• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
S Eghrari  metropolitan regions in brazil
 

S Eghrari metropolitan regions in brazil

on

  • 461 views

Paper presented at the World Planning SchoolsCongress- WPSC, Perth 2011

Paper presented at the World Planning SchoolsCongress- WPSC, Perth 2011

Statistics

Views

Total Views
461
Views on SlideShare
457
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

2 Embeds 4

http://www.slashdocs.com 3
http://www.docshut.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    S Eghrari  metropolitan regions in brazil S Eghrari metropolitan regions in brazil Document Transcript

    • Metropolitan Regions in Brazil: Institutional Arrangements and Innovative Experiences Susan Eghrari, Architect, Ph.D. StudentPrograma de Pesquisa e Pós-Graduação – Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo (PPG-FAU) Universidade de Brasília(UnB) Brasília – DF, Brazil e-mail: susaneghrari@gmail.com Paper presented in Track 6 (National, Regional & Local Planning Globalization) at the 3rd World Planning Schools Congress, Perth (WA), 4-8 July 2011 1
    • Metropolitan Regions in Brazil: Institutional Arrangements and Innovative ExperiencesABSTRACT: Metropolitan regions in Brazil have entered a global competition and arewithin the competence of the state governments, since the country’s new Constitution wasapproved in 1988, when a retraction of the federal government on metropolitan issuesoccurred. This paper focuses on the institutional arrangements and innovative experiences ofBrazilian metropolitan regions, which currently count over thirty, whether their managementstructure obey a vertical model or inter-municipal consortia. Through a comparative methodresearch of some recent metropolitan experiences, analyzed issues include: a) representativestructure, b) governance structure and c) urban planning and management competences.Providing this background, this paper addresses innovative forms of metropolitaninstitutional arrangements and proposals that can be constructed.Keywords: metropolitan regions (Brazil), institutional arrangements, metropolitan structure,governance structure 1 Introduction Metropolitan regions, metropolitan areas, metropolises in all continents, within theirdynamic governance relationships, face the challenge of planning and managing theirjurisdiction areas. Globalizing forces, in the last two decades, have impacted differently onthe course of development of these metropolitan areas, resulting either in a sustainable andinclusive growth or a lack of inter-institutional cooperation in metropolitan governance.As Kubler and Heinelt (2005) affirm the twenty-first century will be metropolitan.Globalization of economic, social and cultural processes are present in metropolitan areas,which ―play the role of nodal points where human activities concentrate‖ (Kubler andHeinelt, 2005). A common denominator analyzing the process of metropolization, accordingto Klink (2008) is the fact that central cities grow beyond their original limits and transforminto complex systems which have intense interdependencies – social, economic,environmental and political-administrative – and are part of the overall agglomeration.There are recurrent problems which affect many of the metropolitan regions all over theworld, in Latin America, and in Brazil specifically, as urban congestion, air and waterpollution, deteriorating infrastructure, urban mobility, expectations on job creation andincome polarization. 2
    • The rapid growth of the urban population in Brazil compared to the total population of thecountry, from 1940 to 2000, indicates that the former showed a growth three times theBrazilian population growth in the same period of 60 years1. Urban population approached 80percent of total national population in 1996 and presents different concentrations of urbanagglomerations among the five macro-regions of the country2 (Monte-Mór, 2000). Alreadyby the year 2000, the rate of urbanization had reached 81.2 percent of the Brazilianpopulation of 170 million people (Rezende and Garson, 2006).According to Gouvêa (2005) this sudden growth explains the continuous aggravation of aseries of urban problems such as housing shortages, leading to formation of slums andshantytowns, transportation gridlock, inadequacy of basic urban services like publictransportation, water supply, sewage system, or equipment such as hospitals, schools amongothers.The disorganized city growth and economic stagnation process (in the 1980s in Brazil),contributed to increase unemployment rates, criminality, environmental degradation andurban violence in most of Brazilian metropolitan areas.An issue that concerns scholars and researchers is related to the limits of a metropolitan area.How common services, taxing power, urban growth, urban sprawl, gentrification,intergovernmental relations, the appropriation of natural resources, among other themes ondebate, find their place in the boundaries of metropolitan areas. Monte-Mór (2000) opens adifferent vision about this matter. The author argues about frontiers in a metropolitan area,which represent the ―third position between the rich and the poor, the developed and the non-developed, the civilized and the un-civilized‖. Indeed the concentration of both wealth andpoverty in metropolitan regions has deepened the socio-spatial fragmentation and classconfrontations within the urban fabric (Monte-Mór, 2000).There are thirty-one metropolitan regions (MRs) and Integrated Development Regions(RIDE) in Brazil. During the 1970s the Federal government institutionalized nine MRs andthe remaining was created in the 1990s through initiatives of state governments.1 Between 1940 and 2000, Brazil‘s growth population increased 312 percent, while the urban population grewby 971 percent (Gouvêa, 2005)2 The least urbanized region, the Northeast, already had 69% of its population living in urban areas, at the year2000(Rezende and Garson, 2006). The Southeast region was the most highly urbanized — with 90,5% (in 2000)of the population being classified as urban. 3
