https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7322-342X
Figures
Abstract
Changing weather patterns, including prolonged periods of drought and rising water demand are putting increasing pressure on water management and underlying governance systems. Our study implemented a novel methodological framework to jointly assess the physical dimension of water use and the regulatory capacity of water governance in the Lake of Palmas River Basin by combining the Water Flow Diagram (WFD) and the Viable System Model (VSM). The WFDs were built to visualise seasonal water balances and flows and highlight water consumption by different sectors. Data were obtained from reports, utility managers and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool Plus (SWAT+) hydrological model. The VSM, grounded in organisational cybernetics, provided a structural and functional framework for diagnosing governance gaps across diverse organisational levels and sectors. Data for the VSM were collected through document review, interviews with representatives from government agencies involved in water management, water users from different sectors, water resource specialist and civil society organizations. Findings from the WFD and preliminary results from VSM were reviewed during a participatory co-creation workshop involving stakeholders from the same sectors. The combined application of both tools revealed the suitability of the methodology to foster the dialogue around different conflicts of interest on water use and potential mitigation measures. The process highlighted a significant gap between regulated water allocation and actual abstraction, identified critical structural deficits in local management capacity and inter-institutional coordination, and uncovered weak feedback and monitoring mechanisms across governance levels. The study demonstrated that VSM and WFD are structurally complementary: the WFD visualizes the physical environment of the system, while the VSM maps its regulatory architecture, enabling their joint use for an integrative diagnostic process and redesign. For practitioners, the combined methodology offers a replicable, participatory approach for identifying governance failures in complex hydric systems.
Citation: Alves JM, Fache L, Souza FNdS, Bergiante NCR, Silva FG, Belderrain MCN, et al. (2026) Water governance in the Tocantins-Araguaia Hydrographic Region: Assessing viability using a participatory systemic approach. PLOS Water 5(5): e0000381. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000381
Editor: Pamela Giselle Katic, University of Greenwich Natural Resources Institute, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Received: April 8, 2025; Accepted: April 15, 2026; Published: May 11, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Alves et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data supporting the findings of this study are included within the manuscript and its supplementary materials. Publicly available data sources used in this research have been cited appropriately in the references.
Funding: The research received funding from the Swiss Leading House for the Latin American Region (2023 Research Partnership Grant to JMA). The authors declare that none of them received any salary or funding from commercial companies. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://latinamerica.unisg.ch/en/leading-house/.
Competing interests: The authors declared that no competing interests exist.
Abbreviations: AABN, Aquaculture Association of Brejinho de Nazaré; ACAMPA, Association of Collectors of Recyclable Materials of the Central North Region of Palmas; ACCMP, Association of Collectors of Recyclable Materials in Paraíso; ACPN, Canoeing Association of Porto Nacional; AgB, River Basin Agency; ANA, National Water and Basic Sanitation Agency; ATS, Tocantinian Sanitation Agency; BHLP, Lake of Palmas River Basin; BomPeixe, BomPeixe Aquaculture Park; BRK-Ambiental, Brazilian water supply and sanitation company; CBHLP, Lake of Palmas River Basin Committee; CEP Unitins, Research Ethics Committee of Unitins; CERH, State Water Resources Council; CI Lago, Intermunicipal Consortium of the Palmas Lake; CNARH, National Register of Water Resources Users; CODEVASF, São Francisco and Parnaíba Valleys Development Company; COMSAUDE, Community for Health, Development, and Education; Conep, National Commission for Research Ethics Brazil; CRBio-04, Regional Council of Biology – 4th Region; DEM, Digital elevation model; ECOTERRA, Association for Environmental Preservation; EMBRAPA, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation for Aquaculture and Fisheries; FAERTO, Federation of Rural Associations and Entities of Tocantins; GDP, Gross Domestic Product; GIS, Geographic Information System; HRU, Hydrologic Response Unit; IBAMA, Brazilian Institute of the Environment and Renewable Natural Resources; IBGE, Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics; INCRA, National Institute of Colonization and Agrarian Reform; Investco S.A, Energy Generation Company; IWRM, Integrated Water Resources Management; LajeadoF, Lajeado Fish Farming; MAPA, Federal Superintendence of Agriculture in the State of Tocantins; Naturatins, Nature Institute of Tocantins; PA-Matão, Matão Rural Settlement; PBHLP, Lake of Palmas River Basin Plan; PROGESTÃO, National Pact for Water Management; Quilombo MSJ, Morro de São João Quilombola Association; RBO, River Basin Organization; REGLA, Federal Usage Regulation System; Ruraltins, Rural Development Institute of Tocantins; SEAGRO, Secretary of Agriculture and Supply; SEIRH, State Water Resource Information System; Semarh, State Secretariat for the Environment and Water Resources of Tocantins; SES/TO, Tocantins State Health Secretariat; SIGAM, Integrated Environmental Management System; SINGREH, National Water Resources Management System; SNIRH, National and State Water Resources Information System; SPFARM, Aquaculture Farm São Paulo Ltda; SSDO, Decision Support System for Water Allocation; SWAT+, Soil and Water Assessment Tool+; RHTA, Tocantins-Araguaia Hydrographic Region; UFT, Federal University of Tocantins; VSM, Viable System Model; WFD, Water Flow Diagram
1. Introduction
The climate crisis is causing major disruptions to the global water cycle, yet water remains insufficiently reflected in climate policy frameworks worldwide [1,2]. Among the most critical consequences are the depletion of green water stored in vegetated land, the overuse of fossil groundwater, and the decline of rainwater infiltration due to urbanisation, agricultural intensification, and spreading aridity [3,4]. These dynamics intensify water vapour in the atmosphere and amplify weather extremes, with severe consequences for ecosystems, economies, and human well-being [5,6]. Meanwhile, rapid population growth and industrialisation are placing unprecedented pressure on water sources [7–10].
Addressing these challenges requires action at multiple scales. At the global level, water has been recognised as a common good [11], but effective governance requires translating these global principles into context-specific institutional arrangements that can respond to the social, ecological, and political conditions of each territory [12–14]. Good water governance requires three interconnected elements: a) a clear understanding of current resource availability and distribution, b) recognition of the diverse and often competing needs for human consumption, industry, agriculture, and ecosystem services, and c) mechanisms available to balance opposing interests and negotiate trade-offs [15,16].
The increasing complexity of water governance over the past decades has exposed critical gaps in how policies are articulated and coordinated across sectors and levels of decision-making [17–20]. Although Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has emerged as the dominant institutional response to such gaps, its implementation remains uneven, particularly in contexts characterised by institutional fragmentation, data scarcity, and multi-sectoral conflicts over water allocation [17,18].
A growing body of work has applied systems thinking and cybernetic models to the diagnosis and design of complex management systems. The Viable System Model (VSM), developed by Stafford Beer in organisational cybernetics [21–24], has been used among a wide range of managerial and public sector contexts to diagnose viability deficits, (re)design regulatory structures, and synthesise systemic responses [25–41]. Many applications in environmental and resource management contexts are emerging, with research addressing, e.g., municipal waste management systems [42], multi-scale governance of Amazonian indigenous territories [43], and the governance of socio-ecological systems under climate stress [44]. Within water management specifically, prior work in the Tocantins-Araguaia Hydrographic Region (RHTA) applied the VSM to diagnoseRiver Basin Organizations (RBOs) and evaluate aquaculture policy governance [45–47]. These studies demonstrated the model’s potential to reveal structural dysfunctions and inform the (re)design of governance arrangements that conventional assessments overlook.
Participatory approaches in water governance have similarly gained traction as means of bridging technical analysis and stakeholder legitimacy [17,48–53]. However, most participatory frameworks in IWRM focus either on stakeholder engagement processes or on technical modelling, rarely on the combination of both within an integrative diagnostic method. Hydrological assessment instruments and cybernetic governance models have largely developed in parallel, with few attempts to combine them in a participatory framework.
The objective of this research was to evaluate the applicability of a novel methodological combination of two instruments: the Water Flow Diagram (WFD) and the Viable System Model (VSM). The WFD is a recently developed communication and planning tool that visualises water balances and flows across sectors, seasons, and spatial scales, supporting participatory dialogue around conflicts of interest in water use and contamination risks [54].
