Understanding Stakeholder Relationships in the Trialogue Model of Governance: A Case Study of the Biobío River Basin, Chile

Abstract

Integrated water resource management (IWRM) has been globally recognized as a key strategy for advancing toward water security; however, Chile has not yet implemented it. While water governance in the country has been predominantly analyzed through documents and laws, integrating empirical insights from local actors’ perspectives is essential. This study applied the trialogue model of governance to understand stakeholders’ perspectives and relationships, to identify barriers to achieving water security, and to explore the roles of different actors in enhancing governance systems. The research design focused on the Biobío River Basin (BRB) as a case study, employing a qualitative strategy for data collection through semi-structured interviews. Qualitative data analysis consisted on a thematic analysis, where interview transcripts were coded to identify relevant topics. The results reveal that Chile’s highly centralized governance structure, along with inadequate information management and socioeconomic conflicts related to the construction of hydroelectric power plants, pose significant barriers to achieving water security in the BRB. Key opportunities to address barriers include legal reforms, improved information management, and strengthened enforcement and supervision. Achieving effective governance relies heavily on legal reforms, mobilizing resources and creating spaces for raising social awareness. Transparent and accessible data-sharing mechanisms are also crucial for better information management. Although the trialogue model is a valuable framework for analyzing river basin governance, it is necessary to emphasize the need to account for the intricate nature of the society cluster in future studies.

1. Introduction

The water security concept encompasses a diverse array of dimensions, including human well-being, ecosystems, water-related risks, climate change, economic activities, and development, acting on different spatial (from local to global) and temporal (seasonal effects, anthropic influences, and natural changes over time) scales [1]. This multi-dimensional approach introduces complexity into water resource management, requiring strategies that not only ensure sufficient water quantity and quality for both populations and ecosystems but also enhance the resilience against climate change risks, support sustainable economic growth, and contribute to social peace [2,3].

For decades, integrated water resource management (IWRM) has been internationally recognized as a critical means with which to achieve water security [4,5]. The IWRM concept is defined as a process that fosters the coordinated development and management of water, land, and related resources to maximize economic and social welfare equitably without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems [6]; however, IWRM’s effectiveness has been contested in terms of its practicability [7], the transition from administrative to hydrographic units of management [8], and its anthropocentric and technocratic approaches [9], among other matters. Despite these different perspectives, IWRM can be regarded as a blend of theoretical elements, operational frameworks, and practical strategies, working best when used as a flexible organizing framework that adapts to the specific sociopolitical, sociocultural, and socioeconomic conditions of a region [10].

It is well-known that the current global water crisis extends beyond scarcity; it is also a reflection of inadequate management, underscoring significant challenges in public governance [11,12]. For instance, IWRM requires effective governance to guarantee the transparency of stakeholders’ decisions and actions [13]. Furthermore, water governance and IWRM could be mutually dependent, whereby governance defines power, ownership, and decision-making priorities for implementing management actions. At the same time, governance performance is better in river basins that have adopted IWRM practices [14].

Pahl-Wostl [15] defines water governance as “the social function that regulates development and management of water resources and provisions of water services at different levels of society and guiding the resource toward a desirable state and away from an undesirable state”. In this article, this definition effectively captures the multi-dimensional nature of water security since it is suitable for analyzing the diverse perspectives and stakeholders involved in water management, as well as how they interact, influence, and are influenced within the decision-making process when working toward a common goal.

However, to evaluate a water governance system, it is essential to identify what is understood as “good governance”. This concept was studied by authors such as Sadeghizadeh Bafandeh et al. [16], who, after an extensive literature review on definitions and interpretations, identified fourteen principles of water governance to be regarded as “good”, which were used as a framework for analysis in a case study performed in the Sistan Delta: accountability, adaptability, transparency, effectiveness, efficiency, trust and engagement, fairness, rule of law, consensus orientation, legitimacy, monitoring, certainty, responsiveness, and collaboration. In addition, a recent in-depth literature review of the concept of good governance was performed by Adila [17], who highlighted its complexity, since it can (and should) be adapted and translated according to local and regional contexts. This author also identified an increasing interest in enhancing public participation in decision making, transparency, accountability, and the application of information technology, as well as the role of social and cultural changes to push the government to adapt to new norms and values that encourage decentralization.

An attribute that has also been regarded as good water governance is the multi-level approach, which incorporates international (i.e., relationships among countries and trans-frontier agreements), national, and local actors in the decision-making process, highlighting the vital role of local stakeholders and their specific needs and concerns in the water sector [11]. A multi-level governance system promotes coordination in terms of horizontality (across various sectors and administrative boundaries) and verticality (across different governance levels) [18].

On the other hand, polycentric governance systems particularly appear to have the capability to facilitate such coordination [19]. The term “polycentric” refers to multiple decision-making centers that may function either independently or interdependently, depending on specific situations, operating coherently and predictably as a unified system [20]. Ostrom [21] explains that, in a polycentric system, the responsibilities across various levels of government (local, regional, national, and international) are structured to efficiently deliver public services at the local level.

Given the elements mentioned above, this study must consider the complex nature of water governance challenges, since they are directly related to water security and its multi-dimensional attribute. Complexity necessitates a governance system to adapt to local contexts, especially in terms of the spatial scale.

Regarding the use of the spatial context for analysis, it is important to highlight what has already been mentioned: IWRM has been contested on the application of hydrological vs. administrative spatial boundaries. According to Akhmouch and Nunes Correia [22], natural laws create a spatial framework distinct from political or administrative structures, and river basins are considered the most suitable scale for addressing water resource challenges because of the natural flow of effects from upstream to downstream. These same authors state that this interconnectedness promotes solidarity among water users, highlighting the importance of managing processes at the basin scale to effectively handle water resources and promote unity. However, Zinzani and Bichsel [8] highlight that the concept of employing hydrographic boundaries in IWRM lacks clarity. Their study in the Middle Zeravshan River Valley, Uzbekistan, revealed that adopting IWRM principles and redefining water management units can cause disorder in existing institutional and political processes, thereby complicating implementation.

The fact that Latin America and the Caribbean, Oceania, Central and Southern Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa have made limited progress in the implementation of IWRM compared to Australia, New Zealand, Europe, and North America [5] supports the idea that water policies should be amended to suit various water resources and locations, and governance responses must be adaptable to evolving circumstances [23].

In addition to context-specificity, in the different approaches mentioned above, accountability, legitimacy, collaboration, and trust and engagement were also regarded as elements of a good governance process. These factors are directly related to stakeholder participation in decision making, an issue that has received increasing interest in the water sector [24]. One of the principles of water governance proposed by the OECD is to promote stakeholder engagement and, thus, support informed and outcome-oriented contributions [23]. In this sense, it has become necessary for policymakers, even if stakeholders are not usually part of the decision-making process. Stakeholder engagement varies widely in how it is conceptualized, motivated, and implemented, since it can span from merely providing information to fully autonomous decision making [25]. Although the perception of local users provides reliable and long-term information on water resources and contributes to scientific knowledge [26], successful stakeholder engagement requires more than just top-down decision making; it involves multi-stakeholder interaction, dialogue, and learning [27], and is regarded as especially important in situations with complex, unstructured problems [28,29]. Considering this, it is essential that we recognize the complexity and diverse range of actors involved, with each engaging in different activities, discourses, and positions in water management and water security [30]. Stakeholders provide context-specific information necessary in order to identify governance challenges or barriers and propose governance opportunities for achieving water security.

