Addressing the Challenge of Institutional Infrastructure in a Technically Focussed World - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 330

sent out to the different stakeholders at lower governance levels that impact
food-energy-water nexus.
In order to achieve this, both cases are likely to rely on a mix of leadership cou-
pled with facilitative intermediaries that can provide a creative and flexible space to
resolve contradictory and in some cases ideological battles over water resources
governance. This is not likely to be an easy or speedy process, which calls for an
intermediary focus on developing the more flexible and adaptive elements of the
governance system as per the discussion in Part IV. How this process of policy inte-
gration would be achieved would vary considerably across the Swiss and Chilean
cases, as what works in Switzerland, would probably not function in the Chilean
governance and cultural context.
Intermediaries and bridging organisations have emerged organically in the Swiss
case (e.g. Wasser Agenda 21, Mountain Water Network, WWF, ProNatura, Sector
Associations, etc.) where non-governmental actors have a stronger and more
organised voice in the political process. Additionally, the role of universities and
research institutes are generally seen as neutral and often play a positive role in the
development of alternative management approaches. Alternatively, in Chile, the
establishment of bridging organisations and intermediaries might instead be devel-
oped from international organisations and research bodies, such as the World Bank,
UN-ECLAC and OECD that inform and generate dialogue horizontally across min-
istries and vertically with regional actors.
Findings from the adaptive outcomes and adaptive capacity indicator assessment
indicate that the Swiss case manifests a higher adaptive capacity, in particular
through its ability to build knowledge networks and plan for future challenges.
However, the challenges of such a decentralised, devolved and participative gover-
nance system can also challenge the ability for actors at one governance level (in this
case at the regional level) to take advantage of a window of opportunity to transition
to more transformative approaches in the TRC. This is not to suggest that the par-
ticipative approach should not be followed, since the direct democratic and partici-
pative process does have its role to play in building longer term legitimacy, ownership
and public and personal accountability by ensuring that a multitude of voices are
taken into account.
However, presently, regional and national actors also begrudgingly acknowledge
the role of participation in obstructing proactive and potentially transformative
adaptation. This is not meant as a call to abandon such participation, but rather for
policy makers to pay closer attention to the process, stage and arena in which stake-
holders are engaged in that process as discussed in Chap. 13 .
This fine balance that exists in Swiss politics between rule of local autonomy,
decentralised principles of implementation and hands-off federal principles of coop-
eration, is being challenged not only by the increasing costs associated with more
frequent extreme events, but also by the diminishing ability for local municipalities
to manage those events and cover the costs of damage in their aftermath. The
increasing reliance on canton and federal technical and financial assistance is both
a challenge for higher levels of government in Switzerland, as well as an opportunity.
The Federal and Valais governments both recognise the many challenges that the