Shifting Course

8/3/2019 Shifting Course

1/69

Shifting CourSe:Clma Adapa Wa

Maam iss


2/69

Shifting CourSe:Clma Adapa Wa

Maam iss

Jonathan Cook

Sarah Freeman

Eliot Levine

WWF-US

Margot Hill

University of Geneva

www.adaptiveinstitutions.org
http://www.adaptiveinstitutions.org/http://www.adaptiveinstitutions.org/


3/69

i

AcknowledgementsThe report was originally inspired by a session organized by WWF, International Unionfor Conservation of Nature and Conservation International at the 2010 Stockholm WorldWater Week. We are very grateful for the intellectual guidance and review provided by themembers of our Steering Committee: John Matthews (Conservation International), NathanEngle (Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacic Northwest National Laboratory and

the University of Maryland), Jamie Pittock (Australian National University, Canberra), MarkSmith (IUCN), Heather McGray (World Resources Institute), Cassandra Brooke (WWF-Australia), Tom LeQuesne (WWF-UK), Li Lifeng (WWF-International), Bart (AJ) Wickel

(WWF-US), and Flavia Loures (WWF-US).

We would also like to thank our case study authors for their contributions, which greatlyexpanded our understanding of what makes institutions climate adaptive, as well as fortheir nal review of the report.

John Matthews (Conservation International), Jonathan Randall (Millennium ChallengeCorporation) and Bart (AJ) Wickel (WWF-US) contributed signicantly to preliminary

discussion and reections on the topic.

WWF is grateful for HSBC support of its global freshwater program and the HSBC ClimatePartnershipa ve-year global partnership among HSBC, The Climate Group, EarthwatchInstitute, The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, and WWF to reduce the impacts ofclimate change for people, forests, water, and cities.


4/69

ii

Foreword

Institutions have been a basic building block of the way societies organize human interactions

with our environment. Over decades, centuries, and millennia, institutions have been critical forresponding to climate variability and uncertainty about future change. Ensuring that institutionsare climate-adaptive is vital not only for the resilience of those institutions themselves, but alsofor how our economies and societies might adapt in the future. When climate, ecosystems,economies, and societies are all shifting rapidly, the resilience of institutionsin coping withchange or re-organizing when neededwill determine our ability to be good stewards to theecosystems that we value so dearly.

Human history has many examples of both successful and unsuccessful responses to climatevariability and change. Therefore, the question may be framed simply: What are the qualities ofinstitutions that make them successful in adapting to climate change?

This question sparked great interest and lively debate at a conference session organized byWWF, IUCN, and Conservation International during the 2010 Stockholm World Water Week. Theenthusiasm of participants became the initial inspiration forShifting Course: Climate Adaptationfor Water Management Institutions, which is the rst systematic contribution towards developing,

sharing and operationalizing guidance for how to make institutions more climate-adaptive.

Both headlines around the world on extreme climate events as well as the basic physics ofclimate tell us that climate change is water change. Responding to drought, oods, storms,

glacier retreat and sea-level rise all depend on managing water adaptively. For this reason,while this report focuses on water resources institutions, it provides a basis for understandinghow a broader range of institutions can respond to the complex set of issues related to climate

change adaptation. The report provides an overview of the current state of thinking on climate-adaptive institutions. It outlines a set of relevant principles, and describes the importance of theseprinciples and how they relate to one another through discussion of ve case studies.

Shifting Course is the rst step in a journey towards ensuring that our institutions are better

prepared to respond to the fundamental challenges posed by climate change, and that thereforeour societies can be resilient to climate change. The test now will be how effective we are inmoving from understanding the issue to taking concrete action that will safeguard communities,economies and ecosystems.

John Matthews, PhD Mark Smith, PhDDirector, Freshwater Climate Change Director, Global Water ProgrammeConservation International International Union for Conservation of Nature


5/69

iii

Acknowledgements i

Foreword ii

1 Introduction 1

2 Climate Change, Water and Institutions 3

2.1 Climate Change as Water Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Institutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 Key Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3 Stepping Stones 74 What Makes Institutions Climate-Adaptive? 9

4.1 Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.2 Synthesizing across Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

5 Recommendations 21

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Appendix 1 | Sample Principle Analysis Table 26

Appendix 2 | Case Studies 29

Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Jamie Pittock, Australian National University, Canberra

Pangani Basin Water Board, Tanzania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Stefano Barchiesi, IUCN, with John P. Owino, Katharine Cross, and D. Mark Smith, IUCN

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoir Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Maria Placht, Institute for Water Resources, USACE

Water and Energy Commission Secretariat, Nepal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49Ryan Bartlett, The Nicholas Institute, Duke University

So Paulo Secretariat of Environment, Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Glauco Kimura de Freitas, WWF-Brazil

Table of ContentsClick on Section Name to jump directly to that section.


6/69

iv


7/69

1

1. IntroductionInstitutions are fundamental in helping communities, ecosystems, and economies tomanage and adapt to climate change. But while institutions have long dealt with climate-related stresses, accelerating rates of change and increasing uncertainties are movingenvironmental processes beyond human or ecological frames of reference.

This report attempts to provide an answer to the question: What qualities do institutionspossess that make them capable of successfully adapting to climate change? While thereis no panacea, we believe that there are common principles that underpin climate-adaptiveinstitutions. Given that alterations in hydrological patterns are the cornerstone of how wewill experience climate change impacts, we look specically at water institutions.

Section 2 seeks to develop a better understanding of the challenges that actually facewater institutions. How is climate change affecting water resources? What are institutions,

and why are they important for managing change? And what are the key climate-relatedchallenges facing institutions that manage water?

Section 3 explores some of the existing literature on adaptation that may be useful inconsidering the question of what makes an institution adaptive. Section 4 posits 15principles of climate-adaptive institutions, and analyzes them through ve case studies

(included in Appendix 2) from different geographical and institutional contexts. Section 5offers some concluding thoughts about next steps for research and action.


8/69

2


9/69

3

2.1 Climate Change as Water Change

Although the climate debate is often centered on

temperature, water is what will determine whether acommunity (a village, city, or region) or ecosystemcan survive and thrive.1 Water is the medium throughwhich climate change impacts are being felt2 and willbe experienced. Climate change will ultimately comedown to changes in watertiming (when water isdelivered seasonality, monsoon, etc.), quantity (howmuch water is available oods and droughts), and

quality (how well the water is suited for consumptionor use). That means that water has become animportant potential platform upon which to shapesustainable climate change solutions.

Climate change is a threat multiplier.3 Watermanagers, farmers, and other stakeholders are usedto dealing with seasonal and yearly variation, butclimate change will shift weather and water patternswith greater frequency and to greater extremes. Futuresituations will be substantially less manageable andless predictable,4 exacerbating underlying stressesand presenting new risks. Increased drought andood recurrence and duration, higher variability of

precipitation patterns, increased hurricane intensity,changing trends in snowpack, and generallyaccelerating rates of glacier melt will be experienced.5

This alteration (shifts in timing and averages) andintensication (increasing number and severity of

extreme events) of the hydrological cycle will changeseasonality, and water temperatures and alterationsin precipitation patterns will affect water quality.Dissolved oxygen levels, concentration of pollutantsand levels of toxic algae, and sedimentation will allchange, which mean impacts on aquatic species thatwill not only have health and sustenance implications

but also economic consequences.

1 Matthews & Le Quesne, 2009; Le Quesne, et al, 2010

2 IPCC, 2007

3 Downing, 20094 IISD, 20065 IPCC, 2007. This often leads to increased runoff in the

short term, followed by decreased runoff in the longterm.

