Brazilian Hydropolitics under the United Nations 2030 Agenda

The global framework set forth by the United Nations 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) include water resources in their scope, which emphasizes how water assets and society well-being are closely intertwined and how crucial they are to achieving sustainable development. This paper explores the role of hydropolitics in that Post-2015 Development Agenda and uses Brazilian hydropolitics set to reach SDG6 as a case study.


Introduction
I n his paper, Bryan Lufkin (2017), the editor of Future Now, argues that hydropolitics will shape human society, especially in the 21 st century. Lufkin (2017) merely reaffirms what is obvious to the international community: water issues are one of the main challenges of the current century. Despite its historical relationship with human society and its key role in maintaining life, water has been facing constant adversities because of its management, uses, and the models adopted worldwide by the states. Schleifer Espíndola, Leite, Silva SDGs are global declarations that must be transformed into actions; they are global, regional, national, and local development strategies and policies for the desirable sustainable development. SDG 6, in particular, focuses on ensuring the availability of water and its sustainable management and sanitation for all (UN-WATER, 2018), providing the backdrop against which the water issues are discussed in this paper.
The Agenda 2030 recognizes water as paramount to human security and essential to achieving sustainable development because it is essential to life. But it can also be a threat to life due to its scarcity and quality. Recognized as a fundamental human right and lacking protection, water has been around in international discussions, especially due to its relationship with human well-being and sustainable development. Mollinga (2008) argues that the inclusion of water in the wheels of international debate and academic research is related to some factors. First, the author points out that there is growing concern about a possible global water crisis, which would occur in terms of water quality and quantity. It is appropriate to remember that water is badly distributed along the planet. Furthermore, its consumption has increased in recent years and water pollution has worsened in almost all rivers in Asia, Latin America and Africa, regions that are home to most of the world's population (UNDESA, 2017, WWAP -United Nations World Water Assessment Program, UN-Water, 2018).
Secondly, Mollinga (2008) argues that water is an inherently political issue, especially because it can extend across physical and geographical borders of countries. Mollinga (2008) adds that water includes social relations of power, both inside and outside a sovereign state. These water political relations, or hydropolical relations, integrates economic, social and environmental policies. They engage state and non-state actors in the decision-making process and water management SDG 6 covers the entire water cycle with its eight targets 1 . It states that efficient use and equitable water distribution -planning climate change, balancing water demands and prioritizing the health of natural landscapes-can help countries achieve their development goals. To achieve SDG 6, access to water must be ensured for all, even to those who cannot afford it. Table 1 below presents the core and extended targets and indicators of SDG 6. Meridiano 47, 21: e21011, 2020 Espíndola, Leite, Silva  -Percentage of population using safely managed sanitation services including a hand washing facility with soap and water; 3 Improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping, and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater and substantially increasing recycling and safe reuse globally; -Percentage of wastewater safely treated; -Percentage of water bodies with good water quality; 4 Substantially increase water-use efficiency across all sectors and ensure sustainable withdrawals and supply of freshwater to address water scarcity and substantially reduce the number of people suffering from water scarcity; -Percentage change in water use efficiency over time; -Percentage of total available water resources used, taking environmental water requirements into account (level of water stress); 5 Implement integrated water resources management (IWRM) at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate; -Degree of integrated water resource management (IWRM) and implementation (0-100) 6 Expand international cooperation and capacitybuilding support to developing countries in water and sanitation-related activities and programmes, including water harvesting, desalination, water efficiency, wastewater treatment, recycling and reuse technologies; -Amount of water and sanitation related to the Official Development Assistance that is part of a government coordinated spending plan; 7 Protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including mountains, forests, wetlands, rivers, aquifers and lakes -Percentage of change in water-related ecosystems extent over time; 8 Support and strengthen the participation of local communities in improving water and sanitation management.
-Percentage of local administrative units with established and operational policies and procedures for participation of local communities in water and sanitation management.