The combined application of VSM and the WFD is theoretically motivated by structural complementarity: the WFD operationalises the physical environment of the system (what the VSM calls “operations”), while the VSM maps the regulatory architecture required to govern it (“management”). This combination had the potential to diagnose not only the pressures affecting the water cycle, but the systemic failures that limit effective institutional responses and therewith could enable more effective identification of challenges and mitigation options.
The present research applies this combined framework in the Lake of Palmas River Basin (BHLP), located within the Tocantins-Araguaia Hydrographic Region (RHTA) in Brazil, a context characterised by intensive agricultural water use, institutional fragmentation, and growing hydroclimatic stress [55]. The case provides an in-depth application of the conceptual methodological framework, with findings interpreted for their broader relevance to analogous hydric systems settings.
1.1 The problematic nature of water management in the Tocantins-Araguaia Hydrographic Region
The Tocantins-Araguaia Hydrographic Region (TAHR) covers an area of approximately 967,059 km², representing about 11% of Brazil’s territory. The region is dominated by the Cerrado biome, which plays a crucial role in its biodiversity and water storage, and is the source of several important rivers in the region.
In recent decades, the growth of agribusiness has led to the substantial expansion of agricultural land through the conversion of forests and natural habitats [56]. The increasing demand for irrigation water has triggered conflicts over water allocation, underscoring the urgency of effective management arrangements [57]. The impact of intensive agriculture, combined with deforestation and soil degradation, poses significant threats to environmental sustainability in the region.
The governance of water resources in the RHTA is structured around Brazil’s National Water Resources Policy (Law No. 9,433/1997), which established a decentralised, participatory framework based on RBOs, water use permits, water pricing, and integrated water resource management plans. At the state level, Tocantins operates an integrated water resources management system grounded in State Law No. 1,307/2002, involving the State Secretariat for Environment and Water Resources (Semarh), the Environmental Agency (Naturatins), the State Water Resources Council (CERH), and seven river basin committees. Through its participation in the National Pact for Water Management (PROGESTÃO), the state has developed formal administrative structures for water governance. However, key management instruments remain incompletely implemented, revealing a governance gap between formal institutional consolidation and the effective capacity to manage conflicts and negotiate trade-offs at the river basin scale [45–47].
The Lake of Palmas River Basin (BHLP) covers 18,972 km², encompasses 24 municipalities, and represents 6.6% of the state’s total area (Fig 1). Formed after the construction of the Luís Eduardo Magalhães Hydroelectric Plant, the reservoir has become a focal point for regional planning and integrated water resource management, including irrigation and aquaculture. Growing water demand from multiple sectors, combined with changing precipitation patterns and increasing climate variability [55], has intensified competition among water users and underscored the urgency of adaptive governance responses.
2. Methodology
This research adopted a single case study approach combining qualitative and quantitative methods, grounded in a novel application of the WFD and the VSM frameworks to assess the viability of the Lake of Palmas River Basin (BHLP) as a complex hydric system, within the Tocantins-Araguaia Hydrographic Region (TAHR). The case was selected due to the convergence of significant environmental pressures and governance challenges that together threaten the long-term viability of water services and ecosystem functions in the region, making it a particularly suitable context for the in-depth application of the proposed methodological framework. The research design enabled a detailed systemic assessment of water governance in the watershed using participatory methods. Data were collected between January and October 2024.
2.1 Ethics statement
The study was reviewed and approved by the National Commission for Research Ethics (Conep/Brazil), the Research Ethics Committee of Unitins (CEP-Unitins), and the Ethical Review Committee of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag).
2.2 The Palmas Lake River Basin committee: a focal point for the participatory process
The Lake of Palmas River Basin Committee (CBHLP) served as the focal point of our study. Also known as the “Water Parliament,” the committee provides a space for negotiation, consensus-building, and conflict resolution among stakeholders, including government representatives, water users (such as agriculture, industry, and municipalities), non-governmental organisations, and local communities.
The CBHLP was established in May 2011 and is endowed with normative, deliberative, and advisory responsibilities, as conferred by federal and Tocantins state authorities. Its creation follows the principles established by Brazilian Federal Water Policy Law No. 9.433/1997. Accordingly, the CBHLP was organised as a collegiate body within the National Water Resources Management System (SINGREH), which is composed of representatives from government agencies, water users, and civil society.
Our research involved the 36 titular representative members of CBHLP, and their respective 36 deputies. Fig 2 outlines the key stakeholders holding deliberative power within the CBHLP as constituted for the biennial mandate of 2023–2024. For further details, please refer to the glossary of organisations and institutions in S1 Text.
Notes: The (‘…’) denotes stakeholders with high turnover or fixed mandates, who may enter or leave the governance setting over time. Their inclusion underscores the dynamic character of the stakeholder landscape and the necessity of continuous monitoring.
2.3 The Water Flow Diagrams (WFDs)
The WFD is used to visualise the water stocks and volumes of water flows through a defined system, for example, an urban area or a large river basin. It visualises the mass balance of water flows during a specifically defined period of time [54]. Sequences of several WFD’s for specific periods are prepared to visualise and compare changes over time. The methodology enables the identification of opportunities and challenges relating to the attribution of volumes and contamination risks between sources, storage (including land use, evaporation, evapotranspiration, infiltration, and run-off), drinking water treatment, different utilisation processes (domestic, public, industrial, and agricultural), water losses, wastewater treatment and discharge, recharge, and reuse.
The method outlined in [54] was applied to define the WFDs for the Lake of Palmas River Basin (BHLP). The water flows, and nodes that connect the different flows are depicted using a Sankey diagram. While nodes represent functional groups of processes in the system analysed (Table 1), a flow connects two consecutive processes, for example, the conveyance of water from the source via pipes to the treatment process. Its thickness is proportional to the water volume that the flow represents.
In addition to the thickness, a colour code is applied to distinguish between “problematic” (red), “appropriate” (green), and “unknown” (grey) water management practices. The evaluation is made based on expert judgement of the risk of microbiological or chemical contamination, or if water loss has occurred. The following criteria were being considered during the expert judgement to assess the reliability of water treatment and to identify potential risks for water contamination: technical configurations and type of water treatment technologies installed, operation and maintenance system and regular monitoring of water quality.
The watershed, as outlined in the Lake of Palmas River Basin Plan (PBHLP) [58], was defined as the basic operative unit (also called “system area”) for the WFDs. Due to high seasonal variations in rainfall, separate WFDs were developed for six months during the dry season and for six months during the rainy season. The largest urban areas in the watershed are the cities of Palmas and Porto Nacional. The total population is 370 670 inhabitants [59].
2.3.1 Multi-Source data collection for the WFD.
Water volumes for irrigation and livestock were derived from the Lake of Palmas River Basin Plan (PBHLP) [58], with state-granted water rights registered at Nature Institute of Tocantins (Naturatins) [60]. Irrigation demand was calculated from irrigated area, crop water needs, and evapotranspiration, while livestock demand was based on herd size [58].
Urban water supply and sanitation data (Palmas and Porto Nacional) were provided by the local utility [61]. Rural data were incomplete; partial figures (2010 sanitation coverage and abstraction methods) were obtained from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) [59] and National Water and Basic Sanitation Agency (ANA) [62]. Drinking water quality data were unavailable. Therefore, water quality was estimated on the basis of expert judgement of the type of water treatment used in the city and the peri-urban areas. Rural water losses were estimated by calculating mass balances. Industrial water use, including mining, was based on Naturatins [60] and PBHLP [58].
Agricultural water use was quantified with SWAT + , which models watershed water balance based on soil, topography, land use, and weather [63]. Using QSWAT+ (QGIS), the watershed was divided into hydrographic response units (HRUs), each defined by slope, land use, and soil, and linked to meteorological data [63–65]. Model inputs included: the digital elevation model (DEM) (Topodata/INPE) [66], land use (Mapbiomas, adjusted for 2024 fire scars using Copernicus imagery) [67,68], soil (FAO) [69], and precipitation/temperature (INMET, Palmas and Porto Nacional stations) [70].
Other weather parameters (solar radiation, wind, humidity) were simulated by SWAT [63]. Monthly SWAT+ outputs for each HRU (runoff, infiltration, evapotranspiration) were averaged by season (rainy/dry) and integrated into the Water Flow Diagram. Green water in biomass was estimated via mass balance, subtracting infiltration, runoff, evaporation, and evapotranspiration from agricultural inflows.
