1838 address the territorial and social context of METRHI and outline the steps involved in its creation, composition, and operation. The discussion section then examines the results, with particular emphasis on the role of METRHI within the SNGRH and its integration into Buenaventura’s corporate practices. Finally, the article concludes with conclusions and recommendations aimed at both the public and private sectors. 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: WATER GOVERNANCE AND THE TERRITORIAL APPROACH 2.1 Water Governance and Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) The concept of governance is recent in both academic literature and analyses of institutional processes related to water resources management. The term emerged as a direct translation of the English concept of “governance.” However, despite the growing body of academic work addressing governance or related notions such as governability, there remains a need for deeper analysis of how different actors operate within this emerging paradigm, the nature of their interactions, and their relationship with water resources. In general terms, conceptual and practical approaches to governance are primarily shaped by two key elements: the disciplinary perspective from which the concept is applied, and the role attributed to the State within a given analytical framework. Accordingly, definitions of governance acquire different nuances depending on the emphasis placed on these elements, resulting in a spectrum of meanings that range from state-centered definitions to polycentric perspectives that focus on the role of multiple actors within the system. One of the most widely used and comprehensive definitions of water governance is proposed by the Global Water Partnership (GWP), which aligns closely with the notion of IWRM promoted by the same institution. According to GWP, “water governance refers to the range of political, social, economic, and administrative systems that are in place to develop and manage water resources and the delivery of water and sanitation services at different levels of society” (GWP, 2003). This understanding of water governance presents several distinctive features that are critical for its implementation. First, it entails a multilevel governance structure, whereby decision-making processes related to water resources operate across local, regional, and national levels without being mutually exclusive. Second, it emphasizes coordination among a diverse range of actors, encompassing multiple interests and forms of representation, as well as varying degrees of interaction aimed at achieving more effective articulation according to the scale of intervention. Finally, water governance is inherently multisectoral, as water resources transcend the boundaries of any single sector, particularly in contexts where IWRM is pursued as a comprehensive and cross-cutting approach. 2.2 Local Governance and Commons In analyzing the problem of the commons as a coordination failure, Ostrom emphasizes cooperative solutions as a central mechanism for resource governance (Ostrom, 2000). Coordination mechanisms are therefore defined in cooperative and non-authoritarian terms, operating at the level of interaction through negotiated outcomes among actors and the appointment of an arbiter responsible for enforcing agreed-upon rules. In the case analyzed in this article, and in line with Ostrom’s framework, the State regulates the process of establishing the Water Resources Thematic Roundtable through a technical and normative approach. However, it is the water users themselves who, based on their own interests, collectively define how they wish to manage water resources in their territory, and which interventions respond to their actual needs. Building on Ostrom’s analysis, González-Chavarría (2014) argues that coordination problems encompass three key dimensions: (1) how individuals decide whether or not to participate in cooperative processes; (2) how actors define the rules governing access to and distribution of benefits from a common resource, as well as how the costs associated with monitoring, sanctioning, and institutional change are allocated when rules are introduced as regulatory mechanisms; and (3) how interactions between the community or interest group and actors within the political system are resolved. Also, other authors have introduced the concept of polycentrism or polycentricity, defined as “the relationships among multiple
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2