability of the river

system (longer dry periods and

higher floods).

Water

Use

Efficiency

- Indications of regional water use moving

towards increased efficiency.

- Indefinite tendency for the

future, mostly depending on the

performance of the local

economy and on the reform of

the water industry.

User

Sector

Productivity

- Indication of regional gains in productivity

by the metered sectors and stabilisation in

the domestic (non-metered) sector.

- Indefinite tendency with

possible positive gains in

productivity promoted by the

implementation of the licence

system under the new water

legislation.

191

Institutional

Preparedness

- Scanty experiences of management

at the river basin scale.

- The major attempt was the elaboration of

the Dee Catchment Management Plan.

- Likely improvements due to

the implementation of the new

water legislation.

Equitable

Water

Services

- The Dee River Basin is one of the areas

with higher level of private water supply in

Scotland, which present a lower level of

compliance with public heath requirements

(higher level of coliforms and nitrogen

than water supplied by public services).

- Indefinite tendency with

possible positive outcomes from

the restructuring of the water

industry and on the capability of

local authorities to enforce water

quality regulation.

Water-related

Well-being

- The Dee River Basin is one of the areas

with higher well-being in Scotland.

- The high level of well-being

probably tends to be maintained.

Public

Participation

- Mostly dominated by limited

mechanisms of public consultation.

- The most significant recent attempt was

mobilisation for the conservation of the

Cairngorms Mountains and creation of the

National Park.

- Likely improvements under the

implementation of the new water

legislation.

- The contribution of public

participation to decision-making

will depend on the quality of the

mobilisation and on the

commitment of

governmental agencies.

6.3.5 Follow-up interviews in the Dee

Due to the location of Aberdeen University in the Dee River Basin, it was

possible to have an extended schedule of interviews with stakeholders during the time

allocated to this research. This period coincided with the mobilisation for the creation

of the Cairngorms National Park, which had obvious consequences for the

environmental conservation of the Dee. During the interviews, contacted stakeholders

emphasised some positive aspects of water sustainability in the Dee, namely a

relatively pristine condition in most of the catchment watercourses and the economic

or cultural importance of this good condition (such as for sport fishing and

ecotourism). On the other hand, various negative aspects of the river sustainability

were mentioned, particularly the rising level of diffuse pollution, the acidification of

running and standing waters, and the manifold difficulties in the implementation of

voluntary approaches to environmental conservation. Two respondents mentioned the

impact on fisheries during the low flow periods of 2003, which can be related to

changes in the climate.

192

It was repeatedly mentioned that one of the main problems with water in the

catchment is the diversion of a great percentage of abstraction to other areas,

represents a net loss of resources in the catchment. More important is the fact,

emphasised by various respondents, that most of the water supply to the Northeast of

Scotland relies on two abstraction points in the lower River Dee. It creates a relatively

risky condition for the supply of hundreds of thousands of people. At the same time,

the ongoing reorganisation of the water authority (Scottish Water) created difficulties

in assessing the exact corporate view about this problem. From the interviews it was

suggested that there is no strategic or long-term plan for the sustainability of their

water sources in the region, such as including demand management, because the

organisation focus most of its effort only on the immediate provision of services. It is

interesting to note that one of the respondents made the decision suddenly after the

first interview to take early retirement from Scottish Water; an example of the loss of

skilled personnel.

It was also observed by the respondents that sustainable development and

sustainability indicators are issues currently under discussion in the region, although

not particularly in relation to water issues. The local agenda of sustainable

development seems to be rather occupied with urban development, patterns of goods

consumption, and waste management. Respondents from the local authorities observed

that in Scotland they have virtually no responsibilities over water management and this

fact prevents the involvement of the local government and the local communities.

There is a strong reaction from water users to the requirement of abstraction licence

and associated charges. Sectors of water uses mentioned their scepticism about the

way the environmental regulators operate, despite the „friendly discourse‟. In

particular, farmers seem to have the strongest opposition to further regulation. On the

other hand, there are recent mobilisation initiatives related to environmental

conservation. These can be identified in tributaries and in the main course of the Dee.

193

6.4 Applying the Framework to the Sinos Catchment

6.4.1 The environmental dimension of the Sinos catchment

As for the previous two catchments, the three indicators of the environmental

dimension of water sustainability will address the condition of water quality, quantity

and system resilience of the Sinos catchment. The results of the first indicator below

demonstrate serious, although stable pollution problems in the river. The second

indicator will show the gradual increase of the impact of abstraction on low river

flows. Finally, the third environmental indicator will reveal the range of flow

variability at two downstream gauging stations.

a) Water quality

The regular and systematic monitoring of water quality in the Sinos River

Basin only began in 1990. Since then, different methodologies have been used to

produce and analyse the results. Between 1990 and 1996, the so-called Index of Water

Quality (IQA) was calculated for 11 sampling points along the river (IQA includes

eight parameters: oxygen, faecal coliforms, pH, BOD, nitrogen, phosphorus, turbidity,

and total solids). Between 1996 and 2000, the monitoring continued to include the

same parameters, but the IQA was no longer used. Eventually, a new monitoring

system was instigated and has been in operation since 2000: it is part of the network

financed by the Pro-Guaíba Programme (described in Chapter 5). The current

monitoring network has 15 sampling points in the Sinos catchment with analysis

taking place on a monthly basis.

The First Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „proportion of stretches with

specific water quality conditions, in relation to the total extension of river stretches‟)

had to be adjusted to the data actually available. The indicator calculation followed the

classificatory approach adopted by the state environmental regulator (FEPAM, 1999),

which is an adaptation of the national classificatory methodology (as can be seen in

Appendix X). According to this methodology, there are four water quality classes

(ranging from class 1, the best condition, to class 4, the most polluted) and the

definition of the quality class depends on the parameter with the worst condition.

194

The extremely high levels of coliforms mean that almost the entire river was

classified as class 4. In order to better represent the water quality condition, the First

Indicator was recalculated to express the evolution of the main sampled parameters

(coliforms, oxygen, BOD) over an interval of three years. This approach is similar to

the one proposed by Leite et al. (1998), who modified the national methodology to

allow a consideration of water quality samples by individual water quality parameters.

However, the last authors did not consider the historic evolution of water quality, but

only the average of the entire period of analysis. The indicator results are presented in

Figure 6.14.

Figure 6.14: Water Quality – Sinos – 1990-2002

(Data Source: FEPAM database)

The results of this indicator do not show a clear tendency of changes in the

water quality condition during sampling period (1990 until 2002), but only suggest

stabilisation in the level of pollution. When the points of sampling are analysed

individually, it is possible to identify sections of the river suffering from very serious

pollution problems. As indicated by the high levels of coliforms (e.g. there are points

where the concentration of faecal coliforms reaches 200 times the acceptable levels),

the main water quality question remains the untreated discharge of sewage effluents

into the river. The situation is particularly serious in two tributaries (the rivers Luis

Rau and Portão), where the state environmental regulator (FEPAM) currently prohibits

the installation of new industries until further improvements (M. Silva, pers. comm.).

195

b) Water quantity

For the calculation of the Second Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „rate of

withdrawal in relation to seasonal low flows, considering imported and recycled flows

and discounting exported flows‟), the seasonal Q95 was considered at the most

downstream gauging point in the Sinos, located in São Leopoldo (data available from

1973-2001). Magna (1996) estimated the water demand upstream to this point as 2.66

cumecs (annual average). Unfortunately, there were no additional figures of water

demand prior or after 1996. The only further water demand information that is

available is a projection for the year 2007 of 3.14 cumecs, at this same point in the

river (Magna, 1996).

These two figures of water demand were considered for the indicator

calculation. The seasonal low flows (seasonal Q95) were calculated from data provided

by the national water environmental regulator (ANA). Table 6.16 shows the

proportion of Q95 seasonally abstracted in the years 1996 and 2007. As can be seen in

this Table, the highest proportion of abstraction in the year 1996 (2.66 cumecs) was in

the autumn (25.09%), which is the only season with figures above the threshold of

25% adopted for the analysis of this sustainability indicator. However, the same

calculation was repeated for the value of abstraction predicted for 2007 (3.14 cumecs)

and the results then showed two seasons with figures above the threshold (summer and

autumn). This indicates an increase of the negative impact of abstraction on the water

environment.

Table 6.16: Seasonal Low Flows in the Sinos (1973-2001)


Q95

(cumecs) 12.40 10.60 21.50 23.50

2.66 cumecs

(as % of Q95)

1996

21.45% 25.09% 12.37% 11.32%

3.14 cumecs

(as % of Q95)

2007

25.32% 29.62% 14.60% 13.36%

Data Sources: ANA database and Magna (1996)

196

To complete the indicator calculation, consideration also had to be given to the

interbasin transfer coming from the Caí River Basin, which is used to generate

electricity in the headwaters of the Paranhana River (tributary of the Sinos). The

amount of water transferred is 9.0 cumecs at normal conditions of electricity

generation and this represents 11.38% of the mean long-term flow at the mouth of the

river (79.07 cumecs). The results of the Second Indicator are presented in Table 6.17.

The results suggest a possible exacerbation of water conflicts in the coming few years.

The water conflicts will become more serious particularly in the lower sections of the

river, where most of the abstraction is concentrated. In certain recent dry years the

problem of water scarcity was already evident and the District Attorney was forced to

move a petition to the court of magistrates arguing for the interruption of water

abstraction by rice irrigators (V. Nabinger, pers. comm.).

Table 6.17: Indicator No. 2 (Water Quantity) - Sinos

Year

Abstraction

(as percentage of

autumn Q95)

Interbasin transfer Indicator30

1996 25.09% 11.38% 0.225

2007 29.62% 11.38% 0.266



standardised month flow deviations from the month average‟) was first calculated for

the period 1973-2001 at the most downstream gauging station (São Leopoldo). The

data used was provided by the national water environmental regulator (ANA). The

results are presented in Figure 6.15, which show a significant increase in the

variability of the river flow and a tendency towards overall wetter condition in the

catchment.

30 This indicator oscillates between 0.000 (lowest impact on the water environment) and 1.000

(highest impact on the water environment).

197

Indicator No. 3 (System Resilience) - Sinos at São Leopoldo

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

Years

Ind

icato

r V

alu

e


Figure 6.15: System Resilience – Sinos (São Leopoldo) – 1973-2001

(Data Source: ANA database)

The same approach was used for a second gauging station located upstream to

the São Leopoldo station, the Campo Bom gauging station, for which data are

available for the period 1939-2001. For the analysis of the hydrological regime of this

river basin the data obtained from the Campo Bom is preferable to that from the São

Leopoldo station, because the latter can be affected by the „seiche effect‟ (described in

Chapter 5). The graphical representation of the Campo Bom results in Figure 6.15

corroborates the tendency of increase in the variability of the river. The likely

explanation for such trend of increasing river flows is the change in the use of soil due

to deforestation and urbanisation.31

31 Collishonn (2001) argues that deforestation and changes in the use of soil are responsible for

9% of improvement in runoff in some river basins of the RS State. This percentage of

improvement in runoff (9%) represents 69% of the maximum total runoff improvement with

the total conversion of the river basin soil into agriculture.

198

Indicator No. 3 (System Resilience) - Sinos at Campo Bom

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

Years

Ind

icato

r V

alu

e


Figure 6.16: System Resilience – Sinos (Campo Bom) – 1939-2001


6.4.2 The economic dimension of the Sinos catchment

The Sinos River Basin is one of the most important areas of industrial

production in the RS State. Since the 18th

Century, the river has played an important

role in the occupation of the territory and, generations later, in the regional

industrialisation. Great parts of the local industry and agriculture directly depend on

water from the river, just as much as household supply, navigation, hydropower and

other amenity uses. The three indicators below will demonstrate that there is room for

improvement in water use efficiency and productivity, which is, to a certain extent,

already being encouraged by the policy instruments established in the new water

legislation.


The calculation of the Fourth Indicator of Sustainability (i.e. „difference

between the relative variation in GDP and the relative variation in water demand‟)

relied on data made available by Magna (1996). The water authority responsible for

water supply and sanitation (CORSAN) was contacted more than once in 2003, but

was not able to provide additional water supply information. Owing to the shortage of

historic data, it was not possible to consider water use in relation to the expansion of

199

economic output, as necessary for the calculation of this indicator. The only feasible

calculation was the ratio between water use and economic output, as a proxy of the

initially proposed indicator.

To produce the indicator results, consideration was given to the total figures of

water use in the catchment (5.382 cumecs), which represents 465 Ml/day, and

economic output in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA). Figures were obtained in

national Brazilian currency and converted into US dollars (using exchange rates from

the Brazilian Central Bank). Table 6.18 presents the result of this indicator, as the ratio

of 15,681 m3 per US$ million of economic output in the river basin in the year 1996.

Interestingly, this result demonstrates about 25% higher efficiency than the equivalent

ratio calculated for the economy of the Clyde catchment (Table 6.2 above).

Table 6.18: Proxy Indicator No. 4 (Use Efficiency) – Sinos


Water use

(Ml/day)

Gross Value

Added (US$)

Indicator

(m3 / million US$)

465 10,822,928,550 15,681

Data Sources: Brazilian Central Bank (2003), FEE (2003) and Magna (1996)

In terms of future trends, Magna (1996) projects an average rate of incremental

water demand of 2.25% per year until 2007 (assuming an annual growth of 2.14%,

3.75% and 5.88% for respectively population, agriculture and industry). In

comparison, the GDP expansion in the State of RS for the period 1986-2002 is

projected to be 2.3% (according to FEE, 2003). These two future projections indicate a

stable condition of sustainability for this particular indicator, because in this case the

expansion of water use would be equivalent to the economic growth.


For the Fifth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „balance between relative

variation in turnover of the economic sectors and relative variation in water use‟), the

only two water user sectors in the river basin that have data available are agriculture

and industry (Magna, 1996). As a proxy of the proposed indicator, the ratio between

water use and economic output was calculated for those two sectors, as can be seen in

Table 6.19. The economic figures were obtained in national Brazilian currency and

200

converted into US dollars (using exchange rates from the Brazilian Central Bank). It

can be concluded water has a marginal value higher for the industrial sector than for

agriculture.

Table 6.19: Proxy Indicator No. 5 (Sector Productivity) – Sinos

Ratio between water use and economic output per user sector (1996)

Water User

Sector

Water use

(Ml/day)

Gross Value

Added (US$)

Indicator

(m3 / million US$)

Agriculture 144.46 79,624,579 662,206

Industry 31.36 6,305,045,975 1,815

Data Sources: Brazilian Central Bank (2003), FEE (2003) and Magna (1996)

Regarding improvements in the productivity of water user sectors, Pereira

(1996) and Pereira et al. (1999) argue that the ongoing implementation of water

charges in the Sinos River basin has the potential to stimulate the efficient use of

resources, as well as to fund water management and infrastructure investments.

According to these analyses, the adoption of sensible water charges could result in

environmental and social benefits in the river basin, without affecting the economic

capacity and competitiveness of most economic sectors. The only exception would be

the agriculture sector, which would require reduced charges or direct incentives to

compensate for the impact of charging water use.


There has been significant public mobilisation in the Sinos catchment, which

gradually consolidated the idea that it was necessary to have a specific organisation to

deal with the river management problems. Since the beginning of the 1980s, various

organisations and individuals demonstrated their concern over the poor water quality

in the river. For instance, Moretti (1980) observed that the improvement of the water

quality of the Sinos River was directly dependent upon the efficiency of planning,

monitoring, control and enforcement promoted by the institutions responsible for

water management. In 1985, the activities promoted by local NGOs played a

fundamental role in raising public awareness.

At the same time, water managers within the structure of the RS State

government started to search for new integrated and participatory alternatives for

201

dealing with water problems. This confluence of factors provided favourable

conditions for the foundation of the river committee (Comitesinos) in 1988, which was

the first committee to be established in Brazil in rivers that fall under state regulation

(i.e. not under federal regulation). Since its first years, Comitesinos served as regional

and national reference in terms of co-ordination of efforts and as forum for stakeholder

representation. For instance, the activities of the Comitesinos influenced the approval

of the state and national water legislation (respectively in 1994 and 1997).

However, despite the fact that the process has been relatively successful in

terms of stakeholder mobilisation, most of the management of water remains the

responsibility of governmental agencies. The main obstacle for issuing licences and

collecting charges is the absence of an executive agency, as defined by the legislation.

The postponement of the establishment of this executive agency is a problem that has

remained unsolved for a series of government cabinets. This is a serious weakness in

the institutional framework of water management, inasmuch as decisions put forward

by the river committee and policies produced by the government cannot be properly

implemented.32

Table 6.20 presents the Sixth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e.

„institutional requirements that are properly satisfied, according to a list with eight

basic requirements‟), which summarises the institutional arrangement related to the

management of the Sinos and show this ambivalent condition of public awareness,

advanced legislation, but deficient practical responses.

Table 6.20: Indicator No. 6 (Institutional Preparedness) – Sinos



water management at the

river basin level

yes 1994

- The water law of 1994 defines the

system of water management in the RS State

and establishes the river basin as the unit of

management.

X2 = River basin


connected with the

regional / national system

of water management

yes 1988

- The water management in the Sinos River

Basin served as inspiration to the state and

national water system and law.

32 According to P. Paim (pers. comm.) there are political and administrative conditions to

create the necessary water agency in the year 2004 or 2005. It is very likely that the technical

structure of the Pró-Guaíba Programme will be transformed into the first water agency in the

RS State.

202

X3 = River basin


regulated by specific

plans / programmes

no -

- There is a preliminary assessment of the

water balance and quality problems (produced

by Magna in 1996), but this does not serve as

a negotiated plan of measures.

- The most recent planning exercise was the

classification of river sections into quality

classes to inform investments and management.


mechanism is based on

local hydrologic

assessments and sensible

criteria

no

(although

included

in the law)

-

- Only preliminary water licences were issued

in the Sinos River Basin.

- According to V. Nabinger (pers. comm.)

the issuing of water licences and the charging

scheme is still dependent upon the river basin

plan (which will determine technical and socio-

economic criteria) and the competent agency

by the state government.

X5 = Allocation of water

uses considers social and


no

(although

included

in the law)

-

- This concept is included in the

state and national

water legislation.

X6 = River basin authority

/ agency / committee with

specific water management

roles

yes 1988

- The river basin committee was

officially constituted in 1988, as the first

one in Brazil (however, the executive

agency is still not installed).




coverage

no -

- There are only three gauging stations in the

river basin and with limited time coverage.33

- The water quality monitoring is also deficient

and only 15 points are monthly monitored.


activities at the catchment

level

yes 1987

- Since the beginning of the 1980s, there

have been seminars, workshops, conferences,

publications and training promoted by

universities, the river basin committee

and the government.

- There are scarce opportunities for formal

technical training in water resources

management.


33 Gauging stations: Entrepelado, Campo Bom and São Leopoldo (three other gauging stations

ceased to operate in the catchment: Rolante, Esteio and Canoas).

203

6.4.3 The social dimension of the Sinos catchment

The social dimension of water sustainability of the Sinos is intrinsically related

to the problems identified in the environmental and economic dimensions. For

instance, the first indicator bellow will show that, because of lack of public sanitation,

both quality of life and environmental condition of the river are unsatisfactory. The

second indicator will demonstrate that there have been advances in the public water

supply and the catchment well-being has been gradually ameliorated. Finally, the last

indicator will consider the successful public participation experience of the Sinos

River Basin, which has served as example to other parts of the RS State.


For the calculation of the Seventh Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e.

„percentage of catchment population with access to water services‟), the data available

for water supply services for the period 1991-2000 was considered. To produce the

results, it was first necessary to calculate the percentage of the population of each

municipality included in the Sinos River Basin. The results in Table 6.21 show an

improvement in water supply from 92.06% in 1991 to 97.09% in the year 2000.

However, this improvement in water services was not the same in equivalent

indicators of sanitation. For instance, FEE (2001) produces an aggregate

socioeconomic index (ISMA), which includes not only the rate of water supply, but

also public sanitation and household inhabitants. The comparison between the period

1991-96 and the year 1998 for the ISMA index shows practically no change in the

result of the Sinos River Basin, but an improvement of merely 0.18%.

Table 6.21: Indicator No. 7 (Equitable Services) - Sinos

Year Water Supply Services in

the Sinos River Basin

1991 92.06 %

2000 97.09 %

Data Source: IBGE (2000) quoted by UNDP (2004)

204

In addition, the detailed condition of water supply and sanitation was

calculated for the year 2000 for the 33 municipalities that form the river basin. This

calculation was based on the statistics provided by the official census institute (IBGE).

Table 6.22 has the results, which had to consider the area of each municipality in the

Sinos catchment to derive the proportion of the population served by supply and

sanitation services. It can be seen in the Table that, in 2000, the total of households

with water supply was 79.55% and the proportion served by supply and sanitation

services was 18.30%. The much lower proportion of sanitation coverage in

comparison with water supply indicates a serious problem of social equity.

Table 6.22: Public Water Supply and Sanitation Services in the Sinos Catchment (2000)

Municipality

% area in

the River

Basin

Population

(2000)

Population

living in the

river basin

% of basin

population

Number of

households

Household

with public

supply

Households

with public

sanitation

Araricá 99.00 4,032 4,027 0.322 1,208 38 152

Cachoeirinha 19.17 107,564 20,620 1.651 31,636 27,553 13,610

Campo Bom 100.00 54,018 54,018 4.326 16,163 14,271 7,316

Canela 59.03 33,625 17,071 1.367 9,855 9,176 2,757

Canoas 55.94 306,093 171,217 13.711 89,604 86,398 27,268

Capela de

Santana 1.42 10,032 53 0.004 - - 43

Caraá 99.67 6,403 6,383 0.511 1,980 16 3

Dois Irmãos 8.92 22,435 15 0.001 6,532 6,157 303

Estância Velha 93.53 35,132 35,083 2.810 10,242 6,478 1,176

Esteio 100.00 80,048 80,048 6.410 23,575 22,454 5,706

Glorinha 0.10 5,684 5 0.000 - - 18

Gramado 31.61 28,593 7,496 0.600 8,784 7,250 120

Gravataí 16.00 232,629 3,277 0.262 67,031 49,421 22,144

Igrejinha 93.17 26,767 26,683 2.137 8,059 5,854 277

Ivoti 6.28 15,318 96 0.008 4,426 4,120 403

Maquiné 0.36 7,304 19 0.002 - - 1

Nova Hartz 98.04 15,071 15,028 1.203 4,371 195 1,665

Nova Santa

Rita 41.94 15,750 13,311 1.066 4,544 705 381

Novo

Hamburgo 100.00 236,193 236,193 18.915 71,085 56,188 6,866

Osório 5.01 36,131 274 0.022 10,818 8,646 1,988

Parobé 100.00 44,776 44,776 3.586 13,059 5,628 6,262

Portão 85.99 24,657 23,979 1.920 7,366 1,638 608

Riozinho 99.13 4,071 4,058 0.325 1,178 528 2

Rolante 100.00 17,851 17,851 1.430 5,447 2,834 528

St. Maria do

Herval 2.60 5,891 45 0.004 - - 15

205

St. Antônio da

Patrulha 32.58 37,035 4,416 0.354 11,507 5,293 846

St. Francisco

de Paula 11.43 19,725 6,987 0.560 5,907 3,621 94

São Leopoldo 100.00 193,547 193,547 15.500 57,731 55,434 10,153

São Sebastião

do Caí 3.57 19,700 134 0.011 - - 690

Sapiranga 58.95 69,189 67,792 5.429 20,228 13,315 469

Sapucaia do

Sul 100.00 122,751 122,751 9.830 36,454 33,441 4,274

Taquara 93.26 52,825 52,171 4.178 16,236 10,067 2,067

Três Coroas 94.16 19,430 19,292 1.545 5,737 3,844 90

TOTAL 1,910,270 1,248,716 100 % 550,763 440,563 118,295

Proportional Percentage (according to area of municipality in the Sinos): 79.55% 18.30%

Data Sources: IBGE (2003), Pro-Guaíba (2003) and RS (2002)


For the calculation of the Eighth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e.


relative variation in water demand‟), it was possible to confirm that data is available

about the quality of life in the catchment. However, it is not possible to relate these

data with water use, since the only year with available water use data was 1996.

Therefore, to compensate for this problem, consideration was given to the „Municipal

HDI‟ (IDHM) at the catchment scale as proxy of the initially proposed indicator.

IDHM is an index that follows the methodology of the United Nations Development

Programme, but is adjusted to the municipal context (UNDP, 1998).

To produce the results for the proxy indicator, it was first necessary to calculate

the percentage of the population of each municipality included in the Sinos River

Basin. The indicator results show an improvement in well-being from 1991 to 2000

(from 0.751 to 0.811) regarding the three items considered in the IDHM (life

expectancy, rate of literacy and school attendance, and income), as in Table 6.23.

Table 6.23: Proxy Indicator No. 8 (Catchment Well-being) – Sinos

Evolution of the Municipal HDI in the Sinos River Basin

Year Sub-Index of

longevity

Sub-Index of

Education

Sub-Index of

Income Municipal HDI

1991 0.736 0.820 0.696 0.751

2000 0.783 0.906 0.743 0.811

Data Sources: UNDP (1998; 2003) and RS (2002)

206


The context of public participation in the Sinos is summarised in Table 6.24, as

the Ninth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „public participation requirements that

are properly satisfied, according to a list with eight basic requirements‟). It is relevant

to mention that pioneer mobilisation initiatives in Sinos River Basin remote to the

1930s, lead to the constitution of the first Brazilian environmental NGO, called Nature

Protection Union, in 1955. The level of protest against the pollution of the river

increased in the late 1970s and reached the highest level in the campaign SOS Sinos

River in 1987. The persistent debate about the condition of the river culminated with

the constitution of the local committee (Comitesinos) in 1988, as the legitimate forum

for dealing with the water problems. After more than 15 years of activities, the river

basin committee has been able to maintain the discussion among the local

communities and has occupied important space in the media.

The most relevant achievement of the Comitesinos was the mobilisation of the

river basin community for the classification of water bodies into quality classes

between 2000 and 2003. This is one of the management instruments defined by the

legislation and serves as a negotiation between conflicting sector to define

infrastructure investments and to regulate water uses. The negotiation process

involved an extensive public discussion with a total number of around 800 participants

coming from 25 municipalities. The final result is a map with the present river

condition and the desired river quality condition. Appendix XI includes the final

outcomes of this public mobilisation experience, which are maps that serve to inform

decision-making and public investments.

Despite the good participation of different groups of stakeholders, Haase

(2002) identified weaknesses in the participatory classification of water bodies into

classes, such as uneven engagement between water sectors, lack of legitimacy of some

representatives and a need for capacity building among participants. This indicates the

challenge to improve and consolidate channels of public participation and cooperation

between water stakeholders and stakeholders and the environmental regulators.

207

Table 6.24: Indicator No. 9 (Public Participation) – Sinos



promotes public

participation in the

decision-making related to

water management

yes 1994

- The water law (1994) defines the system of

water management in the RS State and

establishes opportunities for public

involvement both at the state level and at the

catchment level.

- The central mechanisms of the management

process are the river basin committees (which

should include members from water users,

civil society and governmental agencies,

according to the proportion 40% - 40% - 20%).

X2 = Practical mechanisms

of water management

include stakeholder

participation

no -

- The most relevant participatory attempt

so far was the classification of water quality

into classes, which will inform the

management routine and the planning of

investments, but water management still

depends on the establishment of an

executive agency.

X3 = The majority / totality

of stakeholder sectors are

properly represented in the

river basin management

process

yes 1988

- The most representative stakeholder groups

are included in the river basin committee since

1988.


policy making is influenced

by river basin public

participation

yes 2000

- The expressive mobilisation for the

classification of water quality into classes was

a milestone in the decision-making regarding

water management in the Sinos.


water users are considered

and dealt at the river basin

level

yes 2000

- The expressive mobilisation for the

classification of water quality into classes was

a milestone in the decision making of the Sinos

River.


campaigns / activities that

aim to involve the river

basin population

yes early

1980s

- Many campaigns and social activities have

occurred in the river basin since the

mobilisation for the creation of the committee.

- Since 1994 there have been annual

campaigns in schools and community places

(in 2003, it involved more than 5,000 students,

according to Haase and Silva, 2003).

X7 = There are


participation at the regional


management (supra

catchment level)

yes 1994

- The state system of water management

creates the State Council of Water Resources,

which is the highest forum for the formulation

of policies and resolution of conflicts.

208


planning is conducted via

participatory approaches

no -

- The Sinos River Basin was not included in

the decision of the state government in 2003 to

prepare master plans for the assessment of

problems and definition of management

solutions.


6.4.4 Summary of results for the Sinos catchment

Table 6.25 gives a synthesis of the nine selected criteria considered for the

water sustainability of the Sinos River Basin:

Table 6.25: Summary of the Assessment of Water Sustainability of the Sinos Catchment


Water

Quality

- Deterioration resulting from

industrial and urban expansion in the

20th Century.

- Due to the lack of treatment of

domestic and industrial effluents,

there is a serious contamination

condition in sections of the Sinos

River and in some tributaries

(rivers Luis Rau and Portão).

- The main problem is the concentration

of faecal coliforms, phosphorus,

nitrogen and heavy metals.

- Additional problems are solid waste,

destruction of wetlands and

soil erosion.

- No signs of recovery in the last few

years, with some indication of a stable

pollution condition.