Source: Own elaboration on the basis of data published in UN-WATER (2016; SDG 6 just reaffirms what was presented. Water is fundamental for economic growth. It is clearly a cross-cutting issue as it is linked to all SDGs (UN-WATER, 2016). Table 2 presents the interdependence of SGD 6 and the other SDGs and corroborates the fact that the 2030 Agenda demands an integrated and holistic approach. Each SDG has the ability to contribute to other SDGs, some directly and others more indirectly. This interdependence must be considered as it is "critical for advancement and successful implementation of individual and collective SDGs" (CERF, 2019, p.1).
It engages all sectors of society and educates the public to promote a better understanding of the problems related to water resources. It shows that is important to invest in the water sector (including Meridiano 47, 21: e21011, 2020 Espíndola, Leite, Silva water supply and sanitation) to reshape legal and institutional frameworks to promote an effective water governance. "Increasing access to water supply, sanitation, and hygiene (SDG 6.1 and 6.2) reduces the risks of water-borne diseases 3.9) and malnutrition (SDG 2.2), supports a productive workforce (SDG 8.5,8.8) and addresses poverty (SDG 1.1,1.2,1.4), gender, and inequality (SDG 5.1,5.2,5.4,5.5,3)" (BROGAN et al., 2016, p. 13).
2 Water, food, and environment "Water is essential to meet the targets of sustainable food production (SDG 2.4). Doubling agricultural productivity as stated in SDG 2.3 could potentially lead to negative impacts on water resources and water-related ecosystems. Targets must, therefore, be implemented in an integrated way to ensure they support targets on increasing recycling and safe reuse of water (SDG 6.3), increasing efficiency and ensuring sustainable withdrawals (SDG 6.4) and protecting water-related ecosystems (SDG 6.6)" (BROGAN et al., 2016, p. 13).

3
Water, climate change, and disasters "Using water sustainably and efficiently, reducing water scarcity (SDG 6.4), and implementing IWRM (SDG 6.5) are interlinked with reducing the impact of water-related disasters (SDG 11.5) and helping to build the resilience of vulnerable populations (SDG 1.5). Therefore, prioritizing the use of water resources is needed, particularly when they are scarce" (BROGAN et al., 2016, p. 13).
Hydropolitics: the political sphere surrounding water 'Hydropolitics' has been a political buzzword and a hot topic since the end of the Cold War. It is connected to the emergence of new international political issues. Among the reasons that explain its momentum are: (1) the acknowledgement of the mismatch between population growth in the 21th century and water availability, which projects a water scarcity scenario (FALKENMARK, 1986;VOROSMARTY et al., 2000); (2) the unequal distribution of water, either in rivers and aquifers, and the lack of their correspondence with international boundaries (SHIKLOMANOV, 1993;GLEICK, 2003;YOFFE et al., 2003;WOLF et al., 2003;UN, 2008); (3) given those two former reasons, the inevitable international political interactions, because water has become a source of both political tension and political cooperation between national states and international organizations (SADOFF; GREY, 2002;UITTO;WOLF, 2002;MIRUMACHI, 2008;ZEITOUN et al., 2011).
Thus, hydropolitics involves dealing with foreign affairs in national and international realms.
Although the consequences of political actions over shared waters are felt over the regional and local scales, the concept of hydropolitics, as given, leads the attention towards affairs across nations. Many features of hydropolitical analysis, however, can be applied at several scales: the notion of hydrological interdependence between territorial units and economic and geographic variables, like extraction capabilities, hydropower potential, position, etc. Since water distribution is uneven along space, the capability to control, use and allocate water is dependent on power endowments, hence a matter of hydropolitics (CASCÃO; ZEITOUN, 2010).