2. Climate Change, Water and Institutions

Box 1: Key Concepts

Vulnerabilityis the extent to which a system issusceptible to and unable to cope with conditionsthat adversely affect its well-being, such asclimate variability and extremes.i Vulnerability ismade up of three componentsii: Exposure is thedegree to which something experiences a climatechangerelated stress; sensitivityis the degree ofimpact that a stressor has on something; adaptive

capacityis the ability to respond to, create, andshape variability and change in the state of thesystem.iii

Resilience is the ability of a system to

absorb disturbances while retaining the samefundamental structure, function and identity,including the capacity to adapt to stress andchange, through either recovery or reorganizationin a new context.iv

Adaptation is a process, action, or outcome ina system (household, community, group, sector,region, country) in order for the system to bettercope with, manage, or adjust to some changing

condition, stress, hazard, risk, or opportunity.vAdaptation strategies therefore aim to reducevulnerability and increase adaptive capacity.vi

Maladaptation is adaptation that does notreduce vulnerability, but instead exacerbatesit.vii A simplistic example would be responding tohigher summer temperatures by turning up the airconditioning. By denition, increasing greenhouse

gas emissions is maladaptive.viii Promoting onlythe kinds of adaptation that reduce vulnerabilityand build resilience is a challenging andcomplicated process.ix

i Plummer & Armitage, 2010

ii IPCC, 2001iii Chapin et al, 2009iv Chapin et al, 2009v Smit & Wandel, 2006, p282

vi UNECE, 2009vii Rappaport, 1977viii Barnett & ONeill, 2010

ix Wilbanks & Kates, 1999; Adger et al, 2005;Orlove, 2005


10/69

4

Responding to these changes is essential: Evenif greenhouse gas emissions cease tomorrow, thetime lag in the climate system is likely to imply anincrease in global temperatures by at least 2oC by theend of the century.6 Concepts such as vulnerability,resilience, adaptation, and maladaptation help us tocharacterize this challenge and potential responses to

it (see Box 1).7

2.2 Institutions

What Are Institutions?

Institutions are broadly dened as rules, or sets of

rules, that structure social interaction by shapingor constraining actor behavior.8 In the context ofnatural resource management, institutions can beseen as laws, regulations, policies and propertyrights that dene ownership, disposition and use

rights to a natural resource, as well as the policiesfor protection and exploitation of a resource.9 In anarrower sense, institutions are commonly perceivedas being synonymous with organizations (e.g., nationalministries, sub-national agencies, multi-stakeholdermanagement entities and planning departments).

For the purposes of this report, we focus on formalinstitutional bodies.10 We are interested specicallyin institutions that inuence how people interact with

water resources. However, we recognize that informal

institutions undoubtedly inuence these more formalinstitutions. While some overlap is unavoidable,we attempt to demarcate and highlight the broaderinstitutional processes where relevant. In this report

6 IPCC, 2007

7 Smit & Wandel, 20068 North, 1990; Knight, 1992

9 Ostrom, 200710 Institutions are often dened as being formal or informal.

Formal institutions tend to have their rules enforcedby a state actor and are openly codied and ofciallyaccepted (e.g., legislation, resource ministries, basinmanagement organizations). Informal institutions conveysocially shared rules that may be self-enforcing orenforced outside of ofcial channels (e.g., legislativenorms, bureaucratic norms, judicial norms, traditionalculture and personal networks). Informal institutions canbe as inuential and shape behavior as effectively asformal institutions, and thus they often play an importanta role in natural resource management (Helmke &Levitsky, 2003).

and the accompanying case studies, we focus ourdiscussion of water institutions primarily on entities thatare responsible for the management and provisioningof water resources either at the basin level or within apolitical boundary (e.g., water boards, commissions,agencies, public/private providers and the like).

Why Are They Important?

Institutions have the potential to demarcateresponsibilities between actors, mediate trade-offsbetween actors and interests, minimize jurisdictional

overlaps or deciencies, cross political and natural

boundaries, match responsibilities, and serve asauthorities and facilitators of action.11 Institutionscan play a vital role in the way a country or regionadapts to climate change, and can be fundamental forbuilding resilience in communities and markets, and inprotecting ecosystems and biodiversity.

Water institutions are at the center of how societyinteracts with its water, and provide a variety ofecosystem goods and services. They maintainenvironmental integrity and smooth the variability inwater supply and delivery to meet human needs (in thepast due mainly to seasonality and weather patterns,but now due also to climate change). They have attheir disposal hard infrastructure such as dams andlevees, and can also bring into play rules and laws thatgovern scarce resources, such as withdrawal permits,

ownership rights, treaties and rule curves.

Water institutions are thus critical to how we manageclimate change, which makes it important to ensurethat those institutions are themselves resilient toclimate change. Water institutions carry out a numberof functions that are likely to be affected by climatechange,12 including allocating water resources;implementing and managing water infrastructure;

dening and implementing ood management policies;

and protecting, monitoring and assessing the qualityand quantity of water resources. In particular, there are

several key climate change-related challenges that willaffect these functions and to which these institutionsmust respond.

11 GWP, 2000

12 IPCC, 2007


11/69

5

2.3 Key Challenges

Spatial scale Though scientists may see an entirewatershed as one ecological unit, many institutionsthat make decisions on water-related projects

often operate within political boundaries that do notreect the physical boundaries of a watershed.13,14

Furthermore, the individuals within the samewatershed may identify themselves as upstream ordownstream, or as citizens of one country or another.Additionally, adaptation plans tend to be focused at thenational level, while the impacts of climate change arelargely felt at a local level. Spatial scale is particularlychallenging because of recurrent imbalances inpower, such as the interplay of natural and economicresources between upstream and downstream waterusers. Adding to the complexity of decision makingis the fact that some residents are widely separatedfrom the immediate consequences of water change,while others are intimately connected to every daysrain or irrigation. Addressing these challenges is vitalin navigating toward more sustainable and adaptablewater institutions.15

Temporal scale. Climate change can be viewed asthe great accelerator,16 speeding up processes ofchange and moving environmental change beyondhuman or ecological frames of reference. Climatechange exacerbates the usual variation, renderingfuture situations less manageable. In addition, some

societies or governments are in such a state of uxthat they cannot make any decisions that last longerthan a few months. Institutions face the challenge ofmanaging resources consistently while also beingadaptive to the increasing variability of climate change.

Societal scale. Adaptive actions are inextricablylinked with regulatory structures, property rights, andsocial norms.17 Issues like gender, class, educationalopportunities, and traditions cannot be ignored whendesigning adaptive responses to climate change.Institutions must improve the vertical integration of

13 De Stefano et al, 201014 Wolf et al, 200315 Hill & Engle, in review16 IISD, 2006

17 Adger et al, 2005

adaptation18 and solve the disjuncture between thescale at which adaptive actions tend to take place andthe scale at which decisions about adaptive actionstend to take place.

Non-stationarity The increasing uncertainty of futureconditions, or non-stationarity,19,20 implies that water

institutions cannot approach the future based on theassumption that it will replicate the relatively stableconditions of the past Institutional processes that weredesigned in a context of stationary climate may not beequipped to address signicant uncertainties around

future climate.

For instance, increased uncertainties in hydrologicalpatterns at regional and local scales will challengeinstitutions that have codied rules on allocation

amounts, periods or sectoral distribution based onparameters that may no longer be relevant. Withouta degree of exibility, greater uncertainties and the

increasingly indeterminate nature of risks and large-scale events21 (e.g., years of drought followed byextreme ooding) from climate change may severely

challenge the xed rules and regulations that dene

many water institutions and may lie beyond currentplanning practices. Box 2 gives a well-known examplefrom the western United States.

Synergistic impacts We have moved into theanthropocene,22 a period in which human actions

play a major role in shaping biospheric processes23

.Physical processes can no longer be examinedin isolation; human processes have become the

dominant driver.24,25 For that reason we must look atthe effect of climate change not just on the natural

world, but on social-ecological systems, whichrepresent the interrelated nature of the resourcesand ecosystem services upon which humanityrelies, as well as the human activities that inuence

18 Dovers & Hezri, 201019 Milly et al, 200820 Kiang et al, 201121 Dovers & Hezri, 201022 Crutzen, 200223 Olsson et al, 2004 (a)24 Folke et al, 2005

25 Olsson et al, 2004


12/69

6

these ecological dynamics.26 Climate change shouldtherefore be seen as an exacerbator of the existingchallenges that already confront water institutions.27Population growth, development and diminishingwater supply due to current climate variability arealready stressing the availability of high-quality waterresources. Climate change generally represents an

overarching pressure that causes these underlyingstresses on water institutions to become even morepronounced as impacts intensify.28

To summarize: Many of the institutions that managerivers, wetlands, lakes, and glaciers use approachesthat were developed over a relatively stable period.Most are not ready for these growing challenges.29And, of course, we must recognize that institutionsexist in a social reality and that climate change isnot their only responsibility. Water institutions oftennd themselves in a tug-of-war between responses

to competing threats. Sometimes, rather than thelesser of two evils, water institutions nd themselves

choosing between the lesser of two goods: Whatif reducing greenhouse gases means increasingthe use of hydro power, which takes water fromthe environment? What if releasing water to theenvironment means that farming becomes lesssustainable? Climate change means that the waywe evaluate water institutions must change as well.We must ask different questions and use differentframes of analysis to determine if those institutions are

working effectively.