    • Figure 1 Metropolitan Regions in Brazil and the first eight institutionalized MRs(Source:Observatório das Metrópoles)In fact the institutionalization of metropolitan areas in Brazil in the 1970s, althoughauthoritarian in its shape, recognized the concept of metropolitan interest and arouseddiscussions on services related to urban land use which benefitted its planning andstandardization. (Azevedo and Mares Guia, 2010). This system created an institutionalstructure and availability of financial resources that resulted in the implementation ofprojects mainly in the areas of sanitation, and urban traffic transport (Azevedo and MaresGuia, 1999). This period formally worked, the metropolitan institutions produced masterplans for the municipalities located in the peripheral area of the metropolises. Despite a top- 4
    • down model and governance with authoritarian traits, but due to a great amount of financialresources, as the Metropolitan Developing Funds3, this model of metropolitan managementadmitted distinct institutional forms in each place (Lopes, 2006).In order to understand metropolitan issues which affect Brazilian metropolises presently andthe metropolitan areas, a research was conducted, not only pointing out the overall problemsand their dynamics in the tripod of social-economic-environmental development interface,but aims to peel away the layers of management and structure which govern thesemetropolitan areas.This paper draws upon the institutional arrangements and its innovative experiences in themanagement of metropolitan areas in Brazil. The next section briefly reviews the process ofBrazilian urbanization and then presents two periods of institutionalization of themetropolitan areas. The first period, under military rule, a top-down decision, when ―sub-national levels took no part in the decision‖ (Souza, 2005). The second period, after theapproval of 1988 Constitution, when a decentralized institutional arrangement formetropolitan areas was under the jurisdiction of the states. The third section describes newarrangements in metropolitan areas after the 1988 redemocratization period. This sectiondescribes some urban legal framework , after the 1988 Constitution as the Statute of theCity Law, Participatory Budgeting, Public Consortia Law and how some metropolitan areaspresented innovations in practice. The fourth section provides two cases of metropolitangovernance, one of inter-municipal consortia, other as a hybrid model and highlights somedimensions of their institutional structure. The fifth section offers some concluding remarks.2 Vertical model in the management of metropolitan areas2.1 Background – urbanization in Brazil The process of urbanization in Brazil had its growth from 1930s when – in the simplifiedperspective of ―late industrialization" – economic policy founded on industrialization groundsattracted contingents of rural population for better living conditions in the cities. As Souza(2005) points out Brazilian urbanization grew extremely fast and in the 1970s the country3 For financing purposes, the Urban Development Trust was created, prioritizing municipalities that acceptedcloser collaboration with federal and state government initiatives. 5
    • became more urban than rural. The author presents how urbanization growth rates evolved: in1940, 31.2% of the population lived in urban areas4, in 1960, 45%, in 1970, 55.9%, in 1991,75.5% and in 2000, 81%.In the period between the 1940s and 80s, interventionism has expanded continuously inBrazil, with the State operating as a regulator of the economic system and as a direct investor,primarily in the industrial sector (Gouvêa, 2005).2.2 Institutionalization of metropolitan areas: first periodUnder the military regime in Brazil (1964-1985), metropolitan management was imposed tomunicipalities, structured in a centralized basis. Although metropolitan regions had legallycome to existence through the Constitution of 1967, after seven years, a federal law issued in1973(amendment n.14/73), defined eight5 Metropolitan Regions (MRs) and their constituentmunicipalities, and in 1974 one more6 MR was included. Amendment 14 dealt with thesemetropolitan regions homogeneously by enforcing compulsory participation ofmunicipalities in metropolitan management, with the intent to services of common interests,which would not take in their regional specificities and needs. It gave priority to the use ofcentral and state funds, including loans, to municipalities that participated in integratedprojects and services (Rezende and Garson, 2006), and a significant flow of resources wasmobilized especially for the housing and urban development sectors(Klink,2008). For themilitary regime, these regions have played a key role in consolidating the countrysdevelopment and most of them were composed of state capitals in which the first outbreakof industrialization occurred.In that same Law the establishment of two agencies for each MR were designated: aDeliberative Council and an Advisory Council as decision-making forums for metropolitanproblems, determining the form and content of these representative bodies, and defining itspowers as separate management bodies of the metropolitan areas. The competencies of theDeliberative and Advisory Councils of each metropolitan area was related to the services,common to all municipalities involved, being the Deliberative Council responsible forcoordinating and implementing these services, and the Advisory Council responsible for4 At that time Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo had a population of more than one million each.5 The eight metropolitan regions institutionalized in 1973 were: Belém, Fortaleza, Recife, Salvador, BeloHorizonte, São Paulo, Curitiba and Porto Alegre.6 Metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro (Amendment n.20/74). 6