Meridiano 47, 21: e21011, 2020 Espíndola, Leite, Silva The connection of hydropolitical analysis with international politics and, consequently, with extensive transboundary river basins stems from its theoretical affiliation with International Relations and its analytical tools (FURLONG, 2006;KAUFFER, 2009;DINAR, 2012;JULIAN, 2012). Because of this theoretical and analytical affiliation, among the widely studied issues in hydropolitics are the asymmetries of power between sovereign countries and the establishment of hegemonic cooperative/conflictive political interactions between riparian countries (ZEITOUN; WARNER, 2006;MIRUMACHI;ALLAN, 2007;MIRUMACHI, 2008;ZEITOUN et al., 2011;ZAWAHRI, 2012). Another set of studies analyze the efficiency of treaties, agreements, conventions and organizations created to govern and manage transboundary water and river basins (LANKFORD, 2013;SCHMEIER, 2013;LEB, 2015). Furlong (2006) carried out one of the first and widespread reviews of the hydropolitical thinking concerning its implicit connections with IR theories, which instituted the prevailing water discourse.
Given its rationalist foundations, Furlong states that hydropolitics fails to acknowledge asymmetric power relations between riparian countries, and adopts a critical but pessimist view over cooperation tools. It is assumed that the state is a homogeneous political container. To overcome that drawback, critical theoretical approaches have been considered such as critical geopolitics, political ecology, and social production of nature. Most importantly, those approaches aim to free hydropolitics from the territorial trap, introducing a more appropriate perspective on hegemony, acknowledgment of ecological conditions and understanding of social dynamics.
Departing from the normative emphasis and the international scope of hydropolitics criticism, Sneddon and Fox (2006) and Swyngedouw (1999; invested in a critical hydropolitics approach, which conceives of water politics as an intricate process that intertwines several social actors that interact on multiple scales. An outcome of the approach is a refinement of the analysis, because the cooperation tools set into motion to manage water resources create a transnational hydropolitical arena. More recently, Warner et al., (2017) assessed the intellectual path of hydropolitical thinking where it is most notable developments are highlighted. The inclusion of more nuanced conceptions of power and hegemony leads to a relativization of the sole role of the state as the driver of transboundary hydropolitics, into the analysis including non-state actors and cautious perspectives of international treaties and organizations as a token of cooperation.
Considering the IR origins of hydropolitics, it is not a surprise that further research has been caught into the territorial trap, be it a state or a river basin trap. Through the hydropolitics lenses, however, one can find the tools to engage in different paths of questioning along distinct geographical scales and institutional powers. The concept of hegemony and its usage under the hydropolitics framework is an example. In hydro-hegemonic discourses, material and ideational powers are constructed and enacted within national, regional and local political structures. On the one hand, in a neo institutionalist perspective, hegemony is engrained in the institutions engaged in the governance and management of water resources, sedimenting procedures and norms beyond the scope of transboundary river basins. On the other hand, within a critical perspective, the hydrohegemony can be built through the production of discourses by elite inside the state bureaucracy or in global

Brazilian hydropolitics
Since Brazil had signed its commitment to the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs, efforts have been made so that their implementation meets the 2030 deadline. However, before tapping into the efforts made by the Brazilian government concerning the SDGs, especially SDG6, it is important to summarize how water resources are managed and organized in the country. Benjamin, Marques, and Tinker (2005) say that the Brazilian regulation system on water has been developed only in the last 70 years. "lakes, rivers, and whichever streams of water in soil under its domain, or that bathe more than one state, serve as boundary with other countries, get or extend to foreign territory and also marginal lands and fluvial beaches" (BRASIL, 1988).
According to Aith and Rothbarth (2015), it is within the competence of the Union to explore, directly or under authorization, concession or permission, services and electrical energy installations, as well as the energetic exploitation of waterways. Concerning the hydroelectric reservations located in the states, every Union or state action must be performed in a well-coordinated manner. The Article 26 guarantees that the participant states are also holders of the water in the following circumstances: III -river and lake islands not included among the ones belonging to the Union (BRASIL, 1988).
In this sense, the 1988 Brazilian Federal Constitution requires water legislation to be established by the Union but supplemented by the legislation of the individual states and municipalities. Benjamin, Marques, andTinker (2005, p. 2197) warns that "general federal laws supersede the effect of state laws passed contrary to national norms". Thus, each individual state is restricted to make general laws on water that are "compatible with the union's exclusive legislative power over water issues".