An approach that specifically addresses stakeholders’ participation and collaboration states that good governance must not only be understood as a dialogue among stakeholders but as a trialogue between three groups of actors: government, society, and science, which are independently important in a society and interconnected at multiple levels (national, regional, and local) [31]. The trialogue model consists of six key elements and operates on the hypothesis that effective governance relies on achieving a balance among these components: three main actor clusters (government, science, and society) and three critical interfaces connecting them (government–society, government–science, and science–society) [31,32]. Although this model was proposed in 2007, it should be considered and empirically assessed in Chile due to its valuable conceptions and proposals of what good governance means, as well as the lessons that the country could leverage to implement IWRM. While the trialogue model has been explored through case studies in South Africa and Australia [33,34], to the extent of our knowledge, it has not been empirically evaluated with data obtained directly from stakeholders, particularly within a Latin American context.

Water Management in Chile

Chile’s water management history dates to colonial times, with significant regulatory milestones starting from an 1819 decree and continuing through various water codes [35]. However, the current water code that governs the country was established in 1981 under a military dictatorship regime. It is heavily influenced by free-market principles, establishing a framework for distributing and utilizing water resources through tradable water use rights (WURs). This code, along with the 1980 Constitution, remains a critical legal framework for water management in Chile.

The Chilean water institutional framework includes rules and regulations governing water distribution and quality management. The country has a highly centralized governance system, where national policies determine local management. The executive, judicial, and legislative branches play distinct roles in regulating, resolving conflicts, and creating laws related to water use. Water user organizations (WUOs), composed of private WUR holders, manage water resources and infrastructure.

Chile is the only OECD country that has not yet implemented the IWRM approach through river basin organizations, which is an important factor for potentially moving toward a more decentralized system. While WUOs manage water at the basin level, their exclusive composition of WUR holders limits broader stakeholder participation [36]. Four management challenges identified in the country include (i) the increasing demand for water across various sectors; (ii) the fluctuating water supply, which is expected to worsen with climate change; (iii) the unsustainable management of groundwater resources; and (iv) policy goals established without implications for other water users and without cross-sectoral and institutional collaboration [37]. Additionally, the OECD’s 2024 environmental performance assessment highlights issues such as the Chilean State’s insufficient authority to regulate WURs and the lack of transparency in water markets, leading to over-allocation, overexploitation of aquifers, water shortages, and conflicts among users [38].

Although environmental and water governance in Chile has been studied by various academics and international organizations [35,37,38,39,40], most analyses have focused on documents, laws, and public policies. However, it is crucial to complement these studies with an empirical diagnosis of governance at the local level based on the perspectives of the actors directly involved. This approach will help identify barriers and propose solutions to advance toward water security in collaboration with stakeholders.

In this context, the trialogue model provides a robust framework for examining how water security challenges are addressed within existing institutional arrangements. By applying the trialogue model at the basin level in Chile, this study aimed to uncover the roles that various actors can play in strengthening governance systems. The model emphasizes identifying stakeholders’ viewpoints and interrelationships, which is crucial for fostering agreement and cooperation among diverse groups and is an essential factor for the successful adoption and implementation of effective water management initiatives [41].

Regarding the complex and context-specific nature of water governance and IWRM and the need to achieve a more participatory and collaborative good water governance system, this study aimed to understand the governance trialogue model in the Chilean framework by identifying governance barriers to achieving water security, opportunities for overcoming such barriers, and the role of actors in developing those opportunities. The context-specific nature of water governance was analyzed, with the river basin serving as the unit of analysis. This recognizes the importance of linking water security to territorial and spatial dimensions and emphasizes that it is a multi-scale issue best addressed through integrated and localized actions [42]. The Biobío River Basin (BRB) was selected as a case study due to its significance as one of Chile’s most important river basins when considering the variety of stakeholders and uses involved. This case study showed the complex challenges that a governance system faces in adapting to a form of IWRM that has not yet been possible to implement at the national, regional, and river basin scales.

2. Theoretical Framework: The Trialogue Model of Governance

The trialogue model of governance offers a simple conceptual framework to guide discussions on existing governance processes and structures [32], and is composed of three main actor clusters [31] (Figure 1):

Government actor cluster: This includes the legislative branch responsible for rulemaking, the executive branch responsible for rule application, and the judicial branch responsible for rule adjudication. This cluster can guide and empower the science actor cluster in creating solutions for increasingly complex issues. In an ideal democratic system, government policies should be formulated based on the clearly expressed needs of society. Thus, it is the responsibility of the government actor cluster to establish an environment and institutions that enhance socioeconomic development by leveraging suitable scientific and social contributions.

Society actor cluster: This involves civil society (including NGOs, industry, and community-based organizations), the economy, and the environment. The components of this cluster perform a dynamic interplay that is deeply embedded in the sustainable development discourse.

Science actor cluster: This is a systematic enterprise that condenses knowledge into testable laws and principles. This cluster is divided into three sub-components: basic research focused on advancing understanding, applied research aimed at solving societal problems, and research related to technology transfer and specialist services. The science actor cluster is explicitly tasked with meeting societal needs and providing technical solutions to the government, thereby applying the outcomes of its three sub-components and integrating them across various scientific disciplines.

The trialogue model of governance states that good governance requires that these groups of actors cooperate closely, maintaining a relationship embedded in communication and continuous feedback. This cooperation depends on how effectively the different clusters of actors interact with one another through three interfaces [31]:

Government–society interface: This interface defines society’s needs and demands, the legitimacy of the political process, and how open the government is to new ideas from civil society and the business sector. It also indicates how effectively the government meets society’s needs.

Government–science interface: This interface determines how much science and technology influence the political economy and how scientific knowledge informs government decision-making processes. The government supports the scientific process through policies, resource allocation, and strategic direction. This relationship is crucial for social stability and economic growth, making it a key factor of effective governance, especially in developing countries with emerging democracies.

Science–society interface: This interface involves the application of science for society’s benefits, including how scientific knowledge is spread throughout society. In developed countries, this is evident in the technology-based economy, which contributes to a comparative global advantage. In developing countries with emerging democracies, the effectiveness of integrating science and technology with societal needs becomes a critical factor in the success of the economy as it addresses historical and structural disadvantages.

According to Turton [31], while the IWRM paradigm provides a solid foundation for managing water resources, it must be integrated with a more nuanced understanding of governance, particularly in how societal values and norms shape the implementation of economic efficiency, equity, and environmental sustainability, which are the core values of the IWRM framework [43]. The quality of the mentioned interfaces is crucial in order to ensure the long-term success of these relationships, where mutual understanding is developed and stakeholders engage in a dialogue that allows them to move beyond traditional roles, becoming partners in decision making [31].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Area

The Biobío River Basin (BRB) (36°49′10′′ S, 73°09′52′′ W) is a multi-purpose watershed. It is regarded as one of the most important hydrographic regions in Chile owing to its immense biodiversity, water resources, and cultural significance. It spans an area of 24,369 km², with its main river extending approximately 380 km from its source in the Galletué and Icalma lakes to its river mouth at the sea, making it the third-largest basin in the country. The basin extends across three political–administrative regions: the Biobío region (covering 64% of its area), the Araucanía region (33%), and the Ñuble region (3%) [44].

The BRB is located in the country’s central–southern region, which experiences a Mediterranean to temperate rainy and maritime climate, with significant rainfall that increases further south, averaging 1746.72 mm per year [45,46].