    • orientation by means of suggestions. The services of metropolitan interest were: socialdevelopment, sanitation, metropolitan land use, production and distribution of canalized gas;use of water resources and pollution control and others which could be included as acompetence of the Deliberative Council by federal law.As to the structure of management of the metropolitan areas in this period, the definition ofthe Deliberative Council itself is not very clear as a metropolitan entity, which manages thecommon interests of all the municipalities involved. The decisions of the DeliberativeCouncil should bind the municipal plans on behalf of metropolitan interest. This Council wascomposed of five members, which three were nominated by the state governor, one by themayor of the state capital and only one representing all the other mayors. The AdvisoryCouncil members were composed by all the mayors of the metropolitan municipalities, butwith no decision power.As to the increasing authoritarian feature of metropolitan agencies in that period, Souza(2005) describes it when ―virtually all state governors, mayors of the state capitals andmayors of municipalities belonging to MRs were unelected‖. As the federal governmentestablished the areas which would be considered in the institutionalization of the MRs, theseareas would have preference in obtaining federal and state resources to its municipalities.For Rezende and Garson (2006) this system of metropolitan administration was seriouslyweakened as to the difficulty in developing projects adapted to specific regional demands, the lack of a forum for the municipal constituents to discuss their demands, and the political and economic crisis at the turn of the seventies (Rezende and Garson, 2006).A political crisis permeated the military regime, ―the focus on planning was lost, and thefunds for urban areas became increasingly scarce‖ (Rezende and Garson, 2006). Faced withexternal and internal crises, the economic growth of the early 1970s faltered in the 1980s, to adecade of stagnation ( Moraes and Cidade, 2010). Rezende and Garson (2006) describe thisperiod when Brazil suffered through a series of plans to stabilize the economy, in an attempt to bring the macroeconomic situation under control. Between the periodic crises, episodic inflation sometimes raced out of control, eroding not only the currency and the ability to plan, but also rendering the budgetary instruments useless. 7
    • A conclusion can be drawn from this first period of institutionalization, that this model ofmetropolitan governance lacks a crucial element: creation of incentives for cooperationbetween the state and its municipalities or among bordering municipalities (Souza, 2005).A second period would start, with open elections in 1982, and a new process of―redemocratization‖ 7 (Moraes and Cidade, 2010) when the Constitution of 1988 was drawn.This period would define an institutional basis for dealing with the metropolitan regions(Rezende and Garson, 2006).2.3 Institutionalization of metropolitan areas: second period The Constitution of 1988 represented a definite impact towards decentralization intopolitical, administrative and financial terms. A retraction of the federal government onmetropolitan issues occurred and metropolitan management was, under the Constitution, byamendment, within the competence of the state governments. The states had the right to―establish metropolitan regions in order to integrate the organization, planning and operationof public functions of common interest of the states and their respective municipalities‖(Rezende and Garson, 2006).A new balance among the three governing entities, federal, state and municipal, contributedto the emergence of more individualized decisions, with greater decision–making autonomyto states and local governments (Moraes and Cidade, 2010). The new arrangement of theConstitution is that the status of the municipalities in the Brazilian federation was equal to thefederal and state entities and it ―has granted, in relative terms, more financial resources to themunicipalities than to the states‖ (Souza, 2005). A more intense pace in the creation ofmunicipalities was achieved. Between 1988 and 2000, 1438 new municipalities weregenerated – 25% of all municipalities in Brazil (Tomio, 2005), out of 5506 existingmunicipalities, in the year 2000.The strengthening of the municipal autonomy had, in one hand, weakened the position of thestate governments related to metropolitan management. Klink (2008) observes that the transition to redemocratization in Brazil, have resulted in a federal system of relatively independent and fragmented local governments with few built-in mechanisms for intermunicipal and intergovernmental cooperation.7 The word ‗redemocratization‘ has been chosen by Souza (1996), because the struggle of Brazilian society against militaryrule focused on a return to the democracy which had existed between 1946 and 1964. 8