- In some municipalities, localised

water treatment projects have been

implemented, but with modest

environmental benefits.

- To achieve significant environmental

improvement it would be necessary

substantial investments in urban and

industrial pollution control.

Water

Quantity

- Water availability is sufficient to

attend all uses for most of the time,

does not posing any serious treat to

sustainability.

- Sinos River benefits from interbasin

transfer from the Caí River Basin.

- Main conflicts are between dilution

of effluents and water supply.

- There are technical difficulties to

estimate the availability of

groundwater due to lack of

assessments.

- Tendency towards gradual increasing

in water demand, particularly during

the summer period (December-

February).

- Possible increase in conflicts

between upstream and downstream

abstractors.

System

Resilience

- Data available suggests some

increase in variability and wetness in

the river basin.

- Low lying urban areas are

systematically affected by floods.

- Tendency towards a more variable

and risky condition to the local

populations, due to local and global

environmental change and growing

urbanisation.

209

Water

Use

Efficiency

- Data is not available to calculate

historic trends.

- Great potential of gains in efficiency

due to reduction in leakage.

- Future scenarios of water

consumption indicate higher rates of

growth than the rate of economic

expansion (therefore, decrease in

water productivity).

User

Sector

Productivity

- Agriculture demonstrates much

lower economic productivity

when compared with industry.

- No clear tendency towards gains in

efficiency by individual user sectors.

Institutional

Preparedness

- The river basin committee

(Comitesinos) was the pioneer in

Brazil.

- Good level of representation of local

water users in the committee, which

serves as the common forum of

debate.

- Lack of adoption of effective

instruments of water management,

such as licences and charges.

- The framework of management is

still incomplete and its

implementation has taken too long

(since the approval of the state

legislation in 1994).

- There are indications that the state

government is committed with the

establishment of executive agencies

to deal with management measures,

but there are is confirmation that

this will become reality in the

next 3 or 5 years.

- Water quality and hydrologic

monitoring systems are still very

precarious and with modest

improvement.

Equitable

Water

Services

- Deficient public water supply system

(attending 79.55% of the population)

and very deficient public sanitation

system (attending only 18.30% of the

population).

- No signs of improvement in

the past decades;

Federal and state government have

expressed their priorities with the

water service sector, but with very

limited practical results.

Water-

related

Well-being

- Constant improvement in the

Municipal HDI (including life

expectancy, scholarly and income).

- Expected continuous improvement

in the indicators included in the

Municipal HDI.

Public

Participation

- Since the 1970s there has been an

active mobilisation for the

environmental restoration of the river.

- The public involvement has

improved and expanded to other areas,

such as schools and local

communities.

- Problems with training of human

resources, particularly water managers

and environmental educators.

- The tendency is positive, with

gradual promotion of mobilisation

activities at the local level (sub-

catchment management plans).

210

6.4.5 Follow-up interviews in the Sinos

At the interviews, when asked about the indicator results, respondents

emphasised two critical aspects related with the present and future condition of the

Sinos. One is the extremely degraded water quality condition, a consequence of

industrialisation and lack of basic sanitation infrastructure. Although seriously

polluted, there are suggestions that the chemical condition is stable, with annual

variability in the main parameters. The second point mentioned by every respondent

was the historic achievements in terms of public mobilisation in the river basin. At the

same time, the difficulties for both the river committee and the government in

completing the implementation of the legal framework of water management were

mentioned at length. The delay in implementation is the consequence of ongoing

political disputes and a lack of technical expertise and managerial capacity of the

committee and competent governmental agencies. It was clearly expressed that the

water management system in the Sinos and in the RS State is facing a critical, decisive

moment.

Most respondents stressed that an improved sanitation service will require

substantial increase in the service coverage and in the treatment of effluents. The crux

of the matter is that it involves considerable investments, which cannot be exclusively

recovered from the local population. At the same time, neither the water authority

(CORSAN), nor the state government has funds to pay for it alone. In the end, it

requires direct transference of resources from the federal government, at a time when

the public sector faces a deteriorated capacity of investment. A respondent from the

river basin committee mentioned that the internationally funded initiatives, specifically

in this case the Pró-Guaíba Programme, have provided a very narrow and insufficient

response. The same respondent concluded that water sanitation depends on both the

support of the government sector and on the strengthening of the water management at

the catchment level. An effective management could potentially promote least costly

solutions and be integrated with urban development policies.

From the comments of the respondents about water quality demands, it seems

that the scarcity of financial resources only partially explains the lack of investments

in infrastructure and environmental management. Due to political succession, the

achievements of one government are normally interrupted by the next administration,

211

creating a waste of resources and interrupting the success of long-term actions. The

implementation of the main investment programme (Pró-Guaíba) has been affected by

the revaluation of its priorities by every new state administration that takes seat. These

are examples of political controversies that undermine the consolidation of the legal

system of water resources approved in 1994. On the other hand, the vitality of the

mobilisation in the Sinos has contributed to pressurise for the proper implementation

of the water legislation. The participatory achievements in the Sinos have normally

preceded the legal requirements and have served as reference to legislators.

All respondents pointed out the importance of the Sinos experience in terms of

public mobilisation and raising environmental awareness. A respondent specifically

mentioned the leadership of the Sinos Committee in the co-ordination of an annual

mobilisation called „Inter-American Water Week‟. Since its establishment in 1994,

Inter-American Water week has been a pioneer initiative in Latin America carried out

with the purpose of alerting decision-makers and the population at large to the

importance of changing current social and economic trends that negatively impact on

the status of water resources. Every year the Water Week has a distinct slogan and

includes a series of activities taking place in schools, sport clubs, private companies,

and local authorities (Appendix XIII illustrates the 10th Water Week).

It was observed that the message of water demand management and

environmental conservation is constantly disseminated in the Sinos River Basin

through debates, concerts, exhibitions, and especially through mass media channels

(radio and television). One of the central activities promoted by the committee is the

annual Ecumenical Water Procession; a celebration that puts together the religious and

environmental importance of water resources. On the other hand, some respondents

emphasised the obstacles for consolidating the river committee, particularly in terms

of remaining conflicts between alternatives to cope with environmental problems. The

conclusion of most respondents was that the success of the Sinos River Basin

Committee (established in 1988) required continuous efforts from all stakeholder

groups to consolidate and expand the local mobilisation for environmental restoration

and conservation.

212

6.5 Applying the Framework to the Pardo Catchment

6.5.1 The environmental dimension of the Pardo catchment

There are significant differences in the environmental pressures in the Pardo

River Basin when compared with the Sinos, because the Pardo comprises a

predominantly rural economy and is less densely populated. However, there are also

common water quality problems from point and diffuse sources of pollution. The

negative impacts on low flows are more evident in the Pardo, particularly due to the

water demand for rice irrigation. These circumstances will be demonstrated in the first

two indicators below. Finally, the hydrological resilience of the Pardo will be

considered in the third indicator of the environmental dimension of water

sustainability.

a) Water quality

It was only in 2002 that a quarterly sampling and reporting service was

implemented in the Pardo catchment. This was part of the monitoring network

financed by the Pró-Guaíba Programme (described in Chapter 5). During the 1980s

and 1990s, only some short-period sampling campaigns were conducted, but these

covered different sample points and did not use comparable classification

methodologies. The results of the new water quality monitoring network are, therefore,

available only for the year 2002. So far, the environmental regulator (FEPAM) is

capable of providing data for only two sampling points in the headwaters and at the

mouth of the river.

As explained for the Sinos River, the water quality methodology used in the RS

State considers bands of concentration for a group of parameters and classifies them

according to the most stringent results. The results of the sampling points were

calculated according to the local classification methodology for the three main

parameters and are presented in Table 6.26. Based on the data available, the water

quality classification puts most of the low course of the Pardo River as class 3 due to

the high coliform concentration (in a range between class 1, best quality, and class 4,

lowest quality).

213

Table 6.26: Results of Water Quality Monitoring in the River Pardo (2002)

Headwaters Lower River

Oxygen class 1 class 1

Coliforms class 1 class 3

BOD class 1 class 1

Data Source: FEPAM database

The water monitoring results above are insufficient to allow any conclusion in

terms of the evolution of water quality, as required for the First Indicator (i.e.

„proportion of stretches with specific water quality conditions, in relation to the total

extension of river stretches‟). It was, thus, necessary to complement with other sources

of evidence, such as the recent study undertaken by the University of Santa Cruz do

Sul (UNISC). This study considered 10 sampling points along the Pardinho River (the

main tributary) for the period 1994-2000 and 4 sampling points along the Pardo River.

The summary of these results is presented in Table 6.27 and serves as a proxy

of the First Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „proportion of stretches with specific

water quality conditions, in relation to the total extension of river stretches‟). These

results corroborate the information that coliform concentration is the critical parameter

affecting water quality in both the main river (Pardo) and its main tributary (Pardinho).

Table 6.27: Proxy Indicator No. 1 (Water Quality) – Rivers Pardo and Pardinho

Synthesis of Water Quality Monitoring (1994-2000)

Parameter River Pardo (4 points) River Pardinho (10 points)

Oxygen class 1 (3 points)

class 2 (1 point) class 1 (10 points)

BOD class 1 (4 points) class 1 (4 points)

class 2 (6 points)

Total coliforms * class 2 (2 points)

class 3 (2 points) class 2 (3 points)

Faecal coliforms * class 4 (4 points)

class 2 (4 points)

class 3 (1 point)

class 4 (1 point)

Data Source: UNISC assessment (provided by the Pardo River Basin Committee)

* Data are not available for all sampling points

Based on the information available in previous years, state government (RS,

1998) found that only 3.4% of the river extension under class 1, 20.7% under class 2

was 20.7%, 41.4% under class 3 and 34.5% under class 4. Furthermore, Ecoplan

(1997) identified excessive levels of phosphorus, cadmium and plumb in groundwater

214

samples collected in the year 1997, as well as (to a lesser extent) problems in terms of

concentration of iron, oxygen and coliforms. Lobo et al. (1999) and Sabin et al. (2002)

reported high concentrations of fluoride ions in wells in the Pardo River Basin with

associated health problems identified in the local population.

b) Water quantity

For the Second Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „rate of withdrawal in

relation to seasonal low flows, considering imported and recycled flows and

discounting exported flows‟), consideration was given to the water demand upstream

to the Passo da Linha do Rio gauging station, which has water flow records for the

period 1969-1986. It is relevant to observe that there is another station more

downstream, called Passo do Meio, which covers a larger catchment area. However,

the Passo do Meio gauging station has records between 1939-1954, a notoriously dry

period for the region and this prevents the use of such data. The seasonal low flows

(seasonal Q95) were calculated and presented in Table 6.28:

Table 6.28 – Seasonal Low Flows at the Passo da Linha do Rio Gauging Station


Q95

(cumecs) 0.807 1.161 7.062 3.873

Data Source: ANA database

An additional data manipulation problem was the location of the Passo da

Linha do Rio station upstream to the major water abstractors located in the catchment.

It means that, the water balance at this point of the river does not permit to derive

conclusions about the most critical water quantity problems. In this case, the best

alternative was to use synthetic (modelled) river flow data, made available by Ecoplan

(1997). This source estimated an annual Q95 at the mouth of the Pardo River of 6.2

cumecs. In this case annual demand (3.969 cumecs) represents 64% of annual Q95 (6.2

cumecs).34

34 Adopting a similar approach than the one proposed here, Ecoplan (1997) projects water

deficit conditions in the Pardo River Basin, created by irrigation demand, by relating the rate

of demand with low flows (Q7.10). In this case, the results indicate a water scarcity situation in

January (demand reaching 140% of low flows) and December (demand reaching 260% of low

flows). The authors of this report acknowledge that Q7.10 is more restrictive than Q95.

215

This level of demand (64% of annual Q95) is particularly high, specially

considering that these are annual low flow figures (instead of the seasonal Q95 initially

proposed for the indicator). When considering that the higher demand is irrigation and

this is concentrated between October and April, this situation becomes even more

critical and the level of water abstraction can nominally surpass the annual Q95 figures.

Figure 6.16 illustrates these periods when water demand can exceed the amount of

water in the river (Dec-Mar). In practice, it means that the river can reach extremely

low flows during certain periods if all water users abstract at the same time in the

summer.

Proxy Indicator No. 2 (Water Quantity) - Pardo

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 Aug-96 Sep-96 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97

Months

Irr

iga

tio

n D

em

an

d (

cu

me

cs

)

Q95 (annual) = 6.2 cumecs

Figure 6.17: Irrigation Demand in Relation to Low Flows in

the River Pardo in 1996-1997

(Data Sources: ANA database and Ecoplan, 1997)



standardised month flow deviations from the month average‟) was calculated for the

period 1964-1979 for the Santa Cruz gauging station (the station with the longest

period of records). The hydrological monitoring in this gauging station goes back to

1940, but the period before 1964 cannot be considered because of major interruptions

in the registers. The results in Figure 6.17 show a discrete increase in the variability of

Period when

water demand

can exceed

river flow

216

the river flow and an overall wetter condition. This is corroborated by reports of more

frequent floods in the main urban settlement in the river basin (the city of Santa Cruz

do Sul), which is located in a floodplain area (Appendix XII has the altimetric map of

the Pardo River Basin).

Indicator No. 3 (System Resilience) - Pardo at Santa Cruz

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

19

64

19

65

19

66

19

67

19

68

19

69

19

70

19

71

19

72

19

73

19

74

19

75

19

76

19

77

19

78

19

79

Years

Ind

icato

r V

alu

e


Figure 6.18: System Resilience – Pardo (Santa Cruz) – 1964-1979


6.5.2 The economic dimension of the Pardo catchment

The first indicator of the economic dimension of water sustainability will

analyse the overall economic production in relation to water use in the catchment. The

second indicator will deal with sectoral uses of water and show suggestions of

exacerbation of water conflicts during future low flow periods. Finally, the third

indicator will reveal the institutional improvements achieved by the recently

established river basin committee.


As proxy of the Fourth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „difference

between the relative variation in GDP and the relative variation in water demand‟),

consideration was given to economic output with water demand. The amount of

annual demand in the river basin is 3.969 cumecs (342.92 Ml/day) and GVA was US$

2.677 billion (R$ 2,882,858,872) in 1997. It represents 46,760 m3 (or 46.760 Ml) per

217

US$ million produced in the river basin. The results of the proxy indicator are

presented in Table 6.29 and indicate three times less efficiency than the equivalent

indicator of the Sinos.

Table 6.29: Proxy Indicator No. 4 (Use Efficiency) - Pardo


Water use

(Ml/day)

Gross Value

Added (US$)

Indicator

(m3 / million US$)

343 2,676,749,185 46,760

Data Sources: Brazilian Central Bank (2003), Ecoplan (1997) and FEE (2003)

To illustrate this indicator, Ecoplan (1997) describes two future scenarios for

the water demand in the Pardo River Basin. One is the „tendency scenario‟, which

projects a „business as usual‟ trend. This scenario estimates an increase of 26.6% in

water demand between 1997 and 2007. The second is the „prospective scenario‟,

which assumes changes in economic trends. This second scenario estimates an

increase of 44.9% in water demand between 1997 and 2007. Those two future

scenarios represent a rate of annual increase in water demand of respectively 2.66%

and 4.49%, which are both higher than the average rate of economic growth in the

State of RS for the period 1986-2002 (2.3% GDP expansion and 1.0% for per capita

GDP expansion, according to FEE, 2003). This indicates a reduction in terms of

sustainability due to a higher expansion of water use when compared with expansion

of economic output.


There were not sufficient data to analyse the evolution of water demand against

economic outcomes, as proposed for the Fifth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e.

„balance between relative variation in turnover of the economic sectors and relative

variation in water use‟). In this case, the ratio between water demand and economic

output per user sector was calculated as the proxy of the Fifth Indicator (Table 6.30).

Data is available for only the two main economic sectors in the Pardo River Basin:

agriculture production and industry. Based on such results, it can be concluded that the

industrial sector has higher productivity in terms of unit of water demanded.

218

Table 6.30: Proxy Indicator No. 5 (Sector Productivity) – Pardo

Ratio between water use and economic output per user sector (1997)

Water User

Sector

Water demand

(Ml/day)

Gross Value

Added (US$)

Indicator

(m3 / million US$)

Agriculture 291.25 273,735,068 388,355

Industry 25.57 1,755,348,675 5,317

Data Sources: Brazilian Central Bank (2003), Ecoplan (1997) and FEE (2003)

The result of this indicator suggests that one of the central aspects of the water

sustainability of the Pardo River is the promotion of gains in water productivity by

agriculture. There are novel techniques that can improve the productivity of the

irrigation sector and reduce water demand. It is reported that some agronomic

improvements in the cultivation of rice paddles (i.e. the seedling of pre-germinated

rice seeds) can contribute to a reduction of up to 30% of water required to produce the

same amount of crop (according to H. Kotzian, pers. comm.).


The most relevant achievement in terms of institutional arrangement in the last

few years was the foundation of the Pardo River Basin Committee in 1999. The

committee has 50 stakeholder members distributed according to the state legislation

(40% of civil society representatives, 40% of water user representatives and 20% of

public agency representatives). According to Brinckmann (1999), the organisation of

the committee followed a five-stage plan and lasted for four years: public motivation

(1996-97), public mobilisation (1997-98), institutional organisation (1998),

formalisation (1998) and, finally, inauguration (1999). The broad mobilisation that

preceded the launching of the Committee created a privileged condition for the

committee to oversee the water problems and to further involve the local communities.

Moreover, since its foundation, most of the activities of the committee have

been restricted to public mobilisation, environmental education (four annual

conferences were organised since 2000) and point interventions, such as reforestation

of riparian areas. The effective management of water resources is still dependent on

the consolidation of the state water resources system and the organisation of the

competent management agency. The first major opportunity to test the committee

preparedness will be the preparation of the river basin master plan in 2004 (describe in

Chapter 5). This will be one of the first river basin plans in the RS State to be

219

developed according to the new water legislation and will inform the regulation of

water use and water charges in the near future

Table 6.31 presents the Sixth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e.

„institutional requirements that are properly satisfied, according to a list with eight

basic requirements‟), which summarises the institutional arrangement related to the

management of the Pardo River Basin.

Table 6.31: Indicator No. 6 (Institutional Preparedness) – Pardo



water management at the river

basin level

yes 1994

- The water law of 1994 defines the

system of water management in the RS

State and establishes the river basin as

the unit of management.

X2 = River basin


connected with the regional /

national system of water

management

yes 1999

- With the constitution of the Pardo River

Committee the water questions started

to be better considered by local

communities and alliances with other

river basin movements were established.

X3 = River basin


regulated by specific plans /

programmes

no -

- There is only a preliminary assessment

of the quantity and quality questions

(produced by Ecoplan in 1997).


mechanism is based on local

hydrologic assessments and

sensible criteria

no -

- Only two temporary water licences were

issued in the Pardo River Basin by the

DRH (RS 2002).

X5 = Allocation of water uses

considers social and


no

(although

included

in the law)

- - This concept is included in the state and

national water legislation.

X6 = River basin authority /

agency / committee

with specific water

management roles

yes 1999 - The river basin committee was officially

constituted in 1999.




coverage

no -

- There are six gauging stations in the

river basin, but most of them with many

interruptions in the time coverage.35

- The water quality monitoring is also

deficient and only five points are

systematically monitored every quarter.

- In previous years, some sampling points

were considered by other assessments.

35 Gauging stations: Passo da Linha do Rio, Candelária, Passo do Meio, Santa Cruz, Santa

Cruz Montante and Candelária.

220


activities at the

catchment level

yes 1999

-Promoted by the River Basin committee

and closely supported by the regional

university (UNISC).


6.5.3 The social dimension of the Pardo catchment

The Pardo River Basin is fairly unique because a high proportion of its

population living in rural areas, which is explained by the intensive labour demand of

the production of tobacco. This condition influences the possibility of coverage by

public water services, as demonstrated in the first indicator below. The second

indicator will show a level of social well-being is relatively low, when compared with

the other three catchments, but there is evidence of improvements in the last few years.

Finally, the indicator of public participation will describe the growing interest of the

main groups of stakeholders in the restoration and conservation of the catchment.


For the Seventh Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „percentage of catchment

population with access to water services‟), consideration was given to the historic

evolution of access to water was the public water service for the period 1991-2000.

The results are presented in Table 6.32, which had to consider the percentage of each

municipality included in the Pardo River Basin. Additional sources were used to

calculate the population living in within the river basin boundaries. Based on such

results, a significant improvement in water supply can be seen, from 78.81% in 1991

to 91.43% in the year 2000. That means an average expansion of 1.40% per annum,

what is above the state average (0.92% of expansion in coverage between 1991-2000).

Table 6.32: Indicator No. 7 (Equitable Services) – Pardo

Year Water Supply Services in

the Pardo River Basin

1991 78.81 %

2000 91.43 %

Data Source: IBGE (2000) quoted by UNDP (2004)

221

For the year 2000, the national statistical organisation (IBGE) provided

information for supply and sanitation about the municipalities that form this river

basin. It was, thus, calculated that 75,696 households in the river basin, among which

only 65.82% are served by public water supply and only 9.15% are served by public

sanitation service, as can be seen in Table 6.33.

Table 6.33: Public Water Supply and Sanitation Services in the Pardo Catchment (2000)

Municipality % area in the

River Basin

Population

(2000)

Population

living in the

river basin

% of basin

population

Number of

households

Household

with public

supply

Households

with public

sanitation

Barros Cassal 48 11,347 5,514 2.717 3,131 907 325

Boqueirão do

Leão 43 7,825 4,237 2.088 2,120 526 1

Candelária 53 29,585 22,157 10.918 9,177 4,106 915

Gramado

Xavier 100 3,666 3,666 1.807 978 161 1

Herveiras 100 2,957 2,957 1.457 776 180 0

Lagoão 48 6,098 3,225 1.589 1,678 420 75

Passa Sete 76 4,644 3,346 1.649 1298 119 0

Rio Pardo 26 37,783 16,094 7.931 11,576 7,741 634

Santa Cruz

do Sul 41 107,632 99,418 48.991 32,851 27,736 3,619

Segredo 0.40 6,911 21 0.010 1,841 426 1

Sinimbu 96 10,210 9,831 4.844 2,744 613 57

Soledade 0.11 29,727 7 0.003 8,676 6,787 3,779

Vale do Sol 100 10,558 10,558 5.203 2,996 1,035 10

Venâncio

Aires 2.4 61,234 601 0.296 18,813 11,267 704

Vera Cruz 100 21,300 21,300 10.496 6,371 5,294 1,059

TOTAL 351,477 202,932 100 % 75,696 67,318 11,180

Proportional Percentage (according to area of municipality in the Pardo): 65.82% 9.15%

Data Sources: IBGE (2003), Pro-Guaíba (2003) and RS (2002)


The expression proposed for the Eighth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e.


relative variation in water demand‟) relates water demand with quality of life.

However, after searching all possible sources, it was clear that the available

information was not sufficient to allow the indicator calculation. As a proxy indicator,

it was analysed the evolution of well-being in the river basin, by making use of the

222

„Municipal HDI‟ (IDHM). The results demonstrate an evolution of the level of well-

being in the river basin, with an improvement between 1991 and 2000 (from 0.718 to

0.786) for the three items considered (life expectancy, rate of literacy and school

attendance, and income), as presented in Table 6.34.

Table 6.34: Proxy Indicator No. 8 (Catchment Well-being) – Pardo

Evolution of the Municipal HDI in the River Basin

Year Sub-Index of

longevity

Sub-Index of

Education

Sub-Index of

Income Municipal HDI

1991 0.707 0.789 0.658 0.718

2000 0.757 0.889 0.712 0.786

Data Sources: UNDP (1998, 2003) and RS (2002)


Concerning the Ninth Indicator of Water Sustainability (i.e. „public


basic requirements‟), there has been so far only modest participation of the local

society in the conservation and management of water (according to W. Brinckmann,

pers. comm.) Several reasons explain the incipient participatory of the public,

including the tradition of top-down approaches of the regulatory sector, the lack of

experience of stakeholders and the doubtful legitimacy of some political leaders.

This situation has started to improve with the establishment of the Pardo River

Basin Committee in 1999, but this committee has so far promoted a limited

involvement of local communities. In situations where there are no conflicts between

stakeholders (like in the Sinos River Basin), most sectors tend to adopt a passive

behaviour and remain as observers of the committee and the governmental actions.

This situation will possibly be altered with the collective social learning with the

implementation of the legal water management instruments, notably plans, licences

and charges.

Table 6.35 summarises the main aspects of the public participation experience

in the Pardo River Basin.

223

Table 6.35: Indicator No. 9 (Public Participation) – Pardo



promotes public

participation in the

decision-making related to

water management

yes 1994

- The water law (1994) defines the system

of water management in the RS State and

establishes opportunities for public

involvement both at the state level and at the

catchment level.

X2 = Practical mechanisms

of water management

include stakeholder

participation

no -

- The management of water resources is still

too fragmented that does not offer

opportunities for stakeholders to participate

effectively.

X3 = The majority / totality

of stakeholder sectors are

properly represented in the

river basin management

process

yes 1999

- The most representative stakeholder

groups are included in the river basin

committee since 1999.

- Some stakeholder groups are not yet

involved in the committee, what creates a

problem of unbalanced representation.


policy making is influenced

by river basin public

participation

no -

- Public participation has provided some

influence at the preparation of plans (e.g.

Ecoplan, 1997), but there are no evidences

that policy making has substantially benefited

from public contribution.


water users are considered

and dealt at the river basin

level

no -

- The main conflicts at the Pardo River Basin

are between water supply and agriculture

(rice irrigation abstracts significant amounts

of water and tobacco production uses high

levels of pesticides), but the solution to those

questions are not properly addressed at the

river basin level.


campaigns / activities that

aim to involve the river

basin population

yes 1996

- The proposal of a river basin committee

mobilised local communities since 1996.

- After the foundation of the committee in

1999, regular activities of environmental

education and public mobilisation have been

promoted, such as the Annual Regional

Seminars (between 2000 and 2003).

- There is a programme of Social Mobilisation

for Water Management coordinated by the

regional university (UNISC), as described by

Brinckmann (2003).36

36 There have been activities related to the conservation of tributaries of the Pardo River, such

as those related to the Arroio [„arroio‟ means „brook‟ or ‟burn‟ in Portuguese] Laranjeira,

Arroio das Pedras, Arroio São Martinho and Pardinho River. These activities are mainly

related to waste management and reforestation of riparian vegetation.

224

X7 = There are


participation at the regional


management

yes 1994

- The state system of water management

creates the State Council of Water Resources,

which is the highest forum for the formulation

of policies and resolution of conflicts.


planning is conducted via

participatory approaches

no -

- The first real opportunity for a participatory

attempt is the preparation of the second

study for the Pardo River Basin and the plan

of measures (master plan) for the

Pardinho tributary.

- Those plans will be systematically

discussed with the local communities, what

aims to facilitate their future implementation

(H. Kotzian, pers. comm.).


6.5.4 Summary of results for the Pardo catchment

Table 6.36 summarises the environmental, economic and social dimensions of

water sustainability in the Pardo River Basin:

Table 6.36: Summary of the Assessment of Water Sustainability of the Pardo Catchment


Water

Quality

- Deterioration resulting from urban

expansion and agriculture intensification

(in the second half of 20th Century), mainly

due to rice and tobacco production.

- The main problem is the concentration of

faecal coliforms, with also high levels of

nitrogen, phosphorus and pesticides

(diffuse pollution).

- Certain parts of the river basin present

toxic levels of contaminants in wells and

boreholes.

- No signs of recovery in the last

few years, with some suggestions

of further gradual deterioration.

- New water quality problems are

due to diffuse sources of pollution

in rural areas.

Water

Quantity

- Major demands from the rice irrigation

sector between the period of low

flows (December to March), when

the level of abstraction reaches 64% of

annual Q95.

- A project in Santa Cruz do Sul (the main

urban centre) was implemented to store

water during the winter (called “Golden

Lake Project”).

- Groundwater has a modest contribution to

urban and industrial supply (well output

varying between nothing to 20m3/h).

- Tendency towards increasing

conflicts for water in the summer

period (Dec-Feb) between irrigation

and urban supply.

- Tendency of continuous increase

of irrigated production.

- Situation is likely to become

reasonably serious during dry years.

- There are available new agronomic

techniques to reduce water demand

by rice flood irrigation.

225

System

Resilience

- There are major difficulties to assess

tendencies in terms of water reliability

because of the short term monitoring of

water flow.

- Data available suggests some increase in

variability and wetness.

- The main driving-force is the

continuous change in the use of soil,

basically reflecting urbanisation and

agriculture intensification.

- More hilly areas show gradual

recovery of natural vegetation after

the abandonment of agriculture.

Water Use

Efficiency

- Data is not available to calculate

historic trends.

- Future scenarios of water

consumption predict higher rates of

growth than the rate of economic

expansion (therefore, decrease in

water productivity).

User

Sector

Productivity

- Excessive concentration of water use in

one single sector (irrigation).

- Irrigation demonstrates much lower

economic productivity when compared

with industry.

- Due to pressure of the electric

energy supplier, agriculture has

achieved some (modest)

improvements in the rate of

water use (due to

technological changes).

Institutional

Preparedness

- Good mobilisation for the creation and

implementation of the river basin

committee (which was provoked by the

state government).