2.4 The Viable System Model (VSM)
The Viable System Model (VSM) is rooted in Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety, which establishes that a regulator can only control a system if its variety (the range of possible responses) matches or exceeds the variety of the disturbances it faces [71–72]. This means that viable systems must possess sufficient internal complexity to absorb and respond to the complexity of their environment.
The VSM was used to map the governance of the Lake of Palmas River Basin (BHLP). The model has been applied in a great diversity of contexts and documented in two groups of publications. Firstly, multiple accounts of the model’s application for diagnosing and (re)designing systems have been published [33–38]. Secondly, methodological contributions to the application of the model can be found in references [39–48], as well as in the original writings of Stafford Beer [21–24].
According to VSM theory, a social system is considered viable if and only if its structure satisfies a set of necessary and sufficient preconditions, comprising five regulatory subsystems and their interrelationships [24]; see Table 2. In this context, the term ‘regulatory’ is used in a cybernetic sense, referring to managerial functions, whereby ‘regulator’ encompasses roles such as controller, governor, or manager. As Beer [24] conceptualised it, System 1 constitutes the operational core of the viable system, that is, what the system actually does, encompassing the primary activities that implement the key transformations of the organisation and justify its existence. These properties make the VSM a powerful conceptual and theoretical framework for the diagnosis and design of complex systems, including organisations and socio-ecological systems, applicable across a wide range of contexts regardless of scale, sector, or ownership [43–48].
Any deficit in any of the sub-systems or their interrelations, such as missing functions, insufficient capacity of functions, or defective interaction between them, inevitably impairs the viability/sustainability of the organisation. To be viable, not only the basic operative unit-in-focus (e.g., a river basin), but also its subsystems (e.g., catchments) and supersystems (e.g., a set of river basins) must be structured according to the same principles [45]. The viability of the system requires that all five functions are present in all levels of the system. That is the principle of recursion: viable systems contain viable sub-systems.
2.4.1 Multi-source data collection for the VSM.
For data collection, we followed Yin’s protocol [73], employing a multifaceted approach that incorporated systematic document review, participant observations, interviews, and a participatory workshop. Data collection procedures and their analytical contribution are described below.
Systematic document review was conducted between January and December 2024, drawing on documents retrieved from the National Water Resources Information System (SNIRH) [74]. The SNIRH was established under Water Law No. 9,433/1997 [75], which mandates public access to water governance information. Documents reviewed included the river basin management plan [58], water use permit registries [60], PROGESTÃO performance reports [76], river basin committee meeting minutes [77], state water resource legislation [78], and federal regulatory frameworks [79–80].
All documents were publicly available and accessed directly through the official information portals. Documents were selected based on their relevance to the five VSM subsystems and analysed to identify governance patterns, institutional gaps, and evidence that corroborated or contrasted with data collected through interviews and participant observation.
Participant observation was conducted during regular and extraordinary public meetings of the CBHLP throughout 2024. Researchers observed decision-making processes, stakeholder interactions, and the practical implementation of governance strategies while recording field notes structured around the five VSM subsystems.
The interviews were conducted with 20 key informants between 16 July and 20 December 2024, representing four stakeholder groups: government agencies (federal and state level), water users (agriculture, industry, and urban supply), water resource specialists, and civil society organisations. The interview guide covered seven thematic blocks aligned with the VSM subsystem structure: (i) provision of hydrological services and water availability (S1); (ii) coordination mechanisms, water use permits, and river basin plan implementation (S2); (iii) river basin committee operations and performance monitoring (S3); (iv) information management, field inspections, and auditing capacity (S3*); (v) strategic planning across political, environmental, social, economic, and legal dimensions (S4); (vi) normative governance, state and federal-level guidelines, and inter-institutional cooperation (S5); and (vii) autonomy of primary units and communication channels. For further details, please refer to the interview guide presented in S2 Text. All interviewees provided written informed consent prior to participation.
The participatory co-creation workshop was held during two full days on 15–16 October 2024, with approximately 100 participants. The workshop engaged the 36 titular members and 36 deputies of the CBHLP, representing four stakeholder categories: federal government agencies, state government agencies, non-governmental organisations, and water users, including representatives from agriculture, aquaculture, urban water supply, industry, research institutions, and local communities (see Fig 2). The workshop followed a four-part structured programme. In Part 1, the research team presented the current state of the Lake of Palmas River Basin and the objectives of the research, with verbal informed consent confirmed at the opening plenary session and documented via a signed attendance list.
In Part 2, participants received an introduction to the core principles of the VSM and its application to water governance, supported by practical examples of prior VSM applications and the preliminary WFDs for the dry and rainy seasons. In Part 3, participants were divided into six working groups, each assigned to diagnose one VSM subsystem (Operations (S1), Coordination (S2), Operational Management (S3), Monitoring (S3*), Strategic Intelligence (S4), and Normative Governance (S5)) guided by a trained facilitator. Each group used the preliminary VSM diagram and the WFDs as reference models to identify failures, gaps, and strengths within their assigned subsystem. Group findings were subsequently shared in a plenary session, enabling the identification of cross-subsystem patterns and divergences, and the consolidation of partial diagnoses into both operational and holistic perspectives.
In Part 4, groups engaged in structured brainstorming to identify and prioritise practical actions for improving the viability of the hydric system, followed by plenary presentations and collective discussion of next steps. Visual aids, including whiteboards, flipcharts, coloured cards, and multimedia resources, were used throughout to support understanding of the VSM.
Information from all four data sources was triangulated and synthesised by the research team using the VSM subsystem framework as a coding structure, enabling the integration of quantitative water balance data from the WFD with qualitative governance insights from interviews, observations, and workshop outputs. For further details, please refer to the workshop guide presented in S3 Text.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Unveiling water flows: key findings from the WFDs
Figures 3 and 4 present the Water Flow Diagrams (WFDs) of the average dry and rainy seasons for the Lake of Palmas River Basin (BHLP), using data from 1993 to 2023. During the dry season (Fig 4), precipitation supplied 128 x 106 m³ to agricultural land, with 42% transpiring through plants, 37% evaporating, 16% running off, and 4.4% infiltrating. Of 150,000 ha of farmland, 4,000 ha (2.7%) were irrigated, using surface water via centre pivots, micro-sprinklers, and drip systems. Irrigation losses were high: 25% in transit, 21% evaporated, 19% ran off, and 42% transpired; only 12% was converted to biomass. Livestock consumed 31 x 106 m³ (surface water) [58,60].
Water flows in 106 m³.
Water flows in 106 m3.
Human water consumption, abstracted from surface and groundwater sources, totalled 21 x 106 m³, mainly in Palmas and Porto Nacional, with 30–39% distribution losses. Water losses in piped distribution systems above 20% are regarded as inefficient by international standards [ 81]. Advanced drinking water treatment methods were applied in urban centres, assuring the distribution of high-quality water. Water quality was regularly monitored, and official documents reported that the performance of drinking water treatment was satisfactory. Information on the status of water treatment and the drinking water quality supplied in smaller municipalities on the Lake’s west bank was not available. Therefore, the quality of drinking water in the smaller municipalities was rated as “unknown”.
Coverage of safely managed sanitation, including sewer connections, reached 80% in Palmas and 60% in Porto Nacional. Rural households used unlined pits, posing groundwater risks. Industrial water use, including mining, was officially reported at 1 x 106 m³ [60]. The reported industrial water consumption was very low, indicating the possibility of underreporting in this sector.
The dry season WFD highlighted: (1) significant irrigation withdrawals for 2.7% of the farmland; (2) high losses in irrigation and urban supply; (3) potential contamination from pesticide runoff and rural sanitation; and (4) evapotranspiration losses.
During the rainy season (Fig 4), agriculture relied solely on precipitation (2,404 x 106 m³), with yields 38 times higher than in the dry season. Evapotranspiration returned 1,398 x 106 m³ to the atmosphere (266 x 106 transpired through plants, 1,113 x 106 over soil), while runoff reached 492 x 106 m³ and infiltration 133 x 106 m³ [58]. Contamination risks in surface runoff water due to pesticides were identified. Human and industrial water use were assumed constant between seasons as official data in this sector were not aggregated by season, and water consumption for human and industrial purposes in Palmas is not expected to fluctuate much between the seasons [61].