26 Berkes et al, 200327 De Stefano et al, 201028 Lettenmaier et al, 200829 IPCC, 2007

Box 2: The Law of the River

The Colorado River Basin spans seven U.S.states and is a critical source of water for theU.S. and Mexico, and for countless species andhabitats throughout its reach. Over the pastcentury, an intensely negotiated and debatedinstitutional arrangement has developed forgoverning the water resources within the basin,in the form of laws, agreements and compactsknown as the Law of the River. This institution

underlies most physical infrastructure, waterrights, and other planning and policy decisionsfor allocating the scarce water resources of theColorado River. The original allocations betweenthe various governing bodies involved weredetermined based on a historically wet year in1922. Recent studies indicate that the ColoradoRiver is currently over-allocated and will become

increasingly water stressed as climate changeinuences the timing and amount of wateravailable for humans and ecosystems.

While the institutional makeup that governs wateralong the Colorado River has generally provedeffective for meeting multiple competing needsthroughout its existence, the increasing threats ofclimate change and regional population growthsuggest that the institution will need to adapt tothese shifting realities. This is not an easy taskfor an institution that has operated for almost 100years. There is some indication, however, that

exibility can occur within the institution in theface of these increasing stresses. For example,following the extreme drought period of the early2000s, policy-makers and scientists worked toamend the original 1922 Colorado River Compactto renegotiate and clearly identify allocationguidelines during periods of water shortage.This amended agreement is known as the 2007Colorado River Shortage Agreement. Adaptivemechanisms of this nature will be needed toensure the exibility of the institution to continue

to prepare for and respond to the threats ofclimate change.

Sources: NRC, 2007; Cayan et al, 2010; Seager

& Vecchi, 2010


13/69

7

We need adaptive institutions that can respondeffectively to the climate-related challenges outlinedabove.This section briey discusses several areasof existing research that are useful stepping stonestoward addressing that need. The water resourcesand research communities have in recent yearsfocused on better understanding adaptive processes30and ways to build institutional adaptive capacity inthe water sector (e.g. integrated water resources

management, adaptive management and adaptivegovernance).31

Adaptive capacityhas been dened as the ability

to respond to, create, and/or shape variability andchange32;or asthe preconditions needed to enableadaptation, including social and physical elements,and the ability to mobilize these elements.33 Anumber of studies have proposed that more exible,

participatory, experimental, collaborative andlearning-based designs and approaches will increasethe adaptive capacity and sustainability of water

systems.34

30 Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007

31 Yohe & Tol, 2002; Adger et al, 2005; Brooks et al, 2005;Smit & Wandel, 2006; Eakin & Lemos, 2006

32 Chapin et al, 200933 Nelson et al, 200734 Kallis et al, 2006; Cromwell et al, 2007; Pahl-Wostl et al,

2007; Tompkins & Adger, 2004; Pahl-Wostl 2007

Adaptive governance is closely related to adaptivecapacity; it is a move from the conventional view of

institutions as static, rule-based, formal and xed

organizations with clear boundaries to a view ofinstitutions as more dynamic, adaptive, exible for

coping with future climatic conditions.35 If adaptivecapacity is an end goal, then adaptive governancecan be seen as a means to that end. Within thecontext of river basins, for instance, greater attention

is needed to understanding and managing a transitionfrom current management regimes to more adaptiveregimes that take into account environmental,technological, economic, institutional and culturalcharacteristics of the basin.36

Adaptive managementis a well-establishedapproach that focuses on methods such as learningby doing, social learning and scenario planning. Thesemethods allow greater exibility, which improves the

connectivity between different processes and scales.Good adaptive management builds a community of

institutional learning that takes place at the collectiverather than the individual level,37 drawing from thememories and experience of the entire institution andcarrying this wisdom forward into the future.

35 IISD, 2006, p5

36 Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007, p4937 Berkes & Folke, 2001

3. Stepping Stones


14/69

8


15/69

9

4.1 Principles

In the previous section, we discussed some areas

of existing research which provide a starting pointfor identifying the characteristics of climate-adaptiveinstitutions. While there is no template for how futurewater institutions should look,38 we have identied anumber of principles for climate-adaptive institutions(Table 1), informed by the literature39 and cases,that seem to be consistent across many situationsand which may be useful for the process of makinginstitutions more adaptive to climate change.

Most of these principles could apply to naturalresource management institutions in general; however,

here we specically emphasize their applicability to

water institutions. The principles should be viewed asworking hypotheses: characteristics that are assumedto be important for climate-adaptive institutions. Weexpect that these hypotheses will be developed furtherthrough a growing body of comparative case studyresearch and testing in the future.

We roughly divide the principles into those that areinternal, external, or both.

Internal (I): Conditions within an institutionover which it has a certain degree of controland that support/hinder it to adapt.

External (E): Conditions outside an institutionand its capacity to control them, but thatsupport/hinder it to adapt.

We have further rened and evaluated these principles

in the context of water institutions through a set of ve

case studies, which are listed and briey summarized

38 Meinzen-Dick, 200739 Yohe & Tol, 2002; Cash et al, 2003; Olsson et al, 2004

(b); Brooks et al, 2005; Folke et al, 2005; Pelling & High,2005; Eakin & Lemos, 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2007; Pahl-Wostl et al, 2007; Medema et al, 2008; Huitema et al,2009; Bussey et al, 2010; Engle & Lemos, 2010; Guptaet al, 2010; Engle et al, 2011; Wilby & Vaughan, 2011

inTable 2. The cases were selected for their perceivedgeographical and institutional diversity.

The full versions of these case studies are includedin Appendix 2; reading the full cases is highlyrecommended, since the following discussion onlydraws upon them briey.

In the following sections, we provide illustrationsfrom the case studies where these principles aredemonstrated (or not) with greater (or lesser) adaptivesuccess. Each case study author was asked to ll out

a table analyzing their case in terms of each principle,and to select and further analyze the three mostimportant principles for that case. A sample principleanalysis table is included in Appendix 1.

4.1.1 External Regime

The institution is granted authority and a mandate

to act appropriately Authority to enforce, or

teeth, is required to ensure that mandate

is carried out effectively, both internally and

externally Contradictory or overlapping policies,

regulatory frameworks, mandates or other external

conditions may constrict institutions and directly

impact their internal operations and ability toadapt

In the SEA case: The So Paulo Climate ChangePolicy was the driver for an internal restructuringof the Secretariat of Environment, since the stategovernment has the mandate to coordinate andimplement the policy. The existence of such alegal framework is an important prerequisite for thedevelopment of an appropriate institutional frameworkand for the establishment of underlying conditionssuch as nancing. The new state administration has

utilized the Pacto das guas (Water Deal) in orderto begin preparing for the impacts of climate change.The Pacto was considered a powerful platform by thepast government, and the new administration has just

established a permanent structure to advance thisstatewide effort.

4. What Makes Institutions Climate-Adaptive?


16/69

10

# I/E Principle Description

1 E External RegimeExternal environment (e.g., policies, legal frameworks, etc.) supports or doesnot constrain the institutions ability to adapt proactively and effectively to climatechange; and grants the authority and enforceability to carry out its actions

2 I/E

Flexible Resource

Management

Managing resources (e.g. water) more exibly due to uncertainty and the need to

become more adaptable to climatic variability

3 I/E ResourcesPossesses sufcient nancial, technological, informational (e.g. data) and human

resources; the ability to generate and engage those and future resources effectively;

and the ability to allocate or use resources exibly and swiftly

4 I/ELegitimacy and

Accountability

Is accountable for its actions, transparent in its dealings, and well received andrespected within the community. Public perceives the institution as both responsibleand trustworthy.

5 I/E Variety and DiversityPromotes the development of a diverse, heterogeneous range of proactivestrategies, measures and actions

6 I Monitoring andEvaluation Uses monitoring and evaluation objectively to assess the effectiveness of theinstitutions operations and programs

7 I IdentityPossesses a strong but uid organizational purpose, vision, set of responsibilities

and priorities

8 I Forward ThinkingThinks ahead to what the future may bring and tries to incorporate some of thisthinking into plans, strategies and operations

9 I/E Iterative Approaches

Encourages cyclical approaches to project, program or policy design and

management such that the institution is able to respond to change through anongoing process of incremental adjustments in a time frame relevant to both the

physical and institutional setting

10 I Mainstreaming Incorporates climate change adaptation into all institutional operations

11 I/ECreativity andLearning

Has a culture of experimentation, learning and innovation that encourages thedevelopment, testing and adoption of new approaches to climate change

12 I/EInternal Agency andAutonomy

Some degree of autonomy within the institution that allows individual staff to carryout responsibilities and make decisions in a way that minimizes bureaucraticbarriers and delays

The institution itself has autonomy to act in adaptive ways; this is dependent on a

supportive external regime

13 I/ECollaboration andPartnerships

Engages in partnerships and collaborative networks with other organizations

14 I/E LeadershipHas a visionary champion(s) who identies and implements a strategy for

addressing climate change and inspires others to follow that strategy

15 I/ETransparency andParticipation

Operates internally and with external stakeholders in an equitable and transparentmanner. Guarantees access to information to all stakeholders, and fosters a cultureof openness and fairness in its operations.

