Technical knowledge and water resources management: A comparative study of river basin councils, Brazil

Abstract

Better understanding of the factors that shape the use of technical knowledge in water management is important both to increase its relevance to decision‐making and sustainable governance and to inform knowledge producers where needs lie. This is particularly critical in the context of the many stressors threatening water resources around the world. Recent scholarship focusing on innovative water management institutions emphasizes knowledge use as critical to water systems' adaptive capacity to respond to these stressors. For the past 15 years, water resources management in Brazil has undergone an encompassing reform that has created a set of participatory councils at the river basin level. Using data from a survey of 626 members of these councils across 18 river basins, this article examines the use of technical knowledge (e.g., climate and weather forecasts, reservoir streamflow models, environmental impact assessments, among others) within these councils. It finds that use of knowledge positively aligns with access, a more diverse and broader discussion agenda, and a higher sense of effectiveness. Yet, use of technical knowledge is also associated with skewed levels of power within the councils.

Who counts, what counts: representation and accountability in water governance in the Upper Comoé sub‐basin, Burkina Faso

“…This understanding reiterates the importance of being attentive to and intentional about knowledge differentials and their role in creating social exclusions (Budds, ; Lemos et al ., ; Cooper and Wheeler, 2015). Addressing these necessitates policy and programmatic strategies, which go beyond normative pronouncements on the value of local knowledge.…”

“…The professionalization of environmental management, promoted by foreign donors and policymakers, rationalizes the limited devolution of power to local communities, who are seen as lacking technical capacity and inclined to use resources inefficiently and unsustainably (Lebel et al ., ; Poteete and Ribot, ; Faye, ; Lund, ; Rutt et al ., ; Scheba and Mustalahti, ). This justifies the preponderance of technocrats on resource management committees, particularly in IWRM, given its emphasis on scientific data and expertise for rational planning (Lemos et al ., ; Orlove and Caton, ; Taddei, ). Though community members may be formally included, their arguments are often dismissed as ungrounded or unscientific (Li, ; Ojha, ; Rutt et al ., ; Mustapha et al ., ) and their ability to engage in debates and influence decisions is limited by knowledge disparities (Adams and Zulu, ; Faye, ) and hegemonic styles of public discourse (Cleaver and Toner, ; Mehta and Movik, ).…”

Actionable Knowledge for Environmental Decision Making: Broadening the Usability of Climate Science

“…On the one hand, the creation of participatory knowledge production and governance processes in itself does not guarantee knowledge democracy, especially when the use of scientific knowledge becomes a source of authority of some groups over others and an instrument of inequity in the distribution of power across participant groups (26,(57)(58)(59). For example, in Brazil, the use of technoscientific knowledge in the context of river basin committees, has shown that it can skew power within the group when it provides members with technical expertise with leverage vis-à-vis others without (60). Part of the problem is the 'black box of technical knowledge', that is, the obfuscation of the assumptions, values and methods embedded in the knowledge by those who create and/or employ it in the context of decision-making (26,58).…”

“…scientific, lay and indigenous knowledge) (61,63). Moreover, in the context of interaction, producers and users of scientific information can resolve conflicts and build consensus helping to overcome barriers for information use including issues of trust, communication and legitimacy, information accessibility, and lack of fit (26,59,60). The experience of interaction in a common social context is the core of social learning-defined as learning from others through observation and modeling (64).…”

Evaluating participation in water resource management: A review

“…Information and meetings are accessible to participants [Chenoweth et al, 2002;Hurlimann and Dolnicar, 2010;Klinke, 2009;Lemos et al, 2010;Mostert et al, 2007;van den Hove, 2006;Walker et al, 2006]. Ground rules and task definition (E, T)…”