Comparison of the WFDs and granted water rights [58,60,61] revealed large discrepancies: actual irrigation consumption (~116 x 106 m³) and livestock use (~31 x 106 m³) far exceeded granted rights (12 x 106 m³ and 0.3 x 106 m³, respectively). Industrial use was likely underreported, while human consumption aligned with registered volumes. Groundwater extraction, including private wells, remains unmonitored [82].
3.2 Diagnosing water governance with the VSM
The map in Fig 5 provides a comprehensive view of the current state of water governance in the Lake of Palmas River Basin (BHLP). The diagram presents the constellation of stakeholders involved in the integrative management system within the five subsystems of the VSM. Additionally, the diagram illustrates the connections between these subsystems. Words in red highlight missing components or dysfunctions.
This diagram depicts the complexity of water governance viability in the system of the Lake of Palmas River Basin, including the basic operative unit-in-focus.
3.2.1 The primary units and their relationship with the environment (S1Environment).
The findings highlighted by the WFD and the participatory discussions around water use indicated the impact of changes in precipitation patterns and a growing demand for water, particularly for irrigation in the agricultural sector. The increasing demand for water by agriculture and its intensive use for the production of high-value agricultural commodities pose important challenges for managers when balancing water availability. Water losses and the potential risk of surface and groundwater contamination through pesticides were identified as additional challenges. Water management in the Lake of Palmas River Basin (BHLP) faces complex threats from economic, environmental, and social pressures, and these require adaptive and innovative solutions. At the same time, water governance is challenged by the increasing complexity of the reforms introduced by the 1997 Brazilian Water Law [75] to regulate and control water utilisation.
The absence of a functioning River Basin Agency (AgB) in the BHLP constitutes a critical structural deficit within S1. A River Basin Agency (AgB) is designed to act as the executive arm of a River Basin Committee, operating as its technical and administrative secretariat [75]. It is legally mandated to implement the committee’s decisions, manage the registry of water users, administer and collect water use charges, develop plans and technical studies, and monitor water use to support informed decision-making.
However, in Brazil, the creation of such agencies is legally contingent upon the implementation of charges for water use, which provides the financial basis for their operation. Of the six river basin committees in the state, only the Formoso River Basin Committee (CBHRF) has approved studies for charging, authorised by the State Water Resources Council (CERH) in 2015. Decree No. 6,604, which regulates water charging for that river basin, was enacted only in 2023 [83], and crucial operational details, such as the effective start date for charging and the designated collection authority, remain undefined. Consequently, the BHLP operates without a dedicated AgB, limiting its capacity to execute and sustain effective water governance. This deficit affected the regulatory capacity of water management, from short-term water services to long-term sustainability.
The Lake of Palmas River Basin Committee (CBHLP) has formally communicated the urgent need to commission studies for the implementation of water use charges in the BHLP to the CERH. This is documented in the minutes and recordings of the CERH meetings, which indicate that the primary concern is the absence of key functions of the AgB, including: the maintenance and updating of the water availability balance, the registration of water resource users, and the management of the Water Resources Information System [84].
Until 2024, the Intermunicipal Consortium of Lake Palmas (CI-Lago) provided advisory services to the CBHLP and other committees within the state, under a contract with the State Secretariat for the Environment and Water Resources of Tocantins (Semarh). However, the functions being carried out are not aligned with those established by legislation [75]. During the workshops, it was observed that the “delegated agency,” as the CI-Lago is known, was constrained by a weak decision-making autonomy, fragmented access to resources, and the lack of infrastructure and technical capacities. Various stakeholders complained about the challenges in enforcing regulations, such as: a) the collection of water use charges from users, b) ensuring environmental protection, including respecting buffer zones at riverbanks, and c) the implementation of concerted efforts for restoration methods. A significant additional weakness identified was the lack of access to data and information on water availability and the water consumption levels of different users. The abstraction of groundwater for agricultural, as well as private use, by an increasing number of artesian wells has also not been monitored. Equally, official reports [58,60] provide a comparatively small volume of water consumption for industrial use in comparison with the water consumption of other sectors. This could indicate potentially unauthorized distribution of water to the industrial sector or a failure of water consumption monitoring.
3.2.2 Coordination (S2).
The coordinative function among different levels of water management is essential for effective leadership. The water services management in the BHLP has been inefficient due to the weak monitoring mechanisms over hydrometeorology, water demand versus water availability, and water quality. Subsequent processes to share the corresponding information and promote information exchange between the different levels of management need strengthening. The weak information exchange systems has affected the coordination between Tocantins Nature Institute (Naturatins), State Secretariat for the Environment and Water Resources of Tocantins (Semarh), Tocantins Sanitation Agency (ATS), BRK-Ambiental Company, and the National Water and Basic Sanitation Agency (ANA).
In 2014, the ANA launched the CNARH-40 platform as part of the National Register of Water Resources Users (CNARH) [63]. This platform was developed to enhance transparency in the management and utilisation of water resources nationwide. The register tracks individuals and organisations that extract water from surface or groundwater sources, discharge effluents, or engage in other direct interventions in hydric systems. However, in the state of Tocantins, the process of entering and transferring data remains manual, which affects the efficiency of managing and updating this important register [76]. This undermines efficiency, responsiveness, and transparency in water resource management.
To address these issues, the Naturatins recently signed an agreement with ANA to enhance its water usage grants system and improve the integration of the Integrated Environmental Management System (SIGAM) [85] and the Federal Usage Regulation System (REGLA) [80]. This agreement aims to adopt the Decision Support System for Water Allocation (SSDO), which will streamline the process of granting water usage rights. The SSDO will effectively manage conflicts of interest by incorporating real-time hydrometeorological data, enabling more precise analysis, and facilitating more efficient decision-making regarding water demand in the BHLP.
However, interoperability issues between the SIGAM and REGLA’s information systems and a lack of technical capacity to interpret and utilise the available data exacerbate the challenges related to granting water use rights in the BHLP.
Semarh has been working on expanding the hydrometeorological network. Currently, only 80 Data Collection Platforms (PCDs) are in regular operation. The number of these stations is too low to provide sufficient coverage for all the regions and impacts its access to reliable real-time data. This results in information silos, impairs the function of the local regulatory centres of the primary units and hinders coordination among the different levels of management. Potential threats, such as water scarcity and pollution, are not being recognised in advance, and the development of preventative or adaptive measures is impaired.
The primary challenge for expanding the number of platforms lies in increasing the number of adequately trained field personnel to maintain these PCDs [76]. Implementing measures to enhance the data collection and monitoring systems, as well as the installation of an effective system for the dissemination of the corresponding information to improve communication and coordination among regulatory agencies, is crucial for the State Water Resource Information System (SEIRH).
3.2.3 Executive management (S3).
The S3 embodies the short-to-mid-term perspective of the system-in-focus (“Here and Now”). It manifests itself through the legal authority for water management at the watershed level, which is held by the Lake of Palmas River Basin Committee (CBHLP). CBHLP is known as the “Power of the State”, indicating its authority within S3 to make decisions regarding water as a public good that must be enforced ANA [86].
Our findings indicated that CBHLP has assumed institutional responsibilities, but lacks the resources to implement and monitor the Lake of Palmas River Basin Plan (PBHLP). The PBHLP provided a rough, fragmented diagnosis and prognosis of water demand and availability in the river basin, highlighting the issues of incompatibility between demand and water availability since 2015 [58]. Additionally, we observed that currently the committee places its main focus on conducting water quality classification studies and implementing water use charges. To address these priorities, the committee has established technical chambers tasked with carrying out preliminary studies. The implementation of the corresponding activities, however, has been significantly hampered by a lack of financial and technical resources.
While the CBHLP reflects the participatory design of Brazil’s water governance, its performance is constrained by structural issues. Stakeholder representation is uneven, with larger economic actors better equipped to engage in participation than community or civil society groups, and frequent turnover among public sector members erodes continuity and institutional memory. Many representatives lack technical capacity, further limiting the committee’s ability to deliberate beyond regulatory compliance. These factors weaken its capacity to coordinate systemic responses to basin-wide challenges, despite its formal authority as S3.
The focus on fulfilling regulatory requirements has limited the committee’s ability to engage proactively with the here identified systemic challenges within the river basin. The effectiveness of the committee was hindered by an unbalanced representation of stakeholders and a lack of continuity in membership. Political cycles lead to frequent turnover among public sector representatives, which diminishes institutional memory and continuity in decision-making processes.