- New plan launched by the state

government represents a major challenge

for the committee, as it will be the first time

that its structures of representation will be

really tested.

- River basin committee was

recently established, but has its

effective contribution to water

management is still very modest.

- There are difficulties to reconcile

municipality boundaries with

river basin.

-Water quality and hydrologic

monitoring systems are still

very precarious and with

modest improvement.

Equitable

Water

Services

- Deficient public water supply system

(attending 64.52% of the population) and

very deficient public sanitation system

(attending only 8.85% of the population).

- The situation is somehow compensated

because of the significant proportion of the

population living in rural areas and relying

on private services of supply and sanitation.

- No signs of improvement in the

recent decades.

- The federal and state government

have expressed their priorities with

the water service sector, but with

very restricted practical results.

Water-

related

Well-being

- Constant improvement in the Municipal

HDI (including life expectancy, scholarly

and income).

- Expected continuous improvement

in the indicators included in the

Municipal HDI.

Public

Participation

- The Pardo River Basin Committee is the

legitimate forum for the discussions

regarding water problems and conflicts.

- Some areas of the civil society have not

yet become involved in the committee.

- Increasing involvement of the

public both in the Pardo Committee

and in other mechanisms of

representation.

- The formulation of the new river

plan (to commence in 2004) opens

new opportunities for involving

society and government in the

solution of water problems.

226

6.5.5 Follow-up interviews in the Pardo

The relative recent discussions about water management taking place in the

Pardo River Basin meant that the options for possible stakeholders to be interviewed

were more restricted than in the other three areas under analysis. The contacts here

were concentrated on members of the river basin committee, on academics involved in

river basin questions and consultants involved in technical studies on water

management. When asked about the critical water sustainability questions, the

respondents provided a range of different answers. Some consider that the weak

institutional organisation of the recently established river committee and modest

public engagement represents the main obstacle for pursing the goals of sustainability.

Others pointed out that the production of tobacco represents the most disruptive

driving-force in the river basin, and is responsible for manifold negative impacts on

the environment and on human health. According to this stakeholder position, the

intensification of the capitalist accumulation generated by the tobacco industry has

raised cultural and political conflicts, and has also been responsible for the reduction

in human capital.

The key environmental problems identified by the interview respondents of the

Pardo River Basin were soil erosion, deforestation of riparian vegetation, floods and

lack of water supply. It was also mentioned that government agencies have not been

capable of dealing with local environmental problems and normally create

discontinuities in actions. The river basin committee has not yet demonstrated

effective co-ordination capacity of the different stakeholder sectors. There have been

major obstacles to the implementation or maintenance of water management

instruments established in the legislation. Contradictory solutions to the water supply

question were suggested, such as an increase in reservoir capacity or demand

management to improve the efficiency of existing water services. Overall, the varied

answers to the questions asked about water sustainability seem to demonstrate a

parochial consideration of the local problems without connection to broader aspects of

water management and sustainability.

All respondents mentioned the importance of the establishment of the river

basin committee as a step towards sustainable water management. However, some

respondents were more critical about the effective contribution of the committee and

227

about its leadership capacity. One respondent was particularly sceptical about the

performance of the committee and the environmental regulator. It was mentioned by

two respondents that the recent river basin master plan launched by the state

government will provide a test to the local river basin committee. The production of

this plan will require a higher level of stakeholder involvement in the activities co-

ordinated by the committee. At the same time, it will require the dissemination of

information to the general public about the importance of the plan. It was mentioned

that other forms of public consultations, over and above the river basin committee,

will play an important role in creating broader stakeholder involvement in the

conservation and management of the river.


This Chapter presented the results of the application of the framework of

sustainability indicators to the four catchments in Scotland and in Brazil. As initially

aimed for this research, the proposed framework dealt with the three dimensions of

water sustainability at the catchment scale. The indicators identified the critical

parameters of the systems of water management in the studied catchments and were

developed to use local data and local thresholds. The relatively straightforwardness of

the indicators facilitated the logical and structured manipulation of vast amounts of

environmental and socio-economic data. In addition, the discussion of the nine

selected criteria of water sustainability involved not only the indicator results, but also

supplementary information related to each sustainability criterion that contributed to

the interpretation of indicator results. However, the amount and format of empirical

data available for each catchment were not the same, which, in the cases of lack of

data, required the adoption of proxy indicators. Even when proxy indicators were

used, the framework results made possible the assessment of sustainability trends and

allowed the comparison between catchments in different countries. Comments form

the follow-up interviews with stakeholders highlighted the appropriateness of the

proposed framework, but at the same time stressed some important weaknesses. The

next Chapter will evaluate the research approach and discuss the lessons learned

during the development of the proposed framework of sustainability indicators.

228

Chapter 7 - Discussion of Framework Appropriateness and Research

Approach


This Chapter discusses the process of developing and testing sustainability

indicators put forward in this research and examines the usefulness and limitations of

proposing a framework of indicators for the assessment of water sustainability. The

Chapter is divided into three interrelated sections. The first section compares the

results obtained in the studied catchments, starting with a summary table outlining the

indicator results and relating them with the local water management context. The

second section discusses the role of the researcher and how the participatory process

induced reflexivity about the development of the framework of indicators. This second

section also analyses the comments provided by stakeholders at the follow-up

interviews. The third part of the Chapter is a critical evaluation of the overall

achievements of the research project and the lessons learned about the process of

developing indicators. This final section discusses the consequences of choosing

certain indicators, the use of secondary data, on data access and, finally, on the

contribution of water sustainability indicators for the global project of sustainable

development.

7.2 Explanatory Capacity of the Proposed Sustainability Indicators

To aid the discussion, it is useful to start with a recapitulation of the objectives

and assumptions of this study. The research aimed to explore the complexity involved

in the assessment of water sustainability through the formulation and testing of a

framework of indicators. For the development of the indicators, the research

methodology included the participation of water stakeholders and the consideration of

the local context of water management. The calculation of indicator results was

fundamental for understanding the explanatory capacity of the proposed framework,

but the interpretation of results required a clear comprehension of the local context,

which was achieved through site visits and gathering of additional sources of

information about use and conservation of the water environment in the studied

229

catchments. According to the inductive methodology adopted for the study,

explanation is neither objective nor neutral, but intrinsically connected to the personal

experience of the researcher and, therefore, the subjective interpretation of processes

under consideration.

This work started with the premise that the analysis of water sustainability

requires a method of investigation that is able to address the environmental, economic

and social dimensions of water systems. Such an integrated approach to sustainability

assessment is based on the notion that a sustainable condition corresponds to the

optimum balance between these three dimensions. It means that a sustainable socio-

economic development must not antagonise the conservation of the water

environment. This interdependence between environment and socio-economy implies

that the three dimensions cannot be considered in isolation. On the contrary, the

assessment of water sustainability required the analysis of the connections between

environmental and socio-economic issues. To allow the empirical assessment of the

three dimensions of water sustainability, the research made use of a multi-dimensional

framework of sustainability indicators as the central analytical tool.

The proposed sustainability indicators were developed to satisfy the

requirements summarised in Section 2.6 (i.e. robust technical basis, manageable

number of variables, readily available local data and local thresholds, link past and

present processes, forward-looking and policy relevant). The indicators were

specifically developed to address the geographical context of the river basin, as this is

the appropriate space for the analysis of water systems. The river basin was selected as

the unit of analysis because the natural properties of the hydrological cycle lend

themselves to study. At the same time, it was also demonstrated throughout the

research that water management was not only related to the properties of the

hydrological cycle, but also to the sociological context, the patterns of economic

development and the institutional condition. In consequence, the proposed indicators

aimed to reflect not only the social and environmental complexity of problems

happening in the river basin, but in many cases it had to consider broader historical,

legal and political driving-forces affecting the local water management.

For the development of the proposed indicators, four catchments were selected

in Scotland and in Brazil to allow the interaction with local stakeholders and the study

of the water management context. As explained in the methodology chapter (Section

230

3.3), the objective of the proposed framework of indicators was to build a convincing,

although subjective, argument about the water sustainability of the catchments under

analysis. Despite a number of operational problems in the application of the

framework (mainly due to restricted data access and incompatible data formats), the

indicators were able to provide enough bases for assessing and comparing the

sustainability condition of the catchments. The empirical results and the follow-up

interviews (presented in the previous Chapter) confirmed that the proposed indicators

were capable of describing the sustainability condition of the studied catchments.

Interestingly, the results obtained from the nine indicators did not produce

similar sustainability trends when considering the environmental, economic and social

dimensions. On the contrary, there were gains and drawbacks occurring concomitantly

in the management of the four catchments. For instance, there were examples of

successful responses to local environmental problems, notably in terms of pollutant

reduction and efficient use of water, although other technical, institutional and social

factors still lag behind. To demonstrate the explanatory capacity of the proposed

framework, Table 7.1 schematically compares the interpretation of the indicator results

of the catchments according to a user-friendly legend. The contents of this Table are

briefly discussed in the sub-sections of this Chapter making use of additional

information collected about the local context of water management in each catchment.

231

Table 7.1: Schematic Representation of the Sustainability Indicator Results

catchment

criteria

Clyde Dee Sinos Pardo

condition trend condition trend condition trend condition trend

Water

quality +/- ↑ + ↔ -- ↔ - ? ↓

Water

quantity + ↔ + ↓ + ↔ - ↔

System

resilience - ↓ +/- ? ↔ - ↓ - ? ↓

Use

efficiency +/- ↔ +/- ↔ +/- ↑ - ↔

Sector

productivity +/- ? ↔ +/- ? ↔ +/- ? ↑ - ? ↑

Institutional

preparedness - ↑ - ↑ +/- ↑ - ↑

Equitable

services ++ ↔ + ↔ - ↔ -- ↑

Water related

well-being +/- ↔ + ↔ - ↑ - ↑

Public

participation - ↔ +/- ↔ + ↔ +/- ↑

Legend:

Condition: Trend:

++ very good

+ good

+/- reasonable

- poor

-- very poor

? lack of data

↑ improving

↔ stable

↓ degrading

? lack of data

7.2.1 Indicator results of the Clyde catchment

The indicator results in this catchment showed that there are significant

achievements in terms of water management, for example an improving water quality,

a long-term water supply and a new institutional framework being implemented. On

the other hand, there is persistent evidence of other unsustainable trends in the Clyde,

such as the reclamation of the river morphology (e.g. flood defences, riverbed

232

dredging and channel rectification) without proper environmental control, persistent

pollution in many river stretches and elitist household development along the

riverbank. Recent attempts to recover the local economy, such as port expansion in the

estuary and occupation of floodplains, frequently replicate approaches that were

responsible for creating serious problems in the past.

The results of the indicators confirm this mixed sustainability condition. For

example, the first indicator (water quality) demonstrated a deteriorated condition up to

the 1970s with some stretches falling under classes C and D. That situation changed

1980s and 1990s, when stretches falling into class A2 become predominant. The third

indicator (system resilience) showed a tendency towards constant increase in the

variability and in the wetness of the catchment from 1957 to 2002. The fourth

indicator (use efficiency) showed a discrete positive tendency towards more efficient

use of water (in Scotland), although with high annual variability during the period of

analysis from 1973 to 1999. The fifth indicator (sector productivity) showed an

improvement in the efficiency of the metered sector (industry and trade) and,

secondly, some discrete improvement in the unmetered sector (domestic use, small

industries, and other public uses). A proxy of the eighth indicator (well-being) showed

a relatively deprived social condition in the Clyde in comparison with other parts of

Scotland, associated with the decline in the industrial production in the catchment

since the Second World War.

In comparison with the other three river basins, the Clyde is the most heavily

modified by industrial and urban activities, although there are similarities with the

recent experience in the Sinos River Basin. The latter experienced an intensive period

of industrialisation in the second half of the 20th

Century and became an important

exporting region. The River Sinos, which not only served to integrate the local

population and facilitate communication with other areas, but also to supply water for

urban and rural demands, has faced accentuating environmental degradation and

serious levels of pollution. In the case of the Clyde the same happened many

generations before during the industrial expansion of the 18th

and 19th

Centuries. The

contradictions in the socio-economic model of development in the Clyde created

unsustainable water use and conservation. In other words, the failures and

accomplishments in the development of the Clyde catchment demonstrate

contradictions between social and environmental priorities.

233

7.2.2 Indicator results of the Dee catchment

In comparison with the results from the Clyde, the results from the indicators

show that pressures on water sustainability of the River Dee are of a significantly

different nature. The overall environmental condition of the river is good, with some

degraded stretches in the more urbanised areas in the lower river basin. At the same

time, diffuse sources of pollution, normally from crop and cattle production, represent

an increasing threat to water quality: a common problem in most parts of Scotland and

in the RS State. There is evidence of increasing variability and more frequent low flow

periods in the Dee River, affecting the stability of local ecosystems and the reliability

of the water regime. In terms of the supply of water, the Dee represents a very

strategic source for the entire Northeast of Scotland, but, on the other hand,

dependency on a single source of water makes the whole distribution system more

vulnerable and susceptible to environmental change.

The results of the indicators support these affirmations. For example, both the

first and the second indictors (quality and quantity, respectively) demonstrated the

good environmental condition of the Dee during the period of analysis. Proxies of the

fourth (use efficiency) and fifth (sector productivity) indicators showed discrete

improvement in efficiency, decrease in water demand by most economic sectors,

stabilisation of the population and the relevance of the use of the river for the local

economy. It seems that improvements have been made in water use productivity in

most industrial sectors, with the exception of the food and drink industry. The seventh

indicator (equitable water services) showed a less universal coverage than the rest of

Scotland and particularly in rural areas of the catchment. The percentage of private

water supply in the Dee River Basin is above the Scottish average, which is explained

by the scattered distribution of the population in relatively remote areas. The eighth

indicator (well-being) showed the high level of well-being in the catchment, which is

to some extent related to the quality of the water environment.

The ninth indicator (public participation) demonstrated that there is still no

consistent or permanent form of participatory management in the catchment, but

significant progress has been achieved in that direction. Public participation on water

management issues is still sporadic. A recent example of public mobilisation was for

the creation of the Cairngorms National Park, although this also includes catchments

234

other than the Dee River Basin. There is a general tendency in the Dee for official

agencies to consider individual sub-units of the catchment without observing the

interdependencies between processes taking place in the different sections of the river

basin geography. This dichotomy between upstream and downstream sections of the

same river basin does not bode well for the sustainable management of the water

environment.

7.2.3 Indicator results of the Sinos catchment

Acute water pollution problems mean there have been pioneering public

mobilisation and institutional organisation experiences in the Sinos. Moreover, despite

the active engagement of local groups, there is still modest pollution reduction, as

demonstrated by the first indicator of sustainability (water quality). Some local

improvements in water quality have come from investment by the heavier polluters

(leather and chemical industries), although, as in the Clyde, some water quality

improvement can be attributed to a general wetter condition and higher river flows.

The results of the second indicator (water quantity) suggest an exacerbation of water

conflicts in the coming years, particularly in the lower sections of the river where most

of the abstraction is concentrated. Higher levels of water abstraction can aggravate the

deteriorated water quality condition. The third indicator (system resilience) showed an

increase in the variability of the river system, which poses additional demands on the

management of water quality and quantity.

Regarding the economic criteria included in this research, there were major

data limitations to the assessment of the level of water sustainability. However, despite

the problems, important conclusions could be drawn from the available data, such as

the probability of higher water supply problems by the end of the decade, if the

existing patterns of water use and efficiency are maintained, as suggested by the proxy

of the fourth (use efficiency) and fifth (sector productivity) indicators. Those proxy

indicators demonstrate the relevance of the catchment economy and the importance of

water for local productive sectors. Furthermore, both in terms of pollution control and

promotion of social equity, the most challenging water issue in the Sinos is the

expansion of sanitation services, as demonstrated by the seventh indicator (equitable

water services).

235

There were no abstraction data to allow the analysis of historic trends in

relation to economic and social indicators, but at the least the HDI of the catchment

population show a gradual improvement in the variables considered (income,

education and longevity), as demonstrated by a proxy of the eight indicator (well-

being). The recent public involvement in the classification of water bodies and the

continuous activities in schools have demonstrated the mobilisation capacity of the

river basin committee (Comitesinos). The process of public engagement reinforces the

importance of the river for the local social and industrial development. However, there

are remaining problems with the executive capacity of both the river basin committee

and the environmental regulator, as demonstrated by the sixth (institutional

preparedness) and ninth (public participation) indicators.

7.2.4 Indicator results of the Pardo catchment

The second Brazilian river basin was the Pardo, an area which has a large

proportion of the population living in rural areas and working on the labour intensive

tobacco production. Similarly to the other catchments, the Pardo has a clear contrast

between headwaters in higher altitudes and with relatively good environmental

condition, and most of the population living in the lower stretches, where most of the

quantity and quality water problems take place, as demonstrated by a proxy of the first

indicator (water quality). A condition unique to the Pardo is that the largest urban

centre (the city of Santa Cruz do Sul) is located in a tributary of the main river (the

River Pardinho). There is very limited data available to analyse the water quality of

the river and the evidence suggests serious levels of dissolved oxygen and faecal

coliforms. Use of the new water quality surveillance service, which was implemented

in 2003, is expected to improve the provision of data and will also help with decision-

making process.

In terms of water quantity, there are already localised conflicts in lower

sections of the river basin, most notably between rice irrigation and urban supply. The

second indicator (water quantity) showed that the level of abstraction is beyond

reasonable levels during low flow periods. The proxy of the fourth (use efficiency) and

fifth (sector productivity) indicators demonstrated a gradual increase in water disputes

between competing user sectors. At the same time, the proxy indicators suggested that

there is room for improving efficiency in terms of water used in economic activities,

236

especially by irrigated agriculture. The sixth (institutional preparedness) and ninth

(public participation) indicators showed a still modest organisational arrangement to

deal with the catchment problems. The seventh indicator (equitable water services)

showed a lower level of water supply and sanitation than in the Sinos river basin,

although some higher rates of recent improvement. The proxy of the eighth indicator

(well-being) showed moderate results, but constant amelioration in the last decade.

7.3 The Role of the Researcher

This research was intended to formulate and discuss a framework of water

sustainability indicators developed for the catchment scale, which could serve as a

systematic approach for learning about the water sustainability problems of the areas

under consideration. It means that sustainability indicators were conceived as tools for

critical thinking about water management problems, rather than objective claims about

the water system condition. By taking a participatory, inductive research approach,

sustainability indicators contributed for the understanding of water problems by the

researcher and, to some extent, by those local stakeholders. It means that, despite the

fact that the researcher took a central role in the research activities, the proposed

framework of indicators derived from a shared perception concerning matters of

collective concern in the four areas under analysis.

The participatory process included three main opportunities for exchange of

ideas: at the selection of catchments, during the development of indicator expressions

and at the discussion about indicator results (apart from regular contacts with local

organisations during data collection). As described in the methodology Chapter

(Section 3.6), the proposed indicators and the research results were more formally

discussed with key actors at the end of the research. The purpose of the final

interviews was to evaluate the appropriateness of the framework through a discussion

about local water sustainability problems and about the explanatory capacity of the

proposed indicators. Interviewees were asked a semi-structured and standardised

sequence of questions related to the use of sustainability indicators, data availability,

and research strategy, as well as about water management challenges.

The intention with the interactive approach was to demonstrate that indicators

should not be developed in a top-down (positivistic) manner, but through a process

that fostered debate and reflexivity. However, because of the academic nature of the

237

research and resource constraints, the adopted participatory approach was fragmented

and imperfect. It must be emphasised that the intention was to simulate (rather than

implement) a circular process of participatory assessment of problems and democratic

conveying of action. It is clearly acknowledged here that the present research only

achieved a simulation of a participatory process. Because of the academic motivation

of the study, the researcher, who played a dominant role in the research process, was

also the main beneficiary of the research activities. Moreover, even at a relatively

smaller-scale, the research attempted to include views and multiple perceptions and,

whenever possible, feed back these views to the stakeholders.

In comparison with situations when sustainability indicators are used in

decision-making, the present academic research was, ultimately, a modest exercise of

stakeholder involvement in the development of indicators. A fully, comprehensive

participatory approach was beyond the possibilities of this (short tem) research, even

more because it was designed to compare a number of catchments in contrasting

countries and with different water management experiences. As described in the

sustainable development bibliography (Chapter 2), the development of sustainability

indicators for the solution of real problems normally requires extensive discussions

and substantial resources in terms of data gathering and communication. An additional

difficulty to replicate real situations of sustainability indicator development is the fact

that, many times, it is not simple to secure ownership of the interested parties about

the indicator results, particularly the commitment of decision-makers.

Despite the fact that the development of indicators was intrinsically constrained

by the nature of this study, it was still possible to obtain a successful sharing of

experiences between researcher and local stakeholders. In many cases, there were

(interesting) disagreements between respondents about the validity of certain issues or

the appropriateness of certain indicators. Frequently, contrasting opinions about

sustainability issues reflected not only personal preferences, but also hidden agendas

of each organisation (for instance, the environmental regulators disagreed with certain

opinions of academics, who also disagreed with the view of certain private

consultants). When faced with such disagreements, the researcher had to discuss the

different opinions with each respondent and, in the end, decide about the most

balanced and convincing argument. It is clear, thus, that the researcher was effectively

in control of the development of the framework of indicators, but at the same time

238

systematically attempted to share the decision-making with those stakeholders that

were available for interaction (i.e. some people alleged time constraints for not being

available for a second meeting).

In many cases, it was not a simple task to approach individuals or

organisations, what was taken by the researcher as demonstration of either lack of

interest in participate in the study or, more probably, unwillingness to discuss local

water problems. It was evident that sometimes the excuse of „insufficient data‟ was, in

fact, covering more fundamental issues, such as deficient management, bad

monitoring or inadequate treatment of information. The various opportunities to

discuss the proposed framework of indicators were very illustrative of stakeholder

preferences and conflicts between organisations. The approaches of the private and

public sector to local water problems were certainly different, which were both distinct

from NGOs and academics. Not only the answers, but also the language or the

emphasis on certain aspects (e.g. institutional deficiencies or lack of project

continuity) demonstrated the dissimilar treatment of local water problems by different

stakeholder sectors.

At the follow-up interviews, most respondents were largely positive about the

usefulness of discussing water sustainability issues for their respective areas of

activity. However, it was clearly perceptible that examples of integrated analysis of

environmental, economic and social dimensions of sustainability in the four studied

catchments are still limited. An additional problem mentioned by several respondents

was that the discussion on sustainable development has been notably value-laden and,

often, is too far removed from daily regulatory or management practice. For instance,

it was pointed out that traditional approaches of the scientific community do not

adequately connect hydrological management with socio-economic demands. In

particular, the respondents who work in governmental agencies observed the scarcity

of socio-economic data for the catchment scale and noted how expensive it would be

to adjust existing data to this level of analysis.

A good number of the contacted people demonstrated limited familiarity with

sustainability indicators (i.e. approximately one third of the people contacted during

the various stages of the research). The widespread unfamiliarity with the specific

aims of this research posed some difficulties in obtaining objective answers about the

appropriateness and the weaknesses of the approach adopted for this study. Despite

239

this lack of direct experience of many respondents, there were some important and

recurrent comments on the strengths and weaknesses of the framework, as well as on

the research methodology. It was repeatedly pointed out that there are major

difficulties in finding a consistent list of indicators, however, the proposed framework

represents a useful attempt in that direction. It was also affirmed that the proposed

environmental, economic and social sustainability indicators could encourage

stakeholders to think about improvements in the management of the water system.

Below are five examples of important insights about the proposed framework

obtained in the interviews:

“I can see that your list includes enough little boxes (sic) for the most

important water management issues that we have to deal in this catchment.” (from an

interview in the Sinos)

“It is good to see a list with a relatively small number of variables and

indicators, which facilitates the analysis at the river basin level.”... “Even if the results

of the indicators are not easily produced at the moment, the indicators can point out

the requirements for further data.”... “This kind of study can certainly help people

dealing with catchment questions on the ground.” (from an interview in the Pardo)

“I am not really in favour of the sustainability debate and attempts to measure

it. We are improving the catchment condition without bothering with this kind of

abstract, academic discussion.” (from an interview in the Pardo)

“The Water Framework Directive is a great opportunity to rethink our current

practices and indicators like these can play a relevant role.” (from an interview in the

Dee)

“Such discussion is extremely difficult, but I can see its importance.”... “We

don‟t usually consider this kind of theoretical discussion on our daily regulatory

practice, but it is important that someone is dealing with approaches like this.” (from

an interview in the Clyde)

When all the interview answers were collated, it was possible to appreciate that

the framework proposed in this research was a valuable, forward-looking exercise for

most respondents. Both in Scotland and in Brazil it was mostly agreed that water

240

sustainability questions are worth assessing. At the same time, many respondents

pointed out the methodological difficulties for the assessment and comparison between

the three dimensions of sustainable development. A few respondents emphasised the

importance of including the historical context and, to a certain extent, the political

constraints affecting water use and conservation. Some respondents declared that

analysis of socio-economic indicators might not be always necessary, while others

observed that these have been systematically neglected in comparable studies and

should definitely be included. Most respondents recognised that, instead of compiling

all indicators into a single index, it was appropriate to capture the complexity of river

basin systems with the analysis of each indicator individually (however, some

expressed exactly the opposite opinion).

Table 7.2 summarises the interviews answers on strengths and weaknesses of

the proposed framework of water sustainability indicators. It is worth noting that the

weaknesses pointed out by the respondents were mostly anticipated when the

framework was proposed and developed in the early stages of this research. These are

intrinsic limitations of any study related to sustainability indicators and needed to be

made transparent throughout the research exercise to people involved in providing

data or eventually interviewed.

241

Table 7.2: Summary of Answers from Interviews on the Framework of Indicators

Views on Strengths Views on Weaknesses

The proposed framework covers

the three dimensions of

sustainability (environmental,

economic and social)

The framework adequately

includes a small number of

relatively simple indicators

instead of too complex or too

technical indicators

The framework facilitates the

analysis of trends and tendencies

of the sustainability condition of

studied catchments

It was appropriate that indicators

relied on local thresholds and are

flexible to adjust to locally

available data

The proposed framework is an

opportune forward-looking

exercise, because it deals with

emerging water management and

water sustainability issues in the

catchments and respective

countries

The selection of sustainability

criteria and the formulation of

indicators in this framework

were highly subjective

There are conceptual and

practical difficulties to deal with

environmental and socio-

economic indicators together

There are major theoretical and

practical difficulties to establish

a balance between the individual

indicators of sustainability

There is lack of catchment data

(particularly on water abstraction

and on socio-economic issues),

which can compromise the

calculation of results for this

proposed indicators

The discussion on sustainability

assessment is too complicated

and sometimes unhelpful for

decision-making

It was affirmed in several interviews that, even if not all indicators can be

calculated, the simple fact that those issues were addressed is responsible for drawing

the attention of stakeholders to such issues. One respondent in the Pardo River Basin

provided an interesting observation about the usefulness of the framework. This

particular person pointed out that the proposed indicators could be used as a starting

point for the discussion of water sustainability in any given river basin. In this case,

242

the indicators could assist the critical evaluation of local water problems and could

stimulate discussion. It was recognised that data availability could be a major problem,

but indirect information could compensate this deficiency in most of the cases. This

respondent concluded that the selected criteria and indicators demonstrated a summary

of the debate on water sustainability, although in industrialising countries, such as

Brazil, the connection between environmental conservation and environmental justice

could be more explicitly addressed.

Overall, the answers obtained in interviews about the appropriateness of the

framework can be summarised as:

1) There was a coherent feedback from respondents in the four catchments

about the appropriateness of the proposed framework of indicators;

2) Most respondents agreed that the indicators were able to provide a picture

of the water sustainability condition of the four catchments under analysis;

3) The results of the group of indicators were uneven, with each catchment

presenting a balance of achievements and deficiencies in terms of

sustainable water management;

4) Respondents provided interesting answers about the local sustainability

problems, which corroborated many indicator results; and

5) Respondents identified strengths and weaknesses in the framework of

indicators, but the majority of comments were positive.

The opinions of the stakeholders about the research approach demonstrate that,

despite the intrinsic constraints of this academic research, it was still possible to

encapsulate a range of stakeholder opinions into the developed indicators and, at the

end, examine the results with those stakeholders. By taking an inductive approach, the

research was a shared construction of learning tools for the understanding of water use

and conservation problems. On the other hand, the attempt to treat equally the three

dimensions of water sustainability exposed the personal limitations of the researcher

when dealing with a vast range of sustainability issues (i.e. hydrology, environmental

monitoring, physical geography, economy, and sociology). Overall, both the

framework of indicators and the indicator results were mirrors of preferences and

skills of (mainly) the researcher, but also reflected the subjective inputs of the local

stakeholders.

243

7.4 Lessons Learned about Sustainability Indicators

This research was planned to explore the complexity and the intricacies of

formulating a set of water sustainability indicators. Considering the explanatory

capacity of the proposed indicators and the whole sequence of research stages, a first

fundamental lesson is that the resulting framework is, fundamentally, the product of

the adopted research methodology. If a distinct set of techniques were used, it is likely

that the indicators and associated results would have been different. For example, it

would have been possible to develop indicators for the national scale (more aggregate)

or for the sub-catchment level (more detailed), instead of adopting the river catchment

space as the scale of analysis. Another possibility for the development of indicators

would have been the organisation of workshops or focus groups in order to allow

direct interaction between stakeholders. These specific techniques were not employed

because the research approach favoured the individual exchange of ideas between the

researcher and the stakeholders in the form of semi-structured interviews.

