Search

As climate change impacts result in more extreme events (such as droughts and floods), the need to understand which policies facilitate effective climate change adaptation becomes crucial. Hence, this article answers the question: How do governments and policymakers frame policy in relation to climate change, droughts, and floods and what governance structures facilitate adaptation? This research interrogates and analyzes through content analysis, supplemented by semi-structured qualitative interviews, the policy response to climate change, drought, and flood in relation to agricultural producers in four case studies in river basins in Chile, Argentina, and Canada. First, an epistemological explanation of risk and uncertainty underscores a brief literature review of adaptive governance, followed by policy framing in relation to risk and uncertainty, and an analytical model is developed. Pertinent findings of the four cases are recounted, followed by a comparative analysis. In conclusion, recommendations are made to improve policies and expand adaptive governance to better account for uncertainty and risk. This article is innovative in that it proposes an expanded model of adaptive governance in relation to "risk" that can help bridge the barrier of uncertainty in science and policy.

There is considerable research on the vulnerability of agricultural producers to climate change; we know that the institutional governance system is an important component of adaptive capacity impacting on the agricultural producers’ livelihood capitals that determine their livelihood success; and we have knowledge of best practices of adaptive policies. However, there is much we don’t know. We don’t know how the problems of d&f are being framed by policymakers, the types of governance instruments (regulatory, market, etc.) that promote agricultural livelihood capitals, the impacts different instruments have on agricultural producers and their livelihoods, and which instruments promote social learning, trust, and inclusive development, all given perceptions of risk and uncertainty. Hence, this research answers the question: How can a theoretical and policy framework (norms, principles, and instruments) be designed to build capacity for rural agricultural producers to respond to the increasing likelihood of d&f, defined by uncertainty? The research was carried out in four study areas: two in Canada, one in Chile, and one in Argentina. All case study areas are glacier fed, dry land riverbeds, with some irrigation and experience with d&f. All four study areas have very disparate governance structures, especially in relation to water (a fundamental system in relation to d&f). The two Canadian study areas represent a developed country, and Chile and Argentina developing countries. These differences allowed for comparison of institutional practices. The thesis answers the question of how a policy framework can be designed to build the capacity of agricultural producers to cope with d&f by assessing which instruments are and are not working in the context of the drivers with an expanded analysis of adaptive governance (policy framing, participation, and learning) and a focus on redesign.

Bottom-up watershed governance that features citizen engagement in decision-making is touted as a panacea for better social and environmental outcomes. However, there is limited agreement on how exactly this engagement occurs, and how it can be assessed. Water decision-making may result in better social outcomes when decision-making is deliberative and democratic. This article brings together a cross-disciplinary framework to assess deliberative democratic practices in local water councils (LWCs) in the Prairie Provinces, Canada. We apply this framework to assess and compare LWCS, using data from a review of secondary sources and semistructured qualitative interviews with members of LWCs. Our framework was useful for identifying strengths and shortcomings of deliberative democracy within and across LWCs. The strengths of the Manitoba model are its significant mandate and stable tax funding. Alberta’s strengths are in the areas of community representation and significant contested deliberation. Saskatchewan’s strengths are its interconnectedness with other organisations, sectors, and governments. While LWCs have made important contributions to local watershed governance, a consideration and comparison of deliberative democratic practices offers options for policy change strengthening the deliberative democratic practices of LWCs.