Applying a Multi-pronged Approach to Assessing Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 76

laws, policies and institutions related to governance and IWRM, then followed by
in-county interviews in order to ascertain the degree to which the law has been
implemented in practice. The indicator approach to water governance is based on
three core elements of good governance accountability, transparency and participa-
tion, and in addition, indicators of IWRM were also utilised:

• Accountability: Holding governments responsible for their actions; Contestability

of political power
Transparency: Right to information; Availability and clarity of Information •

• Participation: Involvement of citizens in decision making

• IWRM: The integrated management of water resources in order to balance

economic, social and environmental objectives

However, IWRM may not be seen so much as an indicator of good governance,
but rather as a goal or aim, which may be useful in addressing the ability of water
governance arrangements to effectively and equitably manage the fair distribution
and protection of the resource. Results from the indicator assessment (assessment
and desktop review) were then analysed according to the full list of indicator ques-
tions (available on request) and written up into a comprehensive report for the
ACQWA deliverables (see acqwa.ch). Summarised versions of these reports can be
found in Chaps. 7 and 8 .

5.4 Adaptive Capacity

In developing the adaptive capacity component, the aim is to take better account of
the dynamic interplay between the human (focussing on governance & institutions),
hydrological and climate components of the system in order to understand the resil-
ience of SESs in the face of future climatic uncertainty. Chapters 3 and 4 identi fi ed

and presented the range of adaptive capacity determinants currently supported in the
literature on adaptation to climate change from the adaptation, vulnerability and
resilience literatures that are often focused at single temporal or spatial scales (Engle
2010 ). The indicators used for the governance assessment are representative of the
broad brush indicators that are commonly found in the discourse on good gover-
nance and management approaches, but may not be as complete in the assessment
of governance structures in the context of change and uncertainty.
Therefore a set of determinants was generated drawn from current theory (as pre-
sented in Chap. 4 ) , in which to explore, measure, and develop a more nuanced char-
acterisation of adaptive capacity. The complexity in assessing adaptive capacity, and
the gap between the theory of adaptive and integrated approaches and the reality of
positive outcomes can be seen as having two key aspects. The first concerns what it
is that can be assigned as creating or increasing adaptive capacity? It is incredibly
difficult to establish a causal link between a particular outcome and a specific gover-
nance approach or management tool, or even assigning a particular level of causation