Addressing the Challenge of Institutional Infrastructure in a Technically Focussed World - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 321

politico-administrative levels and sectoral groups. These challenges are linked to
concerns that the ramifications of climate change and expanding water uses are not
adequately reflected in the current governance framework.
In the Chilean case, greater challenges persist across the governance indicators,
in particular in relation to transparency and accountability. While water governance
at the political level is driven through a centralised approach, water management
happens in the private sphere and is driven by private interests. Despite the strong
codified nature of water governance through the Water Code, the weakness of
enforcement and capacity in the DGA means that provisions relating to protection
of aquatic ecosystems can effectively be ignored at the basin level. The market
focus on water management has meant that public institutions responsible for water
rights management or water and environmental issues have very limited capacity to
address water issues.

16.2.2 Adaptive Capacity

Part III presented the outcomes of the analysis relating to adaptive capacity in rela-
tion to the extreme events employed across the different case events (as detailed in
Part II). Chapter 10 presented the different institutional and governance mecha-
nisms that were mobilised, drawn on, or relevant to preparing for or navigating the
case events in each case area. The adaptive mechanisms presented took into account
both proactive and preparatory adaptive actions as well as reactive and autonomous
adaptive actions pertaining to drought and flooding situations. Across the two cases
areas a broad mix of adaptive mechanisms were recorded, ranging from historical
coping techniques to legal prescriptions for prioritising uses in periods of scarcity to
more radical policy reform. Chapter 10 then categorised these adaptive responses
according to the concepts of transformative adaptation, persistent adaptation and
passive change in order to establish linkages between the governance mechanisms
that allowed for more sustainable and resilient approaches compared to those that
fostered responses that might not build adaptive capacity or even degrade resilience
in the face of increasing stresses and uncertainty. Higher concentrations of transfor-
mative and persistent adaptive responses were seen in the Swiss case area than in the
Chilean case area.
Chapter 11 presented the different perceptions of stakeholders, as to the elements
of the governance system that supported or hindered effective water management or
its ability to cope with climate variability and impacts. Across both cases and levels
of governance, inter-jurisdictional issues and lack of information and data were
common barriers. However, in Chile issues relating to trust, enforcement and insti-
tutional capacity were significant preoccupations. In Switzerland, stakeholders
across all levels concentrated more on issues of local autonomy, including chal-
lenges and strategies related to the decentralised mode of governance, that is a bar-
rier to the integration of water governance. Common bridges related to flexibility
and autonomy at local or user levels, use of financial incentives as a means of