To improve CBHLP’s functionality, it would be crucial to establish institutional relations with S1 (in our case, a River Basin Agency) to mitigate potential rivalries and conflicts in the primary units. The Water Law establishes well-defined competencies and responsibilities for both, and they are complementary [75].
The deficiency in S1 (lack of AgB) weakens the functionality of the CBHLP. The CBHLP, in turn, lacks the capacity to support the primary units if they encounter challenges, such as formulating regulations that define water use norms, licensing criteria, contingency plans, and water quality standards. All of these rulings must align with the priorities of ecosystem conservation and sustainable water use, the objectives of increasing water efficiency and protecting water quality, and the available financial, human, and technological resources outlined in the PBHLP.
3.2.4 Auditing and monitoring (S3*).
S3* is manifested through the role of monitoring and auditing activities, exercised by Naturatins, which employs its power of administrative policing to ensure compliance with the current regulatory acts [68}. Two significant challenges concerning monitoring and auditing were identified.
First, Naturatins’ capacity to effectively and rigorously fulfil its supervisory responsibilities, as defined by law [78], is limited due to low staffing levels and insufficient infrastructure. The lack of hydrometeorological measurement stations, data inconsistencies, and limited automation restrict the information flow within the water management systems, further diminishing the effectiveness of its supervisory functions.
Second, there is a concerning lack of compliance among permit holders regarding the terms of their licenses. Users need increased awareness of the risks associated with non-compliance and of the collective benefits that can arise from proactive engagement and compliance. To address these challenges in the implementation and enforcement of water use permits, active citizen participation in monitoring water consumption is essential. Encouraging users to report deviations through the Naturatins “Green Line” can help foster a culture of accountability.
These deficits in S3* have a direct consequence for the problem of uncontrolled abstraction identified by the WFD. In the absence of effective field inspections, real-time monitoring, and enforcement capacity, actual water withdrawals, particularly for irrigation, far exceed granted water rights, as evidenced by the discrepancy between modelled abstraction volumes (~116 x 10⁶ m³) and registered water use rights (12 x 10⁶ m³). The S3* function, which should provide S3 with independent, non-routine insight into actual operational practices, is precisely the subsystem responsible for detecting such discrepancies and triggering corrective action. Its incapacity to fulfil this role means that uncontrolled abstraction persists undetected and uncorrected within the regulatory system.
3.2.5 Strategy and organisation development (S4).
S4 should lead and moderate the process of designing strategies and the long-term perspective. The fundamental role of the S4 is to integrate relevant information from what happens or may happen in the organisation’s environment, and channel it to enhance institutional intelligence. In this regard, the state of Tocantins, as a signatory to the National Pact for Water Management [87], aligns its efforts with national water governance strategies.
The State Secretariat for the Environment and Water Resources of Tocantins (Semarh) plays a legal role in implementing the Pact’s strategies. Through a financial incentive program from the ANA, known as Progestão, Semarh should promote coordination among various levels of government and civil society, and contribute to the development and implementation of water resource management policies and plans at the state level.
The goals of Progestão are divided into two categories: federative cooperation targets, defined by ANA, based on legal regulations or information sharing, and water resource management targets at the state level. The aim is to promote shared governance, based on clear and measurable targets, while focusing on voluntary adherence and strengthening local water management capacities [88]
The state of Tocantins joined Progestão through State Decree No. 4.915/2013 [89], and began to fulfil the goals of the first cycle in 2014. Currently, the final phase of the third cycle is being implemented. Tocantins is classified under typology B [76], indicating that the state has administrative structures for water resources management, such as management bodies and river basin committees. However, it struggles to implement key management instruments, such as water use charges, water body classification, and water rights allocation. In addition, Semarh faces the following challenges: excessive bureaucracy in the acquisition of goods and contracting of services, the integration of management systems to guarantee the reliability of real-time data, and proper functioning of the Strategy Room [76, p.23].
The Strategy Room was established using financial resources from the ANA. This physical space is equipped with panels and monitoring screens that display data from the PCDs installed in the rivers. Despite its potential, the Strategy Room has been underutilised, limiting its effectiveness as a central hub for real-time data analysis and decision-making. To maximise its capabilities, it is essential to enhance the engagement of S3 and S5, involving the CBHLP and CERH in decision-making discussions based on the data from the Strategy Room.
3.2.6 Normative management - organisational identity and ethos (S5).
The S5 constitutes the supreme authority of the system and, as such, is the only organ with the capacity to regulate the interaction between the S3 and S4. It embodies a perspective which is very long-term, if not “timeless”.
The State Council of Water Resources (CERH) is the supreme political decision-making body of the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the state of Tocantins. The mission, values, and constitutive objectives of the CERH are deeply rooted in the Constitutional principles of Brazilian democracy and sovereignty. CERH is responsible for formulating and implementing the State water resources policies, ensuring their alignment with national guidelines and adapting them to local conditions [78].
Therefore, in addition to balancing the stability of the system’s intrinsic control and its constant adaptation to the demands of the environment, CERH has the function of ensuring that the system maintains its purpose, vis-à-vis the sustainability of water services.
However, the CERH’s deliberative role often resembles that of a “registration chamber”. The report from the last cycle of Progestão highlights the need for greater participation of the CERH in the water governance process [76, p.23]. During our participatory observation, it was noted that the Progestão plans and accountability reports presented at the regular meetings are often validated by the CERH without a thorough discussion of the demands and problems arising from the basins.
The lack of critical debate limits the effectiveness of the decisions made. Active participation from the CERH would be essential to ensure transparency and foster a collaborative environment that encourages the exchange of ideas and the joint development of solutions. The absence of deeper dialogue can result in plans that do not reflect local realities and needs, hindering the implementation of adaptation measures to specific challenges.
3.3 Viability of water services in the Lake of Palmas River Basin
Our assessment of the water balance, using the WFD and the governance diagnostic through VSM, identified a significant gap between the regulated allocation of water usage and uncontrolled abstraction. During recent years, this imbalance has increased due to prolonged droughts. In a well-balanced system, the allocation of water use rights should harmonise demand with water availability in the catchment areas.
The mismatch between regulated water use and uncontrolled abstraction indicates that the institutional capacity of operations is below the threshold required to respond effectively to the environment’s complexity, as shown in Fig 6.
Source: Modified and adapted from Lassl (2019).
The local management (AgB) is not equipped to handle the day-to-day operations required to effectively maintain water services, and is constrained by inadequate infrastructure and limited technical capacity. Weak systems of data generation and monitoring limit the exchange of information between the basic units and higher levels of management. Without the information generated by the operations, System 3 lacks the capacity to generate cohesion between the legal requirements, supervision and implementation. The necessary conditions for implementing water use charges and measures to ensure the fair and efficient distribution of water resources have not been established. This deficiency weakens the capacity of CBHLP, and its competencies, knowledge, and resources are being undermined by the complexity of the environment.
Another important dysfunction within BHLP is that the operational metasystem lacks an effective channel and platforms to coordinate and manage the different systems, as shown in Fig 7. This deficiency is aggravated by the previously outlined weakness of a functional monitoring system. The lack of structures and mechanisms for coordination and information exchange impairs the interconnection of functions of S1, S2, S3, and S3*.
Source: Modified and adapted from Lassl (2019).
Deficiencies in interoperability between the federal (REGLA and CNARH) and state-level (SIGAM) regulatory systems challenge the coordination of S1. The coordination and management mechanisms exhibit several deficits, including: poor handling of inconsistencies in historical data, lack of automation in decision support systems, insufficient training capacity, limited supervision and compliance auditing, and the absence of a technical licensing manual for water users.
It is also important to emphasise our findings concerning the algedonic channel, which in a well-functioning VSM serves as an emergency signal pathway that bypasses normal hierarchical filters to alert S5 directly when the system is under critical stress. In the BHLP, this mechanism is non-functional: even when a crisis signal is triggered at the operational level, it fails to reach higher authorities, and a proper response is unlikely to be initiated [45]. This failure is particularly consequential in the context of uncontrolled abstraction, a condition that directly threatens the viability of the hydric system yet remains invisible to normative management (S5/CERH). The result is a double structural failure: S3* does not detect and report the abstraction gap, and the algedonic channel does not escalate it to the normative level, leaving the system unable to self-correct in response to one of its most critical threats.
