Operationalizing Integrated Water Resource Management in Latin America: Insights from Application of the Freshwater Health Index.

Water crises in Latin America are more a consequence of poor management than resource scarcity. Addressing water management issues through better coordination, identification of problems and solutions, and agreement on common objectives to operationalize integrated water resources management (IWRM) could greatly improve water governance in the region. Composite indices have great potential to help overcome capacity and information challenges while supporting better IWRM. We applied one such index, the Freshwater Health Index (FHI) in three river basins in Latin America (Alto Mayo, Perú; Bogotá, Colombia; and Guandu, Brazil) to assess freshwater ecosystem vitality, ecosystem services, and the water governance system in place. The approach included convening management agencies, water utilities, planning authorities, local NGOs and industries, community groups and researchers to co-implement the FHI. The results provide detailed information on the ecological integrity of each basin and the sustainability of the ecosystem services being provided. All three basins show very low scores for governance and stakeholder engagement, thus improving both in the region should be a priority. The results also shed light on how the FHI framework can help inform decision-making to improve IWRM implementation by facilitating stakeholder engagement while contributing to coordination, identification of problems and solutions as well as agreement on common objectives. Because implementation of IWRM is part of the solution for the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6.5 ("By 2030, implement IWRM at all levels, including through transboundary cooperation as appropriate"), our case studies can serve as examples to other Latin American countries to achieve SDG 6.5.

Can we take the pulse of environmental governance the way we take the pulse of nature? Applying the Freshwater Health Index in Latin America.

Quantitative assessments have long been used to evaluate the condition of the natural environment, providing information for standard setting, adaptive management, and monitoring. Similar approaches have been developed to measure environmental governance, however, the end result (e.g., numeric indicators) belies the subjective and normative judgments that are involved in evaluating governance. We demonstrate a framework that makes this information transparent, through an application of the Freshwater Health Index in three different river basins in Latin America. Water Governance is measured on a 0-100 scale, using data derived from perception-based surveys administered to stakeholders. Results suggest that water governance is a primary area of concern in all three places, with low overall scores (Guandu-26, Alto Mayo-38, Bogotá-43). We conclude that this approach to measuring governance at the river basin scale provides valuable information to support monitoring and decision making, and we offer suggestions on how it can be improved.

Tratar, sim; melhorar, não? Análise crítica da fronteira terapia/melhoramento / Treat, yes; improve, no? Critical analysis of the boundary between therapy and improvement / Tratar, sí; mejorar, no? Análisis crítico de la frontera terapia/mejora

Um dos pontos controversos do debate sobre os usos da biotecnologia é a função normativa da fronteira entre terapia e melhoramento. Para quem defende tal fronteira, as intervenções biotecnocientíficas no ser humano têm de restringir-se à terapia, de modo que o melhoramento deve ser proibido. Neste artigo, defendemos que essa fronteira tem importantes imprecisões empíricas e problemas conceituais, sendo normativamente inadequada para justificar a diferença entre o que deve ser prescrito e proscrito. Primeiramente, analisamos a distinção entre normal e anormal, haja vista servir de alicerce a tal fronteira. Em seguida, examinamos a fronteira propriamente dita, a fim de apontar seus problemas. Identificando tais problemas e postulando que a normalidade biológica é desprovida de relevância moral intrínseca, inferimos que não resta claro por que seria moralmente proibido à biotecnologia avançar além da terapia.(AU)

One of the controversial points of the debate regarding the uses of biotechnology is the normative function of the boundary between therapy and improvement. For those who defend such a boundary, bio-techno-scientific interventions in human beings must be restricted to therapy, such that improvement must be prohibited. In this paper, we defend the viewpoint that this boundary has important empirical imprecisions and conceptual problems, such that it is normatively inappropriate to justify the difference between what what must be prescribed and proscribed. In the first place, we analyze the distinction between normal and abnormal, in view of the foundations for such a boundary. Next, we examine the boundary per se, in order to point out its problems. Identifying such problems and postulating that biological normality is bereft of intrinsic moral relevance, we infer that it is not clear why it would be morally forbidden for biotechnology to advance beyond therapy.(AU)

