Resumo

Water challenges are intensifying globally due to growing demand and limited supply, emphasizing the need to diversify Water Resources Management (WRM) financing. Traditional mechanisms—tariffs and public budgets—often fall short (Grafton et al., 2020) and are inconsistently applied. Complementary funding mechanisms such as Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and donations are increasingly recognized, involving governments, companies, users, and civil society organizations (CSOs). Foundations, CSOs, and PES schemes increasingly fund WRM, enhancing water quality and quantity.

In Brazil, multistakeholder WRM is well established at the basin level, involving agencies, councils, and committees. Financing remains heavily dependent on public budgets, supplemented by tariffs. Federal investment needs of BRL 7.6 billion contrast with BRL 2.0 billion in 2022 revenues, with similar mismatches at state and basin levels. PES and donations could complement budgets, broaden responsibility among governments, CSOs, and private actors, and help advance SDG 6 while strengthening WRM. This research explores scenarios for PES and donations as alternatives to strengthen WRM in Brazil.

Water governance underpins effective WRM and water security (Libanio, 2020). Multistakeholder approaches diversify financing while requiring participation and coordination. Public managers using PES or donations must engage companies, CSOs, and other actors, reflecting a governance framework that integrates functions, attributes, and outcomes (Jiménez et al., 2020). Globally, tariffs and budgets often fall short, and in Brazil, public funding dominates while user participation is limited. These complementary sources can strengthen financing, and promote multistakeholder governance.

The scenario formulation used official data to estimate complementary WRM financing, prioritizing PES and donations. PES used government data on native vegetation, legal reserves, and preservation areas; CSO donations used the Map of Civil Society Organizations (MapCSO). Values were set within reasonable ranges as percentages of each source. Three scenarios were defined for each source: PES - 20% (weak), 30% (medium), and 40% (strong) of the eligible area were allocated to WRM; donations - 10% (weak), 20% (medium), and 30% (strong) of CSO-raised funds were directed to WRM.

Scenarios show PES programs and CSO donations in Brazil could mobilize resources comparable to or exceeding public budgets and tariffs. PES and donations exceed tariff revenues by up to 678% and account for nearly half of the public budget. Complementary financing supports multistakeholder governance, expands participation, and redistributes risks, but requires transparency, accountability, and ethical safeguards. PES linked to carbon markets and donations offer opportunities, though challenges include ethical concerns and potential environmental misconduct.

This study shows that complementary sources (PES programs and CSO donations) can strengthen WRM financing in Brazil. While budgets and tariffs remain essential, they face limits, especially without charges. Scenarios indicate these sources can mobilize significant resources, sometimes matching or exceeding budgets, expanding debate beyond conventional tools. Risks include double counting, requiring case-based studies. Future research should assess practical, financial, and governance outcomes, as well as opportunity costs.

Grafton, R. Q., Chu, L., & Wyrwoll, P. (2020). The paradox of water pricing: Dichotomies, dilemmas, and decisions. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36(1), 86–107. Jiménez, A., Saikia, P., Giné, R., Avello, P., Leten, J., Liss Lymer, B., Schneider, K., & Ward, R. (2020). Unpacking water governance: A framework for practitioners. Water, 12(3), 827. Libanio, P. A. C. (2020). Water reforms in Brazil: Challenges and opportunities for promoting water security in a continental-sized country. World Water Policy, 6(2), 230–245.