3.4 Reflections for (re-)designing the lake of palmas river basin
The extensive gaps and deficits in the five preconditions for viability as defined by the VSM [10–14] have jeopardised the viability of the BHLP. The identified challenges are in summary: (1) disbalance between demand and availability; (2) a lack of a monitoring system;(3) a lack of a data management system and the capabilities to maintain and use it; and (4) a lack of control.
The challenges need to be addressed through a management system that reconciles environmental, operational, and managerial demands, particularly in economically significant areas, such as intensive agriculture. Our analysis identified the need for harmonising water demand and availability and the ecological limits of the watershed as the most critical challenges of effective governance of water services in the BHLP. This requires the strengthening of monitoring mechanisms on hydrometeorology and water consumption, coupled with the transparent enforcement of regulatory mechanisms for water allocation that consider the availability of water resources.
Measures to improve water governance should include controlling the expansion of cultivation areas to prevent unsustainable and predatory practices. In this regard, specific recommendations to strengthen the monitoring and enforcement system encompass: the expanded installation of remote, digital, and on-site monitoring systems covering hydrology, meteorology, water utilisation, and water quality, including the application of artificial intelligence to identify critical intervention areas; the implementation of independent and publicly transparent auditing mechanisms; the introduction of decision-support tools for fair and sustainable water allocation; and the strengthening of coordination between federal (REGLA, CNARH) and state-level (SIGAM) regulatory information systems. Furthermore, the expanded monitoring infrastructure should be linked to a water crisis alert system capable of notifying strategic management (S5) of potential and imminent threats to the water service system, while facilitating a corresponding response across operational management (S3), the coordination system (S2), and long-term strategy (S4).
The lack of access to data information via a reliable monitoring system has impaired the communication and coordination channels and platforms between the operational units (S1) and higher levels of management. To address this challenge, stakeholders suggested establishing public digital platforms and exchange mechanisms to present information, discuss challenges, and enhance cooperation between different organisations and management levels. The lack of personnel and technical capacity at the level of the catchment areas, coupled with weak support, financial issues, and inadequate supervision from S3 have resulted in poor management, untransparent accounting of permits, and weak enforcement of regulations on water resource protection. This calls for the implementation of independent, publicly transparent auditing mechanisms to ensure compliance with water governance standards. Decision-support tools and the introduction of additional regulatory barriers could support efforts to allocate water fairly and sustainably.
The existing strategic management deficit stems from an imbalance between satisfying the needs of short-term economic production goals and a more sustainable long-term strategy that also includes a resource conservation perspective. The capacity of S4 in conducting modelling risk analysis, scenario development, and facilitating adaptation by formulating policies that regulate water resource usage should be strengthened. The installation of a Strategy room was suggested as an approach to harmonise these goals, using a collaborative process of participatory discussion and reflection. Workshop participants pointed out that there is an unbalanced representation of stakeholders in the councils and committees, highlighting the need for equal social representation in the Strategy room. Such an approach would prevent the risk of S4 neglecting the operational information essential for the execution of its strategy or the implementation of innovations.
Our analysis revealed that S5 should strengthen the governance to not only maintain the current balance by increasing its involvement in monitoring and guiding the interactions between S3 and S4, but it should also develop and implement measures to be prepared for future issues that could destabilise the system. Leveraging multi-year planning processes (e.g. PPAs) was suggested to integrate local needs into higher-level strategies that include policies that promote equity in water use and respect long-term viability.
The development of a governance identity focused on sustainability and social responsibility should be a core value, establishing standards that guide decisions at all levels of the management system.
3.5 Strengths and weaknesses of the methods applied in a participatory process
Our study adopted a strategy to use a novel combination of two innovative methodological approaches of systems analysis —the WFD and the VSM—to assess governance in the Lake Palmas River Basin and review findings through a participatory process involving a broad range of stakeholders. The methodologies used embraced a deductive approach, on the basis of a proven analytical tool (WFD) and a powerful theoretical frame of reference for the diagnosis and design of complex systems (VSM). In addition, our study also included an inductive component: the participatory contributions of stakeholders to validate the findings stated by the researchers on the basis of the literature review. Findings therewith were validated by experts on one side and by stakeholder consensus on the other.
The WFD visualised seasonal balances of water utilisation and associated challenges in water management in easy-to-understand diagrams. The visual presentation of these diagrams effectively enhanced the participatory process that took place to diagnose and redesign water governance, and supported the analysis of the viability of water services in accordance with the VSM.
The accuracy of the diagram was partially limited by conflicting and missing data. Modelled information retrieved from the SWAT+ Model on the watershed was used to complement some of the missing data. In addition, in the absence of water quality data, expert judgements were used to estimate water quality on the basis of the technical configurations of water treatment systems in the city of Palmas and the peri-urban areas. Such assumptions or expert judgements may be necessary to make models possible. A model is always a simplified representation of the reality, and taking assumptions allowed us to reduce the complexity of water supply in the watershed of the Lake of Palmas to be able to produce an understandable and analysable visualization. During the workshop, participants were informed about the limitations of the WFDs, including the non-depiction of water flows for which data were missing, such as the abstraction of groundwater, and also the low volume of industrial water consumption, reflecting the absence of data on industrial water consumption from the CNARH.
The application of the VSM was key to generating system-specific information and validating it during stakeholder engagement. A participatory process, recognised as a methodological approach, involves a systemic inquiry conducted in direct collaboration with those affected by the issue under investigation, with the aim to foster action or drive change [49]. The design of the participatory process, including the development and validation of data, is critical to achieving the intended outcomes [53]. It is a co-constructive process.
Participatory processes often face challenges, particularly in ensuring equitable representation, a concern amplified in this project due to its reliance on voluntary participation, which may create power imbalances. To address these issues, group interactions within the participatory process during the workshops were carefully facilitated to enhance participants’ ability to collaborate effectively and manage hierarchical dynamics through structured dialogue.
To achieve a balanced presentation of the perceptions relating to the five different managerial sub-systems, a broad spectrum of stakeholders from all sectors, including the grassroots level, as well as the high-level government officials who performed S4 and S5 tasks, participated in the analysis.
The participatory process implemented in this project aligned with four key principles: engaging participants with “authority of direct experience,” generating “knowledge in action,” conducting research as a “transformative process,” and fostering “collaboration through dialogue” [48]. It provided a deeper understanding of stakeholders’ perceptions of the challenges they face during water management. Due to their diverse representation, differing perspectives on the challenges were presented by the different managerial levels. The engagement of multiple stakeholders with potentially conflicting interests supported the water governance analysis, especially given its inherent complexity of interconnected social, economic, and environmental dimensions.
The implemented participatory process significantly supported data generation by leveraging the collective knowledge, experiences, and perspectives of diverse stakeholders. The approach enhanced the quality, accuracy, and applicability of data and ensured the reflection of the realities of local governance and resource management.
4. Conclusion
Our research makes two contributions to the field of integrated water service management and governance. Theoretically, it demonstrates that the VSM and WFD are structurally complementary tools whose joint application enables a more comprehensive diagnosis of hydric system viability than either instrument provides alone. Practically, it offers a replicable, participatory methodology for assessing viability in complex, data-scarce river basin contexts.
The combined application of the WFD and the VSM, using such a participatory process, proved to be very effective in identifying challenges and potential mitigation measures in the governance of water service management in the Lake of Palmas River Basin. The visualisation of the water balance provided by the WFD, including challenges in distribution, losses and potential risks of contamination, provided a valuable basis for the participatory identification and discussion of the challenges and potential mitigation measures during the diagnostic and re(design) process of the VSM, in which the findings from the analytical analysis were corroborated by qualified participants in the research project. The combination of both tools lead to a common understanding between the different stakeholders, and a better knowledge of the current state of the local water resources and utilisation patterns.