The BRB encompasses a variety of habitats, from native forests to wetlands, and forms part of the Chilean Winter Rainfall–Valdivian Forest biodiversity hotspot [47,48], which is home to a diverse range of species, including 29 endemic amphibian species, 27 endemic reptiles, and 13 endemic mammal species [49]. Additionally, the BRB contains 19 native fish species, of which 7 are endangered, 2 are endemic, and 8 are classified as vulnerable [50].

The BRB has approximately 1.5 million inhabitants, with 85% living in urban areas, and 15% living in rural areas [50]. The Indigenous population represents around 11% of the overall population [51].

A significant portion of the BRB lies in the Andean region, where the steep slopes of the riverbed and its tributaries, combined with a pluvial–nival hydrological regime, result in relatively stable flow in the upper basin. This characteristic makes the area particularly valuable as a source of hydroelectric energy, presenting 17 hydroelectric power plants producing over 2800 MW [50]. In the Biobío region, the forest industry comprises approximately 27.4% of the national area [52].

Figure 2A illustrates the land use in the BRB. The dominant land use is primarily linked to monoculture forestry practices (51% of its total area), while native forests are largely concentrated in the Andean region of the basin [50]. Additionally, the largest urban area in the basin, the Metropolitan Area of Concepción (MAC), is situated near the river’s mouth. Figure 2B illustrates the territorial distribution of key economic activities, namely, agroindustry, energy generation, fisheries and aquaculture, and the forest industry.

The BRB has been the focus of extensive research on its economic, social, and environmental aspects for over 30 years. One of the most significant initiatives was the EULA project (1990–1993), an applied research collaborative effort between the University of Concepción and several Italian universities. The project, titled “Management of the Water Resources of the Biobío River Basin and the Adjacent Coastal Marine Area”, took place between 1990 and 1993. This project became a key reference for understanding the environmental state of the Biobío Basin and the surrounding region in the early 1990s, serving as a foundation for future investment and development initiatives [53].

The EULA project also developed the first center of environmental sciences, which continued the “Quality Monitoring Programme” (PMBB), a collaborative initiative between the university and various private companies aimed at monitoring water quality in the BRB. Since its commencement in 2004, the program’s primary goal has been to provide the community and authorities with up-to-date information to support more informed decision making [54]. The program continues to operate and collect data to this day.

3.2. Research Design

This investigation followed an exploratory case study research design involving studying a single case’s complex and unique characteristics [55]. In this sense, a case study does not follow statistical logic or sample representativeness. Instead, it focuses on an in-depth examination of a phenomenon, allowing for the comparison of multiple cases with similar dimensions [56]. Exploratory case studies are typically conducted to gain insights into a previously unexamined area, potentially leading to more comprehensive, structured research if justified.

This research design followed a qualitative strategy (Figure 3), which reflects a perspective of social reality as a continually evolving outcome of individuals’ interactions and creations [55]. This approach helped to gain insights into the perspectives of those actively engaged in social processes related to water governance and management. Fundamentally, qualitative research seeks to understand actions, norms, and values from the viewpoints of the people who create and experience them, recognizing multiple realities and prioritizing understanding phenomena [56]. In this case study, the reality is created by each of the most representative stakeholders embedded in the governance trialogue, which acted as a primary information source. In addition, documents were used as a secondary information source.

Data collection began with the documentary analysis to better understand the comprehensive legal, sociopolitical, and hydroclimatic context surrounding water management and governance in the study area. The documents reviewed included government reports, web pages of water user organizations (WUOs), relevant academic articles, public policy documents, and legal texts, among others.

Following this, drawing on their vast experience, the researchers identified key individuals who could provide critical insights essential to the study. A purposive sampling method was employed, starting with key informants and expanding the sample based on the information they provided [57]. In total, the sample included 15 stakeholders: 6 from the government actor cluster (senior managers of different public agencies related to water management and public employees who had more than ten years of experience working in the BRB); 4 from the science actor cluster (expert researchers in the water sphere, who have researched in the BRB and are from the fields of law, ecology, and sociology), and 5 from society actor cluster (senior managers of water user organizations with more than 10 years of experience, a company manager in charge of the water resources area, a villager, and an NGO member related to the conservation of aquatic ecosystems). The core principle of concentrating on a small number of individuals is to gain an in-depth understanding of each instance in its full complexity [58,59]. This deep exploration allows case study researchers to analyze a wide variety of data sources, such as different types of documents and interviews. This approach contrasts sharply with typical quantitative research, which simplifies situations by removing much of their complexity to estimate numerical relationships or test hypotheses [58]. As discussed in Section 3, participants provided a significant amount of valuable information that could be compared with data obtained from documents. Together, these sources offered crucial information for achieving the research aim.

Subsequently, from 2021 to 2023, data collection was conducted through qualitative face-to-face and online semi-structured interviews, which were designed to gather insights into people’s views regarding water management, water security, and good governance [60]. An information sheet and consent form were prepared for participants, who were then contacted to confirm their interest in taking part in this study, and written informed consent was subsequently signed and collected. The semi-structured interviews took an average of one hour to complete and utilized a standard set of questions to guide the interviewees to elaborate on their answers until they were comfortable enough with them. These questions included the following: Do you know of any water management issues or problems in the basin? What suggestions for solutions to these problems would you give from a governance perspective? What is the role of the different actors in addressing these problems or conflicts?

Data gathered from interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis supported by Atlas.ti software (online version). Initially, segments of the interview transcripts were coded to identify patterns relevant to the study using an open coding approach where the researchers did not use pre-set codes but instead developed and refined them throughout the coding process [61]. By the end of this step, the codes were organized into broader themes that were significant in providing insights for this study: (i) barriers to advancing toward water security; (ii) opportunities to overcome such barriers; and (iii) the role of government, science, industry, and civil society in implementing such opportunities.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Understanding Stakeholders’ Perspectives: Context-Specific Barriers to Water Security in the Biobío River Basin

In the interviews conducted, a total of 23 barriers to water security were identified and categorized. Figure 4 shows the frequency of participants who mentioned each obstacle during their interviews. The most frequently mentioned barrier was the information gap, as reported by 9 out of 15 interviewees. Next, 8 out of 15 interviewees expressed difficulties with the scope of laws. Additionally, seven interviewees identified other barriers, including concerns pertaining to the construction of hydroelectric power plants (socio-environmental conflicts), the fragmented and uncoordinated institutional structure, issues in land-use planning (monocultures and urbanization), the use of water tank trucks as a permanent solution, competitive water use, and pollution. Among these barriers, the former three warranted further exploration, since these aspects are particularly relevant for examining the national and territorial context and are supported by numerous documents and academic sources that contribute to the ongoing debate on water management in this river basin [50,62,63,64,65]. Below, a comprehensive examination of these barriers is presented.

Besides the above-mentioned barriers, other barriers were also identified: few resources for the government (insufficient budget to fund public services, infrastructure, or governance initiatives, and/or a shortage of skilled personnel to implement policies), water scarcity, biodiversity loss, unregularized water use rights, a lack of environmental awareness among citizens, a sense of inequity in access to water, uncertainty due to water highways (a private initiative proposing water diversion from the BRB to northern river basins), non-compliance with regulations, the alteration of natural watercourses (i.e., erosion via the deforestation of riverbanks and extraction of aggregates for construction), the low number of resources for science, low citizen participation, a lack of confidence in institutions, a lack of incentives for preservation, a lack of political will (difficulties in achieving legal reforms due to conflicts of interest or political rivalries), and disorganized civil society.