Table 1: Principles of climate-adaptive institutions


17/69

11

Institution(Abbreviation) Location Brief Description Main Drivers of Change

Murray-DarlingBasin Authority

(MDBA)

Australia

The Murray-Darling Basin Authoritywas established in 2007-08 by theWater Act adopted by the Australianfederal government. The Actestablishes a process for adoptinga sustainable diversion limit andcentralized management through thenew Authority, while the states retainlocal management capacities.

The Murray-Darling Basin has been extensivelyexploited for human use. The river mouth wasclosed from 2002 to 2010 due to overextractionand climatic variability. Its ecosystemshave been extensively impacted by habitatconversion for agriculture, exploitation for waterresources and invasion by exotic species.Its climate is extremely variable, oscillatingbetween droughts and oods, with the recentMillennium Drought leading to the loss ofoodplain forests and other wetlands andsevere consequences for water quality.

Pangani BasinWater Board

(PBWB)

Tanzania

The Pangani Basin Water Boardensures that the Pangani Riveris managed sustainably whilemaximizing the resultant economicand social welfare through betterwater governance and integrated

water management principles. TheBoard is composed of ten membersdrawn from public institutions, sub-basin water committees and private-sector water users.

There have been decreases in rainfall duringthe dry season (MayOctober), increases inevapotranspiration and in rainfall during thewet season, and overall shifts in seasonality.Population growth and the intensication of landuse for agriculture and urban growth have led

to an overexploitation of water resources andincreased the demand and competition for wateramong land users, industry and ecosystems.

U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers

(USACE)

-ReservoirOperations

USA

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineersis responsible for a variety of waterresourcerelated missions in theUnited States, including coastalprotection, disaster preparednessand response, environmentalprotection and restoration, oodprotection, hydropower, navigablewaters, recreational opportunities,

regulatory oversight, and watersupply.

Increases in heavy downpours, risingtemperatures and sea level, rapidly retreatingglaciers, thawing permafrost, lengtheninggrowing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasonsin the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earliersnowmelt, alterations in river ows, anddrastically changing land-use patterns andincreasing populations are the key driversof change. They affect reservoirs operated

by the Corps, many of which were designedand constructed before climate change wasrecognized as a potential inuence.

Water and EnergyCommissionSecretariat

(WECS)

Nepal

The Water and Energy CommissionSecretariats core function is to actas an apex institution to coordinatenational-level planning withinNepals entire water resourcessector, including formulating policies,strategies, and analysis on variousaspects of water resources andenergy development; enacting lawspertaining to the development ofwater resources and energy; and

coordinating among existing nationalwater and energy policies.

Increases in temperature are leading to drought,drying up of spring sources, and rapid glacialmelt that will reduce long-term dry-seasonwater supplies. The South Asian monsoon isbecoming increasingly variable, with uctuationsin seasonality and short-term changes in owscontributing to erosion, landslides, and oodingfrom intense rainfall events that occur after longperiods of drought. WECS will have to planfor this greater supply variability and increasedfrequency and potency of extreme events,

which affect water infrastructure development.

So Paulo StateSecretariat ofEnvironment

(SEA)

Brazil

The Secretariat of Environment isresponsible for implementing SoPaulo states climate change policy.As part of this institution, the WaterResources Technical AdvisoryTeam is coordinating water-relatedadaptation efforts.

The So Paulo urban area is expected todouble in size by 2030. Climate vulnerabilities,such as ooding and landslides, are expectedto grow proportionally; a signicant portion ofthe area will be susceptible to extreme climateevents such as higher rainfall.

Table 2: Case studies


18/69

12

In the PBWB case: The ability of ministries toimplement and enforce the 2002 National WaterPolicy and Water Resources Management Act and toreconcile the interests of traditionally powerful sectorswith the interests of the more vulnerable water usershas proved to be crucial for the Water Board. Boththe policy and act were essential in providing for

the different water requirements and benets to beequitably considered and periodically reviewed withinthe framework of what is actually available.

In the WECS case: Climate change may havebeneted the organization by providing a more

powerful institutional mandate and authority (beyondthe current critical need for more coordinated waterresource management).However,the lack of statutoryauthority has severely harmed WECS efforts tobetter coordinate the water sector around a coherentstrategic plan in the face of already occurring climatechange. Until such statutory authority is granted,WECS will continue to struggle to meet its mandatesin the face of a changing climate.

In the MDBA case: Theexternal policy framework thatdrives the major institutional framework in the basin,

the Federal Water Act, is the Ramsar Convention onWetlands (an international environmental treaty towhich Australia is a signatory) because it providesa constitutional mandate for federal governmentintervention. This has led to equal, if not greater,

emphasis on environmental outcomes in the basin,which are often overlooked in institutions that are notnecessarily climate-adaptive.

On the other hand, the Australian National WaterInitiative states that future climate changeinducedreductions will be borne by consumptive userswhereas the Authority proposes to share lossesbetween the environment and users, demonstratingthe limits to external regulatory factors for enablingadaptive institutions. But the Water Act does notinclude third-party enforcement provisions. While the

federal government must accredit state sub-basinimplementation plans and in theory could write itsown if the states fail to do so adequately, in practiceit is hard to see how the federal government couldeffectively supplant the states in day-to-day localmanagement.

This means that further compromises are likely withthe states: Already, the federal government hascompromised through lower water reallocationsproposed for the environment, delayedimplementation, and increased funding for statewater infrastructure projects. Future compromises

may include accepting low-quality state catchment

plans, redening environmental outcomes, smallerclimate change adjustments, and more funding for

questionable state projects. A major gap in the

Australian system is a provision for noncompliantstates to be taken to court.

4.1.2 Flexible Resource Management

The ability to exibly manage (e.g., allocate and

reallocate) resources like water in the face of

variability, uncertainty, and extreme events is vital

In the MDBA case: Despite some drawbacks, theAustralian water market system does enable waterto be readily transferred where funds are available,for instance, from irrigation to the environment. TheCommonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH)is permitted to buy and sell water entitlements tobenet the environment. For instance, it could sell

environmental water for irrigation when the price ishigh and the ecological need low, so as to acquirewater later when that ecological need is high.

4.1.3 Resources

Adequate nancial and human resources

(experience and expertise), as well as

technological and informational resources,

effectively and efciently deployed, allows an

institution to quickly react to an event, allocate or

use resources more exibly, or better prepare for

unpredictable hydrological situations

In the MDBA case: A situation is playing out in whicha lot of federal government funds have been provided

but spent inefciently. In the current round of reforms,the federal funds have been used to buy politicalsupport from state governments by funding populistprojects at the expense of changes to most effectively

adapt to climate change.


19/69

13

In the SEA case: The new state administration nowsees the need not to only set goals for emissionreductions, but to advance the adaptation agenda byinvesting in human resources, training and capacitybuilding within the Secretariat of Environment.

4.1.4 Legitimacy and Accountability

Ensuring that institutions are accountable to the

full range of water stakeholders can improve their

legitimacy within the scale of operation, allowing

greater capacity to fulll duties in normal

periods as well as make difcult decisions in more

extreme periods

In the MDBA case: While the Authority and Plan havea clear mandate since the legislative process wasadopted with bipartisan support (and the Authority andPlan are accountable to the Federal Parliament), theAuthority has squandered its legitimacy through anoverly technical, back-room planning process that didnot adequately engage stakeholders. Ultimately, insuch a large river basin, a federal government authoritymust gain the consent of more local stakeholdersand institutions to effect detailed management on theground, and the Authority has not yet demonstratedthat it has the capacity to do so -- potentiallyundermining longer-term adaptability to mountingpressures in the basin. The danger is that keystakeholders in the basin resist and frustrate adaptive

measures rather than engage new ideas and come toown and help implement the necessary changes.