Moreover, the research has opened further perspectives and increased the understanding of the critical actions to be taken. The analytical process identified water governance issues and revealed gaps in strategic alignment between the environmental conditions, operational requirements and policy needs. The outcomes highlighted the need to strengthen the inter-organisational coordination capacity of lower and higher levels of management by improving their access to information and to facilitate measures addressing such threats in water management as imbalances in the allocation and implementation of rights for water consumption, overutilisation, uncontrolled abstraction of water and potential contamination risks. Access to information should be enhanced by installing and strengthening access to information-sharing platforms and information exchange mechanisms, including scaling-up the provision of real-time data on hydro-meteorological information, water consumption, and available water resources. Management units further need to receive technical and financial support to enhance their capacity. Our case study highlighted the benefit of combining the WFD and the VSM to support improvements in water service management. We recommend the implementation of additional studies to enhance generalization of the results.
Supporting information
S1 Text. Glossary of institutions and organizations.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pwat.0000381.s001
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Douville H, Allan RP, Arias PA, Betts RA, Caretta MA, Cherchi A, et al. Water remains a blind spot in climate change policies. PLOS Water. 2022;1(12):e0000058.
- 2. Seo K-W, Ryu D, Jeon T, Youm K, Kim J-S, Oh EH, et al. Abrupt sea level rise and Earth’s gradual pole shift reveal permanent hydrological regime changes in the 21st century. Science. 2025;387(6741):1408–13. pmid:40146824
- 3.
Mazzucato M, Okonjo-Iweala N, Rockström J, Shanmugaratnam T. The economics of water: valuing the hydrological cycle as a global common good. 2024. Available from: https://watercommission.org/publication/the-economics-of-water/
- 4. Wang-Erlandsson L, Tobian A, van der Ent RJ, Fetzer I, te Wierik S, Porkka M, et al. A planetary boundary for green water. Nat Rev Earth Environ. 2022;3(6):380–92.
- 5. Núñez Sánchez A, Koehler J, Van Loon AF. Managing floods and droughts synergistically: a transformative governance approach. PLOS Water. 2025;4(8):e0000417.
- 6. Wu Y, Yin X, Zhou G, Bruijnzeel LA, Dai A, Wang F, et al. Rising rainfall intensity induces spatially divergent hydrological changes within a large river basin. Nat Commun. 2024;15(1):823. pmid:38280877
- 7. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson Å, Chapin FSI, Lambin E, et al. Planetary Boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity. E&S. 2009;14(2).
- 8. Jasechko S, Seybold H, Perrone D, Fan Y, Shamsudduha M, Taylor RG, et al. Rapid groundwater decline and some cases of recovery in aquifers globally. Nature. 2024;625(7996):715–21. pmid:38267682
- 9. Vesnovskii P, Larshans P. The need for strategic water actions within planetary boundaries. PLOS Water. 2025;4(12):e0000480.
- 10. Porkka M, Virkki V, Wang-Erlandsson L, Gerten D, Gleeson T, Mohan C, et al. Notable shifts beyond pre-industrial streamflow and soil moisture conditions transgress the planetary boundary for freshwater change. Nat Water. 2024;2(3):262–73.
- 11.
OECD. The economics of water: valuing the hydrological cycle as global common good. 2024. Available from: https://economicsofwater.watercommission.org/report/economics-of-water.pdf
- 12. Yasmin T, Farrelly M, Rogers B, Krause S, Lynch I. A tale of two cities: evidence from the Global South on established versus emerging cities’ approaches to adaptive and sustainable water governance. E&S. 2023;28(1).
- 13. Gatto A. Polycentric and resilient perspectives for governing the commons: strategic and law and economics insights for sustainable development. Ambio. 2022;51(9):1921–32. pmid:35639252
- 14. Gupta J, Pahl-Wostl C. Global water governance in the context of global and multilevel governance: its need, form, and challenges. E&S. 2013;18(4).
- 15. Bilalova S, Jager N, Newig J, Villamayor-Tomas S. Successful water governance pathways across problem contexts: a global qualitative comparative analysis. E&S. 2025;30(4).
- 16. Cosgrove WJ, Loucks DP. Water management: current and future challenges and research directions. Water Resour Res. 2015;51(6):4823–39.
- 17. Pahl-Wostl C, Knieper C. Pathways towards improved water governance: the role of polycentric governance systems and vertical and horizontal coordination. Environ Sci Policy. 2023;144:151–61.
- 18. Pahl-Wostl C, Knieper C, Lukat E, Meergans F, Schoderer M, Schütze N, et al. Enhancing the capacity of water governance to deal with complex management challenges: a framework of analysis. Environ Sci Policy. 2020;107:23–35.
- 19.
Kittikhoun A, Schmeier S. River basin organizations in water diplomacy. London: Routledge; 2021.
- 20.
OECD. Governança dos recursos hídricos no Brasil. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2015.
- 21.
Beer S. National government: disseminated - regulation in real time or “how to run a country”. In: Espejo R, Harnden RJ, editors. The viable system model: interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. New York: Wiley; 1989. p. 333–60.
- 22.
Beer S. Diagnosing the system for organizations. Chichester: Wiley; 1985.
- 23. Beer S. The viable system model: its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. J Oper Res Soc. 1984;35:7–25.
- 24.
Beer S. The brain of the firm. Chichester: Wiley; 1981.
- 25.
Schwaninger M. Intelligent organizations: powerful models for systemic management. Berlin: Springer; 2009.
- 26.
Espejo R, Harnden R. The viable system model: interpretations and applications of Stafford Beer’s VSM. Chichester, West Sussex, England; New York: J. Wiley; 1989.
- 27.
Schwaninger M. Design for viable organizations: the diagnostic power of the viable system model. In: World Organization of Systems and Cybernetics, 13th International Congress; 2005; Maribor, Slovenia. p. 57–67.
- 28.
Christopher WF. Holistic management: managing what matters for company success. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2007.
- 29.
Hoverstadt P. The fractal organization: creating sustainable organizations with the viable system model. Chichester: Wiley; 2008.
- 30.
Gomez P, Meynhardt T, Lambertz M. Verantwortsvoll führen in einer komplexen Welt: Denkmuster - Werkzeuge - Praxisbeispiele. Bern: Haupt; 2019.
- 31.
Clemson B. Cybernetics: a new management tool. Turnbridge Wells: Abacus Press; 1984.
- 32.
Espejo R, Reyes A. Organizational systems: managing complexity with the viable system model. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19109-1
- 33.
Espinosa A. Sustainable self-governance in businesses and society: the viable system model in action. London: Francis & Taylor, Routledge; 2023.
- 34.
Espinosa A, Walker J. A complexity approach to sustainability: theory and application. London: Imperial College Press; 2011.
- 35.
Pérez Ríos J. Design and diagnosis for sustainable organizations: the viable system method. Berlin: Springer; 2012.
- 36.
Malik F, Scherer J. Strategy for managing complex systems: a contribution to management cybernetics for evolutionary systems. Frankfurt/New York; 2016.
- 37.
Lassl W. The viability of organisations: decoding the “DNA” of organisations. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12014-6
- 38.
Lassl W. The viability of organisations: diagnosing and governing organisations. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16473-7
- 39.
Lassl W. The viability of organisations: designing and changing organisations. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-25854-2
- 40.
Pfiffner M. The neurology of business: implementing the viable system model. Cham: Springer; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14260-4_1
- 41. Espinosa A, Walker J, Martinez-Lozada A. The viable system model. Systems Thinking. 2023;3(1):1–19.
- 42. Adamides ED, Georgousoglou K, Mouzakitis Y. Designing a flexible and adaptive municipal waste management organisation using the viable system model. Sustainability. 2023;15(18):13323.
- 43. Espinosa A, Duque C. Complexity management and multi-scale governance: a case study in an Amazonian indigenous association. Eur J Oper Res. 2018;268(3):1006–20.
- 44. Espinosa A, Harnden R, Walker J. A complexity approach to sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited. Eur J Oper Res. 2008;187(2):636–51.
- 45. Alves JM, Schwaninger M. Model-based Governance: a cybernetic approach to water allocation control. Environ Manage. 2025;75(12):3344–63. pmid:40858850
- 46.
Alves JM, Schwaninger M. Water governance for sustainability: what do we need for a viable future?. In: Shaping Collaborative Ecosystems for Tomorrow. Emerald Publishing Limited; 2025. p. 269–87. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-83662-494-320251018
- 47. Alves JM, Rodrigues W, Souza FNS, Terra LAA. From the black box to the fish farming development policy project: a diagnosis from the viable system model. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2020. pp.1–14.