4.1.1. Information Gap

The main obstacle to achieving water security in the BRB is obtaining sufficient access to information. In this scenario, data are frequently dispersed and difficult to extract from many government websites. The interviewees declared that data, such as flow rates, climatic data, and water quality information, often arrive in various forms and are challenging to download. In addition, private corporations, who frequently have access to superior and refined data, are not required to disclose their research findings to the public. Consequently, losing an important information source hampers proper decision making and restricts public access to data. In addition, discrepancies have been observed between official data sources, private sector sources, and actual conditions regarding water withdrawals, a situation that is characteristic of countries lacking specific legal rights, clear standards, adequate supply infrastructure, comprehensive data systems, and sufficient monitoring and follow-up to make informed decisions [66].

Some interviewees mentioned that there are pertinent subjects that have not been sufficiently researched, highlighting a significant lack of data regarding the hydrogeological state of groundwater and the precise quantity of water being distributed through water use rights (WURs) in the BRB. Other interviewees noted that the focus on academic research tends to be limited to repetitious diagnostic work conducted by many universities and research centers. Consequently, there is a perceived deficiency in updated information that caters to the specific interests of the local community in the BRB. These issues are critical for decision making and contribute to a significant degree of information uncertainty.

The lack of adequately integrated information regarding water management was pointed out decades ago by Dourojeanni and Jouravlev [67], who referred to an omission in the drafting of laws and regulations, which failed to account for the necessity of sufficient hydrogeological information that is crucial to understanding the continuity and variability of the hydrological cycle when granting WURs and defining their duration. Today, this situation remains largely unchanged. A recent OECD study [38] indicates that insufficient data and the inadequate monitoring of both the surface and groundwater quality hinder a thorough evaluation of water pollution in Chile.

In the realm of water information and governance, data availability and innovation in producing and sharing information can impact the development of institutional frameworks and water management approaches; therefore, in terms of participation, information should be easily accessible, comprehensible for all stakeholders, traceable, and aligned with the decision-making context and timeline [68]. Furthermore, to achieve a governance system that promotes adaptation, it is essential that we gather extensive data to model and test various climate change scenarios [69], which could enhance integrative approaches, such as the water–energy–food security nexus.

Another relevant issue concerning the relationship between information and participation in the BRB is the lack of public knowledge about the laws and institutions people should approach when facing problems related to water resource management. In this regard, interviewees perceive a sense of legal uncertainty due to the difficulty in accessing information about laws, regulations, and the duration of legal processes. This is closely tied to the concept of legal certainty, which can be understood as the assurance of knowing what to expect regarding current regulations and the actions or enforcement powers of the authorities, ensuring that citizens can act with a clear understanding of the consequences of their actions within the regulatory framework [70]. However, according to the Chilean legal system, no one may declare ignorance of the law after it has come into force (article 8 of the Civil Code). Hence, it seems that the responsibility of staying informed lies more on water users rather than on the state to enhance access to technical and civic information.

4.1.2. Scope of Laws

This barrier refers to all problems related to legal gaps, the non-consideration of fundamental rights, climate change, and international agreements in legal bodies (from the Political Constitution to other legal regulations), which must be reformed to contribute to the solution.

To understand the legal issues surrounding water in Chile, it is essential that we examine how water is defined in the legislation. The Water Code (1981), in article 5, recognizes water as a national good of public use. Additionally, the Civil Code, which has been in effect since 1855, also classifies water as a national good of public use in article 595. However, the Political Constitution (1980), in article 19 No. 24, states that “the rights of individuals over water, recognized or constituted in accordance with the law, will grant their owners the property over them”. Although these legal frameworks define water as a national resource, the rights to its use (in the form of WURs) are acknowledged as private property.

This duality in legal systems regarding water as a common and a private good has created a debate about how to manage and govern it, especially in accordance with securing the human right to water and sanitation and promoting its ecological conservation. This legal system supports a neoliberal economic development model focused primarily on economic liberalization, along with the extensive privatization of natural resources and state-owned enterprises in the 1980s and 1990s. This has positioned the country among the top 25 nations worldwide in terms of economic freedom [71]; however, it has also faced criticism for its negative environmental impacts and the inequitable distribution of water in society, which pose significant barriers to achieving water security [72].

The exclusive exercise of market-based governance often results in what is known as “market failures”, which, from a water security perspective, is evident when a single system fails to effectively address the needs of all sectors, particularly the most vulnerable ones [73]. This results in ineffective conflict resolution, poor management, and unrealistic goals, causing economic and environmental costs [74]. In these cases, state intervention is key to addressing market failures, including state-created financial mechanisms to ensure access to private water supply systems for those who cannot afford it and policies that enhance the public oversight of private water systems [73].

In Chile, the relationship between the state and market mechanisms in addressing these issues aligns with the concept of the subsidiary state. According to the principle of subsidiarity, the state does not engage in activities that individuals or organized entities can adequately manage and only intervenes temporarily when the private sector is limited [75]. Therefore, the subsidiary state not only refrains from economic activities but also promotes private participation. According to some interviewees in the BRB, state intervention is regarded as weak not only because of its subsidiary approach but also because of its low enforcement capacity and enactment of environmental laws that cannot address market failures.

However, in April 2022 (after nearly 11 years of discussion), substantial revisions to the Water Code (Law 21.435) were implemented, with a focus on giving priority to water for human consumption, sanitation, and subsistence domestic use. The current legislation permits temporary utilization and substitutes the term “owner” with “holder” in reference to specific rights. Groundwater is designated a national resource, and it is forbidden to allocate WURs in protected regions such as glaciers and national parks. It has also regulated mining activity, which, before the reform, was considered a priority when new sources were discovered within the area exploited but must now be formally requested. Furthermore, a Water Resources Climate Change Adaptation Plan is currently under development, which will incorporate strategies to mitigate the impact of climate-related hazards and manage disaster risks, specifically targeting floods, mudslides, and other severe events associated with water resources. It will also integrate nature-based solutions to address these challenges [38,76].

According to some interviewees, one of the most important and recent legislative achievements on climate change was the Framework Law on Climate Change, enacted in June 2022, which establishes a legal framework for addressing long-term climate change through mitigation and adaptation. It aligns with the Paris Agreement by setting a national target for carbon neutrality by 2050 and enhancing the resilience to the adverse effects of climate change (Law 21.455). The law acknowledges the state bodies responsible for climate change and clearly defines their roles and obligations at the national, regional, and local levels. At the regional (sub-national) level, it formalizes the Regional Committee for Climate Change, chaired by the Regional Governor and including the Regional Presidential Delegate, and the Regional Ministerial Secretariats from ministries within the Council of Ministers for Sustainability and Climate Change, along with representatives from municipalities and civil society [77].

Additionally, the Strategic Plan for Water Management in the Biobío Basin, led by the government and conducted by the University of Concepción in 2021, aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current and future water supply and demand in the BRB. It establishes a 30-year water balance projection; diagnoses the state of water-related information, infrastructure, and decision-making institutions; and proposes actions for public–private stakeholders. The document includes key findings on water supply and demand, the modeling of surface and groundwater under climate change scenarios, and citizen participation, ultimately aiming to improve decision making at the basin level [46].

Implementing these new laws, plans, and reforms represents a significant step forward in promoting a participatory and adaptive governance process. However, as they are still relatively recent, their full impact will only become evident in the coming years.

A phenomenon that has also been observed in institutional reform is resistance to change. In this respect, Saleth and Dinar [78] highlight the existence of a line between theory and practice, pointing out that changes are not only driven by endogenous factors, such as water scarcity and sector performance, but also (and more importantly) by external factors, such as economic crises and political reforms, for which countries often respond incidentally (usually with reforms design generally lacking the integration of institutional linkages and synergies). Additionally, institutional changes could be affected by a “path of dependence”, which implies that the current state and future trajectory of institutions are inherently linked to their historical development and previous actions [79]. In this sense, the best strategy involves implementing targeted and sequentially connected reforms prioritizing institutional components and sector-specific contexts with higher potential for successful outcomes.

