Congress Resources: Papers, posters and presentations

< Return to abstract list

A Comparative Analysis Of Instruments For Responding To Drought

Congress: 2015
Author(s): Margot Hurlbert (Regina, Canada)

Keyword(s): Sub-theme 15: Water law,

Future climate predictions in many areas of the world entail increasing variability of weather patterns resulting in more intense and frequent droughts and floods. This, together with expanding urban populations, increasing demands on water by industry, and the requirement to feed a growing global population stress an already precarious water resource. It is well established that the water crisis is a crisis of governance. No one community of practice (technological, economic/market/ legal, or anthropological) has all of the answers. There is a need for mulltidisciplinary, integrative approaches to improve governance skills in the future. This paper considers what the best suite of policy instruments is for improving the resilience of agricultural producers and communities in responding to extreme events of drought. Through the comparison of four case studies, Alberta, Saskatchewan (both in Canada), Chile and Argentina, the policy instruments available for response to events of drought are compared and analyzed using a multi-level analysis (instruments, drivers, pressures, and redesign). First the organizations and institutions involved in these events are determined. Because of the cross cutting theme of water and agriculture of a myriad of government departments, non-profit organizations, civil society groups, and private organizations are involved in the response to events of extreme drought. the policy instruments (regulatory, market, suastive and management) associated with these organizations are identified. These instruments are then analyzed in the context of local and global drivers (global food prices, transportation issues, etc.). The ability of the instruments to improve the resilience of communities are assessed. This analysis is done in the context of the suite of policy instruments given the local context. Based on these case studies it is evident that no one model of governance, technocratic, common resource pool, or market) is superior. Instead flexibility to utilize numerous approaches in different geographical areas, and different circumstances is beneficial. Suggestions for improving instruments based on the research and the principles of adaptive management are made in the conclusion of this paper. Argyris, C. (1977) Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55, pp. 115-125. Argyris, C. (1999) On Organizational Learning, Blackwell, Oxford, Biermann, F., et al., Earth System Governance: People, Places and the Planet. Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth system Governance Project. Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20. Bonn, IHDP; The Earth System Governance Project, 2009. Cundill, G. Fabricius, C. (2010) Monitoring the Governance Dimension of Natural Resource Comanagement. Ecology and Society  Gupta, J., ven der Grijp, N., Kuik, O. (eds) (2013) Climate Change, Forests and REDD: Lessons for Institutional Design, Routledge Publishers  Hisschemoller, M and Gupta, J. (1999) Problem-Solving through International Environmental Agreements: The Issue of Regime Effectiveness. International Political Science Review. 20(2): pp 151Â174  Hisschemöller, M. and R. Hoppe (1996) "Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis." Knowledge and Policy, the International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, 8(4): pp 40Â61  Hisschemöller, M. (1993) De democratie van problemen. De relatie tussen de inhoud van beleidsproblemen en methoden van politieke besluitvorming. Amsterdam, VU. Keen M, Brown VA, Dyball R 2005. Social learning: a new approach to environmental management. In: Keen M, Brown, VA, Dyball R (eds) Social learning in environmental management: towards s sustainable future. Earthscan, London, pp 3Â21  IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Technical Summary, a report of working group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, WMO and UNEP, Geneva. Moser, C. 1998.The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies. World Development 26(1), pp. 1-19.  Moser, S. C.,Ekstrom, J.A. 2010. "A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.  Moser, C. Satterthwaite, D. 2008. "Towards pro-poor adaptation to climate change in the urban centres of low-and middle-income countries" Climate Change and Cities Discussion Paper 3, in Climate change and Cities Discussion Paper 3. Global Urban Research Centre, IIED: Washington, D.C. Robins, L. 2007. Nation-wide decentralized governance arrangements and capacities for Integrated Watershed Management. Insights from Canada..Environments 35, 2, 1-47. Smit, B. and Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change 16, pp. 282-292. Young, O.R. et al., 2005. Science Plan. Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Bonn: International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change (IHDP).

2011 IWRA - International Water Resources Association - - Admin