Another important lesson learned from the research is that the development of

sustainability indicators is context based and inevitably influenced by subjective

values and opinions (following a dialogical research approach, the subjectivity behind

the framework of indicators was shared by the researcher and contacted stakeholders).

The developed framework of indicators not only reflects the chosen research

approach, but also the reality of the selected catchments and, more importantly, inputs

from contacted stakeholders and personal preferences of the researcher. Furthermore,

the specific historic moment of the research shaped both questions and answers about

water sustainability problems. The sustainability problems at the catchment level are

directly connected with broader macro-economic and political forces, as well as with

cultural and historical processes. These sustainability problems are structurally

determined by the patterns of development and use of natural resources that transform

the catchment space (explained by the political ecology of water sustainability).

Because of the contested nature of developing sustainability indicators, which

could favour one aspect of water sustainability and reduce the emphasis on others, the

researcher decided to have an equitable number of indicators for the environmental,

economic and social dimensions. However, even classified in separate dimensions, the

proposed indicators are interrelated with each other and the assessment of the

sustainability condition depends on the collective consideration of the full list of

244

indicators. The calculation of the indicators required, therefore, the removal of

disciplinary borders between environmental, physical and socio-economic fields of

knowledge. At the same time, it not only involved different scientific disciplines, but

also the knowledge of non-scientific stakeholder groups in the definition of the

problems to be analysed (such as NGO activists and environmental managers). Such

integrated approach to address multiple goals based on complementary kinds of

knowledge available was necessary in a research consisting of multiple interacting

processes.

The research was designed to encourage reflection on the strengths and

limitations of dealing with water sustainability assessment. According to that initial

plan, the framework of indicators should be able to describe the sustainability

condition of studied catchments by incorporating critical parameters of water use and

conservation. At the same time, the indicators should reflect the complexity of water

management systems and should include a list of parameters that could, in practice, be

analysed. This balance between complexity of the water systems and explanatory

capacity of indicators meant that from the outset it had to be acknowledged that the

results from the framework of sustainability indicators were, inescapably, a

simplification of studied water systems. Notwithstanding this simplification, the

objectives of using indicators were to facilitate the assessment and the communication

of sustainability questions.

In spite of the limitations of the indicators due to the simplification of

catchment processes, the research results and the interviews with stakeholders

demonstrated that there were important positive properties in the proposed framework.

First, the framework included a relatively small and manageable number of variables

that address the key aspects of the management of water systems. Second, the

proposed indicators ensured an effective explanatory capacity because they were

capable of comprehensively analysing the three dimensions of sustainability. A third

achievement of the developed framework was that, because it was developed taking

into account the local context, it allowed the use of local data and local thresholds,

therefore allowing comparison between catchments in different countries. A fourth

positive aspect of the proposed framework was that the indicators relate the present

water sustainability condition with processes occurred in the past and address possible

tendencies for the future.

245

Another positive aspect of the framework was that the interpretation of the

indicator results required the consideration of a representative sequence of years to

identify system improvement or deterioration. The indicators, thus, served as

„measures of change‟ regarding the use and conservation of the water environment.

The identification of historic trends and tendencies in the indicator results was

fundamental for the analysis of the sustainability condition of the water system

because sustainability is associated with the indefinite maintenance of good

environmental condition and fair guarantee of socio-economic opportunities across

generations. Nevertheless, in many cases, the indicator calculation was not possible

because data were not available for all different parameters included in the indicator.

In other cases, the scale of parameters was incompatible and the indicator could not be

calculated either. The consequence of such difficulties is that it was not always

possible to calculate the proposed sustainability indicators.

In order to deal with lack of data, it was necessary to have indicators that are

flexible expressions, instead of rigid indicator formulations that could not be adjusted

to the specific context and data availability of each river basin. In particular, the

indicators related to water use were the most negatively affected, which required the

adoption of „proxy‟ (substitute) indicators for the discussion on water sustainability.

The use of „proxy‟ indicators was constantly required, although it reduced the

possibility of establishing comparisons between areas and countries. Another relevant

aspect of the proposed framework of indicators was the decision to include only

secondary data. This was considered the most appropriate strategy, because the

purpose of the framework of indicators was to describe trends and tendencies of a

large number of processes related to the three dimensions of sustainable development.

The analysis of sustainability trends requires data covering the times span of several

decades and this means that it would be impossible to collect data during the time

frame available for this research.

The specific format of available information about each catchment required

adjustments in terms of data manipulation. For instance, in Scotland, there is good

availability of hydrologic and water quality data, but socio-economic indicators are not

easily obtainable for the catchment scale. On the contrary, in Brazil there is a regular

tabulation of socio-economic data for catchments, but less regular environmental

surveillance information. To compensate for the restriction of data for some indicators,

246

additional sources of qualitative data were employed (policy documents, archival data

and interviews). In certain cases, although data is known to exist, the holding agency

was not interested, or did not have resources, to make it available. Unfortunately, this

is a form of hindrance that is beyond the control of the researcher. Auspiciously, from

01 January 2005, public agencies in Scotland are required to disclose all requested

information, regardless of purpose, under to the „2002 Freedom of Information

(Scotland) Act‟. This will certainly facilitate similar studies that need information

stored by public offices and will make it easier to replicate similar assessments.

Considering the potential contribution of the indicators and the limitations in

terms of data availability, it is relevant to observe that the information to be developed

during the implementation of the new regulatory regimes in Scotland and in Brazil

will certainly aid the adoption of comparable indicators of water sustainability. In

addition, the results obtained from the studied catchments demonstrated that indicators

could serve to communicate findings about water sustainability. The easy

communication of results is an important property of sustainability indicators, because

it contributes to the explanation of water problems to stakeholder audiences. This

communication capacity can facilitate the involvement of interested parties in the

management of water use and conservation. Sustainability indicators are learning

tools rather than objective answers to problems.

The experience of the present research suggests that sustainability indicators

can influence the understanding and the collective negotiation of water sustainability

questions and the search for alternatives. Appropriate indicators can facilitate the

debate about environmental management and exchange of opinions across interested

parties. Indicators can influence public agendas, connect interest among a group of

actors and hence of information exchange. Sustainability indicators, as socially

constructed learning tools, can be used to spot critical aspects of ecological

functioning on resource availability (particularly in situations when the resource is

close to thresholds of collapse or phase change). Likewise, if adopted in a transparent

and coherent way, indicators can be useful for informing data collection, policy

integration and accessible reporting and setting performance targets, as well as for

ensuring accountability and responsiveness.

As demonstrated in the bibliography and reports on recent experiences, the

sustainable development debate requires a plurality of sector perspectives (each with

247

its own value-commitments and interests). This plural, „polyphonic‟ debate about the

construction of sustainable development can be mediated and stimulated with the use

of sustainability indicators as critical thinking (and forward-looking) tools. For

sustainability indicators to succeed, there should be in place a participatory process

that is sincerely inclusive of all relevant and legitimate interests. Thais is because

sustainability indicators are, by definition, community led indices of promotion for

cherished sustainability ends. The use of sustainability indicators requires a mix of

measurement and feeling. An adequate framework of indicators should reflect this

dynamic characteristic of the specific socio-natural system under assessment. The

outcomes of the framework should describe the elements of the system (physical,

environmental and socio-economic parameters) and their interaction.

Furthermore, the use of sustainability indicator requires radical change in the

dominant tradition of treating environmental and socio-economic questions. It means a

shift from a top-down, positivistic practice to innovative forms of dealing with system

complexity, scientific uncertainty and social diversity. Such different treatment of

environmental and socio-economic fields of knowledge has been described as the

„sustainability science‟, which asks for novel procedures for doing and evaluating

scientific practice. It ultimately means a change from the (supposedly) neutral,

objective rigorous scientific demonstration to (acknowledged) subjective, dynamic

approaches to system complexity and public dialogue. The „sustainability science‟

requires that scientists, governments and other citizens become both critics and

creators, providers and recipients in the knowledge production process.

Pondering on the answers provided by the respondents to the interviews, as

discussed in the previous section, it can be concluded that most of the comments and

critiques about the proposed research framework were, ultimately, scepticism about

the operationalization of sustainable development in relation to the analysis of water

management. Some stakeholders considered that the controversy involving the

determination of acceptable levels of use and modification of natural resources is, in

essence, a question which cannot be resolved. According to this point of view,

sustainable development is a misleading concept that has no effective application to

objective problems. There is dissatisfaction expressed by many stakeholders over the

fact that sustainable development has not produced enough tangible results and, some

argued, there is a need to reassess the concept in terms of its applicability to the water

248

sector. On the other hand, some stakeholders pointed out that sustainable development

represents a constructive contribution for the understanding of the origin of the

problems affecting the conservation of environmental quality and a fair distribution of

opportunities across generations.

Those conflicting views about sustainable development are part of the ongoing

international debate, which was perceptibly present in the four catchments analysed by

this research. This study made evident that water sustainability is a relational system

condition, in the sense that it is associated with the patterns of relation between nature

and society. The empirical evidence produced in the study confirmed that the problems

of water unsustainability are related to the short-termed utilisation of the environment,

resulting in an uneven distribution of gains across social groups. The water problems

are, therefore, the combination of specific local circumstances affected by upper scales

of influence (regulatory, economic, institutional, political, etc.). This is a two-way

process, since what happens in the river basin space also has the capacity to influence

wider scales. The solution of sustainability problems depends, fundamentally, on

democratic mechanisms to cope with the disputes between conflicting interests.

The ongoing implementation of new legislation and regulatory agencies, not

just in Europe and Brazil but throughout most of the world has ensured that these are

issues that have attracted a great deal of attention from society, universities and

governments. This discussion is related to many of the aspects included in the present

research, such as the appropriateness of relevant and robust indicators, trade-offs

between environmental, economic and social dimensions of the use of natural

resources, justification for less stringent environmental targets in order to

accommodate socio-economic priorities, public participation mechanisms, and so on.

These are all controversial topics that are open for debate and do not accept easy

answers. The most challenging question is how to connect water sustainability at the

catchment level with the broader project of sustainable development, which deals with

macro economic and political questions.

Overall, the controversies about water sustainability can be summarised as one

of the many problems of the „project of modernity‟ (following the terminology of

Habermas, 1987), because one of the central characteristics of modernity is the idea of

material progress allowing consideration of future generations to be discounted in the

belief that exponential growth would ensure their welfare. In this case, nature is taken

249

as a cornucopia that can deliver resources and energy and would absorb all forms of

waste. These mechanisms of making use of natural resources are questionable forms

of development, because they overemphasise individual success at the expense of

collective gain and environmental conservation. The problems of modernity

encapsulate the fundamental dilemmas of the contemporary global society, including

the questions of sustainability. It includes challenging issues related to scientific

uncertainly, risks of the industrial society, culture and democracy, the role of the

market and the limits of governmental regulation, and so on and so forth. The

conflicting elements of the „project of modernity‟ are primarily responsible for the

economic and political causes of unsustainability.

In reaction to that, an equivalent „project of sustainability‟ should be a response

to the economic forces that creates benefits for society at the expense of the

continuation of nature. It should also be a reaction against political mechanisms that

exclude sectors of society from the decision and the opportunity to benefit from the

interaction with nature. Therefore, the search for sustainability is, essentially, part of a

global search for a „different modernity‟ (or „post-modernity‟) in which the

contradictions of ill-conceived models of development are removed or minimised. In

this case, sustainable development has broader and deeper implications for politics and

science than merely the formulation of instruments for environmental management.

Sustainability indicators can be a modest, but important part of this process as a

contribution for the critical evaluation of socio-natural problems and, hopefully, for

the formulation of capable policies and programmes.


This Chapter discussed the results and the overall achievements of the

proposed research. Initially, the Chapter established a comparison between the

indicator results of the four studied catchments, which showed uneven water

sustainability conditions. The interpretation of these results was done by considering

the local context of the areas under analysis and reflects the personal views of the

researcher about trends and tendencies in the catchments. A table included in the

beginning of the Chapter presented a summary of the interpretation of indicator

results, which shows a tendency towards improved sustainability in the four

catchments combined with examples of environmental problems. The empirical results

250

showed an uneven picture of water sustainability with different tendencies for the

calculated indicators. The sustainability condition assessed by indicators suggests

uneven gains and losses distributed across social groups and the water environment,

giving rise to a series of sustainability concerns. Therefore, the water sustainability of

the four analysed catchments cannot be taken as given, but will require increasing

responses from society and governments alike.

The second part of the Chapter examined the role of the researcher in the

development and use of the proposed indicators. Because of the academic nature of the

work, the researcher took a central role in development of the proposed framework of

indicators. The intention was to simulate (rather than implement) a circular process of

participatory assessment of problems and democratic conveying of action. Despite

those constraints, the research attempted to follow an inductive approach, in which the

research was a shared construction of learning tools for the understanding of water use

and conservation problems. Both the framework of indicators and the indicator results

are mirrors of preferences and ideas of the researcher, but also reflect the inputs of

local stakeholders.

Catchment interviews about the appropriateness of the proposed indicators to

assess water sustainability were also discussed. Most of the interview respondents

identified positive aspects in the proposed indicators. Many respondents affirmed that

the indicators have positive analytical properties and capacity to easily communicate

the assessment findings. The respondents agreed with the importance of this research

and the development of key indicators can facilitate the assessment the sustainability

of managed water systems. The conceptual dilemmas related with the nature of

sustainability indicators, and practical difficulties related to the availability of

catchment data were also discussed. It was still described the difficulties to deal with a

vast scope of sustainability issues, ranging from hydrology, ecology and physical

geography, to economy and sociology.

The Chapter finally evaluated the lessons learned about the research approach.

It was argued that the fundamental objectives of the research, the development and

testing of indicators, were successfully achieved, because the proposed indicators of

sustainability had the ability to isolate key aspects of the water management systems

and served to identify fundamental controversies on water sustainability and to allow

comparisons between catchments. An important lesson was that the resulting

251

framework was, fundamentally, the product of the adopted research methodology.

Another lesson is concerned to the fact that the development of sustainability

indicators was context based and inevitably influenced by values and opinions. The

developed framework of indicators not only reflects the chosen research approach, but

also the reality of the selected catchments and inputs from contacted stakeholders.

The sustainability problems at the catchment level are directly connected with

broader macro-economic and political forces, as well as with cultural and historical

processes. There are contrasting views about the relevance of the sustainable

development debate and the usefulness of sustainability indicators. These views are

part of the ongoing international debate, which was perceptibly present in the four

catchments analysed in this research. The answers to sustainability problems depend,

fundamentally, on democratic mechanisms to cope with the disputes between

conflicting interests. It was pointed out that sustainable development has broader and

deeper implications for politics and science than merely the formulation of instruments

for environmental management. The development of sustainability indicators can be a

modest contribution for the critical evaluation of socio-natural problems and can

facilitate collective learning about problems and alternatives. The next, final Chapter

will consolidate the conclusions about the research.

252

Chapter 8 - Conclusions


This Chapter presents the conclusions on the development of sustainability

indicators and specific observations about indicator results of the selected studied

catchments. Subsequently, the Chapter raises suggestions for further research on water

sustainability indicators. At the end, there are some concluding words about the

importance of expanding the debate on the sustainable management of the water

environment.

8.2 Research Conclusions

This thesis provided an overview of the contribution of water sustainability

assessment for understanding catchment problems and the controversies related to the

formulation of appropriate indicators. The research demonstrated that indicators are

useful tools for the analysis of the long-term trends of catchment management: tools

which can aid the communication of results and foster stakeholder involvement. Based

on the development and testing of the proposed indicators, there are some fundamental

conclusions that can be drawn:

Sustainability indicators are essentially learning tools that can influence the

understanding and the collective negotiation of water sustainability questions

and the search for alternatives. Appropriate indicators can facilitate the debate

about environmental management and exchange of opinions across interested

parties.

Following an inductive, dialogical research approach, the subjectivity behind

the framework of indicators can be shared between the involved stakeholders.

In this research, the development of indicators was a heuristic process of

building awareness of water use and conservation problems that was shared by

the researcher and catchment stakeholders

The development of sustainability indicators is context based and inevitably

influenced by values and opinions. The developed framework of indicators not

253

only reflects the chosen research approach, but also the reality of the selected

catchments, inputs from contacted stakeholders and, in particular, the personal

researcher worldview.

The proposed water sustainability indicators were developed to synthesise

critical processes related to the management of water systems. With this

purpose, the use of secondary data proved to be an effective approach to the

calculation of indicator results. Secondary data allowed a comprehensive

consideration of the three dimensions of sustainability, as well as comparison

between catchments in different countries.

To allow comparison between catchments and countries, the indicators were

designed taking into account the local context. The analysis of indicator results

considered temporal tendencies and the interpretation also benefited from

other sources of information about the studied catchments.

The river catchment was the preferred space of analysis for water

sustainability questions, because this is the scale that can provide an

explanation of water management problems and solution perspectives.

However, there are other processes influencing water sustainability that go

beyond the river basin boundaries, because the sustainability of the catchment

contributes to the management of regions or the entire country.

The studied catchments were not uniform, but there were sections within the

catchment with specific hydrological or ecological sensibility. Important

factors affecting water use and conservation were operative at the sub-

catchment scale, such as urban settlements, industries, intensified agriculture

production, navigation, conservation units, impoundments, and so on.

The use of sustainability indicators at the catchment scale caused difficulties in

obtaining data, some of which are not in the public domain or are not

consolidated at the catchment level. It is expected that in the next few years

more data will be produced and it will also be made more widely available due

to ongoing assessments related to the implementation of new regulatory

regimes.

254

The results obtained from the proposed indicators incorporated the

controversies related to the concept of sustainable development. The very

nature of sustainability indicator means that expressions reflect views and

preferences in terms of the allocation, use and conservation of the water

environment. Furthermore, the specific historic moment of the research shaped

both questions and answers about water sustainability problems.

The use of sustainability indicator requires radical change in the dominant

tradition of treating environmental and socio-economic questions. It means a

shift from a top-down, positivistic practice to innovative forms of dealing with

system complexity, scientific uncertainty and social diversity. Such different

treatment of environmental and socio-economic fields of knowledge has been

described as the „sustainability science‟, which asks for novel procedures for

doing and evaluating scientific practice. It ultimately means a change from the

(supposedly) neutral, objective rigorous scientific demonstration to

(acknowledged) subjective, dynamic approach.

This study aimed to understand the development of a framework of appropriate

indicators for the assessment of water systems and to formulate a critical discussion

on the achievements and difficulties for assessing water sustainability. Despite

anticipated and unexpected difficulties to obtain empirical data, the framework of

indicators demonstrated fundamental positive qualities, notably the capacity to

provide explanation about problems and describe future trends. The research

methodology was capable of involving contrasting stakeholder views during the

development and analysis of indicators. The overall conclusion is that those objectives

were adequately achieved, since, to a great extent, the research approach was

successful in developing the framework of indicators and producing indicator results,

which fostered the reflection about indicator development.

8.3 Recommendations for Further Research

This research is affiliated to the debate on water sustainability, which takes

place against a background of transformation in regulatory and management practices.

255

That transformation creates new demands for regulators and practitioners, but also can

facilitate the acquisition of data for sustainability indicator studies due to a growing

interest of stakeholders. Additional research should seek a deeper reflexivity on the

development and purpose of sustainability indicators. Notwithstanding the

contributions of this research, many knowledge gaps remain in the development and

use of water sustainability indicators and, therefore, plenty of scope exists for further

research, including:

Development of indicators that relate changes in economic and social

parameters to changes in environmental parameters of water management

systems (for example, increasing wealth of populations prompting changes in

dietary preferences that lead to higher water use);

With more data being available in the next few years, develop indicators that

can relate localised, sub-catchment processes with the overall catchment

sustainability condition;

Assess to what extent improvements in environmental justice reinforce the

sustainability of the catchment water system (for example, relating the

environmental quality of deprived areas to water services);

Develop sustainability indicators through participatory approaches involving

water regulators and water users, in order to encapsulate stakeholder

perceptions and expectations;

Develop indicators that assess the long-term consequences of water policies

related with the new regulatory regimes;

Relate water sustainability indicators with integrated assessments of public

participation and risk management.

8.4 Final Words

This research entailed a comprehensive investigation to convey a better

understanding of the water development problems and perspectives for the future. The

256

research reinforced the conclusion that sustainable development is not simply a

balance between the acceptable levels of current and future needs. On the contrary,

sustainable development is a gradual process of removing obstacles that prevent the

reconciliation of social and environmental demands. The sustainability debate involves

subjective positions about the acceptable levels to which environmental features can

be modified and still be considered sustainable. The basic intention of the

sustainability assessment, as proposed here, is to stimulate critical thinking and to

question prevalent approaches that preclude the construction of sustainable

development. Sustainability assessment is essentially a search for causal relations

between the contributing elements of the socio-natural systems and the problems

related to allocation, use and conservation of the environment.

The boundaries between sustainable and unsustainable relationships with the

environment are not purely scientific, but are ultimately an expression of social and

political values. Even with the best knowledge available, science cannot avoid an

inevitable, and permanent, level of uncertainty. Therefore, decisions about the

sustainability of certain practices involve not only scientific answers, but also the

specific knowledge of the stakeholders. In order to decide about the acceptable level

of alteration in water systems, complex and difficult decisions may be required. Such

decisions are not only about environmental management, but must integrate, in a

coherent and precautionary approach, the broader list of socio-economic issues that

affect water sustainability. The answers to those sustainability questions require

integrated improvements in, specifically, environmental regulation, changes in

patterns of production and modification of personal behaviour. These are all processes

that ultimately depend on the strengthening of both democratic practices and

environmental justice: the fundamental pillars of sustainable development.

257

Bibliography

Aberdeen City Council. 2002. Aberdeen City State of the Environment Report. SNH,

SEPA & Aberdeen City Council: Aberdeen.

Aberdeen City Council. 2003. Available on line at:

http://www.aberdeencity.gov.uk/acc/default.asp (Accessed on 01/02/2003).

Aberdeenshire Council. 2003. Available on line at:

http://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/index.asp (Accessed on 05/02/2003).

ABES-RS (Brazilian Association of Sanitation and Environmental Engineering, Rio

Grande do Sul Section). 2003. Semana da Água no Rio Grande do Sul: Uma

Experiência de Mobilização. ABES-RS: Porto Alegre.

Ackermann, R.J. 1976. The Philosophy of Karl Popper. University of Massachusetts

Press: Amherst.

Adams, W.M. 1990. Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third

World. Routledge: London & New York.

Adeloye, A.J. and Low, J.M. 1996. „Surface-water Abstraction Controls in Scotland‟.

Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management,

10, April.

AECS (Alison Espie Countryside Services). 2003. River Dee Access and Fishing

Study. Report commissioned by Aberdeenshire Council, Dee Salmon Fishing

Improvement Association & Scottish Natural Heritage.

Agrar. 1969. Planejamento Hidrológico – Rio dos Sinos. Agrar und Hydrotechnik -

GMBH: Essen, Germany.

Aguirre-Muñoz, A., Buddemeier, R.W., Camacho-Ibar, V., Carriquiry, J.D., Ibarra-

Obando, S.E., Massey, B.W., Smith, S.V. and Wulff, F. 2001. „Sustainability of

Coastal Resources Use in San Quintin, Mexico‟. Ambio, 30, 142-149.

Agyeman, J. and Evans, B. 2004. „”Just Sustainability”: The Emerging Discourse of

Environmental Justice in Britain?‟. The Geographical Journal, 170, 155-164.

ANA (National Water Agency). 2002. The Evolution of Water Resources

Management in Brazil. ANA: Brasília.

ANA (National Water Agency). 2003. Available on line at:

http://www.ana.gov.br/HidroWeb (Accessed on 01/10/2003).

Anand, S. and Sen, A. 2000. Human Development and Economic Sustainability.

World Development, 28, 2029-2049.

Anderson, C., Anderson, J. and Proctor, W. 1997. „Freshwater Inputs and Pollutant

Loads to the Tay Estuary‟. Coastal Zone Topics, 3, 28-37.

Asad, M., Azevedo, L.G., Kemper, K.E. and Simpson, L.D. 1999. Management of

Water Resources: Bulk Water Pricing in Brazil. World Bank Technical Paper No.

432. June 1999. Washington, D.C.

ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers). 1998. Sustainability Criteria for Water

Resource Systems. Task Committee on Sustainability Criteria, Water Resources

Planning and Management Division, ASCE and Working Group, UNESCO-IHP

IV Project M-4.3. American Society of Civil Engineers: Reston.

258

Aspinall, C. 2001. „Introduction‟. In: Ecology and Management of the Firth of Clyde.

Proceedings of a Conference held at the University Marine Biological Station at

Millport. Firth of Clyde Forum (publisher), Autumn, 2000, pp. 3-4.

Aspinall, R. and Pearson, D. 2000. „Integrated Geographical Assessment of

Environmental Condition in Water Catchments: Linking Landscape

Ecology, Environmental Modelling and GIS‟. Journal of Environmental

Management, 59, 299-319.

ASRT (Aberdeenshire Sustainability Research Trust). 2002. Blackdog Project.

Aberdeenshire Sustainability Research Trust: Aberdeen.

Astleithner, F. and Hamedinger, A. 2003. „The Analysis of Sustainability Indicators as

Socially Constructed Policy Instruments: Benefits and Challenges of “Interactive

research”‟. Local Environment, 8, 627-640.

Atkinson, G., Dubourg, R., Hamilton, K., Munasinghe, M., Pearce, D. and Young, C.

1997. Measuring Sustainable Development: Macroeconomics and the

Environment. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham & Lyme.

Backhaus, R., Bock, M. and Weiers, S. 2002. „The Spatial Dimension of Landscape

Sustainability‟. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4, 237-251.

Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (eds.) 1997. The Politics of

Sustainable Development: Theory, Policy and Practice within the European

Union. Routledge: London & New York.

Bakker, K.J. 2001. „Paying for Water: Water Pricing and Equity in England and

Wales‟. Transaction of the Institute of British Geographers, 26, 143-164.

Barrera-Roldán, A. and Sandívar-Valdés, A. 2002. „Proposal and application of a

Sustainable Development Index‟. Ecological Indicators, 2, 251-256.

Barth, F.T. 1999. Aspectos Institucionais do Gerenciamento de Recursos Hídricos.

In: Águas Doces no Brasil: Capital Ecológico, Uso e Conservação. Rebouças,

A.C., Braga, Jr. B.PF. and Tundisi, J.G. (eds.). Escrituras Editora: São Paulo,

pp.565-599.

Bassan, D.S. 2000. „Desenvolvimento Econômico Desigual na Região do Vale do Rio

Pardo‟. Estudos do CEPE, 11, 7-57.

Baxter, J. and Eyles, J. 1997. „Evaluating Qualitative Research in Social Geography:

establishing “rigour” in interview analysis‟. Transactions of the Institute of

British Geographers, 22, 505–525.

BBC News. 2003. Scots Water „Most Expensive‟. Available on line at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2948550.stm (Accessed on 30/05/2003).

BBC News. 2004. Water privatisation gains support. Available on line at:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/scotland/3566939.stm

(Accessed on 25/03/2004).

Bean, C.W. 2001. „Nature Conservation and the River Clyde‟. In: Ecology and

Management of the Firth of Clyde. Proceedings of a Conference held at the

University Marine Biological Station at Millport. Firth of Clyde Forum

(publisher), Autumn, 2000, pp. 5-13.

259

Beck, M.B. 2002. „Sustainability in the Water Sector – Reflections Within on Views

from Without‟. In: Sustainability in the Water Sector. Proceedings of a

Conference held in Venice, 25-26 November 2002. IWA (publisher).

Becker, C.J. 1995. „Uma Visão Histórica dos Banhados a Montante da Cidade de São

Leopoldo‟. In: Os Banhados do Rio dos Sinos: E Por Que Devem ser

Preservados. Aveline, C.C. (ed.). UPAN: São Leopoldo.

Bell, S. and Morse, S. 1999. Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable.

Earthscan: London.

Bell, S. and Morse, S. 2001. „Breaking through the Glass Ceiling: Who Really Cares

about Sustainability Indicators?‟ Local Environment, 6, 291-309.

Bell, S. and Morse, S. 2003. Measuring Sustainability: Learning from Doing.

Earthscan: London & Stirling, VA.

Bell, S. and Morse, S. 2004. „Experience with Sustainability Indicators and

Stakeholder Participation: A Case Study Relating to a “Blue Plan” Project in

Malta‟. Sustainable Development, 12, 1-14.

Bennett, A.M. and Smith, K. 1994. „Recently Increased River Discharge in Scotland:

Effects on Flow Hydrology and Some Implications for Water Management‟.

Applied Geography, 14, 123-133.

Bernhardi, L., Beroggi, G.E.G. and Moens, M.R. 2000. „Sustainable Water

Management through Flexible Method Management‟. Water Resources


Beukman, R. 2002. „Access to Water: Some for All or All for Some?‟ Physics and

Chemistry of the Earth, 27, 721-722.

Biswas, A. K. 1994. „Sustainable Water Resources Development: Some Personal

Thoughts‟. Water Resources Development, 10, 109-116.