4.1.3. Hydroelectric Power Plants (Socioeconomic Conflicts)

The BRB hosts approximately seventeen operational hydropower plants. Seven of these are located in the Laja sub-basin (Abanico, El Toro, Antuco, Quilleco, Rucúe, Laja, and Diuto); two are located in the Duqueco sub-basin (Mampil and Peuchén); and three are located along the main course of the river (Pangue, Ralco, and Angostura). Additional plants include Boquiamargo, Los Padres, Malpucho, and Renaico. Altogether, these hydroelectric plants generate over 2800 MW of power, a figure that could rise by approximately 128 MW with the operation of newly approved projects that are set to be constructed: Picoiquín, Canal Biobío Sur, Quilaco, and Rucalhue [50].

Concerning the relevance of hydroelectric use and its impact on the basin, the hydroelectric power plants located on the main course of the Biobío River (Pangue 1996, Ralco 2010 and Angostura 2015) have generated the most significant conflicts in their operational area, particularly in the Alto Biobío (located in the upper part of the basin). The interviewees discussed several concerns, including issues about Indigenous rights, coerced relocations, conflicts with irrigators, alterations in river flows and landscapes resulting from dam building, and the establishment of flood zone boundaries.

The approval of the Ralco hydroelectric power plant project in 1993 marked a significant turning point in the strained relationship between Indigenous communities and hydroelectric companies in Alto Biobío. This plant commenced operations in September 2004, and its effects are still being felt today. The project was led by the Spanish-owned ENDESA (Empresa Nacional de Electricidad S.A.), now managed by the Italian company ENEL (Ente Nazionale per l’Energia Elettrica). In December 2002, Mapuche–Pehuenche women filed a complaint with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) regarding rights violations by the Chilean State. This resulted in a March 2004 agreement between the Chilean State, ENDESA, and the Mapuche–Pehuenche communities. The agreement, still in effect, includes the constitutional recognition of Indigenous peoples, the ratification of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 169, mechanisms to ensure the participation and economic development of the Indigenous communities in Alto Biobío, and a prohibition on future hydroelectric megaprojects in the area [62].

The ILO Convention 169 (1989) acknowledges the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and establishes standards for their economic, socio-cultural, and political rights, including land rights. It ensures their participation in decisions affecting their communities, protects them against displacement, and guarantees equal opportunities in employment, healthcare, and education, including instruction in their native languages [80]. This convention also laid the foundation for the 2007 U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which asserts the equality of Indigenous peoples and their right to self-determination, allowing them to freely determine their political status and pursue their development without discrimination [81].

However, some interviewees assert that the construction of hydroelectric power plants has, to some extent, hindered the exercise of Indigenous peoples’ rights. Although Chile signed international agreements and enacted its own Indigenous law in 1993 to protect and promote Indigenous rights, a 2019 report from the National Institute of Human Rights [62] indicates that Indigenous communities perceive the Chilean State as favoring private companies over the public good. This perception reinforces the historical experience of the Mapuche–Pehuenche people, who feel socially and politically marginalized by the State. Currently, conflicts in the area persist, exacerbated by new hydroelectric projects (i.e., Rucalhue) that align with national priorities but face opposition from local communities. It has been suggested that the ability to form local alliances, institutional conditions, and the establishment of shared objectives are critical factors influencing whether social movements successfully resist the construction of these power plants [63].

4.1.4. Fragmented and Uncoordinated Institutional Structure

Many interviewees indicated that Chile’s governance model is highly hierarchical and uniformly applied across the national territory, posing a barrier to progress toward water security. This issue is evident through the perceived fragmented institutional structure, with numerous institutions involved in water management. The lack of coordination among these institutions results in excessive bureaucracy and fosters a sense of distrust in the system due to the highly centralized decision making at the national level, where regional and local governments do not have direct competence in water management.

Globally, the call for cross-sectoral policy integration and enhanced vertical and horizontal coordination has been a consistent demand in water governance and management for decades [82]. The situation is no different in Chile, specifically in the BRB as a case study. Fragmentation and a lack of coordination among institutions have been well-documented in the national and international literature about the Chilean governance system. According to the OECD [38], water governance in Chile is intricate and fragmented, involving over 40 public and private institutions responsible for more than 100 functions at the national, regional, and local levels (including the Ministry of Public Works and the Ministry of the Environment and water user organizations). The water management institution is among the most centralized and fragmented within the OECD, with limited authority at the subnational level. This issue has been mentioned by the same agency in previous studies, such as the assessment of water governance in Latin America and the Caribbean [82], the environmental performance review [83], and its review of governance standards and public infrastructure in Chile [84]. In addition, the World Bank [39] mentioned this issue in the Study for the Improvement of the Institutional Framework for Water Management in the country.

Although some advances have been developed at the discursive level, Chile is currently facing challenges in transitioning to a more polycentric governance model [85]. Horizontally, the involvement of multiple public entities in water management has created a considerable dispersion of state functions, resulting in coordination problems and overlapping responsibilities [40]. According to some interviewees, the fragmented distribution of management duties across various organizations with different functional approaches poses a significant barrier to achieving water security. Chile should, therefore, create a central government authority to regulate, plan, develop, conserve, and protect water, ensuring the comprehensive management of both water and wastewater [38].

4.1.5. Issues in Land-Use Planning

• Monocultures

In Chile, landscape transformation in the central and southern regions was initially driven by agricultural development and then the expansion of fast-growing forestry plantations. In 1974, Decree Law 701 (DL701) was enacted to promote forestry and industrial development. The initiative implied that the state, over a period of 20 years and for a single time, will subsidize (by 75%) the net forestation costs incurred by landowners for each property (or part of it included) in their management plan [86]. Currently, in the BRB, after implementing the DL701, the native forest gradually began to be replaced by exotic species such as Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus globulus [87].

The Biobío region is an important producer of forestry industry derivatives, producing 3076.7 m³ of sawn timber, employing 30,709 people [52], and representing 60% of the forestry GDP [88]. A significant issue in the BRB is the extensive area occupied by monoculture tree plantations, which extend for more than 1,500,000 hectares, covering approximately 51% of the BRB’s total productive area [50].

A key indicator is the temporal evolution of the area dedicated to monoculture forestry in the Biobío Basin. Based on the most recent available data from the government, covering the period between 1998 and 2015, 10,228 hectares of native forests were substituted by monoculture forests [89].

Some stakeholders attribute groundwater depletion directly to forestry activities, causing the deterioration of roads, the occupation of riverbanks (the replacement of native flora with introduced species), increased poverty (competition with land used to grow food), and the reliance on water trucks as a permanent solution (as the community attributes the decrease in water availability directly to the establishment of monocultures). This has led to conflicts with local communities, particularly the Mapuche people, about water access and land ownership in the Alto Biobío area. The literature also refers to these issues, particularly in terms of conflicts among forestry industries and local communities over water access [64]; the disapproval of monoculture forest plantation among villagers, affecting their traditional cooperative social structures and traditional agricultural production [90]; and the issue of the high-water consumption of forestry crops compared to native flora [91]. A recent problem added to the impacts of climate change is related to forest fires, where species that constitute monocultures (i.e., Pinus radiata and Eucalyptus globulus) are recognized as more flammable than some native species (i.e., Cryptocaria alba and Quillaja saponaria) [92]. Fires are becoming more frequent, on a larger scale, and with a greater impact on neighboring communities and local endemic biodiversity.

