seen to be highly political and highly insensitive to the lived experiences of flooding
recovery (Medd et al. 2014). After all, water is materially and socially a highly
emotive subject—whether through its overabundance, its lack, or when polluted
(Sultana 2011). As can be seen in the Somerset case, the use, control and conflicts
around water shape peoples everyday experiences with water (Sultana 2011). Water
in complex landscapes such as Somerset have substantial emotive aspects, as discussion of its control and use intersects with experiences of place, livelihoods, and
social, economic, political and environmental futures. It is these futures that are
directly being intervened with in both longer term planning (such as water resource
management plans, drought plans), and emergency management and policies that
emerge during and after periods of crisis. Whittle et al. (2012) have captured
strongly the emotional work that occurs simultaneously to the practical work in
restoring built and natural environments after a flooding event. Clearly then the
discussion of the future of water scarcity for an area such as Somerset at a time
when the whole region is concentrating on recovering from a period of water
abundance is an emotive and contested conversation. Nonetheless, it is a fundamentally important one.
Despite these restrictions in this broader governance system, the pilot measures
initiated by a number of stakeholders in the Somerset region (cp. Sect. 5.3)
demonstrate a positive example of the sorts of water management activities that can
bridge across the policy silos of flood and drought even in a period of ‘disaster
recovery’. Far from just satisfying certain WFD requirements for participation and
catchment management, these initiatives reflect concrete attempts to change the
experiences of stakeholders and engagements with the breadth of water management issues facing their region now and into the future. These are highly politicised
and emotive processes—they tap into conversations about ‘what the Somerset
Levels and Moors are for’; highlighting conflicts between protection of people,
agriculture and nature; and arguably reflect the ongoing entrenchment of neoliberal
and meta-governance failures in relations to drought and water scarcity across
England (Walker 2014). As Clout (2014) reflects, such conversations about the
purpose of the Levels—whether to maintain agriculture or support nature conservation—are not new and they have probably been happening since the middle ages,
when the area was first drained and developed.
Within this project and chapter, we can neither prescribe what the future of the
Levels should be or what activities need to take place in order to continue opening up
conversations about ways to bridge silos within water management activities within
the region. However, we do call on leaders and stakeholders in the Somerset region to
continue collaborative processes of water governance across the widest possible range
of stakeholders. This will ensure that a diversity of views from these stakeholders are
catalogued, when adaptation policies are developed across water policy domains.
Hopefully, in this way broader meta-governance failures—which often entrench siloed
104
A.L. Browne et al.
recovery (Medd et al. 2014). After all, water is materially and socially a highly
emotive subject—whether through its overabundance, its lack, or when polluted
(Sultana 2011). As can be seen in the Somerset case, the use, control and conflicts
around water shape peoples everyday experiences with water (Sultana 2011). Water
in complex landscapes such as Somerset have substantial emotive aspects, as discussion of its control and use intersects with experiences of place, livelihoods, and
social, economic, political and environmental futures. It is these futures that are
directly being intervened with in both longer term planning (such as water resource
management plans, drought plans), and emergency management and policies that
emerge during and after periods of crisis. Whittle et al. (2012) have captured
strongly the emotional work that occurs simultaneously to the practical work in
restoring built and natural environments after a flooding event. Clearly then the
discussion of the future of water scarcity for an area such as Somerset at a time
when the whole region is concentrating on recovering from a period of water
abundance is an emotive and contested conversation. Nonetheless, it is a fundamentally important one.
Despite these restrictions in this broader governance system, the pilot measures
initiated by a number of stakeholders in the Somerset region (cp. Sect. 5.3)
demonstrate a positive example of the sorts of water management activities that can
bridge across the policy silos of flood and drought even in a period of ‘disaster
recovery’. Far from just satisfying certain WFD requirements for participation and
catchment management, these initiatives reflect concrete attempts to change the
experiences of stakeholders and engagements with the breadth of water management issues facing their region now and into the future. These are highly politicised
and emotive processes—they tap into conversations about ‘what the Somerset
Levels and Moors are for’; highlighting conflicts between protection of people,
agriculture and nature; and arguably reflect the ongoing entrenchment of neoliberal
and meta-governance failures in relations to drought and water scarcity across
England (Walker 2014). As Clout (2014) reflects, such conversations about the
purpose of the Levels—whether to maintain agriculture or support nature conservation—are not new and they have probably been happening since the middle ages,
when the area was first drained and developed.
Within this project and chapter, we can neither prescribe what the future of the
Levels should be or what activities need to take place in order to continue opening up
conversations about ways to bridge silos within water management activities within
the region. However, we do call on leaders and stakeholders in the Somerset region to
continue collaborative processes of water governance across the widest possible range
of stakeholders. This will ensure that a diversity of views from these stakeholders are
catalogued, when adaptation policies are developed across water policy domains.
Hopefully, in this way broader meta-governance failures—which often entrench siloed
104
A.L. Browne et al.