Balancing Structural Con fl icts Across Scales to Develop and Mobilise Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 308

fail or be inadequate. Therefore, the regional level focus to develop multiple
mechanisms to provide this short term support function to assist local level capacity
in coping with non-linear dynamics in SESs, would include investing in monitoring
systems, leading indicators, scenario planning and communication and information
fl ows (Langlet 2010 ) .
The focus at the local level is on horizontal integration, namely connecting dif-
ferent sectoral actors and communities together to build cooperation for resolving
long term complex challenges but also develop networks and knowledge that can be
quickly mobilised to react in times of crisis, that may be redundant during 'normal
times'. The call for a rapid evolution of property rights, needed in conjunction with
climate adaptation (Ruhl 2009 ), is perhaps best addressed at the local level, where
individual or company stakeholders own and negotiate water rights or use rights,
rather than at higher levels of governance and then implemented at local levels. This
is likely to be a complex and emotive process, but jurists and water rights owners
(farmers, companies, utilities, municipalities) need to develop stronger partnerships
to develop innovative solutions to resolve the challenges relating to the mismatch
between the current and future hydrological realities and the obsolete baselines
upon which their rights were formulated.
The development of bridging organisations (e.g. local assessment teams) that
comprise multi-sector actors in the SES, could provide the requisite arena for trust-
building, learning, conflict resolution and adaptive co-management and that would
provide a dual role in facilitating proactive preparatory capacity as well as arenas
for mobilising joint responses in crisis time that are not dependant on higher levels.
Additionally, autonomy alone is meaningless without the requisite agency, plus
access to financial mechanisms. Therefore enabling access to and development of
financial and technical capacity are equally important. In turn, this requires regional
and national levels to have the capacity and resources to assist the local level.
While policy setting and at the national level should still remain an adaptation
priority for higher levels of government, until the constrictive elements of present
legislation and regulation are transformed, the limits of their impact in developing
capacity to manage the impacts of climate change at the local level should still be
recognised. Table 14.1 , therefore focusses on the mix of regime, knowledge and
network based approaches and mechanisms that are invaluable complements to leg-
islative provisions and fixed rules in meeting climate related challenges. Most
importantly, in the absense of governments being able to effectively integrate water
related policy priorities and legislative processes at the national level, focussing on
the mechanisms in Table 14.1 could enable water stakeholders themselves to cross
scales and sectors to develop a more joined up approach at the basin level for maxi-
mum benefits in climate change adaptation.
Some studies (Garmestani and Benson 2010 ; Herrfahrdt-Pähle 2010 ) have shown
how these different scale, specific foci can be couched in the Panarchy model
(Gunderson and Holling 2002 ; Chapin et al. 2009 ). These studies apply the Panarchy
model to institutional change, thus matching institutions and governance actions to
the appropriate level. Garmestani and Benson ( 2010 ) suggest matching up the insti-
tutional foci at higher governance levels to the phase of growth and accumulation