success supports the coherence of actions relevant to water management at the
catchment scale.
Regarding the common perception of problems and goals ambitions, the very
positive consensus on water management can be assessed by the fact of general
acceptance, i.e. the acceptance, by all stakeholders representing the various water
uses, of the priority given to drinking water. The availability of water provided by
the dam supports this priority. However, the perception of the risk of drought and
the potential impacts on freshwater availability is almost absent for the majority of
stakeholders. This can be explained by the more frequent flooding issues in the
area, which was, in particular, observed during the period of interviews in connection with the floods that occurred in Brittany early in 2014.
As there is no comprehensive information about the quantity of water withdrawn
by all water users, water managers are not really able to implement a truly coherent
policy by soliciting coherent strategy and instruments. Moreover, the SAGE is a
compromise between stakeholders, and some of them are more organized than
others. As a result, some interests are taken into account more than others, especially those related to the drinking water supply. Furthermore, despite the work
being conducted to integrate agricultural regulation in the WFD, agricultural policy
is still declared by local stakeholders to be too thoroughly disconnected from the
other instruments in the catchment due to the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy),
which is decided at the European level and is not linked directly with water policy
at the local level. A coherent implementation of strategy and instruments is, thus,
hard to find for water management as a whole in the area and even harder for
drought management.
The responsibilities of each actor with regard to the WFD are not obvious. Most
actors think that the responsibility lies mainly in the hands of the State services as
represented by the Water Agency. Most water users are not considering the link
between their activities and water resource management. In fact, the LWC’s responsibility is to be a decision-making authority, but it has neither the financial nor
the technical means to implement decisions, so it has no resources to implement
the plan of actions proposed. At the scale of the Arzal dam and its reservoir, the
financial and technical aspects are provided by the IAV. At a more local level, we
observe that some municipalities do not have the means to finance 20 % of the
budget for the implementation of local projects related to water even if the subsidies, as those coming from the Water Agency, cover the remaining 80 %.
6.4.3 Flexibility: Limited by the Emergence of Multiple
Structures Partly Compensated by the Number
of Instruments
Most decisions about water management are made at the scale of the catchment and
sub-catchment areas due to the decentralization of the role of the State. This
6 The Governance Context of Drought Policy and Pilot Measures …
127
catchment scale.
Regarding the common perception of problems and goals ambitions, the very
positive consensus on water management can be assessed by the fact of general
acceptance, i.e. the acceptance, by all stakeholders representing the various water
uses, of the priority given to drinking water. The availability of water provided by
the dam supports this priority. However, the perception of the risk of drought and
the potential impacts on freshwater availability is almost absent for the majority of
stakeholders. This can be explained by the more frequent flooding issues in the
area, which was, in particular, observed during the period of interviews in connection with the floods that occurred in Brittany early in 2014.
As there is no comprehensive information about the quantity of water withdrawn
by all water users, water managers are not really able to implement a truly coherent
policy by soliciting coherent strategy and instruments. Moreover, the SAGE is a
compromise between stakeholders, and some of them are more organized than
others. As a result, some interests are taken into account more than others, especially those related to the drinking water supply. Furthermore, despite the work
being conducted to integrate agricultural regulation in the WFD, agricultural policy
is still declared by local stakeholders to be too thoroughly disconnected from the
other instruments in the catchment due to the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy),
which is decided at the European level and is not linked directly with water policy
at the local level. A coherent implementation of strategy and instruments is, thus,
hard to find for water management as a whole in the area and even harder for
drought management.
The responsibilities of each actor with regard to the WFD are not obvious. Most
actors think that the responsibility lies mainly in the hands of the State services as
represented by the Water Agency. Most water users are not considering the link
between their activities and water resource management. In fact, the LWC’s responsibility is to be a decision-making authority, but it has neither the financial nor
the technical means to implement decisions, so it has no resources to implement
the plan of actions proposed. At the scale of the Arzal dam and its reservoir, the
financial and technical aspects are provided by the IAV. At a more local level, we
observe that some municipalities do not have the means to finance 20 % of the
budget for the implementation of local projects related to water even if the subsidies, as those coming from the Water Agency, cover the remaining 80 %.
6.4.3 Flexibility: Limited by the Emergence of Multiple
Structures Partly Compensated by the Number
of Instruments
Most decisions about water management are made at the scale of the catchment and
sub-catchment areas due to the decentralization of the role of the State. This
6 The Governance Context of Drought Policy and Pilot Measures …
127