The Assessment of Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 54

The adaptive co-management approach has also emerged from combining elements
of adaptive management and collaborative management approaches, which also incor-
porate learning by doing and management flexibility, but emphasises collaboration and
power-sharing within communities at the local level, as well as across regional and
national levels (Resilience 2011 ). IWRM places more emphasis on collaborative
governance and the recognition of the multiple values of water, and is seen as one
means towards increasing capacity of water management in the face of climate change.
Institutional capacity is also seen as a critical requirement in effective adaptation,
particularly in the clarity of roles and responsibility of individual authorities, especially
in extreme event situations (UNECE 2009 ). In the literature on good governance, and
therefore in the governance assessment itself, adaptive capacity to climate change tends
to be assumed if indicators of good governance are adequately met.
Tools and concepts used to measure the validity of outcomes of adaptive actions
can also be employed to assess underlying states beneficial to the development of
adaptive capacity. A number of determinants of adaptive capacity have been
identified within the climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability literature.
To recapitulate, common factors considered determinants can be categorised into
the following groups; economic resources, technology, information and skills, infra-
structure, institutions, equity, social capital, and collective action (Eakin and Lemos
2006 ; Engle and Lemos 2010 ; Yohe and Tol 2002 ) . Yet, empirical veri fi cation of the
merit of these norms for building adaptive capacity is sparse, particularly within the
water sector (Engle and Lemos 2010 ; Wilbanks and Kates 1999 ) .

4.2 Good Governance Determinants

4.2.1 Accountability, Participation, Transparency

As shall be discussed in the following chapter, the STRIVER governance assessment
utilises three main indicators to assess good governance in the context of IWRM.
These are accountability, participation, transparency (and IWRM is also employed).
The indicators were not specifically designed to measure adaptive capacity, but
were rather shaped in the context of good governance for IWRM. However, these
indicators also play different roles in other adaptive capacity assessments
(Engle and Lemos 2010 ; Hurlbert 2008 ; Iza and Stein 2009 ) . Accountability,
participation and transparency are often considered key principles in adaptive
capacity. A recent IUCN report (Iza and Stein 2009 ) refers to different process prin-
ciples in the discussion on reforming water governance, which are requisite to pro-
vide an enabling environment, including transparency, accountability and
participation. Their definition of participation broadens out from more than just
consultation in decision making to involvement in multi-stakeholder platforms and
decision making at the lowest appropriate level. It is considered these elements of
participation could effectively raise levels of awareness, co-management and citizen
initiatives, all components deemed necessary for fostering effective water governance