Finally, Benjamin, Marques, and Tinker (2005) argue that the 1997 PNRH is strongly influenced

Brazil and SDG6: a case study
Although Brazil was initially committed to achieving the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, developing its own political and institutional architecture for the theme, the changes produced by the current government compromised the country's resourcefulness. There were no changes in policies, but there is a progressive deinstitutionalization and emptying of various components of its management structure. Despite this, it is pertinent to explain the path taken by the country with regard to Agenda 2030 and the SDGs. The SDG National Commission was responsible for the constitution of thematic chambers to assess and foster debate on the diverse topics and objectives related to the SDGs. Its scope ranged from elaborating and implementing the 2030 Agenda action plan to backing up discussions about sustainable development in national and international forums. It was also its responsibility to articulate bodies and public entities from federal unities with the state, district and municipal levels, being the municipal level a primary aspect. Resources Management (SINGREH) and the Watersheds Committee. Table 3 lists the SDG6 core and extended targets and the Brazilian institutions and instruments related to each of the mentioned targets. continuação.
Meridiano 47, 21: e21011, 2020 Espíndola, Leite, Silva Regarding the management of water resources, the Office of Water Resources and Environmental Quality of the Ministry of Environment formulates and subsidizes the 1997 PNRH. While ANA has amongst its tasks the implementation of the 1997 Act, the National System of Water Resources Management (SINGREH) allows the construction of a governance structure to water resources where the Watersheds Committees are part of the system. Those are important spaces for the internalization and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs (BRASIL, 2018). The 1997 PNRH aims to be more inclusive and formalize more integrated management, which is consonant with the SDG6 sub-goal 6.5: promote articulate management at every level. It, however, places water as a public good endowed with economic value, which offends not only with the SDGs but also with the international tendency itself to approach this issue through human rights.
The 1981 Act, the 1988 Brazilian Federal Constitution, and the 1997 PNRH can help in the implementation of the SDG6 sub-goal 6.4: "substantially increase the efficiency of water use in every area and assure sustainable withdraws and the freshwater supply to face the shortage of water" (ONU BRASIL, 2018). As it is a multi-annual measure, it is urgent that the next planning covers in its scope actions that aim to implement SDG6. The National Sanitation Policy (Law n. 11.445/2007) was created to conceptualize and define the services of basic sanitation, guidelines, and rules that are adequate to the multiple social, environmental, and economic realities of the country. This regulatory mark makes it clear to be complementation to the management of water assets in Brazil. The use of water resources in public services for sanitation is subordinated to the grant of usage rights, being, therefore, paid (BRASIL, 2007).
In the scope of the Union, it was established the definition of minimal parameters of water portability for public supply, being under responsibility of the Ministry of Health. Furthermore, it creates specific conditions for the environmental license of unities of sewage treatment and residues from the processes of water treatment and water contingency mechanisms for cases of water streamlining (BRASIL, 2007). This law is related to the SDG6 sub-goal 6.2: achieve adequate and equal access to sanitation and hygiene for all, besides ending the defecation outdoors (ONU BRASIL, 2018), although issues of gender are not observed, which urges taking into consideration women and girls in vulnerable situations. The law for sanitation is also related to the SDG6 sub-goal 6.3: improve water quality, pollution reduction and elimination of wastes and reduce the release of chemical products and dangerous substances, besides lowering the proportion of non-treated residual waters and increasing the recycling and safe reuse (ONU BRASIL, 2018).
