The Assessment of Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 59

emphasise that in their study of eight different water governance regimes, positive
correlations between knowledge indicators (information production, consideration of
uncertainties, communication) and cooperation indicators (vertical, transboundary,
joint/participation information) suggested that consensual knowledge is an important
element in adaptive approaches when attempting to foster cooperation for managing
uncertainty and change. This conclusion is also mirrored in studies by Tompkins and
Adger ( 2004 ) and Olsson et al. ( 2006 ) . Huntjens et al. ( 2011 ) go on to recognise the
importance of socio-cognitive theory of information systems when recognising the
interdependence of information management and social cooperation structures
towards understanding the related challenges in developing adaptive water manage-
ment regimes (Hemingway 1998, in Huntjens et al. 2011 ) .

4.3.7 Decentralisation

Decentralisation and subsidiarity (Hurlbert 2008 ) refers to the delegation of respon-
sibility and authority of water management to the lowest feasible level. Devolved
decision making means that a system would be 'presumably, better able to recog-
nize and respond to unforeseen circumstances' (IISD 2006 , p 119). There is a theo-
retical link here to the IWRM component 'Basin/Watershed Approach', as well as
to Olsson et al.'s ( 2004a ) concept of enabling legislation that creates social space for
ecosystem management. Yet, while a system may be highly decentralised, this does
not imply that there are ecological based units of decision making. Nor does it
always imply that sustainable solutions can be found in complex systems that con-
tain multiple uses of water (i.e. river basins), where a measure of central top down
control and guidance may provide some balance. Huntjens et al. ( 2011 ) concluded
that in large scale complex systems, a centralised governance structure can help to
facilitate participatory processes, set standards, build capacity and assist in building
of cooperation across boundaries, conflict resolution and the provision of informa-
tion not available to local level actors or institutions.

4.4 Analytical Challenges

This list of indicators captures the development in the analytical field of adaptation
and vulnerability in the preceding decade. However, it is equally recognised that
there has been fairly minimal empirical verification of the correlation between differ-
ent principles and adaptive outcomes, particularly at local and regional scales, and
more so within the water sector (Engle and Lemos 2010 ; Wilbanks and Kates 1999 ) .
There are a number of analytical challenges relating to the different principles and
indicators of adaptive capacity listed above, five of which are discussed below.
Firstly, much of the discussion around governance issues in adaptation and adaptive
capacity has a strong normative edge. Normative principles such as accountability
and participation tend to denote a stronger bias towards the researcher's analytical