• Urbanization

The Metropolitan Area of Concepcion (MAC) is the third major city in Chile and is situated in a highly urbanized and dispersed coastal region. It is surrounded by various aquatic ecosystems linked to the Biobío and the Andalién River Basins, along with their joining to the Pacific Ocean through the bays of Concepcion and San Vicente; the lagoon systems of San Pedro and Concepcion; and the wetlands of Rocuant, Lenga, and Los Batros. However, the urban expansion of the MAC has been complex, erratic, and poorly planned, as in most cities of Chile [93]. The expansion of the MAC has been strongly conditioned by geographical factors, such as bodies of water and relief and, despite the natural limitations, the expansion of built-up areas over lagoons, wetlands, and native vegetation, causing the proliferation of settlements in unsuitable places, losing naturalness and ecological connectivity [65].

According to a literature review performed by Rojas [65], from 1975 to 2004, urbanization led to a 40% reduction in wetland areas, replaced first with dispersed vegetation and later with urban development, which negatively impacted the environmental quality. In the Concepción–Talcahuano–San Pedro region, over 23% of wetland areas were lost in three decades. Specifically, between 2000 and 2010, 545 hectares of wetlands, including Rocuant, Lenga, and Los Batros, were lost due to residential pressure. Additionally, projects such as an industrial bridge have been proposed to solve the accelerated and unplanned urban growth, encouraging a policy of disconnection from the natural landscape and the benefits that are lost [94].

According to a study performed by Sekovski et al. [95], the consequences of urbanization, particularly in coastal areas, include the degradation of the landscape, the alteration of natural processes such as nutrient and energy flows, habitat degradation, the decline in biodiversity, alterations in ecosystem functions, and environmental and socio-cultural conflicts. The primary reason for the rapid decline in biodiversity in urban areas is likely the lack of awareness about the importance of preserving natural elements within urban environments, coupled with relaxed legal regulations [93].

4.2. Overcoming Barriers and Tackling Opportunities: Understanding the Trialogue Model of Governance According to the BRB Context

To understand how different actors contribute to addressing water security challenges, we identified two groups within the society actor cluster: civil society and industry. As outlined in the first section, the society actor cluster encompasses dynamics aligned with the dimensions of sustainable development, involving actors from social, economic, and environmental sectors. While the trialogue model includes NGOs, industry, and community-based organizations within this cluster, the interviews revealed varying and sometimes conflicting perspectives on water management and governance among these two groups. This divergence is particularly apparent in their views on overcoming water security barriers, with notable conflicts between civil society and industry, especially regarding hydroelectric power plant construction, monocultures, and urbanization issues.

Although we continue to value the trialogue among the original three clusters, we emphasize the complexity of the society actor cluster and the importance of recognizing and understanding the interactions between civil society and industry, naming them the civil society actor cluster (NGOs and residents) and industry actor cluster (water user organizations and members of private companies, who are mainly engaged in productive activities).

Figure 5 illustrates the relationships among three categorized themes: (i) the previously identified barriers; (ii) the opportunities proposed by the stakeholders to overcome barriers and advance toward water security; and (iii) the role each cluster could play in facilitating these opportunities. It is important to highlight that, while the barriers, opportunities, and most roles were coded from the interviewees’ input, the relationships between them emerged from the subsequent analysis, which revealed that many barriers can be addressed by multiple opportunities, and a single opportunity can address several barriers. In this sense, we proposed some roles to leverage these opportunities. This study identified clusters whose roles encompass various opportunities to overcome barriers, as well as opportunities that are the responsibility of a single cluster. Others require the involvement of more than one cluster or even all four clusters: government actor cluster (G), science actor cluster (S), industry actor cluster (I), and civil society actor cluster (CS).

For instance, a case where a single opportunity can address several barriers is “To reform the legal system”, which can address nine different barriers to water security: the construction of hydroelectric power plants, biodiversity loss, pollution, few resources for the government, a lack of confidence in institutions, a lack of incentives for preservation, the scope of laws, competitive water use, and issues in land-use planning. Additionally, “Nature-based solutions” were identified as preferable over gray infrastructure (such as dam construction and channeling) to address biodiversity loss and pollution and overcome barriers such as the alteration of natural water courses, the permanent use of water tank trucks, and issues related to water scarcity.

A radical opportunity for overcoming barriers mentioned by some interviewees was “Changing the economic development model”. This could help address several issues, including the need to revise the scope of laws, reduce the perceptions of inequity in water access, increase the political will for legal reforms, and address uncertainties among stakeholders, particularly concerning the potential construction of water highways [96]. However, from a governance perspective, this is one of the most challenging solutions to implement, since it requires a series of profound legal reforms. Consequently, any such change, if feasible, would be a long-term endeavor.

Just as the above solutions can address various barriers to water security, some solutions address one specific barrier; for instance, the few resources to science can be addressed by generating more resources, information management to address the lack of information, and environmental education to address the lack of environmental awareness among citizens.

In some cases, a single barrier can be tackled through multiple opportunities. For example, the fragmented and uncoordinated institutional structure can be addressed by the management at the river basin level, promoting collaboration agreements among public services and the creation of a single coordinating organization. Additionally, according to some interviewees, concerns regarding the construction of hydroelectric power plants can be addressed through drastic measures like dam deconstruction or other more practical measures, such as the “adoption of alternative energy sources” (to additionally address underlying issues like the real need for energy, energy losses, and energy connectivity). Other approaches include legal reforms to better regulate environmental flows, which define the quality and quantity of water that must flow through a river to support and protect the ecosystems and life that depend on it [97]; issuing formal apologies to Indigenous communities for the violations of their rights; and respecting international and national agreements on the active and binding community participation.

Regarding the latter, several countries, such as Australia and Canada, have officially recognized the harms caused during colonial times through state-issued apologies; however, these apologies may not fully satisfy Indigenous populations if they fail to acknowledge historical or ongoing injustices and if governmental policies do not undergo significant changes to address these issues [98]. In March 2014, a day after Michelle Bachelet took office as president of the Republic of Chile, the new governor of the Araucanía region, Francisco Huenchumilla, apologized for the historical dispossession of the Mapuche’s ancestral lands [99]. However, it is still unclear if this apology has effectively facilitated progress, given that current conflicts between the government and the Mapuche community persist.

Regarding the role of each cluster in facilitating opportunities to advance toward water security, it is evident that reforming the legal system is the exclusive responsibility of the government. The government could recognize Indigenous peoples and the rights of nature in the Constitution, treat water as a common and public resource, reform existing laws or create new ones for better water management, and halt urban sprawl in designated areas, among other actions.

One role of the government, recognizing the rights of nature in the Constitution, has been indicated to overcome biodiversity loss and to promote ecosystem conservation. Between the years 2020 and 2022, there were two unsuccessful attempts to change the 1980 Constitution, at which time there was an important debate about the representation of nature as a subject of law. Countries such as Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and New Zealand have recognized the rights of nature; however, there are some questions that emerge in terms of ensuring its effective operationalization: how to define the rights bearer, what rights nature will have (natural entities, such as rivers, as legal persons; property rights; rights to be restored; etc.), how nature may claim its rights, and how conflicts among the rights of nature and corporate and human rights will be adjudicated [100].