Biswas, A.K. 1998. „Water Management in Latin America and the Caribbean‟.

International Journal of Water Resources Development, 14, 293-303.

Black, A.R., Bragg, O.M., Duck, R.W., Jones, A.M., Rowan, J.S. and Werritty, A.

2000. Methods of Assessing Anthropogenic Impacts of the Hydrology of Rivers

and Lochs. A User Manual Introducing DHRAM. Report No. SR (00)01/SF.

SNIFFER/SEPA & University of Dundee.

Black, A.R. and Burns, J.C. 2002. „Re-assessing the Flood Risk in Scotland‟. Science

of the Total Environment, 294, 169-184.

Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. and Tight, M. 1996. How to Research. Open University Press:

Buckingham and Philadelphia.

Blöch, H. 1999. „The European Union Water Framework Directive: Taking

European Water Policy into the Next Millennium‟. Water Science and

Technology, 40, 67-71.

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. 2002. „The Geo-politics of Sustainable Development:

Bureaucracies and Politicians in Search of the Holy Grail‟. Geoforum, 33,

351-365.

Bosshard, A. 2000. „A Methodology and Terminology of Sustainability Assessment

and its Perspectives for Rural Planning‟. Agriculture, Ecosystems and

Environment, 77, 29-41.

260

Bossel, H. 1999. Indicators for Sustainable Development: Theory, Method,

Applications: A Report to the Balaton Group. International Institute for

Sustainable Development: Winnipeg.

Bourdieu, P. 2004. Science of Science and Reflexivity. Translation of Richard Nice.

Polity Press: Cambridge.

Brannstrom, C. 2002. „Decentralising Reforms in Brazilian Water Management‟. In:

Environment and Development in Brazil: The Current Research Agenda.

Proceedings of a Workshop held in Oxford, 17 May 2002. Oxford Centre for

Brazilian Studies, University of Oxford (publisher).

Brazilian Central Bank. 2003. Currency Exchange Rates. Available on line at:

http://www.bcb.gov.br/?TXCONVERSAO (Accessed on 01/10/2003).

Breuer, F., Mruck, K. and Roth, W. 2002. Subjectivity and Reflexivity: An

Introduction. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social

Research, 3(3). Available at: http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm


Briassoulis, H. 1999. „Who Plans Whose Sustainability? Alternative Roles for

Planners‟. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42, 889-902.

Briassoulis, H. 2001. „Sustainable Development and its Indicators: Through a

(Planner's) Glass Darkly‟. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,

44, 409-427.

Brinckmann, W.E. 1997. „Limites e Desafios para a Agricultura e o Desenvolvimento

Sustentável nas Pequenas Propriedades Familiares‟. Redes, 2, 15-40.

Brinckmann, W.E. 1999. „Sustentabilidade Ambiental e Gestão das Águas no Estado

do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil‟. Redes, 4, 111-127.

Brinckmann, C.A. 2003. Sociedade Civil, Participação, Conhecimento e Gestão

Territorial: A Gestão das Águas no Rio Grande do Sul (Bacia Hidrográfica do

Rio Pardo). Final Research Report. UNISC: Santa Cruz do Sul.

Brinckmann, W.E. and Brinckman, C.A. 2002. „Sociedade Civil, Participación y

Conocimiento: La Gestión del Água en la Cuenca Hidrográfica del Río Pardo,

Río Grande do Sul, Brasil‟. In : III Congreso Ibérico sobre Gestión y

Planificación del Água. La Directiva Marco del Água, Realidades y Futuros.

Proceedings of a Symposium held in Sevilla, 2002. Moral, L. (ed.). Universidad

de Sevilla, Universidad Pablo de Olavide & Fundación Nueva Cultrura del

Agua (publisher).

Brown, I.D. 1985. „Water Abstraction from the River Dee‟. In: The Biology and

Management of the River Dee. Jenkins, D. (ed.). ITE Symposium No. 14. Institute

of Terrestrial Ecology & National Research Council: Abbots Ripton, pp. 111-116.

Brown, T. and Harper, D. 1999. „Sustainability in the Context of Tropical

Catchments‟. In The Sustainable Management of Tropical Catchments, Harper,

D. and Brown, T. (eds.), Wiley: Chichester, pp. 3-17.

Brugmann, J. 1997. „Sustainability Indicators Revisited: Getting from Political

Objectives to Performance Outcomes – A Response to Graham Pinfield‟. Local


261

Bryan, D. 2002. „Joined-up Thinking for Recreation Management? The Issue of Water

Pollution by Human Sanitation on the Mar Lodge Estate, Cairngorms‟.

Countryside Recreation, 10, 18-22.

Bryant, R.L. and Bailey, S. 1997. Third World Political Ecology. Routledge: London.

Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Bryman, A. and Cramer, D. 1997. Quantitative Data Analysis with SPSS for

Windows: A Guide for Social Scientists. Routledge: London & New York.

Buller, H. 1996. „Towards Sustainable Water Management: Catchment Planning in

France and Britain‟. Land Use Policy, 13, 289-302.

Burnet, J. 1869. History of the Water Supply to Glasgow: From the Commencement of

the Present Century. Bell and Bain: Glasgow.

Cadman, D. and Willis, S. 1998. A review of sustainability indicators. Jackson

Environmental Institute: London.

Cai, X., Ringler, C. and Rosegrant, M.W. 2001. „Examining Physical and Economic

Efficiency of Water Use through Integrated Economic-hydrologic Water

Modelling‟. In: Integrated Water Resources Management. Proceedings of a

Symposium held at Davis, California, April 2000. Mariño, M.A. and Simonovic,

S.P. (eds.), IAHS Publication No. 272. IAHS: Wallingford, pp. 75-81.

Cai, X., McKinney, D.C. and Lasdon, L.S. 2002. „A Framework for Sustainability

Analysis in Water Resources Management and Application to the Syr Darya

Basin‟. Water Resources Research, 38, 21/1 - 21/14.

Cairngorms Campaign. 2003. Available on line at:

http://www.cairngorms.demon.co.uk/index.htm (Accessed on 20/10/2003).

Cairngorms National Park. 2003. Available on line at:

http://www.cairngorms.co.uk/index.htm (Accessed on 31/10/2003).

Carter, R.C., Tyrrel, S.F. and Howsarn, P. 1999. „Impact and Sustainability of

Community Water Supply and Sanitation Programmes in Developing

Countries‟. Journal of the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental


Casartelli, M.R.O. 1999. Estudo de Fluxo de Metais Pesados na Bacia Hidrográfica do

Rio dos Sinos-RS. MSc Dissertation. UNISINOS: São Leopoldo. 168 p.

Cash, K.J., Wrona, F.J. and Gummer, W.D. 1996. Ecosystem Health and Integrated

Monitoring in the Northern River Basins. Synthesis Report No. 10. Northern

River Basins Study: Edmont.

CEH (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology). 2003. The National River Flow Archive.

Available on line at: http://www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/www/index.html (Accessed on

01/06/2003).

CEH-BGS (Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, British Geological Survey). 2003.

Hydrological Summary for the United Kingdom. October 2003. Wallingford.

Challen, R. 2000. Institutions, Transaction Costs and Environmental Policy:

Institutional Reform from Water Resources. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

Chave, P. 2001. The EU Water Framework Directive: An Introduction. IWA

Publishing: London.

262

Clark, M.J. and Gardiner, J. 1994. „Strategies for Handling Uncertainty in Integrated

River Basin Planning‟. In Integrated River Basin Development, Kirby, C. and

White, W.R. (eds.). HR Wallingford, Institute of Hydrology & Wiley: Chichester,

pp. 437-445.

Clarke, A. H. 2002. „Understanding Sustainable Development in the Context of Other

Emergent Environmental Perspectives‟. Policy Science, 35, 69-90.

Cocklin, C and Blunden, G. 1998. „Sustainability, Water Resources and Regulation‟.

Geoforum, 29, 51-68.

Collishonn, W. 2001. Simulações Hidrológicas em Grandes Bacias. PhD Thesis.

IPH/UFRGS: Porto Alegre. 270 p.

Comitê Pardo (Pardo River Basin Committee). n/d. Enquadramento das Águas da

Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardo: Levantamento Preliminar. Comitê de

Gerenciamento da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardo: Santa Cruz do Sul.

Comitê Pardo (Pardo River Basin Committee). 2003. Available on line at:

http://www.comitepardo.com.br (Accessed on 19/09/2003).

Comitesinos (Sinos River Basin Committee). 1993. Aplicação de um Índice de

Qualidade da Água no Rio dos Sinos. Período de Novembro/1989 a

Outubro/1991. DMAE: Porto Alegre.

Comitesinos (Sinos River Basin Committee). 1998. Comitesinos 10 Anos: Um Divisor

na Política das Águas no RS. São Leopoldo.

Comitesinos (Sinos River Basin Committee). 2003. Available on line at:

http://www.comitesinos.com.br (Accesses on 08/10/2003).

Corral-Verdugo, V., Frías-Armenta, M., Pérez-Urias, F., Orduña-Cabrera, V. and

Espinoza-Gallego, N. 2002. „Residential Water Consumption, Motivation for

Conserving Water and the Continuing Tragedy of the Commons‟. Environmental


Correa, S.M.S. 2002. „A Escrita da História Local a Partir de Algumas Tendências

Historiográficas‟. In Território e População: 150 Anos de Rio Pardinho. Correa,

S.M.S. and Etges, V.E. (eds.). EDUNISC: Santa Cruz do Sul, pp. 11-50.

Correia, F.N. 2000. „Water Resources Management in Europe: Institutions, Issues

and Dilemmas: A Brief Presentation of EUROWATER Project‟. In Water

Resources Management – Brazilian and European Trends and Approaches.

Canali, G.V., Correia, F.N., Lobato, F. and Machado, E.S. (eds). ABRH: Porto

Alegre, pp. 37-55.

CORSAN (State Water Authority). 1974. Estudo Hidro-sanitário do Rio dos Sinos.

Consórcio Italconsult-Latinoconsult Brasileira: Rome.

Copus, A.K. and Crabtree, J.R. 1998. „Indicators of Socio-economic Sustainability:

An Application to Remote Rural Scotland‟. Journal of Rural Studies, 12, 41-54.

Cosgrove, W.J. and Rijsberman, F.R. 1998. „Creating a Vision for Water, Life and the

Environment‟. Water Policy, 1, 115-122.

CPDS (Commission of Policies for Sustainable Development and the National Agenda

21). 2002. Agenda 21 Brasileira – Ações Prioritárias. CPDS: Brasília.

263

Crabtree, B. and Bayfield, N. 1998. „Developing Sustainability Indicators for

Mountain Ecosystems: A Study of the Cairngorms, Scotland‟. Journal of

Environmental Management, 52, 1-14.

Crabtree, B., Macdonald, D. and Dunn, S. 2002. Evaluating the Economic Impact of

Abstraction Controls on High and Medium Volume Water Users in Scotland.

Report to the Scottish Executive, Environment and Rural Affairs Department,

Water Environment Unit. CJC Consulting with the Macaulay Institute: Aberdeen.

Creswell, J.W. 1994. Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches.

Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi.

Crifasi, R.R. 2002. „The Political Ecology of Water Use and Development‟. Water

International, 27, 492-503.

CRPB (Clyde River Purification Board). 1975. Report for the period ending 31st

December 1975. Annual Report. CRPB: East Kilbride.













CRPB (Clyde River Purification Board). 1985a. Water Quality. A Ten Year Review

1976-1985. CRPB: East Kilbride.

CRPB (Clyde River Purification Board). 1985b. Report for the period ending 31st







March 1992. Annual Report. CRPB: East Kilbride.

CRPB (Clyde River Purification Board). 1994. Eighteenth Annual Report. CRPB: East

Kilbride.

CRPB (Clyde River Purification Board). 1995. Twentieth Annual Report. CRPB: East

Kilbride.

Cruz, J.C. 2001. Disponibilidade Hídrica para Outorga: Avaliação de Aspectos

Técnicos e Conceituais. PhD Thesis. IPH/UFRGS: Porto Alegre, Brazil. 199 p.

264

Cruz, J.A.W. 2003. Região do Vale do Rio Pardo numa Abordagem de Ecologia de

Paisagens. MSc Dissertation. UNISC: Santa Cruz do Sul. 140 p.

Curran, J.C. and Robertson, M. 1991. „Water Quality Implications of an Observed

trend of Rainfall and Runoff‟. Journal of the Institution of Water and

Environmental Management, 5, 419-424.

CWWG (Clyde Waterfront Working Group). 2002. Clyde Rebuilt – A National

Development Opportunity. Glasgow.

Dalhuisen, J.M., Rodenburg, C.A., De Groot, H.L.F. and Nijkamp, P. 2003.

„Sustainable Water Management Policy: Lessons from Amsterdam‟. European

Planning Studies, 11, 263-281.

Daly, H.E. 1991. „Elements of Environmental Macroeconomics‟. In: Ecological

Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Constanza, R. (ed.).

Columbia University Press: New York, pp. 32-46.

Daly, H.E. 1996, Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development.

Beacon Press: Boston.

Daly, H.E. and Cobb, J.B. 1989. For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy

toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future.

Beacon Press: Boston.

Deas, J. 1873. The River Clyde. Willian Clowes and Sons: London.

Dee News. 2003. Circular. Published by the Dee Salmon Fishing Improvement

Association, Winter 2003.

DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2002a. Regional

Quality of Life Counts – 2001. Regional Versions of the National Headline

Indicators of Sustainable Development. 3rd Edition. DEFRA: London.

DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2002b. Foundations

for our Future – DEFRA’s Sustainable Development Strategy. DEFRA: London.

DEFRA (Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). 2004. Achieving a

Better Quality of Life. Review of Progress Towards Sustainable Development.

Government Annual Report 2003. DEFRA: London.

De Haan, L.J. 2000. „Globalization, Localization and Sustainable Livelihoods‟.

Sociologia Ruralis, 40, 339–365.

Delevati, D.M. 2001. „Sociedade e Meio Ambiente‟. In : II Seminário Regional

de Educação Ambiental. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Santa Cruz

do Sul, 2001. Delevati, D.M., Vaz, V.B., Bonnenberger, F. and Brinckmann, C.A.

(eds). Comitê de Gerenciamento da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardo (publisher),

pp. 29-46.

Delevati, D.M., Brinckmann, W.E., Bonnenberger, F., Vaz, V.B. and Brinckmann,

C.A. 2002. „A Produção de Resíduos Sólidos na Região da Bacia Hidrográfica do

Rio Pardo‟. In: III Seminário Regional de Educação Ambiental. Proceedings of a

Symposium held in Santa Cruz do Sul, 2002. Delevati, D.M., Vaz, V.B.,

Bonnenberger, F., Brinckmann, C.A. and Schmidt, L.M. (eds). Comitê de

Gerenciamento da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardo (publisher), pp. 13-53.

265

Delevati, D.M., Vaz, V.B., Machado, A.P., Kunrath, I.G. and Kaercher, M. 2004.

„Gestão das Águas na Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardo‟. In: IV Seminário

Regional de Educação Ambiental & I Seminário Estadual de Educação

Ambiental . Proceedings of a Symposium held in Santa Cruz do Sul, 2003.

Delevati, D.M., Vaz, V.B. and Schmidt, L.M. (eds). EDIUNISC: Santa Cruz do

Sul, pp. 73-87.

De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S., Lo Cascio, S. and Munda, G. 2000. „Combining

Participative and Institutional Approaches with Multicriteria Evaluation:

An Empirical Study for Water Issues in Troina, Sicily‟. Ecological Economics,

34, 267-282.

Desai, M. 1995. „Greening of the HDI?‟ In: Accounting for Change. McGillivray, A.

(ed.). The New Economics Foundation (publisher), pp. 21-36.

DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions). 1999a. Quality of

Life Counts: Indicators for a Strategy for Sustainable Development for the United

Kingdom. A Baseline Assessment. DETR: London.

DETR (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions). 1999b. Economic

Instruments in Relation to Water Abstraction. Report prepared by RPA Ltd.

(Contract Number WS194/-/1-82). DETR: London.

Devine, F. and Heath, S. 1999. Sociological Research Methods in Context. Macmillan:

Basingstoke.

Dobson, A. 1998. Justice and the Environment: Conceptions of Environmental

Sustainability and Dimensions of Social Justice. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Dodds, S. 1997. „Towards a “Science of Sustainability”: Improving the Way

Ecological Economics Understands Human Well-being‟. Ecological Economics,

23, 95-111.

Doughty, C.R., Boon, P.J. and Maitland, P.S. 2002. „The State of Scotland‟s Fresh

Waters‟. In: The State of Scotland’s Environment and Natural Heritage. Usher,

M.B., Mackey, E.C. and Curran, J.C. (eds.). SEPA, SNH & HMSO: Edinburgh,

pp. 117-144.

Dourojeanni, A. 2000. Procedimientos de Gestión para el Desarrollo Sustentable.

Série Manuales No. 10. UNECLAC: Santiago.

Dower, N. 1998. World Ethics: The New Agenda. Edinburgh Studies in World Ethics.

Edinburgh, University Press.

Dower, N. forthcoming. „The Ethics of Sustainability‟. In: Encyclopaedia of Life

Sciences, Volume on Sustainable Development in Europe. Mather, A. (ed.).

UNESCO & EOLSS: Paris.

Drummond, I. and Marsden, T.K. 1995. „Regulating Sustainable Development‟.

Global Environmental Change, 5, 51-63.

Dunion, K. 2003. Troublemakers: The Struggle for Environmental Justice in Scotland.

Edinburgh University Press.

Dunn, S.M., Langan, S.J and Colohan, R.J.E. 2001. „The Impact of Variable Snow

Pack Accumulation on a Major Scottish Water Resources‟. Science of the Total


266

Dunn, S.M., Chalmers, N., Stalham, M., Lilly, A., Crabtree, B. and Johnston, L. 2003.

„Modelling the Influence of Irrigation Abstraction on Scotland‟s water resources‟.

Water Science and Technology, 48, 127-134.

Ecoplan. 1997. Avaliação Quali-quantitativa das Disponibilidades e Demandas de

Água, na Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardo/Pardinho. Ecoplan Engenharia Ltd.:

Porto Alegre.

Eden, S. 2000. „Environmental Issues: Sustainable Progress?‟ Progress in Human

Geography, 24, 111-118.

Edgar, P.J., Davies, I.M., Hursthouse, A.S. Matthews, J.E. 1999. „The

Biogeochemistry of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in the Clyde: Distribution

and Source Evaluation‟. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 38, 486-496.

Edward-Jones, G and Howells, O. 2001. „The Origin and Hazard of Inputs to Crop

Protection in Organic Farming Systems: Are They Sustainable?‟ Agricultural

Systems, 67, 31-47.

EEA (European Environment Agency). 2003. Available on line at:

http://glossary.eea.eu.int/EEAGlossary/S/sustainability_indicator (Accessed on

01/03/2003).

Ekins, P. and Simon, S. 1999. „The Sustainability Gap: A Practical Indicator of

Sustainability in the Framework of the National Accounts‟. International Journal

of Sustainable Development, 2, 32-58.

Ekins, P. and Simon, S. 2000. Estimating Sustainability Gaps for the UK. Forum for

the Future: London.

Ekins, P. and Simon, S. 2003. „An Illustrative Application of the CRITINC

Framework to the UK‟. Ecological Economics, 44, 255-275.

Elhance, A.P. 1999. Hydro-politics in the 3rd

World: Conflicts and Cooperation

in International River Basins. United States Institute of Peace Press:

Washington, DC.

Elliot, J. A. 1994. An Introduction to Sustainable Development: The Developing

World. Routledge: London.

Engel, J. R. 1990. „Introduction – The Ethics of Sustainable Development‟. In: Ethics

of Environment and Development – Global Challenge, International Response.

Engel, J. R. and Engel, J.G. (eds.). Belhaven Press: London, pp. 1-23.

Environment Agency. 2002a. Managing Water Abstraction: The Catchment

Abstraction Management Strategy Process. Environment Agency: Bristol.

Environment Agency. 2002b. Resource Assessment and Management Framework –

Report and User Manual. R&D Technical Manual W6-066M. Version 3.

Environment Agency: Bristol.

Environment Agency. 2003. UKTAG Guidance Documents. Available on line at:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/waterquality/517208/517223

/528757/562176/?version=1&lang=_e (Accessed on 15/10/2003).

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency, USA). 1998. Clean Water Action Plan.

Restoring and Protecting America’s Waters. Government Printing Office:

Washington, DC.

267

Estrela, T., Menéndez, M., Dimas, M., Marcuello, C., Rees, G., Cole, G., Weber, K.,

Grath, J., Leonard, J., Ovesen, N.B., Fehér, J. and Consult, V. 2001. Sustainable

Water Use in Europe. Part 3. Extreme Hydrogeological Events: Floods and

Droughts. Environmental Issues Report No. 21. EEA: Copenhagen.

Everard, M. 1999. „Towards Sustainable Development of Still Water Resources‟.

Hydrobiologia, 395/396, 29-38.

Everard, M. 2004. „Investing in Sustainable Catchments‟. Science of the Total


Falkenmark, M. 1998. „Dilemma when Entering 21st Century – Rapid Change but

Lack of Sense of Urgency‟. Water Policy, 1, 421-436.

Falkenmark, M. 2001. „The Greatest Water Problem: The Inability to Link

Environmental Security, Water Security and Food Security‟. Water Resources

Development, 17, 539-554.

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation). 1997. Land Quality Indicators and Their

Use in Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. Land and Water Bulletin

No. 5. FAO, UNDP, UNEP & World Bank: Rome.

FEE (Economic and Statistics Foundation). 1995. Censo Sócio-econômico dos

Municípios do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. FEE: Porto Alegre.

FEE (Economic and Statistics Foundation). 2001. „Índice Social Municipal

Ampliado para o Rio Grande do Sul – 1991-98‟. Documentos FEE No. 48. FEE:

Porto Alegre.

FEE (Economic and Statistics Foundation). 2003. Estatísticas. Available on line at:

http://www.fee.rs.gov.br/sitefee/pt/content/estatisticas/index.php


Feitelson, E. and Chenoweth, J. 2002. „Water Poverty: Towards a Meaningful

Indicator‟. Water Policy, 4, 263-281.

FEPAM (State Environment Protection Foundation). 1999. Qualidade das Águas do

Rio dos Sinos. FEPAM: Porto Alegre.

Ferreira Filho, A. 1978. História Geral do Rio Grande do Sul. 5th

Edition. Editora

Globo: Porto Alegre.

Ferrier, R.C., Edwards, A.C., Hirst, D., Littlewood, I.G., Watts, C.D. and Morris, R.

2001. „Water Quality of Scottish Rivers: Spatial and Temporal Trends‟. Science

of the Total Environment, 265, 327-342.

Ferrier, R.C. and Edwards, A.C. 2002. „Sustainability of Scottish Water Quality in the

Early 21st Century‟. Science of the Total Environment, 294, 57-71.

Fehr, M., Sousa, K.A., Pereira, A.F.N. and Pelizer, L.C. 2004. „Proposal of Indicators

to Assess Urban Sustainability in Brazil‟. Environment, Development and

Sustainability, 6, 355-366.

Fleming, G. 2002. „Learning to Live with Rivers‟. In: Living and Working with the

River. Proceedings of the Clyde Catchment Conference held in Glasgow, 13

December 2002. Firth of Clyde Forum, Clyde Heritage Trust & EnviroCentre

(publishers).

Fox, I.A. and Walker, S. 2002. „Abstraction and Abstraction Control in Scotland‟.

Science of the Total Environment, 294, 201-211.

268

Foxon, T.J., McIlkenny, G., Gilmour, D., Oltean-Dumbrava, C., Souter, N., Ashley,

R., Butler, D., Pearson, P., Jowitt, P. and Moir, J. 2002. „Sustainability Criteria

for Decision Support in the UK Water Industry‟. Journal of Environmental

Planning and Management, 45, 285-301.

Fozzard, I.R., Davidson, M. and Moffet, G. 1997. „River Habitat Survey in Scotland‟.

In: Freshwater Quality: Defining the Indefinable? Boon, P.J. and Howell, D.L.

(eds.). Scottish Natural Heritage: Edinburgh, pp. 235-240.

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. and Nachmias, D. 1992. Research Methods in the Social

Sciences. 4th

Edition. Edward Arnold: London, Melbourne and Auckland.

Freitas, A.J. 2000. „Gestão de Recursos Hídricos‟. In. Gestão de Recursos Hídricos:

Aspectos Legais, Econômicos, Administrativos e Sociais. Silva, D.D. and Pruski,

F.F. (eds.). MMA, UFV & ABRH: Porto Alegre, pp. 1-120.

Friend, A.M. 1996. „Sustainable Development Indicators: Exploring the Objective

Function‟. Chemosphere, 33, 1865-1887.

Fundação Getúlio Vargas. 2000. Indicadores de Sustentabilidade para a Gestão dos

Recursos Hídricos no Brasil. Fundação Getúlio Vargas: Rio de Janeiro &

Brasília.

Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. 1993. „Science for the Post-normal Age‟. Futures,

25, 739-755.

Gallopín, G.C. 2001. „The Latin American World Model (a.k.a. the Bariloche model):

three Decades Ago‟. Futures, 33, 77-88.

Garcia, R. L. e Tucci, C.E.M. 2000. „Simulação da Qualidade da Água em Rios em

Regime Não-permanente: Rio dos Sinos‟. Revista da Associação Portuguesa dos

Recursos Hídricos, 21, 17-26.

Gardiner, J. L. 1995. „The Use of EIA in Delivering Sustainable Development through

Integrated Water Management‟. In: International Symposium on EIA in Water

Management. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Bruges, 15-17 May 1995.

Gardiner, J.L. 1997. „River Landscapes and Sustainable Development: A

Framework for Project Appraisal and Catchment Management'. Landscape

Research, 22, 95-114.

Gibb, K., Kearns, A., Keoghan, M., Mackay, D. and Turok, I. 1998. Revising the

Scottish Area Deprivation Index. Volume 1. Central Research Unit, The Scottish

Office: Edinburgh.

Gibbins, C.N. and Acornley, R.M. 2000. „Salmonid Habitat Modelling Studies and

Their Contribution to the Development of an Ecologically Acceptable Release

Policy for Kielder Reservoir, North-east England‟. Regulated Rivers: Research

and Management, 16, 203-224.

Gibbins, C.N., Dilks, C.F, Malcolm, R., Soulsby, C. and Juggins, S. 2001.

„Invertebrate Communities and Hydrological Variation in Cairngorm Mountain

Streams‟. Hydrobiologia, 462, 205-219.

Gillbert, A. 1996. „Criteria for Sustainability in the Development of Indicators of

Sustainable Development‟. Chemosphere, 33, 1739-1748.

Gillespie, R. 1876. Glasgow and the Clyde. Robert Forrester: Glasgow.

269

Glaister, J. 1907. River Pollution and River Purification in Scotland. Royal

Philosophical Society: Glasgow.

Glasby, G.P. 2002. „Sustainable Development: The Need for a New Paradigm‟.

Environment, Development and Sustainability, 4, 333-345.

Glasgow Corporation. 1955. The Water Supply of Glasgow: A Century of Public

Ownership 1855-1955. Glasgow.

Gleick, P.H. 2000. „The Changing Water Paradigm: A Look at Twenty-first Century

Water Resources Development‟. Water International, 25, 127-138.

Gomez, J.D. and Nakat, A.C. 2002. „Community Participation in Water and

Sanitation‟. Water International, 27, 343-353.

Gonzales-Anton, C. and Arias, C. 2001. „The Incorporation of Integrated

Management in European Water Policy‟. In: Integrated Water Resources

Management. Proceedings of a Symposium held at Davis, California, April 2000.

Mariño, M.A. and Simonovic, S.P. (eds.), IAHS Publication No. 272. IAHS:

Wallingford, pp. 69-74.

Goodland, R. and Daly, H. 1996. „Environmental Sustainability: Universal and Non-

negotiable‟. Ecological Applications, 6, 1002-1017.

Goodstadt, V. 2001. „The Need for Effective Strategic Planning: The Experience of

Glasgow and the Clyde Valley‟. Planning Theory and Practice, 2, 215-221.

Grampian Regional Council. n/d. River Dee Abstraction Scheme. Department of Water

Services, Grampian Regional Council.

Grampian Regional Council. 1977. Glendye Water Treatment Works. Water Services

Directorate, Grampian Regional Council.

GRO (General Register Office for Scotland). 2003. Population Projections Scotland

(2000 Based). Available on line at: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/grosweb/

grosweb.nsf/pages/populatn (Accessed on 8/10/2003).

Grunwald, A. 2004. „Strategic Knowledge for Sustainable Development: The Need for

Reflexivity and Learning at the Interface between Science and Society‟.

International Journal Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1, 150-167.

Guimarães, R.P. 2001.‟A Ética da Sustentabilidade e a Formulação de Políticas de

Desenvolvimento‟. In: O Desafio da Sustentabilidade: Um Debate

Socioambiental no Brasil. Viana, G., Silva, M. and Diniz, N. (eds.). Editora

Fundação Perseu Abramo: São Paulo, pp. 43-71.

Haase, J.F. 2002. Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio dos Sinos - “O Rio que Imita o Reno”.

Research Report. Projeto Marca D‟Água: Brasília.