4.1.5 Variety and Diversity

Acknowledging that there is no single best-t

ideological framework, optimal policy strategy,

or set of mutually consistent solutions to a given

problem or challenge

In the USACE case: The pilot study approach reects

the importance of integrating scientic research

on climate impacts with on-the-ground projects. Inparticular, using multiple general circulation modelsis useful in developing different scenarios (includingworst-case scenarios) to aid adaptation planningfor reservoir operations. Importantly, this modelingprocess is being linked with other processes (e.g.,

scenario development) and is not considered a one-offsolution to planning for climate change. However, dueto the longer-term time horizons needed to implementthe projects, it is too early to tell if these pilots are

proving effective.

In the MDBA case: By contrast, overreliance on

downscaled modeling may prove unhelpful in thebasin, given the wide range of forecast potentialoutcomes. Focusing on modeling outputs alone maystie adaptive decision making. Furthermore, the

Authoritys focus on water quantity, while essential,excludes other important adaptation options, includingretention of free-owing surface and groundwater

systems, riparian restoration and reoperation to reducethe impacts from infrastructure.

4.1.6 Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring, assessment, evaluation and reporting

are important tools for identifying when current

policies or programs become ineffective or

obsolete, or require change to fulll their

mandates In addition, monitoring networks provide

valuable information (water quality, quantity, etc.)

upon which both short- and long-term management

decisions should be made, while independent

verication through external assessment and

evaluation can provide vital accountability for plans

and management strategies

In the MDBA case: Key aspects of water management

that enhance monitoring and evaluation are overseenby federal entities such as the independent NationalWater Commission and other key institutional actors(e.g., the Bureau of Meteorology for water accounting,Australian Competition and Consumer Commission forregulating the water market and the CommonwealthEnvironmental Water Holder for managing federalecological water holdings). A particularly positiveaspect of these monitoring and evaluation efforts isthat they are performed by federal entities, giving

them more credibility and accountability.

In the PBWB case: Technical information on theecological, social and economic status of the basin wasvital in supporting the implementation of environmentalow provisions, so that the focus could switch to


20/69

14

stakeholders and the government agreeing on howbest to reallocate water. Although this may haveseemed a protracted process without prescriptiveoutcomes, the chosen allocation scenario will beintegrated into the basins water management plan,which is legally binding. A monitoring program that ispart of the plan aims to ensure that the desired river

state is being achieved and maintained despite climatechange.

4.1.7 Identity

The capability to shift organizational purpose,

vision, mandate and priorities over time, and to

reevaluate strategies and approaches periodically,

can allow an institution to adjust and respond to

climate change However, a clear purpose with

visible boundaries provides a strong sense of

institutional identity. A ne balance thus needs to

be struck between exibility and rigidity.

In the USACEcase: The Corps operates under a clearvision and mission that embrace adaptation activities.The Corps Climate Change Policy and Responses toClimate Change (RCC) Program provide a frameworkwithin which to develop concrete activities toimplement adaptation solutions.

In the MDBA case: The Authoritys environmentrst legal mandate is well directed to sustainability.

However, this mandate is somewhat underminedby political compromises that propose to give equalweight to economic and social aspects, thus confusingthe culture, identity, purpose and vision.

4.1.8 Forward Thinking

Incorporating uncertainty into planning (e.g.,

scenario planning for multiple climate futures) can

allow an institution to envisage and better prepare

for future expected and unexpected climate

impacts

In the USACE case: The Corps initiated theResponses to Climate Change (RCC) Program,40which utilizes scenarios as a way to help develop

40 The RCC Program aims to develop, implement, andassess adjustments or changes in operations anddecision environments to enhance resilience or reducevulnerability of USACE projects, systems, and programsto observed or expected changes in climate developingand beginning to implement approaches and policies toreducepotential vulnerabilities to the Nations (USs) existingwater infrastructure resulting from climate changeand variability.


21/69

15

planning and engineering guidance that ensurefuture infrastructure is designed to be sustainableand robust.

In the MDBA case: The legislation establishing theAuthority and Plan requires the institution to manage arange of future threats to water availability, specically

including climate change (although the Authority iscurrently struggling to understand this mandate, andpolitical compromises could jeopardize this goal).

In the PBWB case: Technical information generatedfrom a ow assessment study was used to organize

ecological, social and economic knowledge of thebasin through a set of development scenarios. Thesescenarios depicted many possible pathways into thefuture, some of which looked at how climate changemight affect the basins water resources. There is nowan increased understanding of the environmental,economic and social implications of different riverow scenarios under expected climatic conditions,

and increased capacity to collect and analyze suchinformation across the water and climate changesectors. The focus now switches to a process withinwhich stakeholders and the government will agreeon how best to reallocate future water resources, asinformed by these scenarios.

4.1.9 Iterative Approaches

An iterative or cyclical approach to planningemphasizes the use of monitoring and evaluation

to inform future operations This allows an

institution to absorb new learning and knowledge

into existing plans and account for both social and

institutional learning

In the MDBA case: The Basin Plan is to be revisedat least once every 10 years, which should greatlyaid adaptive management, including the need torevisit areas that were poorly understood or wherecompromises had been made in the initial Plan.

In the USACE case: Policy suggests that the Corpsupdate reservoir Water Control Manuals every 10years. However, these updates are often delayed bythe lack of congressional funding (sometimes manualsare 50 years old, without having been updated). In

addition, attempting to update a manual can resultin a long process fraught with conict among the

stakeholders impacted by the reservoirs operations.For example, a recent effort to update the MissouriRivers manual took 15 years and cost millions ofdollars, in part due to an inability to reach agreementwith the various stakeholders.

4.1.10 Mainstreaming

Rather than setting up a separate adaptation

program or department, an institution integrates

adaptation into different units to fashion a

more holistic response to climate change

Mainstreaming also implies applying a systems

approach to consider how climate change impacts

the different aspects of an institutions activities

In the MDBA case: Through the Authority, all the stateswithin the basin are forced to integrate adaptationplanning and implementation. While they may notbe doing the analysis or making the nal decisions,

they are the ones responsible for developing andimplementing the decisions set forth by the Authority.The Authority is required to set a sustainable diversionlimit (SDL) for water allocations that provides for

climate change, and this SDL is then broken down

by sub-basin. Consequently state governments andtheir tributary catchment management authorities arerequired to mainstream implementation of climate

change adaptation in their water managementactivities. However, the Authority is still struggling withhow to approach and understand adaptation, signalingthat it has a long way to go to fully mainstreamclimate change.

4.1.11 Creativity and Learning

Creates an explicit space for improvisational

approaches in which change occurs through

experimentation, learning and unplanned

responses to contingencies Increased creativity

can allow climate change to be treated less asan obstacle to continued success and more like

an opportunity to transform existing processes,

structures and operations Encouraging a culture

of social and institutional learning (including

from experience) can allow institutions and


22/69


23/69

17

capital and foster innovation Working with

nontraditional stakeholders will be an important

part of climate change adaptation efforts in the

future Networks and partnerships for information

sharing and research also provide opportunities

for the exchange of experiences, mutual learning,

and the integration of knowledge into different

levels of decision making

In the USACE case: The Corps does much ofits climate change work in partnership with otherorganizations. Partnerships allow the Corps tocapitalize on interdisciplinary expertise, avoidduplication and produce cutting-edge productsthat they would not have the resources for on theirown. For instance, Climate Change and WaterResources Management: A Federal Perspective41was an interagency report prepared by the four U.S.federal water management agencies (the Corps,U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, andNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) thatinitiated their approach to climate change. Its purposewas to explore collaborative strategies to improvewater management by tracking, anticipating andresponding to climate change.

In the PBWB case: Partnerships and collaborationwith nongovernmental organizations have increasedpreparedness for climate impacts, providing supportand capacity where it is lacking in local institutions.

As part of the different projects, partners havecarried out climate change vulnerability assessmentsin eight different villages, from which a list ofadaptation actions were proposed and ranked by thecommunities. Some of these activities are now beingimplemented by the government of Tanzania throughits local authorities, the district councils.

In the SEA case: The Pacto das guas is a goodexample of sharing responsibility with municipalities andof consolidating strategic partnerships and collaborativeefforts. Such a decentralized framework empowers

the local authorities to take the lead on key aspects ofenvironment and health, and allows a more effectiveway of achieving ambitious goals that the state alone

41 Published as USGS Circular 1331 in 2009(http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/)

could not meet effectively. In addition, while the SEAcurrently lacks both the human and nancial resources

required to promote sound adaptation at the state level,it has been very effective at reaching out to a strategicset of other institutions and organizations for assistance.

