The Assessment of Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 58

inflexible or where reversibility is difficult should be avoided' (UNECE 2009 , p 78).
In institutional terms, it refers to an ability to bend, but not break, and to learn itera-
tively, incorporating lessons learnt through experience efficiently and effectively
(Engle and Lemos 2010 ). This concept of iterative adaptive governance/learning by
doing is a key element of adaptive management and governance (Olsson et al.
2004b ; Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007a ) . Tompkins and Adger ( 2004 ) also note that fl exible
management systems that incorporate learning-based processes (i.e. allow for
modifications based on new information) are important for building resilience.
Assumptions proposed are that the greater the flexibility of rules (legislation, insti-
tutions), the greater the adaptive capacity (Engle and Lemos 2010 ) .
However, there is a struggle here between flexibility for adaptive management,
and the need for certainty (Iza and Stein 2009 ; Tarlock 2009 ) or predictability
(Hurlbert 2009 ; Engle et al. 2011 ) within the law, as emphasised in IWRM.
Predictability suggests that all laws and regulations should be applied fairly and
consistently. The assumption is that consistency in application of the law will
enhance adaptive capacity. However, the discussion concerning the role and rule of
law in adaptive governance (see Sect. 2.2.2 ) highlights the on-going challenge and
discourse related to balancing predictability sought in the law, with flexibility req-
uisite for adaptive behaviour. The IUCN (Iza and Stein 2009 ) use a similar concept
in the process principle of 'certainty', rests upon the rule of law in terms of both
predictability and enforceability. This would of course be dependent upon laws also
reflecting principles of ecological integrity, equitable access for all and linkages
between land and water resources. Otherwise, rigidity in the application of 'bad'
laws and policies would diminish adaptive capacity.

4.3.6 Knowledge & Information

The UNECE ( 2009 ) cite the importance of supporting training and response systems
with climate and hydrological information systems which are 'capable of delivering
early warnings in a timely and efficient manner' (UNECE 2009 , p 42). Folke et al.
( 2005 ) relate the idea of knowledge with the creation of an iterative learning environ-
ment. There are therefore important links with fl exibility through the process of
learning by doing. The goal here relates to an improved understanding of the dynamics
of the whole system so that an understanding is established for how to manage
periods of rapid change. The interpretation of knowledge is also highly linked with
how to effectively deploy scientific information across different networks or levels of
decision making for the management of resource issues in the context of change.
Engle and Lemos ( 2010 ) also refer to the linkage of using scientific knowledge
and information with the building of adaptive capacity, but add to the concept the
importance of equality of decision making and knowledge use (in terms of power
distribution among stakeholders and access to technical knowledge).
Nelson et al. ( 2007 ) also suggests that the ability to maintain a response capacity is
predicated in part on the capacity for learning. Recent studies by Huntjens et al. ( 2011 )