Uno de los temas polémicos en el debate sobre los usos de la biotecnología es la función normativa de la frontera entre terapia y mejora. Para los que las defienden, las intervenciones biotecnocientíficas sobre el ser humano tienen que restringirse a la terapia, por lo que en la mejora debería estar prohibido. En este artículo, se argumenta que esta frontera tiene importantes imprecisiones empíricas y problemas conceptuales, siendo normativamente inadecuada para justificar la diferencia entre lo que debe ser prescrito y proscrito. En primer lugar, analizamos la distinción entre lo normal y lo anormal, teniendo en cuenta que la misma sirve como base de esa frontera. Después examinamos la frontera misma, con el fin de señalar sus problemas, postulando que la normalidad biológica no tiene una relevancia moral intrínseca y señalando los problemas de esa frontera, deducimos que no queda claro por qué debería estar moralmente prohibido que la biotecnología fuera más allá de la terapia.(AU)

Tratar, sim; melhorar, não? Análise crítica da fronteira terapia/melhoramento / Treat, yes; improve, no? Critical analysis of the boundary between therapy and improvement / Tratar, sí; mejorar, no? Análisis crítico de la frontera terapia/mejora

Um dos pontos controversos do debate sobre os usos da biotecnologia é a função normativa da fronteira entre terapia e melhoramento. Para quem defende tal fronteira, as intervenções biotecnocientíficas no ser humano têm de restringir-se à terapia, de modo que o melhoramento deve ser proibido. Neste artigo, defendemos que essa fronteira tem importantes imprecisões empíricas e problemas conceituais, sendo normativamente inadequada para justificar a diferença entre o que deve ser prescrito e proscrito. Primeiramente, analisamos a distinção entre normal e anormal, haja vista servir de alicerce a tal fronteira. Em seguida, examinamos a fronteira propriamente dita, a fim de apontar seus problemas. Identificando tais problemas e postulando que a normalidade biológica é desprovida de relevância moral intrínseca, inferimos que não resta claro por que seria moralmente proibido à biotecnologia avançar além da terapia.

One of the controversial points of the debate regarding the uses of biotechnology is the normative function of the boundary between therapy and improvement. For those who defend such a boundary, bio-techno-scientific interventions in human beings must be restricted to therapy, such that improvement must be prohibited. In this paper, we defend the viewpoint that this boundary has important empirical imprecisions and conceptual problems, such that it is normatively inappropriate to justify the difference between what what must be prescribed and proscribed. In the first place, we analyze the distinction between normal and abnormal, in view of the foundations for such a boundary. Next, we examine the boundary per se, in order to point out its problems. Identifying such problems and postulating that biological normality is bereft of intrinsic moral relevance, we infer that it is not clear why it would be morally forbidden for biotechnology to advance beyond therapy.

Uno de los temas polémicos en el debate sobre los usos de la biotecnología es la función normativa de la frontera entre terapia y mejora. Para los que las defienden, las intervenciones biotecnocientíficas sobre el ser humano tienen que restringirse a la terapia, por lo que en la mejora debería estar prohibido. En este artículo, se argumenta que esta frontera tiene importantes imprecisiones empíricas y problemas conceptuales, siendo normativamente inadecuada para justificar la diferencia entre lo que debe ser prescrito y proscrito. En primer lugar, analizamos la distinción entre lo normal y lo anormal, teniendo en cuenta que la misma sirve como base de esa frontera. Después examinamos la frontera misma, con el fin de señalar sus problemas, postulando que la normalidad biológica no tiene una relevancia moral intrínseca y señalando los problemas de esa frontera, deducimos que no queda claro por qué debería estar moralmente prohibido que la biotecnología fuera más allá de la terapia.