Operationalising Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 226

Regime indicators Operationalisation Chile Switzerland

Responsibility Coordination : Designated institutions need to

have an overview to tackle the larger
problems (i.e. unified perspective on cross
sector issues, longer term issues).

Transference of water management to
private sphere limits coordination
and collaboration on trickier, longer
term issues; projects are presented
to MIDEPLAN only from their
ministry's core perspective; no
priority setting between sectors and
uses; groundwater framework weak
compared to surface water

Lack of cohesive and coordinated energy/
water/environment policy across
different administrative bodies.

Rule setting : Finding a balance between
decision making and political drivers of
water resources management and the
technical expertise required to build policy
across the different levels and layers of
responsibility: Ministerial Targets/
Regulation; Judicial Decisions; Regional
Regulations & Agreements; Local
Directives, Agreements; Company/
Association Agreements.

Water Code rules on the management
of water rights, and its application is
interpreted by the courts in
individual cases. The individual
water rights owners have the
mandate to manage, and interven-
tion/enforcement from public
authorities has to be requested by a
rights holder. Centrally driven water
policy, determined by presidential
priorities. Water provision regulated
and prices set by a government
regulator.

Designated levels of responsibility from
federal policy to cantonal legislation
and ordnances then to local directives
(Bewilligung, Ordnung) and private
agreements, creating linkages for
enforcement and monitoring across
uses and jurisdictions. Regulations
differ per commune; canton legislation
takes time to be in step with federal
legislation and direction; private sector
actors are responsible for implementa-
tion of certain restoration/re-naturalisa-
tion provisions.

Expediency : Affordable and accessible access
to informed judgements on water conflicts
and issues within a basin.

Associations or the courts are
responsible for resolving conflicts
between users. Court process is
lengthy, expensive and gridlock in
conflict resolution prevents the legal
institutionalisation of certain user
groups, which erodes their ability to
manage flows within their section.

Few court cases concerning water
resources; administrative route
provided for aggrieved parties to
denounce planned projects at the
relevant administrative level;
participation in planning aims to
pre-empt conflicts, but in TRC led to
drawn out acrimonious negotiations in
pre-implementation phase.

(continued)