Finally, concerning the goals 6.5 -implement the integrated management of water resources in all levels, including transboundary cooperation--and 6.a --widen international cooperation and support to the qualification of developing countries for activities and programs related to water and sanitation--consider that Brazil owns 83 contiguous. Its successive rivers and transboundary watersheds occupy 60% of the territory. Concerning that, Brazil promotes initiatives to strengthen the cooperation in the management of water resources and to guarantee full access to water for the regional population, e.g., The Organization of the Amazon Cooperation Agreement (OTCA). In the bilateral cooperation plan, there is a cooperation between Brazil and its neighbors concerning It is worth noticing how the Brazilian document deals with the National environmental indicators, absent in the UN SDGs, which blurs the perception of the achievement of SDG6. One understands that water in Brazil is considered a public good, but its exploitation is dependent on the finality and the specific state model management; this aspect is related to the sub-goal 6.1: universal and equal water access for all (ONU BRASIL, 2018). The 1977 PNRH establishes the protection of water for animal and human consumption and the access to drinkable water for subsistence, crucial parameters to discuss water management.
According to Aith and Rothbarth (2015), the legislation concerning the ownership of essential sanitation services is not clear, and there is the possibility of competencies overlapping between states and cities. The execution of services is also problematic because the holder of each service tends to be responsible for both the formulation of its corresponding basic sanitation public policy and the regulation and execution of the services directly or through delegation. Given that grey area of between competences, obstacles are likely to disturb the implementation and achievement of SDG6, which is set to guarantee the human rights to water and the implementation of a universal system of basic sanitation.

Conclusion
There are numerous challenges and opportunities for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and its SDGs. The 2030 Agenda represents an opportunity of alignment of federal, state, and municipal programs and the actions of entities of promotion of the SDGs. Considering the spatial dimension Meridiano 47, 21: e21011, 2020 Espíndola, Leite, Silva of Brazil's territory, the effective implementation of the 2030 Agenda urges the establishment of cooperation, articulation and mobilization networks, in the many spheres of government and civil society. The 2030 Agenda also provides convenient means to increase the implementation of integrated actions for water and sanitation management. Such articulation may boost the monitoring of quantity and quality of water, sector consumption, easing the planning and inspection. For this purpose, the technical and operational strengthening of the roles of individual states and cities is essential, especially regarding the governance of water and sanitation.
Regarding SDG6, among its challenges is the implementation of integrated management of water and environment, the expansion of coordination and intersectional, interinstitutional, and intergovernmental integration, the dissemination of means of shared management of water and sanitation, increasing the investment in technologies, and the regulation directed to efficient management. The statistical figures and challenges presented in this paper show that water and sanitation issues in Brazil have to get over considerable hurdles, despite its legal progress, especially if compared to its South America's regional neighbors. Thus the implementation of SDG6 in the country demands great efforts and may be a great opportunity, if well executed, to start a venture that changes, somehow, the precarious situation of water and sanitation access in the country. The challenges to coordinate actions might be demonstrated due to the recent changes in the organizational structures of water governance and management. Atomized institutions will have difficulties in implementing integrated management of water and the environment. Moreover, technocratic structures of governance can demobilize social participation initiatives, which are incredibly relevant to implement SDG goals.
Concerning the water management and its relation to the sub-goals of SDG6, it is essential to point out that, besides the conflicts between multiple uses and techno-operational and institutional difficulties, the climate changes factor must be considered. Climate alterations have been worsening the situation and increasing management challenges. The challenges related to the state acting and the mediation of conflicts among uses in agriculture, industry, tourism, energy, transportation, and sanitation/health persist. Articulating governmental and non-governmental actors is another greatest hydropolitical challenge at stake to take Brazil to the route of achieving the SDG6 sub-goals.
Brazil has pursued leadership in the construction of indicators and implementation of the 2030 Agenda's SDGs and has approved an action plan to implement those goals. Nonetheless, regarding SDG6, its feasibility is at stake due to the current government elect, clearly resistant to comply with the international environmental agenda and its regulatory marks. Without a doubt, there is a considerable setback in the country's plan regarding SDG and other integrated and participative management.
Brazilian water policies and management model changed with the current administration. From a model that sought integrated and participative management, Brazil turned to a management model based on command and control, fragmented and sectorized. It is still necessary to verify the degree of interference that these changes have concerning political participation and the incorporation of the social dimension in the management of water resources.