regulatory environment that requires this (see Sect. 5.2), and an example of how
actors are going beyond regulatory defined agendas to promote the issues across a
range of stakeholders. There is a strong intensity seen in the use of instruments and
measures, and a process of constant renewal of the plans for drought in the region.
Where the intensity of the issue decreases is in the sharing of resources associated
with the tasks of adaptation. It is likely that this disparity between the intensity of
problem definition and actual resources will only increase in the face of the
reduction of public funding under conditions of austerity of the current government.
These issues of problem definition for drought need to be seen in a complementary
way with that of flooding which is explored below in some more detail.
On the second visit after the floods these assessments were mostly ‘flattened’. By
this it is meant that the intensity with which certain levels or actors were pushing for
change and management reform specifically for the issue of drought and water
scarcity had been greatly decreased (and defined as neutral and static in Table 5.1).
Where it became particularly problematic was in the problem definition and goal
ambitions as a result of the experiences of the 2013/2014 drought. The catchment
management approaches being suggested as a form of flood mitigation and adaptation may potentially include drought measures in terms of the definition of
drought as a problem for the region. Even the ability of different actors and
stakeholders to define drought as a problem for the region became very awkward
politically and socially as a result of the floods.
Table (5.1) provides a summary of the final assessment of the governance
context for drought and water scarcity as a result of the two visits, and reflects the
change in direction for many of these criteria as a result of the 2013/2014 floods.
5.5 Conclusions: Planning for Adaptation in the Context
of Contested Material Water Histories
and Meta-Governance Failures Within the Broader
Water Sector
The case study of Somerset shows how the material water histories of a region—
and the ways in which these histories are governed through both emergency
management and longer term planning processes—shape the directions of flood and
drought adaptation. The Somerset case study is unique as it offers an opportunity to
explore in situ the political contestation that can occur around water management
and climate change adaptation, in particular, the siloing of policy areas, and the
fragmentation of adaptation activities this can create.
In part this has to do with the way that the flooding events of 2013/14 played out
in time. The Somerset flood event reflected a departure from the normal conceptualization of flooding as an extreme event, with a ‘blame game’ about the causes of
the flooding and the extent of the impacts being initiated against a number of key
governmental stakeholders (McEwen et al. 2014). Emergencies and extreme events
5 Governing for Drought and Water Scarcity …
101
actors are going beyond regulatory defined agendas to promote the issues across a
range of stakeholders. There is a strong intensity seen in the use of instruments and
measures, and a process of constant renewal of the plans for drought in the region.
Where the intensity of the issue decreases is in the sharing of resources associated
with the tasks of adaptation. It is likely that this disparity between the intensity of
problem definition and actual resources will only increase in the face of the
reduction of public funding under conditions of austerity of the current government.
These issues of problem definition for drought need to be seen in a complementary
way with that of flooding which is explored below in some more detail.
On the second visit after the floods these assessments were mostly ‘flattened’. By
this it is meant that the intensity with which certain levels or actors were pushing for
change and management reform specifically for the issue of drought and water
scarcity had been greatly decreased (and defined as neutral and static in Table 5.1).
Where it became particularly problematic was in the problem definition and goal
ambitions as a result of the experiences of the 2013/2014 drought. The catchment
management approaches being suggested as a form of flood mitigation and adaptation may potentially include drought measures in terms of the definition of
drought as a problem for the region. Even the ability of different actors and
stakeholders to define drought as a problem for the region became very awkward
politically and socially as a result of the floods.
Table (5.1) provides a summary of the final assessment of the governance
context for drought and water scarcity as a result of the two visits, and reflects the
change in direction for many of these criteria as a result of the 2013/2014 floods.
5.5 Conclusions: Planning for Adaptation in the Context
of Contested Material Water Histories
and Meta-Governance Failures Within the Broader
Water Sector
The case study of Somerset shows how the material water histories of a region—
and the ways in which these histories are governed through both emergency
management and longer term planning processes—shape the directions of flood and
drought adaptation. The Somerset case study is unique as it offers an opportunity to
explore in situ the political contestation that can occur around water management
and climate change adaptation, in particular, the siloing of policy areas, and the
fragmentation of adaptation activities this can create.
In part this has to do with the way that the flooding events of 2013/14 played out
in time. The Somerset flood event reflected a departure from the normal conceptualization of flooding as an extreme event, with a ‘blame game’ about the causes of
the flooding and the extent of the impacts being initiated against a number of key
governmental stakeholders (McEwen et al. 2014). Emergencies and extreme events
5 Governing for Drought and Water Scarcity …
101