Addressing the Challenge of Institutional Infrastructure in a Technically Focussed World - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 327

mobilised, as and when shocks occur (i.e. reactively). Concurrently, multiple reac-
tions to climate events can open a window of opportunity to develop plans and poli-
cies that would enhance proactive adaptive capacity. Water managers and decision
makers therefore need to focus on developing more proactive and long term pre-
paredness to climate change and uncertainty in addition to flexible reactive
approaches. While the proactive adaptive capacity can be linked with predictability
and guidance at higher levels, it is suggested that reactive capacity is linked with
flexibility at the local level. Therefore, meeting both aspects of adaptive capacity
is about balancing out these two elements, in order to avoid the trade-off between pre-
dictability and flexibility across scales of governance (as presented in Chap. 14 ).
The governance assessment presents a detailed framework in which to under-
stand how the governance system of each case area can assist in the implementa-
tion of IWRM. However, given the breadth of criticism against the reliance on
panaceas to resolve water governance challenges (Meinzen-Dick 2007 ; Ostrom
2007 ; Ingram 2011 ) and the broad challenges of implementing IWRM (Engle et al.
2011 ; Medema et al. 2008 ), the indicators employed in the present governance
assessment may not be adequate to provide insights into how the governance
system may build and mobilise proactive and reactive adaptive capacity requisite
for responding to different forms of shock at different scales. Therefore, while the
assessment of legal provisions, case law and policy according to indicators of
accountability, transparency, participation and those that relate to IWRM provide a
valuable baseline from which to assess elements of the water governance system
that may help or hinder adaptive capacity, they are limited in their ability to com-
prehensively account for adaptive capacity in the face of potentially increasing
climatic uncertainty.
Adaptive capacity was conceptualised through its role in the transformation
potential of a system to a more stable and sustainable state as a means to absorb
future shocks and uncertainty. This framing of adaptive capacity assigns importance
to both the capacity needed for proactive adaptation for preparing for future threats
and uncertain shocks in relation to climate change impacts, as well as reactive adap-
tation for flexibly responding to unanticipated shocks from climate variability. This
conceptualisation of adaptive capacity was explored in relation to a number of case
extreme events through a set of determinants, which allowed for the development of
a better understanding of the governance mechanisms associated with managing
fast and slow hydrological change, as well as guidance and flexibility at different
governance scales.
From an operational perspective, the cross-scale (of both governance and magni-
tudes of change) analysis enabled the development of a synthesis tool (Chap. 13 ) to
guide decision makers on where resources could be best used to address elements of
the governance system that hinder adaptive capacity and where to foster elements
that enable adaptive capacity. Equally, it enabled the development of a multi-scale
framework (Chap. 14 ) to address the challenges and tensions implicit in adaptive
capacity through more practical institutional foci at each different scale.
Part 1 discussed the challenges in assigning causation and establishing linkages
between more adaptive and integrative approaches and successful management of