- 48. Cornish F, Breton N, Moreno-Tabarez U, Delgado J, Rua M, de-Graft Aikins A, et al. Participatory action research. Nat Rev Methods Primers. 2023;3(1).
- 49. Castellini MA, Paucar-Caceres A. A conceptual framework for integrating methodologies in management: partial results of a systemic intervention in a textile SME in Argentina. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2019;36(1):20–35.
- 50. Emke H, Vandendriessche A, Chinapaw M, Deforche B, Verloigne M, Altenburg T, et al. Facilitating co-research: lessons learned from reflection forms within three participatory action research projects. Health Res Policy Syst. 2024;22(1):117. pmid:39180111
- 51. Markowska J, Szalińska W, Dąbrowska J, Brząkała M. The concept of a participatory approach to water management on a reservoir in response to wicked problems. J Environ Manage. 2020;259:109626. pmid:32072960
- 52. Vaughn LM, Jacquez F. Participatory research methods – choice points in the research process. J Particip Res Methods. 2020;1(1).
- 53. Martins IM, Prado DS, Gonçalves LR, Jacobi PR, Kefalas HC, Oliveira-Monteiro NR, et al. Ocean conflicts for whom and why? Participatory conflict assessment in the southeast coast of Brazil. Marit Stud. 2023;22(3):40.
- 54. Bouman L, Spuhler D, Bünzli M-A, Melad A, Diop L, Coelho O, et al. The water flow diagram. Front Water. 2024.
- 55. da Silva IG, da Silva Júnior JLC, Dunck B. Hydroclimatic trends suggest declining water resources in the cascade reservoirs of the Tocantins River. Hydrological Processes. 2026;40(2).
- 56. Pelicice FM, Agostinho AA, Akama A, Andrade Filho JD, Azevedo-Santos VM, Barbosa MVM, et al. Large-scale degradation of the Tocantins-Araguaia River Basin. Environ Manage. 2021;68(4):445–52. pmid:34341867
- 57. Martins MA, Collste D, Bezerra FGS, Miranda MACN, Gonçalves AR, Barros JD, et al. Long-term sustainability of the water-agriculture-energy nexus in Brazil’s MATOPIBA region: a case study using system dynamics. Ambio. 2024;53(12):1722–36. pmid:39115747
- 58.
Semarh - Secretaria de Meio Ambiente e Recursos Hídricos. Plano de bacia hidrográfica do entorno do Lago de Palmas. 2015. Available from: https://www.to.gov.br/semarh/plano-da-bacia-hidrografica-do-entorno-do-lago/6ynk15j43okk
- 59.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. Cidades e Estados: Panorama dos Municípios Brasileiros. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE; 2022. Available from: https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/
- 60.
Naturatins - Instituto Natureza do Tocantins. Perfil dos usuários de recursos hídricos do Estado do Tocantins [Internet]. 2024. Available from: https://central.to.gov.br/download/366547
- 61.
BRK Ambiental. Sketch of the water supply system. 2024.
- 62.
Agência Nacional de Águas (ANA). Dados do Atlas Nacional das Águas. Available from: https://metadados.snirh.gov.br/geonetwork/srv/api/records/d77a2d01-0578-4c71-a57e-87f5c565aacf
- 63.
Texas A&M University. Soil & Water Assessment Tool. 2024. Available from: https://swat.tamu.edu/
- 64. Bieger K, Arnold JG, Rathjens H, White MJ, Bosch DD, Allen PM, et al. Introduction toSWAT+, a completely restructured version of the soil and water assessment tool. J American Water Resour Assoc. 2016;53(1):115–30.
- 65. Arnold JG, Allen PM, Volk M, Williams JR, Bosch DD. Assessment of different representations of spatial variability on SWAT model performance. Transactions of the ASABE. 2010;53(5):1433–43.
- 66.
INPE - Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. TOPODATA- Banco de dados geomorfométricos do Brasil. 2008. Available from: http://www.dsr.inpe.br/topodata/index.php
- 67. Mapbiomas. Cobertura e uso da terra. 2024. Available from:
- 68.
Copernicus. Copernicus Browser. 2024. Available from: https://browser.dataspace.copernicus.eu/
- 69.
FAO/UNESCO. Soil map of the world. 1995. https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/data-hub/soil-maps-and-databases/faounesco-soil-map-of-the-world/en/
- 70.
INMET - Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia. Banco de Dados Meteorológicos do INMET. 2024. Available from: https://bdmep.inmet.gov.br/#
- 71.
Ashby WR. An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall; 1956.
- 72. Schwaninger M, Ott S. What is variety engineering and why do we need it?. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2023:1–12.
- 73.
Yin RK. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed. SAGE Publications; 2018.
- 74.
Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico. Sistema Nacional de Informações sobre Recursos Hídricos (SNIRH). Available from: https://www.snirh.gov.br/. 2024. Accessed 2024 June 10.
- 75.
Brasil. Water Law (Lei das Águas). Available from: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9433.htm. 1997. Accessed 2025 February 17.
- 76.
ANA - Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico. Relatório-síntese do Progestão - ciclo 2: estado do Tocantins. 2023. Available from: https://progestao.ana.gov.br/mapa/to/progestao-2/progestao_to_2019.pdf
- 77.
Secretaria do Meio Ambiente e Recursos Hídricos do Tocantins SEMARH. Palmas Lake River Basin Committee. Available from: https://www.to.gov.br/semarh/comite-de-bacia-hidrografica-do-lago-de-palmas/236ha7io2da5
- 78.
Tocantins. Lei Estadual de Recursos Hídricos. Available from: https://central3.to.gov.br/arquivo/499515/. Accessed 2025 February 17.
- 79.
Agência Nacional de Águas. Cadastro de Usuários - CNARH. Available from: https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/regulacao/principais-servicos/cadastro-de-usuarios-cnarh. Accessed 2025 February 17.
- 80.
ANA - Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico. Regla - Outorga de Direitos de Uso de Recursos Hídricos. Available from: https://ana.serpro.gov.br/portal-urh/identificacao. Accessed 2025 February 17.
- 81.
Alegre H, et al. Performance indicators for water supply services. 3rd ed. IWA Publishing; 2017.
- 82.
CNI - Confederação Nacional da Indústria. Perfil da indústria Tocantins. Available from: https://perfildaindustria.portaldaindustria.com.br/estado/to. 2021. Accessed 2025 February 17.
- 83.
Tocantins. Decree No. 6,604, 21 March 2023. Regulates the charging for the use of water resources, through granting, in the Formoso River Basin, and adopts other measures. 2023. Available from: https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/assuntos/gestao-das-aguas/politica-nacional-de-recursos-hidricos/cobranca/DecretoTOn6604_23.pdf
- 84.
CTP/FERH-CERH - Câmara Técnica Permanente de Acompanhamento da Aplicação dos Recursos do Fundo Estadual de Recursos Hídricos do Conselho Estadual de Recursos Hídricos (CTPFERH do CERH). 24ª reunião ordinária. Available from: https://www.to.gov.br/semarh/24o-ro-19-de-novembro/7ks39qxsyljn
- 85.
Governo do Estado do Tocantins. SIGAM - Sistema de Gestão de Águas de Tocantins. Available from: https://sigam.to.gov.br/cadastrousuarioexterno/. Accessed 2025 February 17.
- 86.
ANA - Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico. Comitê de bacia hidrográfica: o que é e o que faz?. Available from: https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudos/publicacoes/publicacoes-1. 2022. Accessed 2025 February 17.
- 87.
ANA - Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico. Pacto pela Governança da Água. Available from: https://www.gov.br/ana/pt-br/assuntos/pacto-pela-governanca-da-agua. Accessed 2025 February 17.
- 88.
ANA - Agência Nacional de Águas e Saneamento Básico. Programa de Consolidação do Pacto Nacional pela Gestão das Águas (Progestão). Brasília: ANA; 2025. Available from: https://progestao.ana.gov.br/
- 89.
Brasil. Decreto nº 4.915, de 19 de dezembro de 2013. Regulamenta a adesão ao Programa de Consolidação do Pacto Nacional pela Gestão das Águas (Progestão) e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União. 2013. p. 6. Available from: https://progestao.ana.gov.br/progestao-1/acompanhamento-programa/status-da-adesao/documentos-das-ufs/decretos-de-adesao/decreto-4915_22_10_2013_tocantins.pdf