regards to the measures, strategies and instruments to deal with drought and water
scarcity in the region. The sorts of approaches being suggested for flood recovery
and resilience (e.g. in the Flood Action Plan) for example, could potentially include
strategies that are also positive for drought resilience, yet the extent to which these
perspectives are combined is unknown. The responsibilities and resources for
coherent drought and water scarcity governance were also seen to be more
restrictive and decreasing as a result of the attention being pulled towards the
‘primary’ issue of flooding in the region. Stakeholders’ responsibilities and
resources were being pulled towards this issue, rather than there being explicit
policy development to support greater coherence between flooding and drought
policy and action.
5.4.3 Flexibility
Third, in regards to flexibility a positive assessment was made of different actors
and networks that were involved in drought adaptation in various ways. However,
the flood experiences were observed to have eroded some of the legitimacy of the
actors in the region (such as the EA). This assessment therefore moved from a
positive sense of flexibility related to multiple actors involved to achieve drought
resilience and adaptation, to one that was slightly more restrictive. Despite this there
is still a fairly clear institutionally defined approach to the problem of drought
management, and there is some flexibility within the goals (see Environment
Agency 2015a). Some actors, however, suggested that there was a lack of clarity in
the way problems were defined and goals were set, as well as how they are
implemented into particular strategies and instruments for drought adaptation
(discussed in part in Sect. 5.2).
For example, the definition of the problem of climate change adaptation as flood
recovery and mitigation diminished the legitimacy with which lead actors could talk
to other actors about drought and water scarcity management (e.g. the county
council talking to farmers or citizens, the EA engaging stakeholders in continuous
talk about drought in the context of flooding recovery). Therefore, framing climate
change adaptation as recovery and mitigation from flooding reduced the flexibility
with which actors could take the lead in pushing forward a water scarcity and
drought adaptation agenda in the region in the period of flood recovery. The
governance assessment made in 2013, however—reflecting on the period of
drought experience in 2012—did reveal that the lead strongly sits with a range of
actors when dealing with drought management policy and processes (if there is an
actual drought). The process of trigger points and responsibilities is clearly defined.
However, there was one criticism that such a defined approach for what happens
during a drought can lead to an inflexibility at a local level of the plans. The recent
drought in 2012 provides some interesting examples of the lead shifting between
actors for pragmatic and strategic reasons, particularly related to the communication
of drought. This has been further clarified in the 2015 national drought framework.
5 Governing for Drought and Water Scarcity …
99
scarcity in the region. The sorts of approaches being suggested for flood recovery
and resilience (e.g. in the Flood Action Plan) for example, could potentially include
strategies that are also positive for drought resilience, yet the extent to which these
perspectives are combined is unknown. The responsibilities and resources for
coherent drought and water scarcity governance were also seen to be more
restrictive and decreasing as a result of the attention being pulled towards the
‘primary’ issue of flooding in the region. Stakeholders’ responsibilities and
resources were being pulled towards this issue, rather than there being explicit
policy development to support greater coherence between flooding and drought
policy and action.
5.4.3 Flexibility
Third, in regards to flexibility a positive assessment was made of different actors
and networks that were involved in drought adaptation in various ways. However,
the flood experiences were observed to have eroded some of the legitimacy of the
actors in the region (such as the EA). This assessment therefore moved from a
positive sense of flexibility related to multiple actors involved to achieve drought
resilience and adaptation, to one that was slightly more restrictive. Despite this there
is still a fairly clear institutionally defined approach to the problem of drought
management, and there is some flexibility within the goals (see Environment
Agency 2015a). Some actors, however, suggested that there was a lack of clarity in
the way problems were defined and goals were set, as well as how they are
implemented into particular strategies and instruments for drought adaptation
(discussed in part in Sect. 5.2).
For example, the definition of the problem of climate change adaptation as flood
recovery and mitigation diminished the legitimacy with which lead actors could talk
to other actors about drought and water scarcity management (e.g. the county
council talking to farmers or citizens, the EA engaging stakeholders in continuous
talk about drought in the context of flooding recovery). Therefore, framing climate
change adaptation as recovery and mitigation from flooding reduced the flexibility
with which actors could take the lead in pushing forward a water scarcity and
drought adaptation agenda in the region in the period of flood recovery. The
governance assessment made in 2013, however—reflecting on the period of
drought experience in 2012—did reveal that the lead strongly sits with a range of
actors when dealing with drought management policy and processes (if there is an
actual drought). The process of trigger points and responsibilities is clearly defined.
However, there was one criticism that such a defined approach for what happens
during a drought can lead to an inflexibility at a local level of the plans. The recent
drought in 2012 provides some interesting examples of the lead shifting between
actors for pragmatic and strategic reasons, particularly related to the communication
of drought. This has been further clarified in the 2015 national drought framework.
5 Governing for Drought and Water Scarcity …
99