Science plays two main roles that can create numerous opportunities for overcoming barriers. First, it generates information for the government and society, facilitating effective management to address the lack of information. Second, it promotes effective environmental education, thereby raising environmental awareness among citizens and enabling informed community participation in decision making. Some interviewees relate this role of science to the role of industry in research and innovation, especially in new technology, and in proposing alternative sources of water and energy, informing civil society in an adequate manner.

Industry’s role in advancing toward water security is closely linked to providing transparent information about productive processes and legal compliance. Industries are also responsible for promoting corporate responsibility, both social and environmental, by educating communities and supporting local development programs. A crucial role mentioned by the interviewees is fostering innovation and technology in productive processes and developing new products that enable efficient water use, contributing to improving information management systems.

In terms of the role of civil society, it is essential within this cluster that we are informed by credible sources, and adhere to regulations. These actions are crucial in enhancing oversight capabilities, bolstering governmental support, and promoting the professionalization of entities like water user organizations (WUOs). Additionally, fostering community involvement in decision-making processes and improving information management are key factors in addressing these challenges.

Since the relationships between stakeholders in the basin play a vital role in ensuring an effective governance system, after identifying the role of each cluster in advancing toward water security in the BRB, a fourth theme emerged from the analysis of documents and interviews, contributing to the development of a context-specific governance trialogue: the interfaces between clusters. Figure 6 shows our proposal for enhancing the interfaces among the four clusters identified in the BRB (in black letters) based on the perceptions of the stakeholders and the documentary analysis conducted. The negative sign (in red letters) resembles the barriers to water security, which are directly related to the role of each cluster in the trialogue, and the positive sign (+) resembles the current strengths (in green letters). A new interface is highlighted: the civil society–industry interface.

In relation to the government–society interface (which outlines society’s needs, government openness, and effectiveness in addressing society’s demands), it is essential to emphasize that civil society possesses both rights and responsibilities. The interviewees pointed to the lack of civic education of the population and the role of social media in terms of their influence on the creation and acceptance of public policies and in the visibilization of social and environmental conflicts. In the BRB, various civil society groups have been effective in addressing and highlighting issues, particularly in preventing projects in the coastal area. However, when it comes to hydroelectric initiatives, despite the high-profile case of Mapuche–Pehuenche resistance to the Ralco project in the 1990s, which gained international attention, there currently exists a sense of helplessness among civil society organizations. This is due to what they perceive as a weak governance model that fails to adequately protect aquatic ecosystems.

Voluntary public–private agreements to manage competition among water users have become common strategies with which to move toward water security; however, this has only worked to resolve specific conflicts and depends largely on the voluntariness of private parties and water owners. To enhance public–private relationships, several interviewees suggested creating organizations at the river basin level, such as River Basin Boards. However, this kind of institution does not formally exist in the country.

In relation to the government–science interface (which highlights the impact of science on government decisions and its role in social stability and economic growth, especially in developing democracies), a characteristic of the BRB is the strength of the academic development, which is based on more than a century of history (The University of Concepción). During this time, several studies have been conducted on the river basin in terms of legal, social, and physical–chemical characteristics of its waters, among others. In this sense, some interviewees (particularly scientists) proposed solutions based on innovation, new methodologies (i.e., nature-based solutions), and alternative sources of water and energy, such as desalination. There was also a group of interviewees who focused on constitutional and legal changes as a long-term vision.

However, an important barrier to water security involves the government’s reduced role in allocating sufficient resources for scientific development, which is crucial for helping science to guide state policies and enhance information management. Notably, among its OECD counterparts, Chile invests the least in science (0.33% of GDP compared to an OECD average of 2.95%) [101]

In relation to the science–society interface (science for societal benefit, economic success, innovation, and technology), it is important to highlight what was mentioned above about the EULA project (1990–1993), a notable initiative focused on water resource management, and which set the foundation for future development in the BRB. Additionally, the EULA Center also launched the “Quality Monitoring Programme”, which is currently coordinated by the local University (University of Concepción) and supported by some user companies (industry); stakeholders point out that this is not enough, stating that industry should also play a more active role in supporting science through researching in innovation and technology and financing other academic developments and projects that could be beneficial for the BRB.

Regarding the civil society–industry interface, in the BRB, the primary concern is the ongoing conflicts between local communities and industries. According to the Chilean National Institute of Human Rights (INDH according to the Spanish acronym) [102], there are seven environmental conflicts in the BRB, two of which are directly related to water. The Angostura hydroelectric project, led by Colbún S.A., has conflicted with local communities since 2008. Around forty families, including some Indigenous people, live in the area. The main issue revolves around the potential impact of the project’s construction on the preservation of archaeological sites and the cultural–ceremonial significance of the location. The other conflict mentioned by the INDH is the Laja sub-basin dispute. Water scarcity in the BRB has severely impacted irrigators relying on Laja Lake, an important freshwater source, which has seen declining water levels in recent years. This has also negatively affected tourism due to reduced water flow at Laja Waterfalls. Local residents blame the private company ENDESA for overusing water at its power plants, though the company operates under a 1958 agreement with the government through the Directorate of Hydraulic Works (DOH, according to the Spanish acronym). According to the INDH, efforts by the DOH to mediate and form Water Use Monitoring Boards failed, as no consensus was reached. In November 2013, ENDESA took the dispute to court, seeking a Supervisory Board to regulate water rights, excluding Laja Lake from oversight. However, according to the interviewees, a voluntary public–private agreement took place: the Laja Lake Recovery and Cooperation Agreement (which was signed in the presence of the WUOs), to improve water management in the Laja area to ensure water conservation and return water flows to the Laja Waterfalls to almost their original state. This agreement was signed in November 2017 [103].

In order to provide a better understanding of the relationship between clusters in moving toward water security,

Table 1. The relationships (interfaces) among government (G), civil society (CS), industry (I), and science (S) used to address opportunities to advance toward water security.

Cluster	Interface		Opportunity
Government	G-CS	To recognize the rights of nature and Indigenous peoples in the constitution	To reform the legal system
	G-CS/G-I	Policies for water rationalization	To reform the legal system
	G-CS/G-I	The government must ensure compliance with laws by allocating adequate human and financial resources	To reform the legal system Control and supervision
	G-I	Payment for environmental services	To reform the legal system
	G-I	To allocate taxes on directly impacted areas	To reform the legal system
	G-I	Incentives (economic, policy-based, or legal) to encourage industries to develop and share technologies and research	To reform the legal system
	G-CS/G-I	Creation of an organization at the river basin level	Community participation in decision-making Management at the river basin level
	G-CS	Formal apology to Indigenous peoples	Apologizing to Indigenous peoples
	G-CS/G-I	More state intervention in market functioning	Changing the economic development model
	G-CS/G-I	Government informs society	Information management Environmental education Formalized WUOs Local community development programs
	G-CS	Creation of a water agency or ministry	A single coordinating organization Collaboration agreements among public services
	G-S	The state should allocate more resources to science to prioritize research on national issues	Greater resource allocation to science
Society: CS and I	G-CS	Civil society must be informed by reliable sources	Information management Community participation in decision making Control and supervision
	G-CS	Civil society must comply with regulations	Control and supervision
	G-I	Industry must comply with regulations	Control and supervision
	I-CS	Corporate social responsibility	Local community development programs Public–private agreements
	I-CS	Industry informs the community about its processes	Community participation in decision making Environmental education Information management
	I-S	Industry acts as a researcher/innovator	Nature-based solutions Information management Alternative energy/water sources
	I-S	Industry should finance scientific research	Nature-based solutions Information management Alternative energy/water sources
Science	S-CS	Researchers’ obligation (especially those funded by the government) to disseminate knowledge to society in an appropriate language	Information management Environmental education Community participation in decision making Formalized WUOs
	S-CS	Scientific research should be aligned with the economic, social, and environmental needs of the basin	Deepening wells Nature-based solutions Deconstruction of dams Alternative energy/water sources Formalized WUOs
	S-G	Science must be applied to the solution, working together with government institutions and informing management	Information management
	S-G	Information systems must allow for predicting water security conditions and climate change scenarios	Information management
	S-G	Research with no conflicts of interest	Information management