4.1.14 Leadership

Continuous and effective leadership, even in the

case of high turnover (e.g., political appointees),

is needed to ensure that both short- and long-

term plans are made and goals met Innovative

approaches often need to be pioneered by

visionary leaders to be effectively mainstreamed

by an institution and to drive transformational

change toward more climate-adaptive solutions

and management practices

In the USACE case: The clear leadership within theCorps and other entities within the executive branchhas enabled a stronger stance to be taken on climatechange preparedness and planning.

In the MDBA case: The Authority has the responsibilityand autonomy to develop appropriate plans forthe basin, but much depends on the quality ofits leadership, which has been questioned in thisinitial planning process. Managing climate changeadaptation in a river basin requires leaders whocombine skills in science and the humanities and

bring excellent capacities to communicate, facilitateand collaborate with the many stakeholders to builda common vision that generates acceptance ofnecessary reforms.

In the WECS case: Theendemic national politicalinstability results in a lack of continuity of leadershipfor the institution, which makes it extremely difcult to

focus on medium- and long-term goals, especiallythe necessary strategic planning critical to theadaptation process.

4.1.15 Transparency and Participation

Consultation with and participation of civil society

and external experts or stakeholders in the

decision-making process ensure representation

of a broad set of interests and allow for
http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/


24/69

18

consensus to be built and conicts resolved

earlier rather than later However, participatory

processes can slow down adaptation efforts

if not managed efciently and effectively.

In the PBWB case: Institutional strengthening in riverbasin planning has proved to be a key to more climate-

adaptive water management by enabling diversestakeholders to participate in the discovery of optionsand in joint action. After three years of negotiated

steps and social learning, the Pangani River BasinManagement Project (PRBMP) has contributed

to building resilience in the basin through conict

resolution, capacity building and knowledge sharing.Hydrological models and climate forecasts are nowcomplemented by a participatory governance systemthat can dynamically respond to uncertain futures.

In the USACE case: Close collaboration with TheNature Conservancy (TNC) around the GreenRiver Lake and Dam in Kentucky ensured that the

regulation schedule for the dam better accommodateddownstream ecological functioning, thereby improvingthe resilience of the system. While this particularreoperation was done for environmental reasons,such collaboration could also help with climate change

adaptation. However, in the updating of the MissouriRiver Water Control Manual, extensive participationled to 15 years of negotiation across differentstakeholder interests -- which may not have resulted inadaptive expediency.

In the MDBA case: The Authoritys planning work

is transparent to the extent that technical data ispublicly available, the Plan involves formal publicconsultation and the Authority is accountable toParliament. Interests of most stakeholders (e.g.,indigenous peoples, irrigators, the environment) areconsidered but perhaps inadequately addressed.However, higher standards of stakeholder participationare expected on more contentious issues (which arelikely to increase as climate change impacts mount),and worryingly, the Authority has been found wanting.The multi-government commission was collaborative,but in its transition to a federal government authoritythis culture of collaboration has been lost, despite theformal public consultation processes. Ultimately, theAuthoritys mission has been jeopardized because

Authority leaders have not cultivated public condence

in their work. This is likely to undermine their ability toimplement tough decisions and more transformationalpolicies that could enhance adaptive capacity.


25/69

19

4.2 Synthesizing across Principles

The ve cases represent diverse institutional and

geographic settings, yet there are some broadcomparisons that can be drawn across them fromthis initial phase of analysis. Generally, the casessuggest that some of the principles might be more

important (or at least more common) in inuencingthe development of climate-adaptive institutions.External regime, resources, legitimacy and

accountability, creativity and learning, andcollaboration and partnerships were most frequentlyidentied within the case studies as those principles

most important to the institutions in question,either through positive or negative implications forthat institutions climate-adaptability. In addition,variety and diversity, forward thinking, iterativeapproaches,and transparency and participationemerged more indirectly through the analysis.

An interesting dynamic came through in relation tocollaboration and partnerships, as well as transparencyand participation, which has been noted in otherstudies of adaptation.42 Participation is a fundamentalelement of good governance of water resources,but the complicated nature of involving multiplestakeholders in a negotiation process around scarcewater resources can have negative implications forspeed of adaptive response. While it is vital to ensurethat local knowledge, expertise, and interests are not

just consulted but actively engaged, an organizationthat must obtain the consensus of a large number ofentities may not be able to respond quickly. The casessuggest that it is important to nd a balance between

the long-term benets of negotiated solutions and

faster adaptive responses. Similarly, tensions wereidentied between the principles of of external regime,

and internal agency and autonomy. Institutions neednot only long-term support from the external regime,but also the internal agency to make independentdecisions in a timely manner.

Monitoring and evaluation did not receive as muchattention as expected within the case study analysis.The phrase what you measure, you manage ishighly pertinent here; having reliable water data is

42 Engle 2010, Hill 2010, Huntjens et al 2011

a prerequisite baseline from which to develop theinstitutional knowledge that is vital for adaptation. Thedecision to carry out water accounting at a nationallevel in Australia is one positive example of thisprinciple in action.

Leadership is another principle that many other studies

have cited as a key element in driving institutionsto adopt and expand the use of more innovativeapproaches that could enhance adaptive capacity.The lack of consistent leadership was highlighted as asignicant impediment to building capacity in the case

from Nepal.

Mainstreaming would imply adopting a systemicapproach to climate change and elevating adaptationto an organizing principle.43 However,in many regions,climate change adaptation is still a relatively new areafor institutions, which have yet to even move fromscoping and impact assessments to operationalizingadaptation strategies and modes of practice. As such,there were few good examples from our case studies.

Often, it is not one principle that is more important thananother, but the interplay of multiple principles thatallows institutions to move toward more integrated andadaptive approaches. For example, in Tanzania, overthree years of negotiated steps (iterative approaches)and social learning, the Pangani River BasinManagement Project contributed to making the Pangani

Basin Water Boardmore adaptive through the piloting ofWUAs (creativity and learning). These pilots were in turninstrumental in creating new governance arrangementswhereby water users could further organize in sub-catchment forums. Stakeholders could contribute todecisions by the Water Board, integrating community-level, WUA, district, and regional concerns into basin-level planning (transparency and participation). Asa result, hydrological models and climate forecastsare complemented by a participatory governancesystem (variety and diversity). This helps the institutiondynamically respond to an uncertain future.

By contrast, in Australias Murray-Darling Basin theability to implement the Plan to respond to incrementalclimate changes (e.g., another severe drought) is

43 Dovers & Hezri, 2010


26/69

20

low for a number of reasons. The Plans mandate isnarrowly focused on environmental ows, excluding

other adaptation measures (variety and diversity); theenvisaged 10-year timeline for changes to allocationis too rigid to deal with extreme dry events (iterativeapproaches); the political compromise that allows

states to delay implementation of the 2012-13 Plan

to 2019-2025 is severely limiting (external regime);and the Plan assumes that climate change will belinear and spatially uniform (e.g., citing a 12 percentreduction from 19902030 and a 3 percent reductionin 10 years), which has not been the experience fromsouthwest Western Australia. The assumption of linearchange illustrates the difculty of translating complex

science into effective policy when decision makers donot adequately understand the limits of the data thatthey are working with, and in particular, the degreeof risk in managing for less likely but more severeclimate change impacts. While there are some positiveaspects to the MDBA case, there are serious limitationsto the Authoritys ability to adapt to climate impacts.

These principles point to the importance of creatingrather than minimizing choices for water institutions.

Helping an institution to bend rather than break inthe face of new challenges should expand its adaptivecapacity. Many of these principles highlight a ne

balance between the internal exibility that allows

institutions to adapt to change, and the longer-termneed for external mandates and regulated support.By managing resources exibly, institutions may be

able to not only cope with stresses, but also createopportunities for positive transformation out ofthose stresses.44

It is hoped that the development and discussionof the 15 principles in this report is a helpful stepin understanding these complex issues for waterinstitutions. Many of these principles support thecreation of choices for these institutions by highlightingthe importance of a balance between guidance (externalregime; legitimacy and accountability) and leadership(leadership; identity) with the requisite exibility (exibleresource management, creativity and learning; internal

agency and autonomy) to respond to challenges in anappropriate time scale and suited to local conditions.

44 Folke et al, 2010


27/69

21

This report has aimed to identify and discuss a setof principles for climate-adaptive institutions that arebroadly applicable across diverse geographic andinstitutional settings. While it is important not to drawuniversal causal linkages between these principlesand their ability to increase adaptability based on thepreliminary case evidence, the principles provide auseful starting point for further work.