    • In the 1990s, due to the compartmentalized and competitive nature of the Brazilian federation, local and state governments facilitated competitive bidding wars (Klink, 2008) the so called ‗fiscal war‘. Also known as ‗war of places‘ it consisted on the development of neoliberal policies at the states level, in order to attract international investment, when a number of Brazilian states offered tax exemptions for the implementation of industries. These competitive and aggressive policies and dispute among the states led to spatial changes in the municipalities where new plants were established, or just moved to another state, and had implications on the territorial configuration of various regions (Moraes and Cidade, 2010).This policy has been implemented for nearly 20 years, has no national coordination and increases more the present regional inequalities. With the 1988 Constitution there was a tendency that municipalities would incline towards a horizontal institutional model approach. That would refer to the association of local governments as to the organization of metropolitan management. In the 1988 Constitution there are provisions for associated management of public services and the constitution of public consortia with that aim (Pires, 2010). Table 1 shows the first eight metropolitan areas institutionalized in 1973, number of their constituent municipalities in the year of their creation, and the number of municipalities after 1988. It includes the name of the management institution and the year which these institutions officially started. The percentage of population concentrated in each central municipality of the MR in 2007 and managing metropolitan agency, presents aspects of each metropolitan region. Table 1- Institutional arrangements of the first eight MRsMetropolitan Number of Number of Percentage -Managing Metropolitan institutionalRegion(MR) constituent constituent of the MR metropolitan management agencies, municipaliti municipaliti population agency municipalities agencies es in 1973 es in the central -Year of and innovations after municipality creation/modificat the1988 (2007) ion/ending Constitution -new agency Deliberative Council of Emplasa(Paulista Greater São Paulo Metropolitan Planning (CODEGRAN ), São Paulo 37 39 55,99% Company SA) Greater São Paulo 1974-1988 Metropolitan Consultative 1989-1994-2005 Council for Integrated Development 9
    • (CONSULTI), Paulista Metropolitan Planning Company SA (EMPLASA), linked to the Economy and Planning Secretariat of the State of São Paulo, and Development Council, of a normative and deliberative nature. -PLAMBEL Metropolitan Development Superintendencia da Deliberative Council, Região Metropolitana Metropolitan Development de Belo Horizonte Agency, Metropolitan (Planning Authority of Development Fund, State the Metropolitan Secretariat of Regional Region of Belo Development and UrbanBelo 14 35 48,24% Horizonte) Planbel Policy,MetropolitanHorizonte 1971/1974/1995 Governance Group, -AMBEL RMBH Metropolitan (Metropolitan Forum, Association of Assembly of Belo RMBH Municipalities and Horizonte) 1996 Mineiro Forum for Urban Reform Association of Municipalities of Greater Porto Alegre(GRANPAL) 1985. Institutionalization State Foundation for (mid 1960s- 12 Metropolitan and RegionalPorto Alegre 14 31 35,14% municipalities) Planning METROPLAN(1975- (METROPLAN),a 1989-1995) technical support entity of the RMPA Deliberative Council. Participatory Budget(1989) Metropolitan Management System (SGM), which includes the Metropolitan Region of Recife‘s Development Council(CONDERM), a CONDERM(1974) deliberative and Conselho de consultative body; the Desenvolvimento da Metropolitan Region ofRecife 9 14 41,55% Região Metropolitana Recife‘s do Recife Development Foundation 1994- new (FIDEM), an executive CONDERM secretariat for technical support; and the Metropolitan Region of Recife‘s Development Fund(FUNDERM). Conder(1967-1974- Bahia State Urban 1988-1992)Salvador 8 13 79,63% Development Company Conder(1992- (CONDER ) subordinated to the 10
    • state) Curitiba Metropolitan Region Coordination COMEC -Curitiba Agency(COMEC), Metropolitan Region Consultative and 54,84% Coordination Agency Deliberative Councils, Curitiba 14 25 From 1998 relevancy Municipal Secretariat on environmental (Curitiba) for Metropolitan issues Issues(SMAM), RMC Association of Municipalities (ASOMEC) Belém 2 5 68,44% N/D Metropolitan Council, which contains a General Secretary, and the Metropolitan Region of Belém Development FundFortaleza 5 13 70,76% N/D Consultative and 1975 Deliberative Councils, 1999 Development Fund,Sectorial Technical Chambers (Source: adapted from Rocha and Faria,2010, Klink, 2008 and other Observatorio das Metropoles sources) In fact, Table 1 summarizes many of the aspects already presented in the previous sections of this paper. The creation of new municipalities in the country after 1988 is evidenced by the increase in number of municipalities after that period in many MRs, although there was an increase of the territorial area, part of a MR as well. All the eight metropolises in Table 1 were state capitals at the 1970s and continue to be. Five of them concentrate more than 50 per cent of the population in the central municipality, the city of Salvador, state of Bahia, located in the northeast Brazilian macro-region outstands with almost 80 per cent of the population of Salvador Metropolitan Region. In 1980 Salvador Metropolitan Region had a population of 1.8 million, and 1.5 million in the state capital. In 2000, a little more than 3 million, and close to 80 per cent living in the city of Salvador. The metropolises of São Paulo, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre and Salvador had their own institutionalization, with an original structure, before the federal 1973 Amendment, which 11
