Adaptive Capacity, Adaptive Governance and Resilience - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 38

Not all learning is created equal though and categories of different levels of
learning distinguish between the different intensities of learning and the resulting
policy changes that they lead to (Argyris and Schön 1978 ; Herrfahrdt-Pähle 2010b ;
Huntjens et al. 2011 ; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007b ). Adaptive management studies eluci-
date three different forms of learning: single, double and triple loop learning.
The following summary of these stages of learning is taken from Huntjens et al.
( 2011 ). Single loop learning refers to the alteration of past policies and actions to
generate better outcomes in the absence of changing underlying assumptions or con-
sidering alternatives forms of action. The example for single loop learning is a water
manager increasing the height of dykes to improve flood protection. Double loop
learning refers to a shift in the frame of reference and underlying assumptions that
guide policy making and management actions. The example for double loop learning
is the augmentation of boundaries for flood management and enhancing transbound-
ary river basin collaboration. Triple loop learning is characterised by a transforma-
tion of the underlying assumptions and context that determine the frame of reference
within which decisions are made, and this leads to a transition of the whole regime
with new values and norms. An example of triple loop learning is the emergence of
a major structural change in the regulatory framework for flooding or droughts.
While IWRM can be seen as a guiding principle for a sustainable water future
that takes into account multiple water uses and services, adaptive management
emphasises techniques to scope and plan interventions for learning about a system's
behaviour (Pahl-Wostl and Sendzimir 2005 ) as a means of guiding more flexible
management techniques for coping with change and uncertainty. Since its initial
development in the 1970's at the UNESCO International Conference on Water
(1977), IWRM has been broadly accepted a goal in the development of more sus-
tainable water management practices (Medema et al. 2008 ). IWRM relies on a
strong governance (legislative, policy, institutional and management instruments 4 )
framework that enables the mismatch between ecological and administrative bound-
aries to be addressed, in the interests of better integrating and coordinating the man-
agement of land and water for more holistic and sustainable water management
(GWP 2004 ; Koudstaal et al. 1992 ). It also requires the governance framework to
address the challenges of sector integration (emphasising connections rather than
integration between water-dependent ministries), to reduce challenges of imple-
menting more sustainable management policies that take account of ecological and
societal stakeholders that tend to be weaker than economic interests.
However, limitations to the IWRM approach in relation to climate change have
been identified with regards to flexibility and uncertainty (Galaz 2007 ; Pahl-Wostl and
Sendzimir 2005 ; Medema and Jeffrey 2005 ). The ability for a water governance and
4 An enabling legislative and policy environment that sets up and empowers; an appropriate
institutional framework composed of a mixture of central, local, river-basin-specific, and public-
private organisations that provides the governance arrangements for administering; and a set of
management instruments for gathering data and information, assessing resource levels and needs,
and allocating resources for use.