Regarding actors and networks, users and managers have shown mutual trust
thanks to frequent formal and informal meetings driven by IAV for discussing
shared issues. There is also a strong awareness of the decision-making processes in
water management. None of the interviewed actors expressed the feeling of being
excluded from any decision-making process. IAV has thus built a strong network,
involving the most relevant actors within the territory, and has become an institution with remarkable political involvement and influence. However, concerning
drought management, we can observe that there is no network of actors specifically
dedicated to address drought management at any scale except for crisis management at the national level, as mentioned earlier.
The LWC and the SAGE enable any issues related to water management to be
addressed. As a result, the problem perceptions and goal ambitions can potentially have a broad extent provided that all issues are addressed. However, this is not
yet the case. Before the DROP project, for instance, the impacts of climate change
on drought frequency and intensity had never been considered a topic to be discussed by the LWC. In fact, drought is not a hazard mentioned frequently in
discussions related to water management. Several considerations can explain this
observation. First, the area is a wet region and, even though it has seen severe
drought events in the past, they remain rare. Additionally, the several dams that
exist along the Vilaine River, including the Arzal dam located at the outlet of the
catchment, are already seen as infrastructures that tackle the problems of water
scarcity. This is observed even though some eastern parts of the catchment, which
are more concerned by intensive agriculture practices, are already experiencing
water scarcity. Moreover, drinking water is the central issue for the manager of the
Arzal dam. The perceptions of the impacts of climate change and its consequences
on the frequency and severity of drought events are still largely relegated to the
State administration at the national scale, and, locally, are mainly oriented towards
crisis management.
The main instruments for regulating water use are integrated in the SAGE
Vilaine with a general strategy concerning regulations, incentives and communication. However, and this is the case for all the country, even during drought
periods, the price of drinking water cannot be considered an economic adjustment
tool. This is because the national legislation in France (“drinking water pays for
drinking water”) imposes an independent budget. The price of water is fixed and
indexed to the cost of its management. It cannot be used as a regulation instrument
in situations of water scarcity. For drought concerns specifically, one can state that
there is a restricted extension related to strategy and instruments. This can be
explained by the drought adaptation strategy developed nationally. Since the frequency of drought events is not high in the Vilaine catchment, it is not classified as
a quantitative ‘water sensitive area’, as mentioned earlier. For this reason, this area
is considered not to require enhanced protection against drought and water scarcity.
This national context does not encourage measures to anticipate drought induced by
climate change. This particularly affects wet regions, where drought awareness is
usually very low. In the context of the DROP project, it must be highlighted that
IAV seeks solutions for drought adaptation (see Sect. 6.3.1), namely, by
6 The Governance Context of Drought Policy and Pilot Measures …
125
thanks to frequent formal and informal meetings driven by IAV for discussing
shared issues. There is also a strong awareness of the decision-making processes in
water management. None of the interviewed actors expressed the feeling of being
excluded from any decision-making process. IAV has thus built a strong network,
involving the most relevant actors within the territory, and has become an institution with remarkable political involvement and influence. However, concerning
drought management, we can observe that there is no network of actors specifically
dedicated to address drought management at any scale except for crisis management at the national level, as mentioned earlier.
The LWC and the SAGE enable any issues related to water management to be
addressed. As a result, the problem perceptions and goal ambitions can potentially have a broad extent provided that all issues are addressed. However, this is not
yet the case. Before the DROP project, for instance, the impacts of climate change
on drought frequency and intensity had never been considered a topic to be discussed by the LWC. In fact, drought is not a hazard mentioned frequently in
discussions related to water management. Several considerations can explain this
observation. First, the area is a wet region and, even though it has seen severe
drought events in the past, they remain rare. Additionally, the several dams that
exist along the Vilaine River, including the Arzal dam located at the outlet of the
catchment, are already seen as infrastructures that tackle the problems of water
scarcity. This is observed even though some eastern parts of the catchment, which
are more concerned by intensive agriculture practices, are already experiencing
water scarcity. Moreover, drinking water is the central issue for the manager of the
Arzal dam. The perceptions of the impacts of climate change and its consequences
on the frequency and severity of drought events are still largely relegated to the
State administration at the national scale, and, locally, are mainly oriented towards
crisis management.
The main instruments for regulating water use are integrated in the SAGE
Vilaine with a general strategy concerning regulations, incentives and communication. However, and this is the case for all the country, even during drought
periods, the price of drinking water cannot be considered an economic adjustment
tool. This is because the national legislation in France (“drinking water pays for
drinking water”) imposes an independent budget. The price of water is fixed and
indexed to the cost of its management. It cannot be used as a regulation instrument
in situations of water scarcity. For drought concerns specifically, one can state that
there is a restricted extension related to strategy and instruments. This can be
explained by the drought adaptation strategy developed nationally. Since the frequency of drought events is not high in the Vilaine catchment, it is not classified as
a quantitative ‘water sensitive area’, as mentioned earlier. For this reason, this area
is considered not to require enhanced protection against drought and water scarcity.
This national context does not encourage measures to anticipate drought induced by
climate change. This particularly affects wet regions, where drought awareness is
usually very low. In the context of the DROP project, it must be highlighted that
IAV seeks solutions for drought adaptation (see Sect. 6.3.1), namely, by
6 The Governance Context of Drought Policy and Pilot Measures …
125