    • practically uniformized the MRs, conceived as strategic areas of political and economiccontrol by the government.The metropolitan regions of Belo Horizonte , Recife and Belem have their own MetropolitanFund, being created after the 1988 Constitution.3. New arrangements in Brazil’s redemocratization period3.1 Participatory Budgeting What has become known as ‗participatory budgeting‘ , hereinafter called PB, in Brazilstems from an initiative taken by local governments which began in 1989 with the metropolisof Porto Alegre. Although a ‗top-down‘ governmental initiative, it is decided locally andorganized in different local formats. The main objective of PB is to put members of the localcommunity together to participate in the budget writing process and to decide on theallocation of a given amount of resources, generally destined for infrastructure in poor areas(Souza, 2005). This process of conjoint decision, through local community representativesand local governments actually decide on the final allocation of public investment in theircities on a yearly basis.The model of Porto Alegre, the best and longest known example of participatory budgetingpractice has inspired other models in Brazil. For example, in Recife civil society participationin PB has begun since 2001.In meetings and by internet, during the whole year, citizenssuggest measures for the city and follow them during their implementation. Priorities aredefined in 15 areas, as culture, education and youth. Residents decide the priority in theirneighborhoods: to pave a street, open a health center or social housing.In Belo Horizonte since 1993, areas such as infrastructure, health, sport, education, culture,housing, welfare, sanitation and environment are included in PB. A voting system has beencreated to be used with a toll-free number and internet. It articulates with a municipalprogram for digital inclusion and has 270 public points for voting in several places in the citywith 800 trained monitors. Inspection of construction works already approved by the PBopens to civil society representatives the right to inspect and charge from the localgovernment actions of the PB.Angeles(2010) in her research from other authors points out that participatory budgeting issuccessfully practiced in 250 cities and municipalities around the world, which includes 130 12
    • Brazilian cities that adopted various versions, data of 2004. This practice, the authorcontinues, has positive benefits for favela8 residents in terms of providing better public goods and services, improving the quality of governance and public participation, creating vehicles for citizen education, bringing improvements in vital infrastructure and services to poor communities, minimizing corruption, and fostering an open ended civic discourse among the urban poor (Angeles, 2010).PB is not established by decree and there is no law that institutionalizes its operationalframeworks and channels of citizen participation. The process has been systematized in termsof its institutional framework, cycle and discussion methods by many local and stategovernments in Brazil.3.2 Statute of the City The 1988 Constitution gave prerogative to the state members to establish MetropolitanRegions and create laws of organization of those MRs that would come to beinstitutionalized. The Constitution, regarded as a pro-municipality enactment, opened up newpossibilities for metropolitan arrangements. As the municipalities had the same politicalstatus as the states and federal government , as entities, there was no interest for thismunicipalities to create metropolitan management based on cooperation, on an horizontalmodel.The autonomy of municipalities combined with globalization and neoliberal forces in the1980s and 1990s, cities in general in Brazil suffered from lack of coordination towards localland use management and master planning. There was hardly any coordination and exchange of information among cities regarding the elaboration of their master plans; in practice, the municipalities of the metropolitan regions have a kaleidoscope of disconnected local plans(Klink, 2010).The Statute of the City legislation empowers local governments to resolve issues of localland use, land dispute, squatter settlements and land speculation; elaboration of masters planswith more leverage over private land markets through such instruments as progressiveproperty taxes, development fees and inclusionary zoning clauses (Klink, 2010).8 Shanty towns and slums in Brazil. 13
    • Created in 2001, this Law has a general guide for urban issues, tools for urban politics anddemocratic management for the city, but does not address metropolitan and regional issues indetails. There are some references in the Statute of the City towards metropolitan regions:inchapter tools of Urban Policies, the Law refers to planning of metropolitan regions, it alsorefers to master plan (plano diretor) being obligatory to municipalities which are part ofmetropolitan regions. In chapter referring to Democratic Management, it says that themanagement agencies of metropolitan regions an urban agglomerations, will obligatoryinclude a significant participation of the population and representative associations of thediverse segments of the community, so as to guarantee the direct control of their activitiesand the practice of citizenship.According to Denaldi et al (2010) there is still a difficulty in planning the elaboration andrevision of urban master plans with regional-level strategies. The authors affirm that In practice, local managers were not only faced with enormous challenges in applying the new mechanisms of the City Statute Law toward social and spatial inclusion, largely due to the historic strength of real estate capital in Brazilian cities, but they also failed to mobilize themselves to discuss and address these challenges at the metropolitan level(Denaldi et al, 2010).3.3 Public Consortia LawThe Public Consortia Law was regulated by the federal government in 2005 and it addressesthe legal precariousness of existing consortia, up to that point governed by private law.Before the law was passed, consortia were not able to take on legal obligations or carry outinspections, make regulations or engage in planning activities (Dias, 2006 apud Denaldi et al,2010).Regarding some aspects of public consortia Angeles(2010) explains that as a form of inter-jurisdictional cooperation, public consortia can operate horizontally (between local governments or other local public agencies within a region), or vertically (between hierarchical levels of government). The emphasis on the public nature of consortia suggest little role for the private sector, thus consortia are different from public private partnerships, in which the private sector performs a service, builds or operates a facility, etc., for one or more public government body(Angeles, 2010).The approach of this law seeks the participation and involvement of local actors, a stateprotagonism reflected in a series of initiatives in many Brazilian states, such as Minas Gerais,Pernambuco, Rio Grande do Norte and Paraná, among others. 14