Haase, J.F. and Silva, M.L.B.C. 2003. „Enquadramento das Águas do Rio dos Sinos –

Um Processo Participativo‟. In: XV Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos.

Proceedings of a Symposium held in Curitiba, 23-27 November 2003.

Habermas, J. 1976. Legitimation Crisis. Translation of Thomas McCarthy.

Hainemann: London.

Habermas, J. 1987. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Polity Press:

Cambridge.

Hakim, C. 1982. Secondary Analysis in Social Research: A Guide to Data, Sources

and Methods with Examples. George Allen and Unwin: London.

270

Hamdy, A.H., Abu-Zeid, M. and Laciringnola, C. 1998. „Institutional Capacity

Building for Water Sector Development‟. Water International, 23, 126-133.

Hamilton, J.D. 1994. Time Series Analysis. Princeton University Press: Princeton,

New Jersey.

Hamilton, C. 2002. „Dualism and Sustainability‟. Ecological Economics, 42, 89-99.

Hanefeld, A.O. 2002. Pólos de Modernização Tecnológica e Desenvolvimento

Regional: O Caso do Pólo de Modernização Tecnológica do Vale do Rio Pardo,

Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. EDUNISC: Santa Cruz do Sul.

Hanley, N., Moffatt, I., Faichney, R. and Wilson, M. 1999. „Measuring Sustainability:

A Time Series of Alternative Indicators for Scotland‟. Ecological Economics,

28, 55–73.

Haque, M.S. 2000. „Limitations of Sustainable Development‟. Ethics and the


Hardi, P. and Barg, S. 1997. Measuring Sustainable Development: Review of Current

Practices. Occasional Paper No. 17. Industry Canada: Ottawa.

Hardi, P. and Zdan, T. 1997. Assessing Sustainable Development: Principles in

Practice. International Institute for Sustainable Development: Winnipeg.

Hardin, G. 1968. „The Tragedy of the Commons‟. Science, 162, 1243-1248.

Harger, J.R.E. and Meyer, F.M. 1996. „Definition of indicators for environmentally

sustainable development‟. Chemosphere, 33, 1749-1775.

Hargreaves, A. and Webster, R. 2000. „Social Sustainability and Local

Distinctiveness: Arguments for the Positive Evaluation of Place Centred

Awareness‟. In: ENHR Conference. Proceedings of a Conference held in Galve,

26-30 June 2000.

Harrison, C. and Davies, G. 1998. Lifestyles & the Environment. Environment &

Sustainability Desk Study Prepared for the ESRC. University College London.

Hartwick, J.M. 1977. „Intergenerational Equity and the Investing of rents from

Exhaustible Resources‟. American Economic Review, 67, 972-974.

Harvey, D. 2001. Spaces of Capital – Towards a Critical Geography. Edinburgh

University Press: Edinburgh.

Hashimoto, T., Loucks, D.P. and Stedinger, J.R. 1982. „Robustness of Water

Resources Systems‟. Water Resources Research, 18, 21-26.

Hatje, V. and Baish, P.R.M. 1993. „Impactos Antrópicos na Geoquímica dos

Sedimentos no Rio dos Sinos – RS‟. In: X Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos

Hídricos. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Gramado, 4-8 November 1993.

Haughton, G. and Hunter, C. 1994. Sustainable Cities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers:

London & Bristol.

Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.

Macmillan: Basingstoke.

Hediger, W. 2000. „Sustainable Development and Social Welfare‟. Ecological

Economics, 32, 481-492.

271

Hellström, D., Jeppson, U. and Kärrman, E. 2000. „A Framework for System Analysis

of Sustainable Urban Water Management‟. Environmental Impact Assessment

Review, 20, 311-321.

Hendry, S. 2003. „Enabling the Framework – The Water Environment and Water

Services (Scotland) Act 2003‟. Journal of Water Law, 14, 16-23.

Herbert, A. and Kempson, E. 1995. Water Debt & Disconnection. Policy Studies

Institute: London.

Herman, A. 2003. The Scottish Enlightenment: The Scott’s Invention of the Modern

World. Fourth Estate: London.

Hidrovias do Rio Grande do Sul. 2003. Available on line at:

http://www.hidrovia.rs.gov.br/historico.htm (Accessed on 13/10/2003).

Hillman, M. 2002. „Environmental Justice: A Crucial Link between Environmentalism

and Community Development?‟ Community Development Journal, 37, 349-360.

Hinterberger, F. and Schmidt-Bleek, F. 1999. „Dematerialization, MIPS and Factor

10 Physical Sustainability Indicator as a Social Device‟. Ecological Economics,

29, 53-56.

Hinterberger, F., Stewen, M. and van der Straaten, J. 2000. „Environment Policy in a

Complex World‟. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 3, 276-296.

Holdren, J.P., Daily, G.C. and Ehlich, P.R. 1995. „The Meaning of Sustainability:

Biogeophysical Aspects‟. In: Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The

Biogeophysical Foundations. Munasinghe, M. and Shearer, W. (eds.). World

Bank: Washington, D.C, pp. 3-17.

Holland, A. 1999. „Sustainability: Should We Start from Here?‟ In: Fairness and

Futurity – Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Dobson, A.

(ed.). Oxford University Press: New York. p. 46-48.

House, J. 1975. Portrait of the Clyde. 2nd

Edition. Robert Hall: London.

House, M.A. 1999. „Citizen Participation in Water Management‟. Water Science and

Technology, 40, 125-130.

Huang, G.H. and Xia, J. 2001, „Barriers to Sustainable Water-quality Management‟.

Journal of Environmental Management, 61, 1-23.

Hufschmidt, M.M. and Tejwany, K.G. 1993. Integrated Water Resources

Management: Meeting the Sustainability Challenge. IHP Humid Tropics

Programme Series No. 5. UNESCO: Paris.

Hunter, R. 1933. The Water Supply of Glasgow. Corporation of the City of Glasgow.

IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). 2002. Indicadores de

Desenvolvimento Sustentável – Brasil 2002. IBGE: Rio de Janeiro.

IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics). 2003. Censo 2000. Available

on line at: http://www.ibge.gov.br/censo/default.php (Accessed on 13/10/2003).

Icke, J., van den Boomen, R.M. and Aalderink, R.H. 1999. „A Cost-sustainability

Analysis of Urban Water Management‟. Water Science and Technology, 39,

211-218.

Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling

and Skill. Routledge: London & New York.

272

Ioris, A.A.R. 1999. Water Resources in Northeastern Brazil: The Management of the

São Francisco River Basin. MSc Dissertation, Environmental Change Institute,

Oxford University. 118p.

Ioris, A.A.R. 2001. „Water Resources Development in the São Francisco River Basin

(Brazil): Conflicts and Management Perspectives‟. Water International, 26, 24-

39.

Ioris, A.A.R. 2001. „Sustainability Indicators Applied to Freshwater Management‟. In:

IV Diálogo Interamericano de Recursos Hídricos. Proceedings of Congress held

in Foz do Iguaçu, September 2001. MMA, OAS & IWRN (publishers).

Ioris, A. A.R. 2003. „A Proposed Approach to Water Sustainability Assessment: Case

Studies of Scottish River Basins‟. In: 70th

Meeting of the Scottish Freshwater

Group. Proceedings of a Workshop held in Stirling, 09 April 2003.

Ioris, A.A.R. 2003. „An Approach to Assessing Sustainability in Scottish River

Basins‟. Eurolakes. Proceeding of a Symposium held in Edinburgh, 07 July 2003.

Ioris, A.A.R. 2004. „Virtual Water in an Empty Glass: The Geographical Complexities

Behind Water Scarcity‟. Water International, 29,119-121.

Ioris, A.A.R., Hunter, C. and Walker, S. 2004. „Assessing the Sustainability of

Freshwater Systems‟. In: 30th

Congress of the International Geographical Union.

Proceedings of a Congress held in Glasgow, 15-20 August 2004.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 1980. World Conservation

Strategy: Living Resource Conservation for Sustainable Development. IUCN,

UNEP & WWF: Grand, Switzerland.

IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 1991. Caring for the Earth: A

Strategy for Sustainable Living. IUCN, UNEP & WWF: Grand, Switzerland.

Jacobs, M. 1999. „Sustainable Development as a Contested Concept‟. In: Fairness and

Futurity – Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Dobson, A.

(ed.). Oxford University Press: New York. p. 21-45.

Jackson, I.J. 2000. The EU Water Framework Directive: Measures and Implications.

Longman: Harlow.

Jaeger, J. 1998. „Current Thinking on Using Scientific Findings in Environmental

Policy Making‟. Environmental Modeling and Assessment, 3, 143-153.

Jaeger, C.C., Schüle, R. and Kasemir, B. 1999. „Focus Groups in Integrated

Assessment: a Micro-cosmos for Reflexive Modernisation‟. Innovation, 12,

195-219.

Jarvie, H.P., Neal, C., Smart, R., Owen, R., Fraser, D., Forbes, I. and Wade, A. 2001.

‟Use of Continuous Water Quality Records for Hydrograph Separation and to

Assess Short-term Variability and Extremes in Acidity and Dissolved Carbon

Dioxide for the River Dee, Scotland‟. Science of the Total Environment, 265,

85-98.

Jeffrey, P. 2002. „The Role of Society and Community in Technology Adaptation‟. In:

Sustainability and the Water Sector. Proceedings of a Conference held in Venice,

25-26 November 2002.

273

Jenkins, D. (ed.). 1985. The Biology and Management of the River Dee. ITE

Symposium No. 14. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology & National Research Council:

Abbots Ripton.

Jones, J.A.A. 1997. Global Hydrology: Processes, Resources and Environmental

Management. Longman: Harlow.

Jones, R., Goodwin, M., Jones, M. and Simpson, G. 2004. „Devolution, State

Personnel, and the Production of New Territories of Governance in the United

Kingdom‟. Environment and Planning A, 36, 89-109.

Jong, J., Peter, T.J.C.R. and Hosper, S.H. 1995. „Living with Water: At the Cross-road

of Change‟. Water Science and Technology, 31, 393-400.

Jonker, L. 2002. „Preface. Integrated Water Resources Management: Theory, Practice,

Cases‟. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27, 719-720.

Johnson, N., Ravnborg, H.M., Westermann, O. and Probst, K. 2001. „User

Participation in Watershed Management and Research‟. Water Policy, 3, 507-520.

Jupp, V. 1996. „Documents and Critical Research‟. In Data Collection and Analysis.

Sapsford, R. and Jupp, V. (Editors). The Open University & Sage Publications:

London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi, pp. 298-316.

Kabat P., Schulze R.E., Hellmuth M.E. and Veraart J.A. (eds). 2002. Coping with

Impacts of Climate Variability and Climate Change in Water Management: A

Scoping Paper. DWC-Report No. DWCSSO-01(2002), International Secretariat

of the Dialogue on Water and Climate: Wageningen.

Kaika, M. 2003. „The Water Framework Directive: A New Directive for a Changing

Social, Political and Economic European Framework‟. European Planning

Studies, 11, 299-316.

Kallis, G. and Butler, D. 2001. „The EU Water Framework Directive: Measures and

Implications‟. Water Policy, 3, 125-142.

Kansiime, F. 2002. „Water and Development: Ensuring Equity and Efficiency‟.

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27, 801-803.

Kay, P.A. 2000. „Measuring Sustainability in Israel‟s Water System‟. Water


Kelman, J. 1999. „Evolution of Brazil‟s Water Resources Management System‟. In:

Water Resources Management: Brazilian and European Trends and Approaches.

Canali, G.V., Correia, F.N., Lobato, F. and Machado, E.S. (eds). Proceedings of

the International Week for Studies on Water Resources Management held in Foz

do Iguaçu, 19-23 April 1999. ABRH: Porto Alegre, pp. 19-36.

Kemper, K.E. 1996. The Cost of Free Water: Water Resources Allocation and Use in

the Curu Valley, Ceará, Northeast Brazil. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science

No. 137. Linköping University Press: Linköping.

Kerr, J. and Chung, K. 2001. „Evaluating Watershed Management Projects‟. Water

Policy, 3, 537-554.

Kheireldin, K. and Fahmy, H. 2001. „Multi-criteria Approach for Evaluating Long

Term Water Strategies‟. Water International, 26, 527-535.

Kitchin, R. and Tate, N.J. 2000. Conducting Research into Human Geography:

Theory, Methodology and Practice. Prentice Hall: Harlow.

274

Kjeldsen, T.R. and Rosbjerg, D. 2001. „Assessment of the Sustainability of a Water

Resources System Expansion‟. In: Integrated Water Resources Management.

Proceedings of a symposium held at Davis, California, April 2000. Mariño, M.A.

and Simonovic, S.P. (eds.), IAHS Publication No. 272. IAHS: Wallingford,

pp. 151-156.

Komives, K. 2001. „Designing Pro-poor Water and Sewer Concessions: Early Lessons

from Bolivia‟. Water Policy, 3, 61-79.

Kondratyev, S., Gronskaya, T., Ignatieva, N., Blinova, I., Telesh, I. and Yefremova, L.

2002. „Assessment of Present State of Water Resources of Lake Ladoga and its

Drainage Basin using Sustainable Development Indicators‟. Ecological

Indicators, 2, 79-92.

Krasovskaia, I. 1995. „Quantification of the Stability of River Flow Regimes‟.

Hydrological Science Journal, 40, 587-598.

Krebs, P. and Larsen, T.A. 1997. „Guiding the Development of Urban Drainage

Systems by Sustainability Criteria‟. Water Science and Technology, 35, 89-98.

Krinner, W., Lallana, C., Estrela, T., Nixon, S., Zabel, T., Laffon, L, Rees, G. and

Cole, G. 1999. Sustainable water use in Europe. Part 1. Sectoral use of water.

Environmental Issues Report No. 1. EEA: Copenhagen.

Kundzewicz, Z.W. 1997. „Water resources for sustainable development‟. Hydrological

Sciences Journal, 42, 467-480.

Kurtz, M. 2001. „The Archive and the File Cabinet‟. Historical Geography, 29, 26-37.

Kuylenstierna, J. L., Bjorklund, G. and Najlis, P. 1997. „Sustainable Water Future

with Global Implications: Everyone‟s Responsibility‟. Natural Resources Forum,

21, 181-190.

Lallana, C., Krinner, W., Estrela, T., Nixon, S., Leonard, J. and Berland, J.M. 2001.

Sustainable Water Use in Europe. Part 2. Demand Management. Environmental

Issues Report No. 19. EEA: Copenhagen.

Lamoree, G. and Harlin, J. 2002. „Institutional Capacity Building within the Water

Resources Sector of Developing Countries – Part 1: A Framework for Analysis‟.

Water International, 27, 542-549.

Langan, S.J., Wade, A.J., Smart, R., Edwards, A.C., Soulsby, C., Billett, M.F., Jarvie,

H.P., Cresser, M.S., Owen, R. and Ferrier, R.C. 1997. „The Prediction and

Management of Water Quality in a Relatively Unpolluted Major Scottish

Catchment: Current Issues and Experimental Approaches‟. Science of Total

Environment, 194/195, 419-435.

Langan, S.J., Johnston, L., Donaghy, M. and Youngson, A. 2002. „The Potential

Impact of Climate Change on the Hydrotermal Regime of Selected Rivers

Draining the Cairngorms‟. In: The State of Scotland’s Environment and Natural

Heritage. Usher, M.B., Mackey, E.C. and Curran, J.C. (eds.). SEPA, SNH &

HMSO: Edinburgh, pp. 251-256.

Langan, S.J. 2004. „The Tarland Catchment Initiative: An Illustration of Partnership

Working to Enhance Water Quality and Habitat Diversity in a Rural Agricultural

Catchment‟. In: SAC and SEPA Biennial Conference. Proceedings of a

Conference held in Edinburgh, 24-25 March 2004.

275

Lanna, A.E.L. 1995. Gerenciamento de Bacia Hidrográfica: Aspectos Conceituais e

Metodológicos. IBAMA: Brasília.

Lanna, A.E.L. 1997. „Modelos de Gerenciamento das Águas‟. A Água em Revista,

8, 24-33.

Lawisch, A., Marquardt, L., Lobo, E.A., Mählmann, C.M., Hanefeld, A.O. and

Fritsch, V.I. 2002. „A Consolidação do Pólo de Modernização Tecnológica do

Vale do Rio Pardo, RS, Brasil‟. Redes, 7, 9-22.

Lee, R.G. 1992. „Ecologically Effective Social Organisation as a Requirement for

Sustaining Watershed Ecosystems‟. In: Watershed Management: Balancing

Sustainability and Environmental Change. Naiman, R.J. (ed.). Springer-Verlag:

New York, pp. 73-90.

Leite, E.H., Haase, J., Pineda, M.D., Silva, M.L.C. and Cobalchini, M.S. 1998.

„Qualidade dos Recursos Hídricos Superficiais da Bacia do Guaíba – Subsídio

para o Processo de Enquadramento‟. In: Simpósio Internacional Sobre

Gestão de Recursos Hídricos. Proceedings of Symposium held in Gramado, 5-8

October 1998.

Legge, D. 2000. „The Sustainability of the Water Industry in a Regulated

Environment‟. Journal of Environmental Law, 12, 3-19.

Lélé, S. 1991. „Sustainable Development: A Critical Review‟. World Development, 19,

607-621.

Lenzen, M., Lundie, S., Bransgrove, G., Charet, L. and Sack, F. 2003. „Assessing the

Ecological Footprint of a Large Metropolitan Water Supplier: Lessons for Water

Management and Planning towards Sustainability‟. Journal of Environmental


Levett, R. 1998. „Sustainability Indicators: Integrating Quality of Life and

Environmental Protection Indicators‟. Journal of Royal Statistics Society A,

161, 291-302.

Lewan, L. 1999. „Why Human Societies need Sustainability Analyses based on

Biophysical Assessments‟. Ecological Economics, 29, 57-60.

LGMB (Local Government Management Board). 1995. Sustainability Indicators

Research Project: Consultant‟s Report of the Pilot Phase. LGMB: Luton.

Livingston, M. L. 1995. „Designing Water Institutions: Market Failures and

Institutional Response‟. Water Resources Management, 9, 203-220.

Lobo, E.A. and Costa, A.B. 1997. „Estudo da Qualidade do Rio Pardinho, Município

de Santa Cruz do Sul, RS, Brasil‟. Tecnológica, 1, 11-36.

Lobo, E.A., Baccar, N.M., Costa, A.B. and Kirst, A. 1999. „Estudo da Qualidade da

Água de Poços Artesianos da Região do Vale do Rio Pardo, RS, Brasil, com

Destaque para a Concentração de Íons de Fluoreto‟. Redes, 4, 57-72.

Lockie, S., Lawrence, G., Dale, A. and Taylor, B. 2002. „”Capacity for Change”:

Testing a Model for the Inclusion of Social Indicators in Australia‟s National

Land and Water Resources Audit‟. Journal of Environmental Planning and


276

López-Ridaura, S., Masera, O. and Astier, M. 2002. „Evaluating the Sustainability of

Complex Socio-environmental Systems: the MEMIS Framework‟. Ecological


Lord, W.B. and Israel, M. 1996. A Proposed Strategy to Encourage and Facilitate

Improved Water Resources Management in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC.

Loucks, D.P. 1994. „Sustainability Implications for Water Resources Planning and

Management‟. Natural Resources Forum, 18, 263-274.

Loucks, D.P. 1997. „Quantifying Trends in System Sustainability‟. Hydrological

Sciences Journal, 42, 513-530.

Loucks, D.P. 2000. „Sustainable Water Resources Management‟. Water International,

25, 3-10.

Loucks, D.P. and Gladwell, J.S. (eds.) 1999. Sustainability Criteria for Water

Resources Systems. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Loucks, D.P, Stakhiv, E.Z. and Martin, L.R. 2000. „Sustainable Water Resources

Management. Editorial‟. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,

March/April, 43-47.

Lumley, S. and Armstrong, P. 2004. „Some of the Nineteenth Century Origins of

the Sustainability Concept‟. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 6,

367-378.

Lundin, M. 1999. Assessment of the Environmental Sustainability of Urban Water

Systems. Department of Technical Environmental Planning, Chalmers University

of Technology: Göteborg.

Lundin, M., Molander, S. and Morrison, G. M. 1999. „A Set of Indicators for the

Assessment of Temporal Variations in the Sustainability of Sanitary Systems‟.


Lundin, M. and Morrison, G.M. 2002. „A Life Cycle Assessment Based Performance

for Development of Environmental Sustainable Indicators for Urban Water

Systems‟. Urban Water, 4, 145-152.

Lundqvist, J. 2000. „High Withdrawal Ratio Implies Changed Water Policy‟. Physics

and Chemistry of the Earth, 25, 193-198.

Lutzenberger, J. 1979. I Ciclo de Debates sobre a Poluição do Rio dos Sinos.

Workshop held in São Leopoldo, 26-27 April 1979. Câmara Municipal de São

Leopoldo (publisher).

MacDonald, A. 1997. The Effect of Land Use on the N and P Status of the Ythan, Don

and Dee Catchments in North East Scotland. PhD Thesis. University of Aberdeen.

280p.

MacDonald, M. and Partners. 1975. Regional Water Resources Study for North East

of Scotland Water Board. Volumes II & III. Sir M. MacDonald and Partners Ltd.:

Cambridge (publisher).

Maclaren, V.W. 1996. „Urban Sustainability Reporting‟. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 62, 184-202.

Maiteny, P. 2000. „The Psychodynamics of Meaning and Action for a Sustainable

Future‟. Futures, 32, 339-360.

277

Maizels, J.K. 1985. „The Physical Background of the River Dee‟. In: The Biology and

Management of the River Dee. Jenkins, D. (ed.). ITE Symposium No. 14. Institute

of Terrestrial Ecology & National Research Council: Abbots Ripton, pp. 7-22.

Magalhães, D.R.F. 2003. Terras, Senhores, Homens Livres, Colonos e Escravos na

Ocupação da Fronteira no Vale do Sinos. PhD Thesis. UNISINOS: São Leopoldo.

574p.

Magna. 1996. Simulação de uma Proposta de Gerenciamento dos Recursos Hídricos

na Bacia do Rio dos Sinos, RS. Relatório Final. Magna Engenharia Ltd.: Porto

Alegre.

Malkina-Pykh, I.G. 2002. „Integrated Assessment Models and Response Function

Models: Pros and Cons for Sustainable Development Indices Design‟. Ecological


Malta (Government of). 2002. State of the Environment Report for Malta. Ministry for

Home Affairs and the Environment: Valletta

Maltchik, L., Stenert, C. and Rolon, A.S. 2003. „Conservação das Áreas Úmidas‟. In:

Biodiversidade e Conservação de Áreas Úmidas da Bacia do Rio dos Sinos.

Maltchik, L. (ed.). Editora UNISINOS: São Leopoldo, pp. 64-76.

Manos, B., Bournaris, T.H., Silleos, N., Antonopoulos, V. and Papathanasiou, J. 2004.

„A Decision Support System Approach for Rivers Monitoring and Sustainable

Management‟. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 96, 85-98.

Marcuello, C. and Menéndez, M. 2003. Eurowatenet Quantity: Technical Guidelines

for Implementation. Technical Report No. 99. EEA: Copenhagen.

Margerum, R.D. and Whitall, D. 2004. „The Challenges and Implications of

Collaborative Management on a River Basin Scale‟. Journal of Environmental


Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B. 1999. Designing Qualitative Research. 3rd

Edition.

Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi.

Masera O., Astier M. and López- Ridaura S. 1999. Sustentabilidad y Manejo de

Recursos Naturales. El marco de evaluación MESMIS. Mundi-Prensa, GIRA &

UNAM: Mexico.

Marx, K. 1970. Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. Translation of M.

Milligan. Lawrence and Wishart: London.

Marwick, J.D. 1898. The River Clyde and the Harbour of Glasgow. Robert Anderson:

Glasgow.

May, T. 1997. Social Research: Issues, Methods and Processes. 2nd

Edition. Open

University Press: Buckingham & Philadelphia.

May, T. 1998. „Reflexivity in the Age of Reconstructive Social Science‟. International

Journal of Social Research Methodology, Theory and Practice, Vol. 1 No 1.

May, P. (ed). 1999. Natural Resource Valuation and Policy in Brazil. Columbia

University Press: New York.

McAlpine, J.D. 1999. The Use of Stochastic Simulation to Investigate Trends in the

Water Quality of the River Clyde Catchment Area. PhD Thesis. University of

Paisley. 343p.

278

McNally, R. and Tognetti, S. 2002. Tackling Poverty and Promoting Sustainable

Development: Key Lessons for Integrated River Basin Management. WWF

Discussion Paper. WWF-UK: Surrey.

Mebratu, D. 1998. „Sustainability and Sustainable Development: Historical and

Conceptual Review‟. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 18, 493-520.

Merrett, S. 1997. Introduction to the Economics of Water Resources: An International

Perspective. UCL Press: London.

Metha, L. 2003. „Contexts and Constructions of Scarcity‟. The Alternative Water

Forum. Workshop held in Bradford, 1-2 May 2003. Bradford Centre for

International Development, University of Bradford (publisher).

Milano, L.B.M. 1988. A Problemática Ambiental de Resíduos Líquidos na Bacia do

Rio dos Sinos. Research Report. IPH/UFRGS: Porto Alegre.

Mitchell, B. and Pigram, J.J. 1989. „Integrated Resource Management and the Hunter

Valley Conservation Trust, NSW, Australia‟. Applied Geography, 9, 196-211.

MI (Macaulay Land Use Research Institute). 1993. The Land Cover of Scotland- 1988.

MI: Aberdeen.

Moretti, L. 1980. Análise de Autodepuração em Cursos de Água: Aplicação ao Rio

dos Sinos. MSc Dissertation. IPH/UFRGS: Porto Alegre. 131 p.

Morriseey, J. 2000. „Indicators of Citizen Participation: Lessons from Learning Teams

in Rural EZ/EC Communities‟. Community Development Journal, 35, 59-74.

Morse, S. 2003a. „For Better or for Worse, Till the Human Development Index do us

Part?‟ Ecological Economics, 45, 281-96.

Morse, S. 2003b. „Greening the United Nation's Human Development Index?‟

Sustainable Development, 11, 183-98.

Mosley, M.P. 1996. „A Participatory Process Approach to Development of a

Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan for Sri Lanka‟. Water


Moss, B. 2003. Defining Ecological Quality: The Water Framework Challenge.

Conference hosted by the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental

Management in November 2003. The Ends Report, Issue No. 347.

Mukherjee, N. 2002. Planning and Monitoring for Sustainability and Equity.

Proceedings of the 28th

WECD Conference, Calcutta, India.

Munasinghe, M. 1993. Environmental Economics and Sustainable Development.

World Bank Environmental Paper No. 3, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Munro, N. 1907. The Clyde: River and Firth. Adam and Charles Black: London.

Murdoch, J. 1993. „Sustainable Rural Development: Towards a Research Agenda‟.

Geoforum, 24, 225-241.

Naiman, R.J. 1992. „New Perspectives for Watershed Management: Balancing Long-

term Sustainability with Cumulative Environmental Change‟. In: Watershed

Management: Balancing Sustainability and Environmental Change. Naiman, R.J.

(ed.). Springer-Verlag: New York, pp. 3-11.

NERPB (North East River Purification Board). 1992. Seventeenth Annual Report for

the Period January 1991 – March 1992. NERPB: Aberdeen.

279

NERPB (North East River Purification Board). 1993. Eighteenth Annual Report for

the Period April 1992 – March 1993. NERPB: Aberdeen.

NERPB (North East River Purification Board). 1995. Twentieth Annual Report for the

Period April 1994 – March 1995. NERPB: Aberdeen.

Neumayer, E. 2001. „The Human Development Index and Sustainability. A

Constructive Proposal‟. Ecological Economics, 39, 101-114.

Newson, M. 1994. Hydrology and the River Environment. Claredon Press: Oxford.

Newson, M. 1996. „Land, Water and Development: Key Themes Driving International

Policy on Catchment Management‟. In: Multiple Land Use and Catchment

Management. Proceedings of an International Conference held in Aberdeen, 11-

13 September 1996. Aberdeen Research Consortium & Macaulay Institute:

Aberdeen, pp. 11-21.

Newson, M., Gardiner, J. and Slater, S. 2000. „Planning and Managing for the Future‟.

In: The Hydrology of the UK: A Study of Change. Acreman, M. (ed.). Routledge

& British Hydrological Society: London, pp. 244-269.

NHMP (National Hydrological Monitoring Programme). 2003a. Hydrological

Summary for the United Kingdom – August 2003. Centre for Ecology and

Hydrology & British Geological Survey.

NHMP (National Hydrological Monitoring Programme). 2003b. Hydrological

Summary for the United Kingdom – September 2003. Centre for Ecology and

Hydrology & British Geological Survey.

Njoh, A. J. 2002. „Barriers to Community Participation in Development Planning:

Lessons from the Mutengene (Cameron) Self-help Water Project‟. Community

Development Journal, 37, 232-248.

Nilsson, J. and Bergström, S. 1995. „Indicators for the Assessment of Ecological

and Economic Consequences of Municipal Policies‟. Ecological Economics, 14,

175-184.

Niemeijer, D. 2002. „Developing Indicators for Environmental Policy: Data-driven

and Theory-driven Approaches Examined by Example‟. Environmental Science

and Policy, 5, 91-103.

