Camila Alvarez-Garreton1,2, Juan Pablo Boisier1,2, Marco Billi1,3
Edited by: José Barraza, CR2 Science Communicator, and Macarena Salinas, Head of CR2 Training
Executive Summary
- The CCAP-WR draft, developed by the Ministry of Public Works, proposes measures to enhance water security in Chile; however, these measures lack explicit connection to Long-term Climate Strategy (LTCS) goals and are based on imprecisely defined risks, undermining the plan’s primary objective.
- The draft’s main deficiency is the absence of monitoring, reporting, and verification indicators required by the Climate Change Framework Law, preventing proper evaluation of proposed measures.
- The draft fails to specify which climate scenarios should be used to assess water resource risks, hindering the design of coherent risk reduction measures.
- CR2’s observation document proposes indicators for measuring various aspects of water security and suggests ranges compatible with LTCS water security goals. It also proposes strategies to address other limitations identified in the draft, such as the absence of reference climate scenarios.
Introduction
The Climate Change Framework Law (Law 21.455) mandates the creation of sectoral climate change adaptation plans, defining minimum requirements and necessary alignment with Long-term Climate Strategy goals. The Ministry of Public Works must develop the Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Water Resources (CCAP-WR), establishing measures to enhance water security by increasing sector resilience against climate threats such as droughts, floods, and water quality degradation. The plan prioritises human consumption, ecosystem preservation, and aquifer sustainability.
The CCAP-WR draft was published in June 2024, initiating public consultation. The Center for Climate and Resilience Science (CR2) prepared an observation document highlighting the positive aspects necessary for advancing water security in Chile’s climate change context. It also identifies essential elements missing from the draft that are required by Law 21.455.
Main Observations
1. Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification Indicators
The primary limitation identified in the PACC-RH draft is the omission of “monitoring, reporting, and verification indicators for compliance with plan measures, as established in the Long-Term Climate Strategy*”* mandated by Law 21.455 in Article 9.2.f. The requirement for these indicators is also specified in the LTCS (Chapter 4.3) and the Nationally Determined Contribution (Chapter 5.2.1, measures A5 and A7.a), which constitute the operational framework of the Global Adaptation Goal approved at the 28th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, following the Paris Agreement.
The absence of these indicators represents a significant deficiency as it precludes the monitoring of compliance with measures proposed by the PACC-RH and the evaluation of its capacity to fulfill the objective of “reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to adverse effects of climate change,” established as the overarching purpose of all adaptation instruments by Law 21.455 and the Paris Agreement. This limitation arises from the lack of metrics that could be comparatively assessed during each update cycle. Furthermore, the absence of indicators impedes prioritising measures based on cost-effectiveness criteria as stipulated in Law 21.455, Article 9.2.c.
2. Climate Scenarios
The PACC-RH fails to specify under which socioeconomic scenarios and global climate trajectories the climate hazards and risks for the water resources sector should be evaluated. This omission impedes the design of measures and actions that could coherently align to reduce these risks and enhance resilience. The extent to which climate change will impact hydrological systems, water availability, and water security depends significantly on whether we will remain within a relatively favourable scenario (within the 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels suggested as a limit by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or above the 2°C threshold established by the Paris Agreement, noting that evidence indicates exceeding the latter threshold is becoming increasingly probable). The adaptation measures required in these distinct scenarios would differ substantially, and the PACC-RH must address this variability. Furthermore, the plan does not establish time horizons for achieving targets that are compatible with the challenges posed by climate change scenarios in Chile, nor does it provide adequate territorial differentiation of measures, which is essential to account for the heterogeneous contexts in which they must be implemented across Chile’s diverse latitudes.
3. Specific Objectives
Plan objectives lack precision and explicit connection to LTCS goals, primarily because indicators that would translate LTCS water security goals into concrete objectives are absent.