    • A linkage between participatory budgeting practice and Public Consortia Law is provided byAngeles(2010) as to new forms of governance related to social inequalities. What is certain is that there is still little analysis of how the Public Consortia Law may capitalize on Brazilian cities‘ experiences with participatory budgeting and solidarity economy to create public consortia between municipalities and other levels of government in order to promote more effective and collaborative forms of regional governance to address urban poverty, social exclusion and social inequality(Angeles, 2010).4.Horizontal and hybrid models: the ABC consortium and Belo Horizonte MetropolitanRegionDuring the mid-1990s, new arrangements in the management of metropolitan regions inBrazil began to arise. With the end of the military regime and the ‗neo-local‘ perspective thatdominated shortly after 1988, the policy arena was revitalized with both the emergence ofnew actors and the re-definitions of roles played by classical actors (Azevedo and MaresGuia, 2010).The innovative aspect of the involvement of representatives of civil society marked this newphase which combined different forms of compulsory associations, such as river basin management committees and covering several cities including those within metropolitan boundaries, various forms of voluntary associative models. This marked the birth of consortia among municipalities as a means to jointly address or manage specific issues related to transportation, sanitation and environmental protection, among others.The horizontal model presented above or inter-municipal consortia is represented by theABC region consortium , created in 1998, much before the Public Consortia Law.Another metropolitan management model , occurs in Belo Horizonte Metropolitan Region,which defines an hybrid governance model sustained on vertical and horizontal mechanismsof a democratic governance, having created its institutional arrangements in 2006.These two models are under pressure from transformations of the urbanized spaces as a resultof forces of globalization and reorganization of the productive economic structure tending tofragmentation. Each responds differently towards the challenges of new territorial andcompetitive role of metropolitan areas. 15
    • 4.1 The ABC regional consortiumThe ABC consortium, was created in the 1990s by the initiative of seven municipalities9inserted in the city of São Paulo southern fringe. This area, an urbanized region bordering themetropolis of São Paulo, concentrated the bulk of industrial investment during the period ofBrazilian import substitution, including motor vehicle industry and during the 1970s could beconsidered as Brazil‘s industrial heartland .With combination of trade liberalization andderegulation, without compensating industrial and technological policies , and not benefitingfrom the regime of protected market policies, the result was a crisis which led tounemployment, poverty, deteriorated quality of living and the incapacity of the institutionalstructures to face the challenges of the city region(Klink, 2008).The Consortium started with an interest on the management of water resources, its groundzero being in 1990, when the Intermunicipal Watershed Consortium of Alto Tamanduateíand Bilings was founded (Machado 2009).The area of these seven municipalities is locatednear to important reservoirs that supply water for Greater São Paulo region. Thesemunicipalities have common identities based on a historic, economic and political elements(Klink, 2008). The Consortium expanded its interests towards socio-economic issues for thedevelopment of the region.It is important to note as the ABC Consortium region is part of São Paulo MetropolitanRegion, which for its turn comes from a vertical top-down management imposed in the1970s, so the Consortium is part of a larger agglomeration composed of 39 municipalities.When the state of São Paulo, established in 1994 its metropolitan management, the statecreated a development council with an equal composition between state and municipalities.The ABC Region has had one of the longest-run consortiums under the old legal framework.Basically the ABC Consortium – a network partnership, an association of these sevenmunicipalities – is structured on an administrative organization formed by a MunicipalCouncil, Audit Council, Consultive Council and Executive Secretariat. The presidency of theConsortium is rotating and held by one of the mayors among the seven municipalities, electedamong its peers, for a one-year term. The involvement of civil society was consolidated in1994, with the Citizen Forum of Greater ABC which led to the Greater ABC Chamber, in1997, an intergovernmental and social planning forum which elaborates and implements9 The Consortium comprises the municipalities of Santo André, São Bernardo do Campo, São Caetano doSul,Rio Grande da Serra , Diadema,Mauá and Ribeirão Pires.The area is known as ABC, after three of its towns‘initials. 16