Norgaard, R. B. 1994. Development Betrayed - The End of Progress and a

Coevolutionary Revisioning of the Future. Routledge: London & New York.

Norton, B. 1999. „Ecology and Opportunity: Intergenerational Equity and Sustainable

Options‟. In: Fairness and Futurity – Essays on Environmental Sustainability

and Social Justice. Dobson, A. (ed.). Oxford University Press: New York, pp.

118-150.

NoWA (North of Scotland Water Authority). 2001. Sustainable Development Review.

Incorporating our Environmental Performance Report 2000/01 and Sustainable

Development Plan 2001/02. Inverness.

O‟ Connor, M. 1999. Dialogue and Debate in a Post-normal Practice of Science: A

Reflexion. Futures, 31, 671-687.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 1998. Towards

Sustainable Development: Environmental Indicators. OECD: Paris.

280

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2001. Sustainable

Development: Critical Issues. OECD: Paris.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2002. Urban

Renaissance. Glasgow: Lessons for Innovation and Implementation. OECD:

Paris.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2003. Improving

Water Management: Recent OECD Experience. OECD: Paris.

Oppenheim, A. N. 1992. Questionnaire, Design, Interviewing and Attitude

Measurement. 2nd

Edition. Pinter Publishers: London & New York.

Opschoor, H. and Rejinders, L. 1991. „Towards Sustainable Development Indicators‟.

In: In Search of Indicators of Sustainable Development. Kuik, O. and

Verbruggen, H. (eds.). Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht.

O‟Riordan, T. 1993. „The politics of sustainability‟. In: Sustainable Environmental

Economics and Management: Principles and Practice. Turner, R.K. (ed.).

Belhaven Press: London, pp. 37-69.

O‟Riordan, T. 2002. „Governing for a Sustainable Scotland‟. In: The State of

Scotland’s Environment and Natural Heritage. Usher, M.B., Mackey, E.C. and

Curran, J.C. (eds). SEPA, SNH & Stationery Office: Edinburgh, pp. 305-319.

O‟Riordan, T. 2004. „Environmental Science, Sustainability and Politics‟.

Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 29, 234-247.

O‟Riordan, T. and Voisey, H. 1998. „The Political Economy of the Sustainability

Transition‟. In: The Transition to Sustainability: The Politics of Agenda 21 in

Europe. O‟Riordan, T. and Voisey, H. (eds.). Earthscan: London, pp. 3-30.

Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Ostrom, E., Schoroeder, L. and Wynee, S. 1993. Institutional Incentives and

Sustainable Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspective. Westview

Press: San Francisco.

Owen, R. 1995. „Water Quality in the Dee Catchment‟. In: Salmon in the Dee

Catchment: The Scientific Basis for Management. Atlantic Salmon Trust:

Pitlochry.

Owens, S. 1994. „Land, Limits and Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and

Some Dilemmas of the Planning System‟. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, 19, 439-456.

Owens, S. and Owens, P. 1990. Environment, Resources and Conservation.

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Owens-Viani, L., Wong, A.K. and Gleick, P.H. 1999. Sustainable Use of Water:

California Success Stories – Executive Summary. Pacific Institute for Studies in

Development, Environment and Security: Oakland.

Parkes, M. and Panelli, R. 2001. „Integrating Catchment Ecosystems and

Community Health: The Value of Participatory Action Research‟. Ecosystem

Health, 7, 85-106.

281

PASTILLE (Promoting Action for Sustainability through Indicators at the Local Level

in Europe). 2002. Indicators into Action: Local Sustainability Indicators Sets in

their Context – Final Report. PASTILLE, London School of Economics: London.

Paula, C.C. 1995. Caracterização Ambiental da Bacia de Drenagem do Rio dos Sinos.

MSc Dissertation. UNISINOS: São Leopoldo. 138 p.

Pearce, D.W. 1994. Blueprint 3: Measuring Sustainable Development. CSERGE:

London.

Pearce, D.W. 1998. Economics and Environment: Essays on Ecological Economics

and Sustainable Development. Edwar Elgar: Cheltenham & Northampton.

Pearce, D.W., Barbier, E. and Markandya, A. 1990. Sustainable Development:

Economics and Environment in the Third World. Edward Elgar: Hants.

Pearce, D.W. and Barbier, E.D. 2000. Blueprint for a Sustainable Economy. Kogan

Page: London.

Peet, J. and Bossel, H. 2000. „An Ethics-based System Approach to Indicators of

Sustainable Development‟. International Journal of Sustainable Development,

3(3).

Pereira, J.S. 1996. Análise de Critérios de Outorga e de Cobrança pelo Uso da Água na

Bacia do Rio dos Sinos. MSc Dissertation. IPH/UFRGS: Porto Alegre. 110 p.

Pereira, J.S. 2002. A Cobrança pelo Uso da Água como Instrumento de Gestão de

Recursos Hídricos: Da Experiência Francesa à Prática Brasileira. PhD Thesis.

IPH/UFRGS: Porto Alegre. 382 p.

Pereira, J.S., Lanna, A.E. and Cánepa, E.M. 1999. „Desenvolvimento de um Sistema

de Apoio à Cobrança pelo Uso da Água: Aplicação à Bacia do Rio dos Sinos,

RS‟. Revista Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos, 4, 77-101.

Perry, J. A. and Vanderklein, E. 1996. Water Quality: Management of a Natural

Resource. Blackwell Science: Oxford.

Petts, G.E. 1996. „Water Allocation to Protect River Ecosystems‟. Regulated Rivers:

Research and Management, 12, 353-365.

Pezzey, J. 1992. Sustainable Development Concepts, An Economic Analysis. World

Bank Environmental Paper No. 2, World Bank, Washington, DC.

Pinfield, G. 1996. „Beyond Sustainability Indicators‟. Local Environment, 1, 151-164.

Pinfield, G. 1997. „The Use of Indicators in Local Sustainable Development Planning:

A Response to Jeb Brugmann‟. Local Environment, 2, 185-187.

Pollock, D. 1898. Dictionary of the Clyde: From Tinto to Aisla Craig. 2nd

Edition.

John Menzies: Glasgow.

Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.

Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.

Porto, M. 1998. „The Brazilian Water Law: A New Level of Participation and

Decision Making‟. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 14,

175-182.

Postel, S. 1997. Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity. Norton and Worldwatch Institute:

New York & London.

282

Prates, S.H. and De Luca, S.J. 1997. „Diagnóstico Atual e Simulação da Futura

Qualidade das Águas do Rio dos Sinos/RS‟. In: XIX Congresso Brasileiro de

Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental. Proceedings of a Congress held in Foz do

Iguaçu, 14-19 September 1997.

Prescott-Allen, R. 1995. The Barometer of Sustainability: A Method of Assessing

Progress Towards Sustainable Societies. International Union for the Conservation

of Nature and Natural Resources and PADATA: Gland & Victoria.

Price, D. and McInally, G. 2001. Climate Chang: Review of Levels of Protection

Offered by Flood Prevention Schemes. Scottish Executive Central Research Unit:

Edinburgh.

Pró-Guaíba (Guaiba Watershed Environmental Management Program). 1998.

Relatório Síntese: Diagnóstico do Plano Diretor de Controle e Administração

Ambiental da Bacia Hidrográfica do Guaíba. Pró-Guaíba: Porto Alegre.

Pró-Guaíba (Guaiba Watershed Environmental Management Program). 2003.

Available on line at: http://www.proguaiba.rs.gov.br (Accessed on 22/09/2003).

Pró-Guaíba (Guaiba Watershed Environmental Management Program). 2004. Mapas.

Available on line at: http://www.proguaiba.rs.gov.br/mapas/mapas_index.htm


Ragin, C.C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and

Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press: Berkley, Los Angeles

& London.

Raju, K.S., Duckstein, L. and Arondel, C. 2000. „Multicriterion Analysis for

Sustainable Water Resources Planning: A Case Study in Spain‟. Water Resources


Randolph, C. 1871. Remarks on Improvements of the River Clyde. Glasgow. (Private

circulation publication).

Rauch, W. 1998. „Problems of Decision Making for a Sustainable Development‟.


Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Rees, J. 1993. Water for Life: Strategies for Sustainable Water Resources

Management. CPRE: London.

Rehbein, M.O., Collischonn, E. and Etges, V.E. 2001.‟Mapeamento da Cobertura

Florestal da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardinho‟. In: II Seminário Regional de

Educação Ambiental. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Santa Cruz do Sul,

2001. Delevati, D.M., Vaz, V.B., Bonnenberger, F. and Brinckmann, C.A. (eds).

Comitê de Gerenciamento da Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardo (publisher), p. 58.

Reid, D. 1995. Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. Earthscan: London.

Reid, D.C., Lamb, A.J., Lilly, A., McGaw, B.A., Gauld, J.H., Cooper, D. and

McLaren, C. 2001. „Improvements to Source Protection for Private Water

Supplies in Scotland, UK‟. Water Policy, 3, 273-281.

Reid, D.C., Edwards, A.C., Cooper, D., Wilson, E. and Mcgaw, B.A. 2003. „The

Quality of Drinking Water from Private Water Supplies in Aberdeenshire, UK‟.

Water Research, 37, 245-254.

283

Reinheimer, D.N. 1999. As Colônias Alemãs, Rios e Porto Alegre: Estudo Sobre

Imigração Alemã e Navegação Fluvial no Rio Grande do Sul (1850-1900). MSc

Dissertation. UNISINOS: São Leopoldo. 144 p.

Rennings, K. and Wiggering, H. 1997. „Steps towards Indicators of Sustainable

Development: Linking Economic and Ecological Concepts‟. Ecological

Economics, 20, 25-36.

Richter, B.D., Baumgartner, J.V., Powell, J. and Braun, D.P. 1996. „A Method for

Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems‟. Conservation Biology,

10, 1163-1174.

Riddell, J. 2000. The Clyde: The Making of a River. John Donald: Edinburgh.

Rijsberman, M.A. and van de Vem, F.H.M. 2000. „Different Approaches to

Assessment of Desing and Management of Sustainable Urban Water Systems‟.

Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20, 333-345.

Riley, J. 2001a. „Multidisciplinary Indicators of Impact and Change: Key Issues

for Identification and Summary‟. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment,

87, 245-259.

Riley, J. 2001b. „The Indicators Explosion: Local Needs and International

Challenges‟. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 87, 119-120.

Rivers Pollution Commission. 1872. Pollution of Rivers of Scotland - Fourth Report

1868. Volumes I & II. HMSO: London.

Robertson, W.F. 1949. „A History of the River Clyde and the Development of the Port

of Glasgow‟. The Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland

Transactions, 92, 237-259.

Robinson, G.M. 1998. Methods and Techniques in Human Geography. Wiley:

Chichester.

RS (Rio Grande do Sul, State Government). 1998. Diagnóstico do Plano Diretor de

Controle e Administração Ambiental da Bacia Hidrográfica do Guaíba.

Relatório Síntese. Porto Alegre.

RS (Rio Grande do Sul, State Government). 2002. Relatório Anual sobre a Situação

dos Recursos Hídricos no Estado do Rio Grande do Sul. Porto Alegre.

Rydin, Y. 1999. „Can We Talk Ourselves into Sustainability? The Role of Discourse

in the Environmental Policy Process‟. Environmental Values, 8, 467-484.

Rydin, Y., Holman, N. and Wolff, E. 2003. „Local Sustainability Indicators‟. Local


Sabin, G.P., Ferrão, M.F., Lobo, E.A., Costa, A.B. and Kirst, A. 2002. „Aplicação de

Métodos Quimiométricos no Estudo da Qualidade da Água de Poços Artesianos

da Região dos Vales do Rio Pardo e Rio Taquari, RS, Brasil‟. Redes, 7, 77-88.

Sauer, C.O. 1925. „The Morphology of Landscape‟. University of California

Publications in Geography II, 2, 19-54.

Savenije, H.H.G. 2002. „Why Water is not an Ordinary Economic Good, or Why the

Girl is Special‟. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 27, 741-744.

Scandrett, E. 2000. „Community Work, Sustainable Development and Environmental

Justice‟. Scottish Journal of Community Work and Development, Volume 6,

Spring 2000.

284

Scenes. 2004. Scottish Environment News, Issue 193, February 2004. Inverarnie,

Invervess-shire.

Schmitz, H. 1999. Global Competition and Local Cooperation: Success and Failure in

the Sinos Valley, Brazil. World Development, 27, 1627-1650.

Schreier, H. and Brown, S. 2001. „Scaling Issues in Watersheds Assessment‟. Water

Policy, 3, 475-489.

Schwerin, J. 2004. „The Evolution of the Clyde Region‟s Shipbuilding Innovation

System in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century‟. Journal of Economic

Geography, 4, 83-101.

Scott, J. 1990. A Matter of Record: Documentary Sources in Social Research. Polity

Press: Cambridge.

Scottish Executive. 2000a. Public Water Supplies in Scotland 1998-1999. Water

Resources Survey. Water Services Unit: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2000b. Scottish Economic Statistics. Scottish Executive Statistical

Services: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2001a. Public Water Supplies in Scotland 1999-2000. Water

Resources Survey. Water Services Unit: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2001b. Public Water Supplies in Scotland. Water Resources

Survey 2000-2001. Water Services Unit: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2001c. Scottish Economic Statistics. Scottish Executive Statistical


Scottish Executive. 2001d. Private Water Supply Regulation: A Consultation. Water

Services Unit: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2001e. Scottish Social Statistics. Scottish Executive Statistical


Scottish Executive. 2002a. Meeting the Needs: Priorities, Actions and Targets for

Sustainable Development in Scotland. Scottish Executive Environment Group:

Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2002b. Review of Scotland’s Cities - The Analysis. Scottish

Executive Policy Unit: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2002c. Key Scottish Environment Statistics. Scottish Executive

Statistical Services: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2002d. Scottish Economic Statistics. Scottish Executive Statistical


Scottish Executive. 2002e. Drinking Water Quality in Scotland 2001. Water Services

Unit: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2003a. Indicators of Sustainable Development for Scotland.

HMSO: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2003b. Public Water Supplies in Scotland. Water Resources

Survey 2001-2002. Water Services Unit: Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive. 2003c. Key Scottish Environment Statistics. Scottish Executive

Statistical Services: Edinburgh.

285

Scottish Office. 1992. Common Sense and Sustainability: A Partnership for the

Cairngorms. A report by the Cairngorms Working Party to the Chairman Magnus

Magnusson.

Scottish Office. 1994. An Assessment of Demands and Resources at 1994. HMSO:

Edinburgh.

Scottish Parliament. 2003. Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Bill –

Explanatory Note (and other accompanying documents). Edinburgh.

Scottish Water. 2002. Katrine Water Project: Planning Statement. Prepared by

Environmental Resources Management: Edinburgh.

Scottish Water. 2003. Draft Minutes. Public Meeting, Wednesday 19 March 2003,

Ramada Jarvis Hotel, Market Street, Aberdeen.

Scottish Water. 2004. Metered Household Charges. Available on line at:

http://www.scottishwater.co.uk/html/charges_-_metered.html (Accessed on

11/02/2004).

SDD (Scottish Development Department). 1973. A Measure of Plenty. Water

Resources in Scotland. A General Survey. HMSO: Edinburgh.

SDD (Scottish Development Department). 1984. Public Water Supplies in Scotland.

An Assessment of Demands and Resources at 1984. SDD: Edinburgh.

SDRC (Social Disadvantage Research Centre). 2003. Scottish Indices of Deprivation

2003. Social Disadvantage Research Centre. Oxford University.

Senra, J.B. 2001. „Água, o Desafio do Terceiro Milênio‟. In: O Desafio da

Sustentabilidade: Um Debate Socioambiental no Brasil. Viana, G., Silva, M. and

Diniz, N. (eds.). Editora Fundação Perseu Abramo: São Paulo, pp. 133-144.

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency). 2000a. The River Dee: Catchment

Management Plan Issues. Consultation Document. SEPA: Aberdeen.

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency). 2000b. West Region Water Quality

Review. CD-ROM. SEPA: Stirling.

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency). 2002a.Water Quality Classification.

SEPA: Stirling.

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency). 2002b. The Future of Scotland’s

Waters: Guiding Principles on the Technical Requirements of the Water

Framework Directive. SEPA: Stirling.

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency). 2003a. SEPA's Water Framework

Directive Website. Available on line at: http://www.sepa.org.uk (Accessed

several times in 2002 and 2003).

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency). 2003b. Glasgow and Clyde Valley

Area Waste Plan. SEPA & Scottish Executive.

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency). 2004. Pressures and Impacts on

Scotland’s Water Environment: Report and Consultation. SEPA: Stirling.

Seroa da Motta, R. 2004. „Questões Regulatórias do Setor de Saneamento no Brasil‟.

Nota Técnica No. 5. IPEA: Rio de Janeiro.

286

SESO (Scottish Environment Statistics Online). 2003. Water Resources and Water

Supply. Available on line at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/envonline/

menu1.asp?cat=4&des= Water+Resources+and+Water+Supply (Accessed on

21/10/2003).

Shields, D.J., Šolar, S.V. and Martin, W.E. 2002. „The Role of Values and

Objectives in Communicating Indicators of Sustainability‟. Ecological

Economics, 2, 149-160.

Silva, E.R. 1998. O Curso da Água na História: Simbologia, Moralidade e a Gestão de

Recursos Hídricos. PhD Thesis. Fundação Oswaldo Cruz/Escola Nacional de

Saúde Pública: Rio de Janeiro. 214 p.

Silveira, R. 1980. „Sinopse sobre as Condições Hidrológicas e Hidráulicas do Rio dos

Sinos/RS‟. In: Seminário Sobre a Poluição e Possibilidade de Recuperação do

Rio dos Sinos. Proceedings of a Workshop held in São Leopoldo, April 1980.

Silveira, R.L.L. 2002. „Repensando a Região: O Planejamento Estratégico e

Participativo no Vale do Rio Pardo – RS‟. Redes, 7, 167-196.

Silveira, R.L.L. and Silveira, R.C.E. 2002. „O Processo de Urbanização e o

Saneamento Básico na Bacia Hidrográfica do Rio Pardo‟. In: III Seminário

Regional de Educação Ambiental. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Santa

Cruz do Sul, 2002. Delevati, D.M., Vaz, V.B., Bonnenberger, F., Brinckmann,

C.A. and Schmidt, L.M. (eds). Comitê de Gerenciamento da Bacia Hidrográfica

do Rio Pardo (publisher), pp.89-116.

Simonovic, S.P. 1996. „Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Management of

Water Resources: 1. General Principles‟. Water International, 21, 223-232.

Smart, R.P., Soulsby, C., Neal, C., Wade, A., Cresser, M.S., Billett, M.F., Langan,

S.J., Edwards, A.C., Jarvie, H.P. and Owen, R. 1998. „Factors Regulating the

Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Solute Concentrations in a Major River

System in NE Scotland‟. Science of the Total Environment, 221, 93-110.

Smith, R. 1985a. „The Industrialisation of the Clyde Valley‟. In Strategic Planning in

Action: The Impact of the Clyde Valley: The Impact of the Clyde Valley Regional

Plan 1946-1982. Smith, R. and Wannop, U. (eds.). Gower: Hampshire, pp.5-16.

Smith, J.S. 1985b. „Land Use within the Catchment of the River Dee‟. In: The Biology

and Management of the River Dee. Jenkins, D. (ed.). ITE Symposium No. 14.

Institute of Terrestrial Ecology & National Research Council: Abbots

Ripton, pp. 29-33.

Smith, B. 1994. „The Medway River Project: An Example of Community Participation

in Integrated River Management‟. In: Urban Waterside Regeneration Problems

and Prospects. White, K.N., Bellinger, E.G., Saul, A.J., Symes, M. and Hendry,

K. (eds.). Ellis Horwood: Chichester.

Smith, M.J. 1998. Social Science in Question. Sage Publications: London, Thousand

Oaks & New Delhi.

Smith, K. and Bennett, A.M. 1994. „Recently Increased River Discharge in Scotland:

Effects on Flow Hydrology and Some Implications for Water Management‟.

Applied Geography, 14, 123-133.

287

Smith, J. K. and D. K. Deemer. 2000. „The Problem of Criteria in the Age of

Relativism‟. In: Handbook of Qualitative Research. 2nd

Edition. N. K. Denzin and

Y. S. Lincoln (eds.). Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi,

pp. 877-895.

SNH (Scottish Natural Heritage). 2000. A Proposal for a Cairngorms National Park.

A Consultation on the Area, Powers and Representation for the Proposed

National Park. SNH: Aberdeen.

SNS (Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics). 2003. Information about Scotland‟s Areas.

Available on line at: http://www.sns.gov.uk/Default.asp (Accessed on

26/09/2003).

Soja, E.W. 1989. Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Critical

Social Theory. Verso: London & New York.

Sophocleous, M. 2000. „From Safe Yield to Sustainable Development of Water

Resources – The Kansas Experience‟. Journal of Hydrology, 235, 27-43.

Sophocleous, M. 2004. „Global and Regional Water Availability and Demand:

Prospects for the Future‟. Natural Resources Research, 13, 61-75.

Soulsby, C., Turnbull, D., Hirst, D., Langan, S.J. and Owen, R. 1997. „Reversibility of

Stream Acidification in the Cairngorm Region of Scotland‟. Journal of

Hydrology, 195, 291-311.

Soulsby, C., Langan, S.J. and Neal, C. 2001. „Environmental Change, Land Use and

Water Quality in Scotland: Current Issues and Future Prospects‟. Science of the

Total Environment, 265, 387-394.

Soulsby, C., Black, A.R. and Werrity, A. 2002. „Hydrology in Scotland: Towards a

Scientific Basis for the Sustainable Management of Freshwater Resources.

Foreword to Thematic Issue‟. Science of the Total Environment, 294, 3-11.

Spanemberg, G.S., Ortiz, L.S. and Frankenberg, C.L.C. 1997. „Estudo Dinâmico da

Contaminação por Cromo na Estação Si008 (ponte Tabaí-Canoas) do Rio dos

Sinos/RS a Partir do Tratamento Diferenciado de Dados de Concentração e Vazão

Fluvial‟. In: XII Simpósio Brasileiro de Recursos Hídricos. Proceedings of a

Symposium held in Vitória, 16-20 November 1997.

Spangenberg, J.H. 2002. „Environmental Space and the Prism of Sustainability:

Frameworks for Indicators Measuring Sustainable Development‟. Ecological


Spangenberg, J.H., Pfahl, S. and Deller, K. 2002. „Towards Indicators for Institutional

Sustainability: Lessons from an Analysis of Agenda 21‟. Ecological Indicators,

2, 61-77.

Spies, R.S. 1997. „O Impacto de uma Variação na Demanda Regional Final sobre a

Economia do Vale do Rio Pardo – RS‟. Estudos do CEPE, 5, 95-115.

SPJC (Structure Plan Joint Committee). 1995. Strathclyde Structure Plan 1995.

Glasgow.

SPJC (Structure Plan Joint Committee). 2003. Glasgow and the Clyde Valley Joint

Structure Plan 2000: Collaboration for Success. SPJC: Glasgow.

288

SRC (Strathclyde Regional Council). 1995. Strathclyde Sustainability Indicators.

Glasgow.

Stagl, S. 2004. „Valuation for Sustainable Development – The Role of Multicriteria

Evaluation‟. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 73, 1-10.

Starkl, M. and Bruneer, N. 2004. „Feasibility Versus Sustainability in Urban Water

Management‟. Journal of Environmental Management, 71, 245-260.

Stein, A., Riley, J. and Halberg, N. 2001. „Issues of Scale for Environmental

Indicators‟. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 87, 215-232.

Stevenson, F. and Ball, J. 1998. „Sustainability and Materiality: The Bioregional and

Cultural Challenges to Evaluation‟. Local Environment, 3, 191-209.

Sullivan, C. 2001. „The Potential for Calculating a Meaningful Water Poverty Index‟.

Water International, 26, 471-480.

Svendsen, M. and Meinzen-Dick, R. 1997. „Irrigation Management Institutions in

Transition: A Look Back, a Look Forward‟. Irrigation and Drainage Systems,

11, 139-156.

SWA (Scottish Water Authorities). 2000. Using Water in the Home in Scotland –

Domestic Water Consumption in 1999. East of Scotland Water, North of Scotland

Water & West of Scotland Water.

Swaloow, B.M., Garrity, D.P. and van Noordwijk, M. 2001. „The Effects of Scales,

Flows and Filters on Property Rights and Collective Action in Watershed

Management‟. Water Policy, 3, 457-474.

Swyngedouw, E. 1999. „Modernity and Hybridity: Nature, Regeneracionismo, and the

Production of the Spanish Waterscape, 1890-1930‟. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers, 89, 443-465.

Syme, G.J., Nancarrow, B.E. and McCreddin, J.A . 1999. „Defining the Components

of Fairness in the Allocation of Water to Environmental and Human Uses‟.

Journal of Environmental Management, 57, 51-70.

The Economist. 2003. Frozen taps. Published on 29/05/2003.

Tortajada, C. 2001. Environmental Sustainability of Water Projects. PhD Thesis.

Royal Institute of Technology: Stockholm. 175p.

Tucci, C.E.M. 2002. Impactos da Variabilidade Climática e do Uso do Solo nos

Recursos Hídricos. ANA: Brasília.

Tucci, C.E.M. and Moretti, L. 1982. „Steady and Non-steady Flow Models for

Simulation of Water Quality in Rivers‟. In: Effects of Waste Disposal on

Groundwater and Surface Water. Proceedings of a Symposium held in Exeter,

July 1982. Perry, R. (ed.). IAHS Publication No. 139.

Tyson, J.M. 1995. „Quo Vadis – Sustainability?‟ Water Science and Technology,

32, 1-5.

UKTAG (United Kingdom Technical Advisory Group on the European Water

Framework Directive). 2004. Guidance WP7b: Abstraction and Flow Regulation

Pressures. Available on line at: http://www.wfduk.org/tag_guidance/Article_05/

Folder.2004-02-16.5332/view (Accessed on 15/02/2004).

289

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). 1993.

Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. UN Publication

No. E93.1.11. UNCED: New York.

UNCSD (United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development). 2001. Indicators

of Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies. UNCSD: New York.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1998. Desenvolvimento Humano e

Condições de Vida: Indicadores Brasileiros. Atlas do Desenvolvimento Humano

no Brasil. Projeto “Desenvolvimento Humano no Brasil” (BRA/97/007). UNDP,

IPEA, Fundação João Pinheiro & IBGE: Brasília.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2003. Atlas do Desenvolvimento

Humano no Brasil. Available on line at: http://www.undp.org.br


UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2004. Atlas do Desenvolvimento

Humano no Brasil. Software Version 1.0.0. ESM Consultoria & UNDP: Brasília.

UNECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean). 2000.

Sustainable Development: Latin American and Caribbean Perspectives. Based on

the Regional Consultative Meeting on Sustainable Development 19-21 January

2000, Santiago, Chile. UNECLAC: Santiago.

UNECLAC. (Economic Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean). 2002. La

Sostenabilidad del Desarrollo en América Latin y el Caribe: Desafíos y

Oportunidades. Document LC/G.2145/Rev. 1-P. UNECLAC & UNEP: Santiago.

UNGA (United Nations General Assembly). 2000. United Nations Millennium

Declaration. Resolution 55/2. UNGA: New York.

UNWWAP. 2003. Water for People - Water for Life - The United Nations World

Water Development Report. UNWWAP & UNESCO: Paris.

van Ast, J.A. and Boot, S.P. 2003. „Participation in European Water Policy‟. Physics

and Chemistry of the Earth, 28, 555-562.

van Horen, B. 2001. „Developing Community-based Watershed Management in

Greater São Paulo: The Case of Santo André‟. Environment and Urbanization,

13, 209-222.

Varis, O. 1999. „Dreams and Reality in Water Resources Management: A Critical

View to Leading Paradigms‟. Global Environmental Change, 9, 255-259.

Varis, O. and Somlyódy, L. 1997. „Global Urbanization and Urban Water: Can

Sustainability be Afforded‟. Water Science and Technology, 35, 21-32.

Veeman, T.S. and Politylo, J. 2003. „The Role of Institutions and Policy in Enhancing

Sustainable Development and Conserving Natural Capital‟. Environment,

Development and Sustainability, 5, 317-332.

Vega, M.C.L. and Urrutia, A.M. 2001. „HDPI: A Framework for Pollution-sensitive

Human Development Indicators‟. Environment, Development and Sustainability,

3, 199-215.

Vellinho, M. 1970. Capitania d’El-Rei: Aspectos Polêmicos da Formação Rio-

grandense. 2nd

Edition. Editora Globo: Porto Alegre.

Vieira, V.P.P.B. 1998. „Water Resources in Brazil and the Sustainable Development of

the Semi-arid North East‟. Water Resources Development, 14, 183-198.

290

Wackernagel, M. and Rees, W. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint. New Society:

Philadelphia.

Wade, A.J., Neal, C., Soulsby, C., Langan, S.J. and Smart, R.P. 2001. „On Modelling

the Effects of Afforestation on Acidification in Heterogeneous Catchments at

Different Spatial and Temporal Scales‟. Journal of Hydrology, 250, 149-169.

Wagner, W., Gawel, J., Furumai, H., Souza, M.P., Teixeira, D., Rios, L., Ohgaki, S.,

Zehnder, A.J.B. and Hemond, H.F. 2002. „Sustainable Watershed Management:

An International Multi-water Case Study‟. Ambio, 31, 2-13.

