Water Governance in the Context of IWRM: Switzerland - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 134

in Switzerland, national and federal programmes are often viewed with suspicion
and are unwelcome at the local and regional level. While limited and independent
examples of integrated watershed management have been documented across
different cantons (WA21 2007 ), the ability for IWRM to move more comprehensively
from theory to practise is yet to be seen.
The complex institutional framework, legislative provisions and levels of sover-
eignty which govern water resources in the Canton Valais imply a lack of coordina-
tion and long term planning amongst the different politico-administrative levels and
sectoral groups. These issues impede the implementation of a more integrated water
management framework. Future management should be far better coordinated at the
watershed level, yet given the Swiss politico-administrative order, sole management
at the watershed level is unlikely, since the logical political boundaries are the com-
munes (Clivaz and Reynard 2008 ). In the past some communes in the Valais have
shown interest in the creation of a Master Water Plan within the framework of the
Environment and Health Action Plan (Clivaz and Reynard 2008 ) . However, more
recently the suggestion of the Centre de Competence d'Eau Valais is a positive
development. At the time of interview, only an initial planning phase was underway,
therefore the form and shape of the institution is yet to be seen. The extent to which
it will embrace IWRM principles and make strides towards a basin approach
management style is also yet to be seen.
The tendency to plan and manage water at the lowest political level implies a
lack of oversight and raises questions as to what really is the 'lowest suitable level'
in the principle of subsidiarity. The limitation of this concept therefore requires far
closer investigation in the discourse on water governance in Switzerland. Resource
and professionalism issues at local institutional levels were a source of concern, not
just for current management issues, but in light of future challenges as well. Even in
the Swiss Alpine region, where water is plentiful, multiple uses of water has caused
a degree of stress in supply, due to the non-management of demand.
A further challenge is to create and integrate new institutions that can manage
not only sectoral uses but also cross sector problems, within a climate of change.
The lack of an oversight institution in the Rhône basin is a situation that may lead
to issues amongst stakeholders (at local, regional and international levels) in the
future. Other external factors such as the intensification of the energy market
between Switzerland and Europe (Von Arx 2009 ) also raise questions as to the
ability of such a devolved and un-coordinated governance setting to manage change
and uncertainty.
Finally, there are concerns that the ramifications of climate change and expand-
ing water uses are not adequately reflected in the current governance framework.
Some have suggested that a lack of urgency to address this issue in an integrated
manner and vision is due to fact that there has historically been a low level of pres-
sure on water management in the region, and Switzerland in general (Heller 2009 ) .
However, even within the water tower of Europe, the prognosis of rising conflicting
demands on a water system facing uncertain changes from climate impacts, suggest
that it may be time for a change of speed.