provides an overview of the interfaces (shown in Figure 6) and the relationship these have with the opportunities to address the corresponding barriers (shown in Figure 5). This highlights that opportunities such as reforming the legal system, information management, and control and supervision are the most frequently addressed across various interfaces. This underscores the significant reliance of the BRB on legal reforms to achieve effective governance, as well as the critical need to enhance the capacity for enforcing and supervising laws and regulations. In this context, the government’s role in mobilizing human and economic resources, along with civil society’s understanding of the legal framework, is vital to bolstering these capacities. Additionally, creating mechanisms for more transparent and available data sharing is essential to improving information management.

Given the above-mentioned factors, it is important to highlight that the effectiveness of the development of the interfaces fosters collaboration and mutual understanding and enables stakeholders to truly engage in the trialogue and decision-making process. However, a limitation that could emerge in this study, which must be considered for future research, is the influence of power relationships. For instance, in a study performed in the Meekong Basin, Bretauth et al. [104] found that, in adopting a new means of integration, participation limits became more apparent, which were shaped by enduring structural elements such as institutions, hierarchies, cultural norms, and capacities that define the power dynamics. Furthermore, power dynamics influence the opportunity, capability, and willingness to exchange information and perspectives. However, once individuals seize these opportunities, they enhance their abilities and begin sharing knowledge, thereby altering power relationships.

In the Chilean case, power relationships have been documented, for instance, in the Yali Alto basin. Local farmers and residents argued that water conflicts emerged from the excessive concentration of water rights held by large corporations. Additionally, this study reveals that the management system fosters private interventions—such as those by the agro-industrial sector—which control water access and distribution using scientific reports, thus marginalizing the voices of actors with limited resources to produce such studies and weakening their demands in the public discourse [105]. On the other hand, in a study performed in the La Ligua Basin, Budds [106] argues that the purely physical assessments of water allocation fail to account for the socio-political dynamics of the basin. The water code and economic policies promoting agribusiness disproportionately affect peasant farmers, making them more vulnerable. These desocialized assessments contribute to perpetuating unequal resource distribution and shaping uneven waterscapes.

Taking this into consideration, it is important for future studies to consider the influence of power in the BRB, especially in the relationship among government, science, industry, and civil society—for instance, in the hydroelectric arena and its impact on Indigenous communities. This could be performed with qualitative tools such as critical discourse analysis [107], as well as quantitative strategies such as Social Network Analysis [108].

The need to reform laws to achieve stakeholder inclusion can be operationalized by determining measurable outcomes for stakeholder engagement and ensuring that all stakeholders have access to relevant, understandable data and reports. Additionally, it is important to enable opportunities for dialogue and create safe spaces for stakeholders with less power to express concerns without fear of reprisal.

In terms of conflict resolution, an approach to river basin management is the concept of water diplomacy, which, since the 1990s, has focused less on the technical aspects of water governance and more on its political context [109]. Water diplomacy is a discourse that promotes regional cooperation, peace, stability, and security and, although it is prominent in transboundary water conflicts, it can be observed at different levels (national and local) [110]. Water diplomacy also fosters productive discourses on shared water resources, encouraging knowledge exchange and trust development through stakeholder engagement. Water diplomacy relies on water experts who bridge different ideas to collaboratively elaborate solutions. In this sense, technical and interdisciplinary knowledge is essential for studying data and formulating joint strategies, which cooperatively ensures accurate, accessible information and minimizes conflicts [110].

5. Conclusions

The significant centralization of the Chilean governance model within a highly heterogeneous socioecological territory and the almost non-existent local representation in water-related decision making at the basin level present significant obstacles to advancing toward water security. Internationally, it has been recognized that the knowledge and perceptions of local stakeholders provide valuable information for water resource management and that the trialogue model of governance encourages their involvement in decision making. However, in the Biobío River Basin (BRB), there is a sense of low participation among citizens and a perception of low environmental awareness, which also hinders progress toward water security.

The centralized nature of the governance system in the BRB is reflected in the two most mentioned barriers to water security: the lack of information and access to information (60% of participants) and the scope of laws (53% of participants). Issues in official information sources hinder effective decision making, and there are some legal gaps that must be solved in order to improve water governance. To address these challenges, it is essential that we improve the information management system, allocate more resources to upgrade hydrometric stations, and standardize data to ensure they are easily accessible.

At the local level, key issues in the BRB include the construction of hydroelectric power plants (46% of participants) and issues in land-use planning (46% of participants), both of which have sparked conflicts between industry and civil society and impact the conservation of aquatic ecosystems. To address this, it is crucial that we establish a conflict resolution mechanism within the current governance system, one that operates at the local level while being linked to the national framework. This would enhance the system’s ability to achieve true polycentric and multilevel governance, ensuring the more effective management of water resources and resolving disputes more effectively. To successfully foster governance at the river basin scale, river basin organizations must be created with clear decision-making roles and sufficient human and financial resources.

Considering the roles of various stakeholders in promoting a governance trialogue in BRB, the government’s role is pivotal in addressing opportunities to overcome water security challenges, particularly through a legal system reform, which reinforces the government’s relationship with the other clusters. The government’s limited regulatory capacity has led to bureaucratic management, preventing the establishment of an IWRM, a fundamental requirement for achieving water security. Additionally, the country must integrate institutional functions under a less fragmented framework, such as establishing a water agency based on professional and technical recommendations. This requires a shift from the current subsidiary approach to a model with the stronger enforcement, control, and supervision of activities across different sectors. Additionally, while recent legal reforms have been enacted, it is crucial that we evaluate their effectiveness over time and continue to update policies to ensure comprehensive water management.

The trialogue model of governance is a valuable framework for understanding the roles and interfaces among stakeholders within a model that fosters river basin management. The insights from different stakeholders not only helped identify water security barriers and opportunities but also provided a deeper understanding of the current governance system and ways to improve it, understanding the government–science, government–society, science–society, and civil society–industry interfaces. Additionally, this study highlighted the role each group plays in enhancing governance. A key finding from applying the trialogue model to the BRB was the complexity of the society cluster, which revealed the need to divide it into separate civil society and industry clusters. This separation is necessary due to their differing perspectives on water management in the river basin, their roles in governance, and the need to resolve conflicts through an effective conflict resolution system.

While exploratory case studies can be valuable on their own, they often serve as groundwork for subsequent studies, which may be conducted by future scholars. In this sense, using the BRB as a case study allows for potentially comparing these results with those from other river basins studied in the future, both within national and international frameworks. However, the context-specific complexity of the BRB and the Chilean governance system has introduced some limitations to this study. The society cluster exhibited a broader range of perspectives compared to the other two clusters; thus, for future studies in other river basins, it is important to account for the intricate nature of the society cluster and to evaluate the inclusion of a greater number of informants from this group to capture its diversity more comprehensively. In addition, power relationships could influence the functioning of the trialogue governance model, and we recommend studying them in further studies using qualitative (critical discourse analysis) or quantitative strategies (social network analysis).