Bridges and Barriers to Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 203

Table 11.1 (c ontinued)

Major barriers and bridges to adaptation: Chile
Barriers Scale Bridges

Separation in function between water quality monitoring and
setting up water quality rules and standards (e.g. DGA
responsible for water quality monitoring, but MMA
responsible for water quality)
Conflicts and conflicting studies slow down the planning process
- Political games played around 'technical' issues - farmers/
DOH pressuring DGA to open up the wells (through the
drought declaration) so that they can prove third party rights
are not effected, and therefore can pave the way for the
Aconcagua Project to be agreed upon.
Lack of conservation culture or government incentives or pro-
grammes to develop conservation culture (not just communica-
tion campaign, but the need for water to be more expensive)
At the basin level, convergence of disparity in power between
economic actors (e.g. mining versus agriculture), lack of
institution to protect glaciers and lack of transparency on projects
to develop mines in the high Andes, means that mining activates
are impacting glaciers and therefore stream flow/storage without
accountability or recourse against negative impacts
The right of use is the property of the users (Water Code, Art. 5;
Chilean Constitution, Art 18 (24); Civil Code, Art 589), but
DGA has technical criteria of sustainability, but these are
internal directives, not legal provisions and therefore a legal
obligation
Despite investment at the farm level (irrigation techniques etc.),
investment at the river basin level is poor