Search

• Incoherent resource regimes are drivers for polycentric governance. • Polycentric governance can compensate for regime incoherence. • Polycentric governance can improve the coordination of resource uses. • Combining IRR and polycentric governance allows to analyze co-evolving resource regimes and governance processes. Incoherent institutional regimes are among the most critical barriers to adapt water governance under climate change. However, it remains unclear how different governance processes can coordinate competing resource uses despite incoherence of institutional resource regimes. This paper examines how institutional resource regimes and polycentric governance processes are co-evolving and to what extent these processes coordinate competing resource uses in incoherent resource regimes. Empirically, we performed an embedded case study of the institutional resource regime and governance processes of three water reservoir projects with contrasting outcomes in the region of Oberhasli in the canton of Berne, Switzerland, covering a timeframe starting from the early 20th century. Data were collected through 21 semi-structured interviews, document analysis, participatory observation, and transect walks. Analytically, we demonstrate how the combination of the Institutional Resource Regime and polycentric governance frameworks provides an opportunity to analyze co-evolving resource regimes and governance processes. The results show that the institutional resource regime has become increasingly incoherent over the past decades, but the evolution of polycentric processes to govern competing water uses compensated for regime incoherence. Polycentric governance improved the coordination of water uses, if mutual adjustment, trust and activation of overarching rules between actors with similar and opposing interests were present. We conclude that institutional regime incoherence may constitute a critical barrier to climate change adaptation, but polycentric governance processes may alleviate critical challenges arising from regime incoherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Well-being impacts of certification schemes need to be compared with alternative private governance strategies. • Inclusive business and solidarity economy constitute two contrasting private governance strategies. • Paper presents an exploratory comparative analysis of four cases from the cacao sectors of Peru and Switzerland. • Value chain actors combine elements of certification, solidarity economy, and inclusive business into portfolios of instruments. • These instruments may address some barriers of certification, but come with own risks and limitations. Certification of sustainability standards is an important governance strategy aimed at enhancing the human well-being outcomes of agri-food value chains. While the impacts of certification on well-being are positive for some farmers under certain conditions, they are insignificant or adverse for others. Many barriers can impede positive impacts of certification on well-being. Alternative or complementary strategies such as inclusive business and solidarity economy may challenge these barriers. However, since certification, inclusive business and solidarity economy strategies are studied in isolation, their precise similarities and differences, their interplay and their relative efficacy and limitations remain elusive. Therefore, this paper explores to what extent and how inclusive business and solidarity economy strategies may overcome the persistent governance and economic barriers that limit well-being impacts of certification. We explore four purposively selected cases of inclusive business and solidarity economy strategies from the cacao value chains connecting Peru and Switzerland. Results show that value chain actors combine different specific elements of the three strategies (certification, inclusiveness and solidarity) into portfolios of instruments, which reflect their value chain role and organizational missions. These instrument portfolios may address some of the barriers of certification schemes, but they come with their own challenges and limitations. We conclude that promising future research may use comparative research designs to disentangle specific instruments of inclusiveness, solidarity, and certification; to build typologies of instrument portfolios; to understand their interaction with systemic change in markets and land-use systems; and to specify the conditions under which value chain actors can use specific instruments to improve well-being outcomes of agri-food value chains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]