Water Governance in Chile and Canada: a Comparison of Adaptive Characteristics

Abstract

ABSTRACT. We compare the structures and adaptive capacities of water governance regimes that respond to water scarcity or drought in the South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) of western Canada and the Elqui River Basin (EB) in Chile. Both regions anticipate climate change that will result in more extreme weather events including increasing droughts. The SSRB and the EB represent two large, regional, dryland water basins with significant irrigated agricultural production but with significantly different governance structures. The Canadian governance situation is characterized as decentralized multilevel governance with assigned water licenses; the Chilean is characterized as centralized governance with privatized water rights. Both countries have action at all levels in relation to water scarcity or drought. This structural comparison is based on studies carried out in each region assessing the adaptive capacity of each region to climate variability in the respective communities and applicable governance institutions through semistructured qualitative interviews. Based on this comparison, conclusions are drawn on the adaptive capacity of the respective water governance regimes based on four dimensions of adaptive governance that include: responsiveness, learning, capacity, including information, leadership, and equity. The result of the assessment allows discussion of the significant differences in terms of ability of distinct governance structures to foster adaptive capacity in the rural sector, highlights the need for a better understanding of the relationship of adaptive governance and good governance, and the need for more conceptual work on the interconnections of the dimensions of adaptive governance.

Dimensions of Adaptive Water Governance and Drought in Argentina and Canada

“…The provincial and federal government agencies with experience and capacity to deliver rural water programming solutions to water-stressed communities and farmsteads are facing uncertain futures due to institutional rearrangements and decades of government attrition through neo-liberal policies . Alberta also faces challenges with the threat to long-time Alberta Environment and Alberta Agriculture employees who may eventually retire or be replaced with people of lesser knowledge (Hurlbert & Diaz, 2013). This shift will increasingly place more pressure on individual farmers and municipalities in relation to water governance.…”

“…Agricultural producers require timely data for their livelihoods (in order to make decisions in the spring about crops) and local governments and agricultural producers also need long term data to make decisions respecting infrastructure (in order to assess costs and benefits of investing in water storage equipment for instance). Efficient data collection and data management systems are not only an indicator of a healthy institutional system, they are also the fundamental components of informational capital (which is an important determinant of adaptive capacity) (Hurlbert & Diaz, 2013). Informational capital contributes to a better knowledge of existing resources and facilitates their management in situations of uncertainty and surprise.…”

The Rocky Path to Source Water Protection: A Cross-Case Analysis of Drinking Water Crises in Small Communities in Canada

“…The underutilization of SWP is part of a pattern of poor water governance; as Hurlbert and Diaz [18] concluded, the responsiveness of water governance in Canada is limited, especially at the local level. At the crux of the problem is a mismatch between responsibilities and capacity with communities primarily responsible for the provision of supplies of drinking water [5], often with insufficient and inadequate funding from provincial governments [5].…”

“…In this context, fragmentation occurs where responsibility for water governance is allocated amongst multiple actors and/or agencies with relatively little or no coordination and no clarity about how final decisions are made [15]. This creates challenges of integration, coordination, and data access and has had negative impacts on Canada's ability to manage water resources effectively [15,18].…”

Developing adaptive capacity in times of climate change in central rural Vietnam: exploring smallholders’ learning and governance

“…These examples focus on the meaning or interpretations of these concepts, using exemplary definitions or descriptions to illustrate both convergence and divergence. Despite differences in definitions used, there is some convergence towards certain 2 2 2 elements across our sample: there appears to be a general consensus on understanding learning as a process of (inter) action between (key) stakeholders in order to change actors' understanding of an issue so as to influence their future actions regarding the issue (Boyd et al, 2014;Hurlbert & Diaz, 2013). (Bos et al, 2013) "SL processes are a natural occurring phenomenon whenever stakeholders come together to deal with their differences but require the nurturing of learning opportunities."…”