Walker, F.D. 1984. Song of the Clyde: A History of Clyde Shipbuilding. Patrick

Stephens: Cambridge.

Walker, S. 2001. „Opportunities for Balancing Conflicting Economic, Social and

Environmental Pressures on River Basins through an Integrated Approach with

Stakeholder Involvement‟. In: Regional Management of Water Resources,

Schumann, A.H. (ed.), IAHS Pub No. 268, Wallingford.

Walker, S. 2002. „Balancing Social, Economic and Environmental Pressures through

Integrated River Basin Management in the Cairngorms Mountains NE Scotland‟.

In: Integrated Water Resources Management. Proceedings of a Symposium held

at Davis, California, April 2000. Mariño, M.A. and Simonovic, S.P. (eds.), IAHS

Publication No. 272. IAHS: Wallingford, pp. 45-50.

Walmsley, J.J. 2002. „Framework for Measuring Sustainable Development in

Catchment Systems‟. Environmental Management, 29, 195-206.

Warren, J.S. 1985. „Hydrology of the River Dee and its Tributaries‟. In: The Biology

and Management of the River Dee. Jenkins, D. (ed.). ITE Symposium No. 14.

Institute of Terrestrial Ecology & National Research Council: Abbots Ripton, pp.

23-28.

Warren, C. 2002. Managing Scotland’s Environment. Edinburgh University Press:

Edinburgh.

Water UK. 2000. Towards Environmental Sustainability: Indicators for the UK Water

Industry. Water UK: London.

Watson, N. 2001. „The Myth of Multi-stakeholder Partnership in Sustainable Water

Resources Management‟. In: Globalization and Water Management: The

Challenging Value of Water. Proceedings of the Conference held in Dundee, 6-8

August 2001. AWRA & University of Dundee (publishers).

Wattage, P. and Soussan, J. 2003. „Incorporating Environmental Value and Externality

in Project Evaluation as a Sustainability Indicator to evaluate Bangladesh Water

Development‟. Water Resources Management, 17, 429-446.

WCC (Water Customer Consultation). 2003. Scotland’s Water. Water Customer

Consultation Panels: Stirling.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). 1987. Our Common

Future. Oxford University Press: Oxford.

Weimer, D.L. and Vining, A.R. 1992. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. 2nd

Edition. Prentice Hall: Englewook Cliffs, New Jersey.

Wentzel, J.A. 1997. „A Sustentabilidade Qualitativa e Quantitativa do Abastecimento

de Água da Zona Urbana de Santa Cruz do Sul, RS, Brasil‟. Redes, 2, 231-246.

291

Werritty, A. 1997. „Enhancing the Quality of Freshwater Resources: The Role of

Integrated Catchment Management‟. In: Freshwater Quality: Defining the

Indefinable? Boon, P.J. and Howell, D.L. (eds.). Scottish Natural Heritage:

Edinburgh, pp. 489-505.

Werrity, A. 2002. „Living with Uncertainty: Climate Change, River Flows and Water

Resource Management in Scotland‟. Science of the Total Environment, 294,

29-40.

Werritty, A., Black, A., Duck, R., Finlinson, B., Thurston, N., Schackley, S. and

Crichton, D. 2002. Climate Change: Flooding Occurrences Review. Scottish

Executive, Central Research Unit: Edinburgh.

White, I. and Howe, J. 2003. „Planning and the European Union Water Framework

Directive‟. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 46, 621-631.

Wichelns, D. 1999. „Economic Efficiency and Irrigation Water Policy with an

Example from Egypt‟. Water Resources Development, 15, 543-560.

Williams, C. and Millington, A.C. 2004. „The Diverse and Contested meanings of

Sustainable Development‟. The Geographical Journal ,170, 99-104.

Winpenny, J. 1994. Managing Water as an Economic Resource. Routledge: London.

Wittgenstein, L. 1922. Tractatus Logico-Philosophocus. Translation of D.F. Pears and

B.F. McGuiness. Kegan Paul: London.

Wood, R., Handley, J. and Kidd, S. 1999. „Sustainable Development and Institutional

Design: The Example of the Mersey Basin Campaign‟. Journal of Environmental


World Bank. 2003. Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World: Transforming

Institutions, Growth and Quality of Life. World Development Report 2003. World

Bank & Oxford University Press: Washington, DC.

World Resources Institute. 2003. World Resources 2002-2004: Decisions for the

Earth: Balance, Voice, and Power. UNDP, UNEP, World Bank & World

Resources Institute: Washington, DC.

World Water Forum. 2003. The Third World Water Forum, March 16-23, Japan, 2003.

Available on line at: http://www.world.water-forum3.com (Accessed on

28/07/2003).

WoSWA (West of Scotland Water Authority). 2000. Sustainability Indicators

1999/2000. WoSWA: Glasgow.

Wouters, P. 2001. „The Role of Water Law in the Development of an Integrated Water

Resources Management Strategy‟. In: Globalization and Water Management: The

Challenging Value of Water. Proceedings of the Conference held in Dundee, 6-8

August 2001.American Water Resources Association & University of Dundee

(publishers).

Wright, P. 1995. „Water Resources Management in Scotland‟. Journal of the

Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management, 9, 153-163.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature). 2002. Turning the Tide on Flooding. A WWF

Scotland Report. WWF / EnviroCentre, November 2002.

WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature). 2003a. Summary of the Water Framework

Directive-related Results. June 2003. WWF‟s Water and Wetland Index Project.

292

WWF (World Wildlife Fund for Nature). 2003b. Climate change threatens vulnerable

salmon populations in Scotland warns WWF. Available on line at:

http://www.wwf.org.uk/news/scotland/n_0000000962.asp (Accessed on

06/11/2003).

Xu, Z.X., Takeuchi, K., Ishidaira, H. and Zhang, X.W. 2002. „Sustainability Analysis

for Yellow River Water Resources using the Systems Dynamic Approach‟. Water

Resources Management, 16, 239-261.

Yanarella, E.J. and Bartilow, H. 2000. „Dreams of Sustainability: Beyond the

Antinomies of the Global Sustainability Debate‟. International Journal of

Sustainable Development, 3, 370-389.

YCELP (Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy). 2001. Environmental

Sustainability Index. Global Leaders for Tomorrow, Center for International Earth

Science Network, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy. Annual

Meeting, Davos.

Yin, R.K. 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Revised Edition. Applied

Social Research Methods Series, Volume 5. Sage Publications: Newbury Park,

London & New Delhi.

Young, C.E.F and Roncisvalle, C.A. 2002. „Expenditures, Investment and Financing

for Sustainable Development in Brazil‟. Series Environment and Development,

No. 58. UNECLAC: Santiago

293

Personal Communications (Contacts made in 2003)

Banks, M. Water Resources Co-ordinator, Scottish Water, Dunfermline.

Brinckmann, W.E. Senior Lecturer, Department of History and Geography, University

of Santa Cruz do Sul (UNISC).

Christie, C. Water Resources Officer, Scottish Water, Westhill, Aberdeenshire.

Keiller, A. Private Consultant, Mott McDonald Plc, Glasgow.

Kotzian, H.B. Civil Engineer, Expert in Water Resources Management, Ecoplan

Engenharia Ltd., Porto Alegre.

Langan, S.J. Senior Researcher, Environmental Sciences, The Macaulay Land Use

Research Institute, Aberdeen.

McPhail, C. Environmental Quality Planner, Scottish Environment Protection

Agency, East Kilbride.

Nabinger, V. Executive Secretary of the Sinos River Basin Committee (Comitesinos).

Paim, P. Executive Secretary of the State Council of Water Resources (CERH) and

former president of the Sinos River Basin Committee (Comitesinos).

Rose, G. Environmental Quality Planner, Scottish Environment Protection Agency,

Aberdeen.

Silva, M.L.B.C. President of the Brazilian Association of Sanitation and

Environmental Engineering, Rio Grande do Sul chapter (ABES-RS).

Wood, A. Water Resources Planner, Scottish Water, Westhill, Aberdeenshire.

Yeomans, W. Fish biologist and Catchment manager, Clyde River Foundation,

Glasgow.

294

Appendices

Appendix I: Development of Water Sustainability Indicators for this Research

Development of Water Sustainability Indicators for this Research

Year Structure

2001

Initially, four dimensions of water sustainability were

considered (hydrological, environmental, economic and social)

Preliminary water sustainability criteria and broad list of

water sustainability issues

2002

Three dimensions of water sustainability were

eventually considered (environmental, economic

and social)

Final list of water sustainability criteria

Preliminary indicator formulations

February

2003

Preliminary Indicators tested in a Pilot-study in the River Don

September

2003

Final version of the Framework of Water Sustainability

Indicators applied to four catchments

295

Appendix II: Preliminary List of Water Sustainability Topics to be Included in Indicator Expressions

Preliminary List of Water Sustainability Topics to be Included in Indicator Expressions (2001)

CRITERION BROAD LIST OF POSSIBLE WATER SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES TO BE INCLUDED

IN THE FORMULATION OF SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

WATER QUALITY

Impact on biochemical water properties (extension of the river course with good or bad

environmental conditions related to catchment economic activity, etc.)

Alteration in organisms and in life patterns (bioindicator organisms, reduction of fish population,

biological indicators, etc.)

WATER QUANTITY

Use of renewable water resources (annual water abstraction per sector, total water available, etc.)

Use of non-renewable water resources (annual non-renewable groundwater abstraction, total non-

renewable water available, etc.)

Changes in hydrologic patterns (alteration in water flows [maximum, minimum, & mean flow],

alteration in river channel, alteration in hydrogram characteristics, etc.)

ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY

Changes in the catchment environment (land use changes, land cover changes, impacts on

wetlands, urbanisation, etc.)

Impacts on ecosystem health (reduction in biodiversity, endangered species, erosion, etc.)

WELL-BEING

Well-being promoted by water management (public health, water costs, improvements in real

state figures, flood control, etc.)

Well-being reduced by defensive expenditures („water capital accountability’ [net water revenues

= water revenues – defensive water expenditures – depreciation of natural water capital])

(continues)

296

(continuation of Appendix II)

CRITERION ELEMENTS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE FORMULATION

OF SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

EFFICIENCY Efficiency of water uses (economic valuation of water capital in comparison to water revenues, etc.)

Efficiency of the water business (reduction in unitary or marginal costs of the water services, etc.)

PUBLIC

PARTICIPATION

Opportunities available to participation (institutional and legal spaces to legitimate participation)

Participation of the public (meetings, public audiences, polls, referendum, etc.)

EQUITY

Index of equity (people served by supply, sanitation, sewer treatment, etc.)

Equity of the water development (revenues created by water business compared to the catchment

GDP, etc.)

INSTITUTIONAL

PREPAREDNESS

Institutional framework (organisation, charges, decision-making, management instruments,

legislation, role of private entrepreneurs, communication technology, demonstration of advances

towards the sustainable water management mode, etc.)

Conflict solving and negotiation processes (form of implementation of water development

projects, changes in water management, etc.)

RISKS Level of risk involved in the water decisions (drought risk, flood risk, supply reliability, etc)

Perception of risk (form of risk mitigation, risk management, etc)

297

Appendix III: Evolution of the Expressions of Water Sustainability Indicators throughout this Research

Evolution of the Expressions of Water Sustainability Indicators

CRITERIA FIRST FORMULATION

(DEC. 2002)

REVISED FORMULATION

(FEB. 2003)

SECOND REVISED FORMULATION

(SEP. 2003)

Water

Quality

( y / x )

y = total extension of river segments with

satisfactory water conditions for human

consumption


( y / x )

y = total extension of river segments with

drinkable or almost drinkable conditions

(excellent or good quality standard)


( y / x )

y = extension of river stretches into water

quality categories according to the official

classification methodology adopted locally


Water

Quantity

[( x – y ) / x ] * [( Imp + z + r ) /

( Exp + z )]

x = annual available volume of freshwater

(discounting the ecological reserve)

y = annual water withdrawal from

ground and surface water

Imp = annual water flow imported to the

basin

z = mean annual discharge at the river

mouth


Exp = total water flow exported from the

basin

[( x – y ) / x ] * [( Imp + x + r ) /

( Exp + x )]

x = annual water flow of 95% frequency

(m3/s)

y = annual water withdrawal (m3/s)

Imp = annual water flow imported to the

basin (m3/s)


(m3/s)

Exp = annual water flow exported from

the basin (m3/s)

[( y ) / x ] * { 100 /

[ 100 - (Exp - Imp - Rec) ] }


x = seasonal flow exceeded 95% of the

time (m3/s)

Exp = percentage of abstracted water that

is exported from the river basin (%)

Imp = percentage of abstracted water that

is imported to the river basin (%)

Rec = percentage of abstracted water that

is recycled in river basin (%)

298

System

Resilience

{ 3-1

* [(a – a‟) / a + (p – p‟) / p + (w1 –

w2) / w1] } + cons / basin

a = total arable land

a‟ = total arable land without conservation

practices

(unsustainable agriculture use)

p = total pasture land

p‟ = total pasture land without conservation

practices

(unsustainable pasture use)

w1 = original wetland area

w2 = area of wetlands lost by human impact

and reclamation

cons = total surface confined in

conservation units

basin = total river basin area

1 – [( ROPx – ROPm)2]0.5

ROPx = ratio between annual runoff and

annual rainfall

ROPm = ratio between mean runoff and

mean rainfall

12

[ Σ (Qi – Qimean

) / si ] / 12

i =1


Qimean

= long-term month mean flow for

month „i‟ si = standard deviation for month „i‟

Water Use

Efficiency

[ (GDP2 – GDP1) / GDP2 ] –

[ (use2 – use 1 )/ use2 ]

GDP2 = gross domestic product of the

current year


previous year

use 2 = annual water withdrawal from

ground and surface water for the current

year


ground and surface water for the previous

year

[ (GDP2 – GDP1) / GDP2 ] –

[ (use2 – use 1 )/ use2 ]


current year


previous year


ground and surface water for the current

year


ground and surface water for the previous

year

[ 100 * (GDP2 – GDP1) / GDP2 ] -

[ 100* (demand2 – demand1 )/

demand2 ]

GDP2 = catchment Gross Domestic

Product of the current period

GDP1 = catchment Gross Domestic

Product of the previous period


and surface water for the current period


and surface water for the previous period

299

User Sector

Productivity

(used to be a different

criterion)

( y / x )

y = Annual Gross Domestic Product

(or proxy)

x = total annual demand of freshwater

by manufacturing

[ 100 * (turnover2 – turnover1) / turnover2 ] -

[ 100 * (sector demand2 – sector demand1 ) / sector

demand2 ]





sector demand2 = water demand by the sector in the

catchment for the current period

sector demand 1 = water demand by the sector in the

catchment for the previous period

Institutional

Preparedness

10

Σ Xi / 10

i =1

X1 = river basin plans



X4 = public awareness and education

X5 = norms and regulation

X6 = monitoring and enforcement

X7 = water permits and/or charges

X8 = regulation of services

X9 = soil and water interaction

X10 = risk management

12

Σ Xi / 12

i =1

X1 = water allocation observes priority uses

X2 = norms and directives of water use

efficiency

X3 = systematic revision of norms and

regulation

X4 = regulation of services of water supply

and sanitation

X5 = water permits system

X6 = water permits and/or water charges

follow volumetric variations

X7 = river basin master plans

X8 = regular revision of river basin master

plans

X9 = integration of water management with

land use management



X12 = programme of information for

stakeholders which focuses the river basin

08

Σ Xi

i = 1

X1 = legislation addresses water

management at the river basin level

X2 = river basin management is formally

connected with the regional / national

system of water management

X3 = river basin management is organised /

regulated by specific plans and

programmes

X4 = water allocation mechanism is based

on local hydrologic assessments and

appropriate criteria

X5 = allocation of water takes into account

social and environmental priorities of use

X6 = existence of a river basin organisation

with specific water management duties

X7 = hydrologic and water quality

monitoring with satisfactory space and time

coverage

X8 = capacity building activities at the

catchment level

300

Equitable

Water

Services

[100-1

* (x + y ) / 2 ] * Indcon

x = percentage of population with access to

reliable and safe water supply

y = percentage of population with access to

reliable water sanitation

Indcon = index of sector concentration of

water uses

Indcon = 1 + [( 1 / var2 ) – ( 1 / var1 )]

var2 = variance of water uses for the

current year

var1 = variance of water uses for the

previous year

[100-1

* (x + y ) / 2 ]

x = percentage of population with access

to reliable and safe water supply

y = percentage of population with access

to reliable water sanitation

( x * 100-1

)

x = percentage of population served by

potable water supply


Water-related

Well-being

( y / x ) * HDI

y = total daily domestic consumption of

freshwater

x = river basin population

HDI = Human Development Index (or

proxy)

HDI / x

HDI = Human Development Index

x = annual average of daily water

withdrawal

from ground and surface water

[100 * (well-being2 – well-being 1) /

well-being 2] -

[100 * (demand2 – demand1 )/ demand2]

well-being2 = indicator of well-being

related to water of the current period

well-being1 = indicator of well-being

related to water of the previous period

demand 2 = per capita demand of the

current period

demand 1 = per capita demand of previous

period

301

Public

Participation

10

Σ Xi / 10

i =1

X1 = mechanisms for public participation

X2 = opportunities to participate

X3 = regular activities

X4 = convocation attendance

X5 = stakeholder preparedness

X6 = participatory planning and set of

priorities

X7 = decentralised decision-making

X8 = conflict solving

X9 = independent auditing

X10 = indicators for collective monitoring

10

Σ Xi / 10

i =1

X1 = stakeholder representation in the

river basin committee

X2 = democratic nomination of

stakeholder representation

X3 = local public consultation preceded

river basin legislation


changes in river basin legislation


water supply and sanitation legislation

X6 = river basin master plans included the

participation of stakeholders

X7 = participatory budgeting

X8 = participatory mechanisms for conflict

solving

X9 = independent auditing and monitoring

X10 = collective monitoring of water

management

08

Σ Xi

i =1

X1 = legislation delegate water

management

decision-making to water users and

civil society

X2 = practice / mechanism of water

management includes stakeholder

participation

X3 = opportunities for public

participation at the

regional / national system of water

management

X4 = river basin planning is conducted

via participatory approaches

X5 = the majority / totality of

stakeholder sectors

are properly involved in the river basin

management

X6 = policy making is influenced by

river basin public participation

X7 = conflicts among water users are

considered and dealt at the river basin

level

X8 = campaigns / activities that aim to

involve the river basin population at

large

302

Appendix IV: Access Database Developed for Archival Research

303

Appendix V: Structure of Interviews with Catchment Stakeholders in English

and in Portuguese

ENGLISH

Topics to be covered in the semi-structured interviews with stakeholders

(conducted to validate the proposed sustainability assessment approach):

The tables below summarise the water sustainability criteria and the items

included in the formulation of equivalent indicators. Sustainability indicators

serve to describe tendencies in terms of water sustainability and are one of the

tools used for the assessment.

1. (After presenting the list of water sustainability criteria and indicators)

Ask about the appropriateness of the water sustainability criteria and indicators

2. Ask about the appropriateness of the research strategy and techniques

3. Ask about difficulties in terms of availability of environmental and socio-

economic in the catchment

4. Ask about long-term solutions to facilitate the production of data at the catchment

5. The main issues related to water sustainability identified in this research were

(specific of each catchment). Ask if the respondent agrees with this conclusion; ask

about the main challenges to the catchment conservation and management

Table 1 – Water Sustainability Criteria

SUSTAINABILITY DIMENSIONS

SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER QUALITY

WATER QUANTITY

SYSTEM RESILIENCE

ECONOMIC

WATER USE EFFICIENCY

USER SECTOR PRODUCTIVITY

INSTITUTIONAL PREPAREDNESS

SOCIAL

EQUITABLE WATER SERVICES

WATER-RELATED WELL-BEING

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

304

Table 2 – Scheme of water sustainability assessment

SUSTAINABILITY

DIMENSIONS SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA

ITEMS INCLUDED IN THE

ANALYSIS AND IN THE

INDICATOR FORMULATION37

ENVIRONMENTAL

WATER QUALITY

(conservation of chemical and

biological parameters)

Extensions of water bodies

into certain quality categories

Condition of critical pollutants

WATER QUANTITY

(abstraction is lower than hydrological

thresholds defined by ecological

sensitivity)

Level of abstraction in relation to minimal

environmental flows

Transference of water between catchments

SYSTEM RESILIENCE

(maintenance of normal hydrological

patterns)

Deviation from long-term trends

ECONOMIC

WATER USE EFFICIENCY

(relation between use of water

and economic output)

Annual variation of economic output

Annual variation of water use

USER SECTOR PRODUCTIVITY

(efficient use of water by the various users)

Annual variation of sectoral economic

outputs

Annual variation of sectoral uses of water

INSTITUTIONAL PREPAREDNESS

(institutional framework to manage water

and deal with conflicts)

Water legislation

Catchment management and planning

Water allocation mechanism

River basin authority

Hydrologic and water quality monitoring

Capacity building

SOCIAL

EQUITABLE WATER SERVICES

(access to reliable and safe

water and sanitation services)

Population served by water supply and

sanitation

WATER-RELATED WELL-BEING

(quality of life promoted by the availability

of water services)

Annual variation of well-being parameters

Annual variation of water use

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

(participation in planning and management

of water resources)

Decision-making is delegated to stakeholders

Water management includes participation

River basin planning includes participation

Conflicts are dealt at the river basin level

Existence of water related activities

involving the river basin population at large

37 OBSERVATION: The derived indicators of sustainability are proposed at the catchment

scale. They are, therefore, utilized in an intermediate level of assessment between detailed

ecological, hydrological and socioeconomic indicators (that are employed at the local level)

and broad aggregate indicators (that are employed at the national or regional level).

305

PORTUGUESE

Questões principais a serem encaminhadas nas entrevistas

(a serem conduzidas para validar o método de avaliação de sustentabilidade

proposto):

As duas tabelas abaixo resumem os critérios de sustentabilidade de recursos hídricos

e os itens incluídos na formulação dos respectivos indicadores de sustentabilidade.

Tais indicadores servem para descrever tendências em termos de sustentabilidade de

recursos hídricos e representam uma das ferramentas utilizadas para a avaliação.

(Depois de apresentar as listas de critérios de sustentabilidade e indicadores)

Perguntar sobre a utilidade da seleção de critérios e indicadores

Perguntar se a estratégia e as técnicas de pesquisa são adequadas para os propósitos

a que se destinaram

3. Perguntar sobre dificuldades em termos de dados ambientais e sócio-econômicos

na bacia hidrográfica

4. Perguntar sobre soluções de longo prazo que poderiam auxiliar na obtenção de

dados sobre a bacia hidrográfica

5. As principais questões relacionadas à sustentabilidade de recursos hídricos

identificadas na bacia foram (específicas de cada bacia). Perguntar se o entrevistado

concorda com tais conclusões; perguntar sobre os desafios principais para a

conservação e gestão da bacia hidrográfica

Tabela 1 – Critérios de Sustentabilidade de Recursos Hídricos

DIMENSÃO DE

SUSTENTABILIDADE CRITÉRIOS DE SUSTENTABILIDADE

AMBIENTAL

QUALIDADE DA ÁGUA

QUANTIDADE DE ÁGUA

ESTABILIDADE DO SISTEMA

ECONÔMICA

EFICIENTE USO DE ÁGUA

PRODUTIVIDADE DOS SETORES DE USUÁRIOS

CAPACIDADE INSTITUCIONAL

SOCIAL

IGUALDADE DE SERVIÇOS DE ÁGUA

BEM ESTAR RELACIONADO À ÁGUA

PARTICIPAÇÃO PÚBLICA

Tabela 2 – Esquema Geral para Avaliação da Sustentabilidade

306

DIMENSÃO DA

SUSTENTA-

BILIDADE

CRITÉRIOS DE

SUSTENTABILIDADE

ITENS INCLUÍDOS NA

FORMULAÇÃO DE INDICADORES

DE SUSTENTABILIDADE38

AMBIENTAL

QUALIDADE DA ÁGUA

(conservação de parâmetros químicos e

biológicos)

Classificação de trechos dos corpos hídricos

(rios ou lagos) de acordo com classes ou

índices de qualidade

Condição de poluentes críticos

QUANTIDADE DE ÁGUA

(nível de água utilizada não ultrapassa limites

necessários para a manutenção do equilíbrio

ecológico)

Nível de água captada ou derivada em relação à

vazão mínima ecológica

Transferências entre bacias hidrográficas

ESTABILIDADE DO SISTEMA

(manutenção de médias hidrológicas de longo

prazo)

Desvios das tendências

hidrológicas de longo prazo

ECONÔMICA

EFICIENTE USO DE ÁGUA

(relação entre usos de água e resultados

econômicos)

Variação anual do nível de uso da água

Variação anual do nível econômico

PRODUTIVIDADE DOS SETORES DE

USUÁRIOS

(eficiência no uso da água pelos vários setores

de usuários)

Variação anual nos níveis setoriais de uso da

água e de resultados econômicos

CAPACIDADE INSTITUCIONAL

(arranjo institucional necessário para a gestão e

solução de conflitos)

Legislação de águas

Planejamento e gestão da bacia

Mecanismo de autorização de direito de uso

Autoridade de gestão de bacia

Monitoramento hidrológico e de qualidade da água

Capacitação e treinamento

SOCIAL

IGUALDADE DE SERVIÇOS DE ÁGUA

(acesso a serviços de abastecimento e

saneamento confiáveis e seguros)

População servida por serviços de

abastecimento de água e saneamento básico

BEM ESTAR RELACIONADO À ÁGUA

(qualidade de vida promovida pela existência de

disponibilidade de água e saneamento básico)

Variação anual de indicadores de bem estar

Variação anual de uso de água

PARTICIPAÇÃO PÚBLICA

(participação no planejamento e gestão de

recursos hídricos)

Decisão quanto à gestão e planejamento são

tomadas com o envolvimento dos usuários e

membros da sociedade em geral

Conflitos entre usuários são tratados e

resolvidos na escala da bacia hidrográfica

Promoção de atividades relacionadas aos

recursos hídricos envolvendo a população da

bacia hidrográfica

38 OBSERVAÇÃO: Os indicadores são propostos para a escala geográfica de bacia

hidrográfica. Tais indicadores, portanto, envolvem um nível de detalhamento intermediário

entre indicadores hidrológicos e ecológicos (alto grau de detalhamento) e indicadores

nacionais de sustentabilidade (baixo nível de detalhamento).

307

Appendix VI: Water Resources Planning in Rio Grande do Sul

Water Resources Planning Mechanism in the Rio Grande do Sul State

PLANNING

LEVEL

ORGANISATION / GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL

River basin

committee

Regional

Water

Agency

Department

of Water

Resources

Environment

Regulator

(FEPAM)

Council of

Water

Resources

State

Governor

State

Parliament

Contribution

to the State

Plan of Water

Resources

Suggests

issues related

to the river

basin

demands

Supports the

committees

to raise

suggestions

Prepares the

State Plan,

conciliating

the interests

of different

committees

and different

official

agencies

Proposes

suggestions

and changes

to the

Department

of Water

Resources

Analyses,

requests

changes,

approves

and submits

to the final

approval of

the governor

Analyses,

requests

changes,

approves

and submits

to the State

Parliament

as proposal

for a new

law

Analyses,

amends and

approves the

State Plan of

Water

Resources as

new

legislation

Supports the

Department

of Water

Resources to

prepare the

State Plan

Contribution

to the River

Basin Plan of

Water

Resources

Prepares and

approves

basin plans,

according to

the State Plan

of Water

Resources

Supports the

committees

to prepare

the plan

Second

instance for

solving

conflicts

regarding

water uses

Proposes

suggestions

and changes

to the basin

committee;

gives

permission to

pollution

discharges

Highest

instance for

solving

conflicts

regarding

water uses

Source: Lanna (1995)

308

Appendix VII: Methodology of Water Quality Classification in Scotland

Source: SEPA (2002a)

309

Appendix VIII: Local Authorities in the Clyde Catchment

Source: Goodstadt (2001)

310

Appendix IX: Altimetric Map of the Dee Catchment

Source: Wade et al. (2001)

Appendix X: Thresholds of the Most Common Parameters of Water Quality

Monitored in the Rio Grande do Sul State

Thresholds of the Most Common Parameters of Water Quality Monitored in the Rio

Grande do Sul State

Unit Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4

Dissolved

oxygen mg/l > 6.0 > 5.0 > 4.0 > 2.0

BOD mg/l < 3.0 < 5.0 < 10.0 > 10.0

Faecal

coliforms

nmp/100

ml < 200 < 1,000 < 4,000 > 4,000

(Concentration Limits defined by the Resolution CONAMA 020/1986)

Source: ANA (2003)

311

Appendix XI: Maps with the Classification of the Sinos Catchment into Water

Quality Classes

Present Condition: Presence of Water Quality Classes 1 to 4

Desired/Planned Condition: Presence of Water Quality Classes 1 to 3

Source: Comitesinos (2003)

312

Appendix XII: Altimetric Map of the Pardo Catchment

Source: Comitê Pardo (2003)

313

Appendix XIII: Folder of the 10th

Inter-American Water Week Promoted in the

State of Rio Grande do Sul in October 2003

Source: ABES-RS (2003)