From our discussion of the principles in relation to thecase studies, we have identied several overlapping

areas in which additional work is needed:

Further case studies would allow morecomparative critical analysis on how theseissues manifest across different waterinstitutions, and would provide deeperinsight into and renement of the principles

that are most valuable across differentgeographies and scales.

Indicators linked to these principles wouldmake them measurable as a step towardstransforming them into tangible operationalguidance for water institutions. Growingawareness of the need for institutions to beadaptive to climate change underscores theimportance of investing in the developmentand monitoring of institutional indicators, not

just biophysical or social ones. Some initial

work has gone into the development ofa range of institutional indicators ofadaptive capacity.45

Monitoring and evaluation of theseindicators against specic climate events

as they occur would allow us to betterunderstand the linkages between theseprinciples and successful adaptation by

water institutions.46

Ultimately, a diagnostic tool that canhelp water institutions to operationalizethe principles is essential. Using thecases, principles and indicators to informmeaningful and robust sets of choices formanagers and decision-makers would be acrucial step toward improving the adaptivecapacity of water institutions.

It has been a productive decade for research,

learning and sharing a growing body of knowledge onadaptation. While this report has been an importantstep towards more adaptive institutions, the pressuresof climate change and development on vulnerablewater resources increase every day. The time to shiftfrom research to action has arrived.

45 Engle & Lemos, 201046 Hill & Engle, 2011

5. Recommendations


28/69

22

Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., Tompkins, E. (2005).Successful adaptation to climate changeacross scales. Global Environmental Change15(2): 77-86.

Barnett, J., ONeill, S. (2010). Maladaptation. GlobalEnvironmental Change20(2): 211-213.

Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., Ed. (2003).Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building

Resilience for Complexity and Change.Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Berkes, F. C., Folke, C. (2001). Back to the future:ecosystem dynamics and local knowledge inPanarchy: Understanding transformations in

human and natural systems, L. H. Gunderson

and C. S. Holling, eds. Washington, D.C.,Island Press.

Brooks, N., Adger, W. N., Kelly, P. M. (2005).

The determinants of vulnerability andadaptive capacity at the national level andthe implications for adaptation. GlobalEnvironmental Change15(2): 151-163.

Bussey, M., Carter, R. W., Carter, J., Mangoyana,R. B., Matthews, J., Nash, D., Oliver, J.,Richards, R., Thomsen, D., Sano, M., Weber,E., Smith, T. F. (2010). Societal Responses toSignicant Change: An Historical Analysis of

Adaptive Capacity, report for the South EastQueensland Climate Adaptation Research

Initiative. Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia,

Sustainability Research Centre, University ofthe Sunshine Coast, 163 pp.

Cash, D.W., Clark, W.C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N.M.,

Eckley, N., Guston, D.H., Jger, J., Mitchell,R.B. (2003). Knowledge systems for

sustainable development. PNAS100(14):8086-8091.

Cayan, D.R., Das, T., Pierce, D.W., Barnett, T.P.,Tyree, M., Gershunov, A. (2010). Futuredryness in the southwest US and the hydrogy

of the early 21st century drought. PNAS107(50): 21271-21276.

Chapin, F. S., Folke, C., Konas, G. P. (2009).A

Framework for Understanding Changein Principles of Ecosystem Stewardship:Resilience-based natural resource

management in a changing world. F. S.Chapin, Konas, G.P. & Folke, C., eds.

New York, Springer.

Cromwell, J. E., Smith, J. B., Raucher, R. S. (2007).Implications of Climate Change for Urban

Water Utilities. Washington, D.C., Associationof Metropolitan Water Agencies, 18 pp.

Crutzen, P. J. (2002). Geology of Mankind. Nature415: 23.

De Stefano, L., Duncan, J., Dinar, S., Stahl, K.,

Strzepek, K., Wolf, A. T. (2010). Mapping

the Resilience of International River Basinsto Future Climate Change-Induced Water

Variability, Water Sector Board DiscussionPaper Series, Paper No. 15. Washington, DC,The World Bank.

Downing, T. (2009). Experience and evidence:mainstreaming climate information intoadaptation planning. World ClimateConference 3. Geneva, Switzerland.

Dovers, S. R., Hezri, A. A. (2010). Institutions andpolicy processes: The means to the ends ofadaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:

Climate Change 1(2): 212-231.

Eakin, H., Lemos, M. C. (2006). Adaptation and the

state: Latin America and the challenge of

capacity-building under globalization. GlobalEnvironmental Change-Human and Policy

Dimensions16(1): 7-18.

References


29/69

23

Engle, N. L. (2010). Adaptation to Extreme Droughts

in Arizona, Georgia, and South Carolina:Evaluating Adaptive Capacity and InnovativePlanning and Management Approaches forStates and Their Community Water Systems.University of Michigan. PhD Dissertation.

Engle, N. L., Lemos, M. C. (2010). Unpackinggovernance: Building adaptive capacity toclimate change of river basins in Brazil. GlobalEnvironmental Change20 (Special issue onAdaptive Capacity to Global Change in Latin

America): 4-13.

Engle, N. L., Johns, O. R., Lemos, M. C., Nelson,

D. R. (2011). Integrated and adaptivemanagement of water resources: Tensions,legacies, and the next best thing. Ecologyand Society16(1): 19.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J. (2005).Adaptive governance of social-ecologicalsystems.Annual Review of Environment andResources30: 441-473.

Folke, C.,Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer,M., Chapin, T., Rockstrm, J. (2010).Resilience Thinking: Integrating Resilience,Adaptability and Transformability. Ecologyand Society14(4): 20.

Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S.,

Van den Brink, M., Jong, P., Nooteboom, S.,Bergsma, E. (2010). The adaptive capacitywheel: A method to assess the inherentcharacteristics of institutions to enable theadaptive capacity of society. EnvironmentalScience & Policy13(6): 459-471.

GWP (2000). Integrated Water ResourcesManagement, Background Paper No. 4,Global Water Partnership Technical

Advisory Committee.

Helmke, G., Levitsky, S. (2003). Informal Institutions

and Comparative Politics: A ResearchAgenda. Working Paper #307, Kellogg

Institute.

Hill, M. (2010). Converging Threats: Assessingsocio-economic and climate impacts on water

governance. International Journal of ClimateChange Management and Strategies2(3):242-263.

Hill, M., Engle, N. (2011). Easing the tension:mobilising adaptive capacity across differentscales and dynamics by looking througha lens of choice creation lessons learntfrom empirical research in Chile, USA andSwitzerland. Resilience Conference, 2-17March 2011, Tempe, USA.

Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp,S., Pahl- Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-Wostl, C., Yalcin, R. (2009). Adaptive watergovernance: Assessing the institutionalprescriptions of adaptive (co-)managementfrom a governance perspective and dening

a research agenda. Ecology and Society14(1): 26.

Huntjens, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., Rihoux, B., Schlter,

M., Flachner, Z., Neto, S., Koskova, R.,

Dickens, C., Nabide Kiti, I. (2011). AdaptiveWater Management and Policy Learning in

a Changing Climate: a Formal ComparativeAnalysis of Eight Water Management Regimesin Europe, Africa and Asia. EnvironmentalPolicy and Governance 21: 145163.

IISD (2006). Designing Policies in a World ofUncertainty, Change and Surprise: Adaptive

Policy-Making for Agriculture and Water

Resources in the Face of Climate Change.Winnipeg, Manitoba & New Delhi, India,

International Development Research Centre &The Energy and Resources Institute.


30/69


31/69

25

Olsson, P., Folke, C., Berkes, F., Hahn, T. (2004b).Social-ecological transformation forecosystem management: The developmentof adaptive co-management of a wetlandlandscape in southern Sweden. Ecology andSociety9(4).

Orlove, B. (2005). Human adaptation to climatechange: A review of three historical cases andsome general perspectives. EnvironmentalScience & Policy8(6): 589-600.

Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for goingbeyond panaceas. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America104(39): 419-422.

Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). The implications of complexityfor integrated resources management.Environmental Modelling & Software22(5):561-569.

Pahl-Wostl, C., Kabat, P., Mltgen, J., Ed. (2007).

Adaptive and Integrated Water Management.

Coping with Complexity and Uncertainty.Berlin, Springer Verlag.

Pelling, M., High, C. (2005). Understandingadaptation: What can social capital offerassessments of adaptive capacity? Global

Environmental Change-Human and PolicyDimensions15(4): 308-319.

Plummer, R., Armitage, D. (2007). A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptiveco-management: Linking ecology, economics

and society in a complex world. EcologicalEconomics61(1): 62-74.