4. Measures and Actions Description
The description of the 11 measures and 40 actions in the PACC-RH fails to specify implementation timeframes as required by Law 21.455 (Articles 9.2.c and 9.2.d). Generally, the descriptions are overly concise, lacking crucial elements such as funding mechanisms, supporting institutions, beneficiaries, and other essential components. This deficiency compromises their feasibility and limits the public consultation process’s ability to provide meaningful feedback regarding critical aspects of implementation. It is also noteworthy that there is an absence of robust measures aimed at ensuring water security in terms of water quality, not merely quantity, despite this being one of the mandates given to this instrument by Law 21.455
Recommendations
- Monitoring, reporting, and verification indicators
At both international and national levels, a substantial body of evidence and water security metrics can be referenced to complete this aspect of the PACC-RH. Considering this evidence, it is recommended to establish indicators that enable the measurement of various components of water security, combining different spatial scales (national, watershed, local, etc.). Furthermore, for these indicators to be functional in achieving the LTCS water security goals, as required by Law 21.455, these goals must be expressed in specific values that are measurable through said indicators. That is, it is insufficient to define an indicator and describe its temporal evolution merely; ranges of the indicator compatible with the LTCS water security goal must also be defined.
Some of the recommended indicators and ranges are (the complete list of proposed indicators can be found here):
- Water Stress Indicator (WSI): This reflects the degree of water stress at the watershed level based on water availability and usage, directly correlating with risks of experiencing water scarcity issues. To meet LTCS goals, it is suggested to maintain WSI levels at or below 40% for all watersheds in Chile’s National Water Bank (BNA) by 2050.
- Minimum Ecological Flow Indicator (MEFI): This establishes the minimum flows necessary to protect river ecosystems. The MEFI should account for seasonal variations in watercourses, as well as annual mean values. It is recommended to utilize the methodology established in Decree 71 for calculating ecological flow when granting surface water usage rights (National Congress, 2015), but adjusting the formulation parameters and eliminating the upper limit of 20% of mean annual flow.
- Groundwater Indicator (GWI): This accounts for variations in groundwater levels in observation wells across Chilean watersheds. Using California’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act as a reference, it is recommended to establish measures preventing: a) sustained and significant decline in groundwater levels, b) sustained reductions in aquifer storage volume, c) saltwater intrusion, d) land subsidence, e) decline in surface water bodies and courses connected to underground systems.
- Economic Access Indicator (EAI): This evaluates the population’s capacity to cover water access costs. The EAI should consider supply costs, technical expenses, and economic thresholds affecting water security, based on each household’s available income, size, water efficiency, and current tariffs. It should also include uses for basic needs such as consumption, hygiene, subsistence agriculture, and boiler heating.
- Water Quality Indicator (WQI): This accounts for water quality at representative points to ensure its safety and suitability for consumption. The WQI should consider both the presence of contaminants that may affect health and perceptual water characteristics such as color, odor, taste, and turbidity.
2. Climate Scenarios
It is recommended to select reference scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions and other global climate forcings and utilize a set of climate simulations to evaluate water availability according to each scenario. Based on these scenarios, risks to the water resources sector can be assessed—using indicators such as those proposed—and measures can be designed to reduce them within a timeframe defined by the PACC-RH. Changes in water availability and risk assessment based on the recommended indicators could complement the sector’s impact chains in the ARClim platform.
3. Specific Objectives of PACC-RH
It is recommended that the five specific objectives established in the PACC-RH be modified to ensure consistency with the LTCS goals and the proposed indicators for evaluating these goals. Additionally, it is proposed to include a specific objective focused on assessing and monitoring current and projected water security levels across all Chilean BNA watersheds following the goals established in the LTCS and monitoring indicators compatible with these goals.
4. Description of PACC-RH Measures and Actions
A comprehensive review of the PACC-RH is recommended to enhance the precision of its measures and actions and to ensure its legality and regulatory coherence within the existing legal framework.
Conclusions
The highlighted limitations hinder participation in the consultation process, as the draft fails to provide the public with all information required by regulations to make observations. This prevents a robust review of proposed measures and actions and contravenes transparency guidelines established in the Escazú Agreement, which Chile has signed and ratified.
If CR2’s observations and recommendations are adopted, particularly those related to indicators and their ranges compatible with water security and climate change scenarios to be considered, the CCAP-WR’s measures and actions should be updated to ensure consistency with these metrics and scenarios.
Detailed recommendations and conclusions can be found in this document.
¹Center for Climate and Resilience Science CR2. ²Department of Geophysics, University of Chile. ³Department of Rural Management and Innovation, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Chile