    • public policies as well. In 1998 a regional chamber, Greater ABC Chamber and a regionaldevelopment agency, Greater ABC Development Agency led to collaborative arrangements,as regional articulation and integration between different stakeholders which, according toKlink(2010) facilitated regional strategic planning, and also triggered limited but focusedinvestments in infrastructure and economic development.4.2 Belo Horizonte Metropolitan Region - RMBH The state of Minas Gerais, which the city of Belo Horizonte is the state capital, defined themetropolitan issue as a priority before the institutionalization of the RMBH as a metropolitanregion by the military regime in 1973. With a specific working team the state governmentdefined the development of a Metropolitan Plan for Belo Horizonte in charge of themetropolitan management agency PLAMBEL, Planning Authority of the MetropolitanRegion of Belo Horizonte.As shown in previous sections of this article In practice, both the federal and the state governments stepped away from metropolitan management, leaving the issues related to public functions of common interest to the sovereign municipalities and hoping that they could implement collaborative solutions. However, larger municipalities were unwilling to subsidize poorer municipalities and increasingly withdrew from the process. As a result, the metropolitan management system fell apart (Pires, 2010).That is the case which occurred to Belo Horizonte as many other Brazilian metropolises.State efforts to improve metropolitan management were done during the 1990s as to the needto ‗position the metropolitan region more effectively on the regional, national andinternational scenes‘(Pires, 2010). As to the hegemony of municipalist ideology at all costs –more power to the municipalities and less to the state and big core-cities – it also permeatedthe RMBH.In 2003, with changes in political elections for state governor and in 2004 for mayor of thecity of Belo Horizonte, an administrative reform was made the state level with the support ofthe local level (Machado, 2009). The increase of social and infra-structure problems resultedfrom the institutional disarticulation of RMBH was an important factor to legitimate , from2003 on, the return of state participation in metropolitan governance(Pires, 2010). 17
    • Some landmarks started in 2003 as to the creation of the State Secretariat for RegionalDevelopment and Urban Policy (SEDRU). In November of the same year, the LegislativeAssembly of the State of Minas Gerais (ALMG) hosted a seminar to provide an opportunityfor metropolitan governmental and non-governmental groups to participate in the debateabout alternatives for better management of Metropolitan Regions in Minas Gerais (Pires,2010). The State Constitution adopted a hybrid institutional model, which mixed a top-downapproach, i.e., the organization of the metropolitan region by the state, independently of themunicipalities, with a ‗concerted approach‘ (concertação) to decision making(Pires, 2008).The institutional structure for two metropolitan regions, RMBH and Vale do Aço, in the stateof Minas Gerais consists of a Metropolitan Development Deliberative Council – withparticipation of representatives of civil society – the so-called democratic management.Metropolitan Development Agency and Metropolitan Development Fund in 2006, StateSecretariat of Regional Development and Urban Policy. The RMBH has as well:Metropolitan Governance Group, RMBH Metropolitan Forum and Association of RMBHMunicipalities .There is also present a more complex management structure which is theMetropolitan Assembly of the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte (AMBEL) inspired bythe Paris metropolitan parliament.The choice of this hybrid model, with vertical and horizontal dimensions in its structure,Pires(2010) explain that it follows global tendencies and derives from the concepts of cross-sectoral interaction and discussion (consensus-based administration), a new trend in theacademic studies of state management(Pires, 2010).According to Machado (2009) two elements are important to mention which compose theRMBH and differently than the ABC Consortium. First, concerning the interest of the 34municipalities which compose the RMBH, is very heterogeneous in economic anddemographic terms. Three municipalities, Belo Horizonte, Contagem and Betim, concentrate,87% of the IGP of all the MR. The other municipalities have diverse economic profiles. TheABC Consortium municipalities are part of the same watershed. The RMBH has threeenvironmental distinct complexes based on physical-economic-geographic parameters.Besides, the ABC region is part of São Paulo Metropolitan Region, while Belo Horizontepolarizes the region. 18
    • 5.Conclusions The first period of institutionalization of the metropolitan regions in Brazil had a top-down management, imposed by the federal government , but with funding for planning andits execution in a uniformized model. There was little or no participation of local actors in thedecision-making process.Since the new Constitution approval in 1988, a retraction of the federal government onmetropolitan issues occurred, passing to the states competences, the result being aninstitutional vacuum when a municipalist ideology also reigned. The funding ceased and newgovernance experiences began to take shape.New arrangements surged in Brazil‘s redemocratization period and three were presented:Participatory Budgeting, Statute of the City and Public Consortia Law which openarrangements that include regional considerations, cooperative and participative managementand continuity in implementation of actions. There is not a domination of the government inthe decision making process but an articulation between the different tiers.In this sense, different solutions and management ‗models‘ coexist in Brazilian metropolitanregions for planning and executing common public interests: inter-municipal consortia and ahybrid governance management, as case examples of the ABC Region Consortium and theMetropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte. The former initially focused on the management ofwater resources and have a common identity and purposes comprising seven