Rappaport, R. A. (1977). Maladaptation in socialsystems.In Evolution of Social Systems, J.Friedman (Ed.). London, Duckworth:

49-71.

Seager, R., Vecchi, G.A. (2010). Greenhousewarming and the 12st century hydroclimate ofsouthwestern North America. PNAS107(50):21277-21282.

Smit, B., Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptivecapacity and vulnerability. GlobalEnvironmental Change16(3): 282-292.

Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N. (2004). Does adaptive

management of natural resources enhanceresilience to climate change? Ecology and

Society9(2).

UNECE (2009). Guidance on Water and Adaptationto Climate Change. Geneva, Switzerland,United Nations Economic Commissionfor Europe.

Wilbanks, T. J., Kates, R. W. (1999). Global change

in local places: How scale matters. ClimateChange43: 601-628.

Wilby, R. L., Vaughan, K (2011). Hallmarks of

organisations that are adapting to climatechange. Water and Environment Journal25:271-281.

Wolf, A. T., Yoffe, S., Giordano, M. 2003. Internationalwaters: Identifying basins at risk. WaterPolicy, 5(1): 2960.

Yohe, G., Tol, R. S. J. (2002). Indicators for social andeconomic coping capacity moving toward aworking denition of adaptive capacity. Global

Environmental Change Human and PolicyDimensions12(1): 25-40.


32/69

26

Appendix 1 | Sample Principle Analysis Table


33/69

27

Principle Discussion

Positive,

Negative,

Mixed

Relevance

(high,

medium,

low, or N/A)

External regime

Federal Water Act is largely driven by international environmental treaties (+).

There is conict between who bears the cost of water loss from climate change.The National Water Initiative states that reductions will be borne by consumptiveusers, whereas the Authority proposes to share losses between theenvironment and users (-). Negative impacts for water management stem fromlack of integrated policies with other sectors (-), e.g., climate change policiesfavor thirsty renewable energy and carbon sequestration technologies; energy

policy favors unconventional natural gas production that impacts on aquifers.

+/- H

Flexible

resource

management

Despite some drawbacks, the Australian water market system does enablewater to be readily transferred where funds are available, for example,from irrigation to the environment. The CEWH is permitted to buy and sellwater entitlements to benet the environment. For example, it could sell

environmental water for irrigation when the price is high and the ecologicalneed low, then acquire water later during periods of key environmental need.

+ M

Resources

A huge amount of government funds have been provided but spentinefciently, for example, on water efciency measures rather than cheaper

water entitlement purchases (-). Where water is being purchased, this ismaking a major difference (+). In the current round of reforms the federal

funds have not been used to incentivize the states to make necessarychanges, unlike with the microeconomic reforms to the water sector in the1990s (-). Market-based incentives have had positive socioeconomic resultsbut adverse environmental impacts due to design aws (+/-).

+/- H

Legitimacy and

accountability

Australians largely expect state and federal governments to interveneto set high standards for environmental management (McAllister 2008).The legislation establishing the Authority and the Basin Plan process was

adopted with bipartisan support, but the Authority has squandered itslegitimacy through an overly technical, backroom planning process that didnot adequately engage stakeholders. The Authority and the Basin Plan areaccountable to the federal parliament. However, the options for enforcing thelegislation and the Basin Plan are limited. The Water Act does not includethird-party enforcement provisions. While the federal government mustaccredit state sub-basin implementation plans and in theory could write itsown if the states fail to do so adequately, in practice it is hard to see how thefederal government could effectively supplant the states in day-to-day localmanagement. This means that further compromises with the states are likely.A major gap in the Australian system is lack of provision for noncompliant

states to be taken to court (versus, for example, the European Commissionscapacity to prosecute EU member states in the European Court of Justice

when they fail to adhere to the Water Framework Directive).

- H

Variety and

diversity

Overreliance on downscaled modeling may prove unhelpful given the widerange of forecast potential outcomes, suggesting that a more robust approachto adaptation is required. The Authoritys focus on water quantity, whileessential, is overly narrow in excluding other important adaptation options,including retention of free-owing surface and groundwater systems, riparian

restoration, and reoperation to reduce the impacts from infrastructure (Pittockand Finlayson 2011a).

- M

(From Murray-Darling Basin Authority Case, Author: J. Pittock)


34/69

28

Monitoring and

evaluation

This area is still a work in progress. The existing independent National WaterCommission and the establishment of roles for the BoM, ACCC, and CEWHin overseeing key aspects of water management enhance monitoring andevaluation. As federal agencies they are all publicly accountable.

+ M

Identity

The Authoritys environment rst legal mandate is well directed to

sustainability, but this is being undermined by political compromises that claimthat economic, social and environmental aspects should have equal weight.

The priority afforded to managing water volumes is understandable, butsecondary climate change adaptation measures are outside the Authoritysmandate or are overlooked, e.g., riparian habitat restoration.

+/- H

Forward

thinking

The Act requires the Authority and Basin Plan to manage a range of threats towater availability, including climate change, although the Authority is strugglingto understand this mandate and political compromises jeopardize this goal.

+ H

Iterative

approaches

The Basin Plan is meant to be revised on at least a ten-year cycle that shouldgreatly aid adaptive management, including revisiting areas that were poorlyunderstood or where compromises were made in the initial plan.

+ H

Mainstreaming Adaptation is integrated into the water management (Basin) authority. + M

Creativity and

learning

The Authority has: (-) narrowly focused on e-ows as the panacea; (+) applied

innovative modeling and water accounting; (+) treated the environment asa water end-user where allocations can be bought and sold where this isecologically advantageous (inc. CEWH); (+) applied external peer review in

the initial planning (but this is questioned in the current round); and (+) has the

potential to learn from experience through the ten-year planning cycle.

+/- M

Internal agency

and autonomy

The Authority has an independent board and submits draft plans to theparliament for approval. Plan approval is required in both the House ofRepresentatives and the Senate. A lot depends on the quality of the leadershipof the Authority, and this has been questioned in this initial planning process.

+ M

Collaboration

and

partnerships

The multi-government commission was collaborative. In its transition tobeing a federal government authority this culture has been lost. There havebeen formal public consultation processes. Ultimately a federal government

authority in such a large river basin must gain the consent of more localstakeholders and institutions to effect detailed management on the ground.The Authority has not yet demonstrated that it has the capacity to do so.Legally, a nested/subsidiary governance structure is in place, with the Basin

Plan to set high-level, basin-wide standards that the states then apply throughtheir multi-stakeholder (sub-)catchment management authorities and otheragencies. Thus the Authority must simultaneously win the trust of stateinstitutions to support implementation and hold them accountable for achievingminimum standards.

- M

LeadershipAuthority leaders have not instilled public condence in the Authoritys work,

jeopardizing its mission.- M

Transparency

and

participation

The Authoritys planning work is transparent to the extent that technicaldata is publicly available, the Basin Plan involves formal publicconsultation, and the Authority is accountable to parliament. Theinterests of most stakeholders (e.g., Indigenous peoples, irrigators, theenvironment) are considered, if not adequately addressed. However,higher standards of stakeholder participation are expected on contentiousissues, and the Authority has been found wanting.

+/- M


35/69

29

Appendix 2 | Case Studies


36/69

30

Murray-Darling Basin Authority, AustraliaJamie Pittock, Australian National University, Canberra

Context

The Murray and Darling are the longest rivers in Australia and drain the Murray-Darling Basin(MDB or the Basin), a region in the southeast part of the country of over a million squarekilometers that comprises around a seventh of Australias land mass (Pittock and Finlayson2011a). The MDB is very at, old, and salty, and the rivers have some of the most variable ows

in the world. The Basin is characterized by high biodiversityfrom alpine ecosystems in theAustralia Alps in the southeast to semi-desert in the northwest and an extensive area of lakesand estuaries where the Murray enters the Southern Ocean. Large oodplain forests and other

wetlands occur over 5.7 million hectares, 637,000 hectares of which are designated as Ramsarwetlands of international importance (sixteen sites total) (Kingsford et al. 2004; Pittock et al.

2010). The northern Basin receives erratic summer rainfall and supplies around 10% of inows.

The southern Basin has been dominated by winter rainfall: runoff derived from the Alps supplying

50% of Basin river ows (Chiew, F.H.S. et al. 2008).

The contested management of this resource dominates institutions in the water-scarce Basin(Connell 2007). The Basin is home to 2 million Australians and supplies water to a million more.Agriculture uses 68% of the Basins area to produce 41% of total national farm output, va

Documents

Shifting Course