municipalities.The latter, has a management from the state administration, 34 municipalities and diversifiedinterests. Both models try to build consensus, on a democratic and participative management,but many elements put pressure on this governance. Both governance models put their actiontowards economic and social development, bringing new actors to the urban decision-makingarena, despite the many urban issues that for decades has been dramatically increasing inBrazil as mentioned in this introduction section.There are many questions on how to shape metropolitan governance: should federal state bemore present in regulation and legislation of urban issues, should there be institutionalizationof the metropolitan regions, how can vertical and horizontal methods of governance coexistin the management of MRs? How to strength participation and cooperation in these samemethods of governance?Of course there is no better governance management model,experiences have to be examined and evaluated , in a continuous dynamics, creating newpossibilities and arrangements for a more just and collaborative governance. 19
    • AcknowledgementsI would like to thank Universidade de Brasilia, Decanato de Pesquisa e Pós-graduação(DPP)for partially funding my trip to the 3rd World Planning Schools Congress in Perth, Australia. Iam grateful to my advisor in the PhD program at Universidade de Brasilia, Prof. Dr. LuciaCony F. Cidade, for mostly encouraging me in my thesis project and her valuableobservations for this paper. REFERENCESAngeles, L.C. (2010) ‗Democratic Governance and Inter-Jurisdictional Collaboration in Urbanizing Countries‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences,The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.Azevedo, S, Mares Guia, V.F.(2010) ―The ‗Two Sides of the Coin‘ of a Proposal for Metropolitan Governance: The Virtue and Fragility of Public Policies‖. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences,The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.Davoudi, S; Evans, N; Governa, F; Santangelo, M.(2008) ‗Territorial governance in the making: Approaches, methodologies, practices‘, Boletín de la A.G.E, Associación de Geógrafos Españoles n.46.Denaldi,R.,Klink, J.J., Souza, Claudia (2010) ‗Housing, Social Inclusion and Collaborative Urban Governance‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences, The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.Gouvêa, R.G.(2005) A questão metropolitana no Brasil, Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV.Klink, J. J.(2010) ‘Globalization, Territorial Restructuring and the Challenge of Collaborative Metropolitan Governance: Recent Evidence and Perspectives in Brazilian City Regions‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences, The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.Klink, J. J. (2008) ‗Recent Perspectives on Metropolitan Organization, Functions and Governance‘. In: Eduardo Rojas; Juan R. Cuadrado-Roura; José Miguel Fernández Güell. (Org.) Governing The Metropolis - Principles and Cases, pp: 77-134, Cambridge: David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies - Harvard University.Kubler, D. and Heinelt, H. (2005) ‗Metropolitan Governance: capacity, democracy and the dynamics of place‘, Introduction, pp 1-25, London: Routledge. 20
    • Lopes, A. (2006) ‗Gestão Metropolitana no Brasil: Da Coerção Simétrica ao Voluntarismo sem Modelo‘, em busca da responsabilidade política com resultados. In: Silva, C.A.,Freire, D.G, Oliveira, F.J.G(Org.), Metrópole: governo, sociedade e território, Rio de Janeiro: D.P&A, Faperj.Machado, G. G. (2009) Gestão Metropolitana e autonomia municipal: dilemas das transações federativas, Belo Horizonte: Ed. PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.Magalhães,J.Q.,Souza, T.R. (2007) ‗A titularidade da Gestão Metropolitana‘ Revista Jus Vigilantibus, 08 out. 2007, available from http:// http://jusvi.com/artigos/28923Monte-Mór,R.L.M (2000) New Urban Frontiers: contemporary tendencies in Brazil’s urbanization. Paper presented to the International Conference Mozambique in the Commonwealth: Urban and Environmental Realities After the Flooding, promoted by the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London. London, 9-10 of October, 2000.Preliminary version.Moraes, S.Eghrari.,Cidade, Lucia C.F (2010) Public policies and territorial development in the State of Goias, Brazil: is there a place for local governance? Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Montreal, Canada, June 2010. Preliminary version.Pires , M.Coeli S. (2010) ‗The Institutional Arrangement for the Administration of the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte and the Challenge of Building Consensus‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences,The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.Rezende, F., Garson, S. (2006) ‗Financing metropolitan areas in Brazil: political, institutional and legal obstacles and emergence of new proposals for improving coordination‘, Rev. Econ. Contemp. [online], Vol.10, N.1: 5-34.Rocha,C.A.V.., Faria,C.A.P. (2010) ‗ Federalism, Intergovernmental Relationships and Metropolitan Management in Brazil‘. In: Terry McGee and Erica de Castro(org.), Inclusion, Collaboration and Urban Governance: challenges in metropolitan regions Brazilian and Canadian experiences,The University of British Colombia, Ed.PUC-Minas, Observatório das Metropoles.Souza, Celina. (2005), ‗Brazilian metropolitan regions: regime change and governance vacuum‘, Public Administration and Development, 25: 341–350.______(1996) ‗Redemocratization and Decentralization in Brazil: The Strength of the Member States‘ Development and change, 27, 3: 529.Tomio, F,R.L.(2005) ‗The Creation of Municipalities after the 1988 Constitution‘, Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais vol. 17 n. 48,São Paulo. 21