situation can lead to a lack of consistency among the different services. In general,
the State lacks the flexibility to better coordinate crosscutting issues. The current
structures managed by the State work with a top-down approach. The two different
speeds of operation and decision-making, the speed of the State and the speed of the
LWC, represent a cogent reality for the LWC. The meetings held by the LWC are
very pragmatic and achieve high goals in terms of water management, while State
services struggle to advance equally rapidly and anticipate the coordination needs
of stakeholders. At the catchment level, the LWC makes substantial efforts to
integrate the different levels and scales of decision-making.
Actors and networks are all represented in the LWC, and there is real flexibility
at the catchment level to allow the creation of committees devoted to special areas
and topics. However, there is currently no committee for drought management and
adaptation issues. Moreover, it appears that the priority given to drinking water is
not flexible, as the quantity of water dedicated to this use needs legally to be
delivered by IAV.
For the Arzal dam, there is little flexibility of problem perceptions and goal
ambitions because of the importance given to the drinking water service. However,
at the level of the catchment scale, the interconnection between the various drinking
water networks allows some flexibility in water management even if it may not be
sustainable on a long-term basis. Considering drought management because this is
an issue that is not easily addressed by most of the actors, we can state the
hypothesis that there is little flexibility in problem perceptions and goal ambitions
related to drought.
At the local scale, there is a certain flexibility in adapting strategy and
instruments. A concrete example is the change of the name of the Natura 2000
Commission initiated by the Mayors of the municipalities of the Vilaine catchment:
they changed its name to “Vivre les marais” (“Living the marshes”) as a way to
gain more local support for the initiative. Additionally, “regional doctrine” for
irrigation has been stated in the SAGE for the eastern areas of the Vilaine catchment, which are more vulnerable to low flows, under which the financing of water
reservoirs is allowed only if there is no impact on the river flow during low-flow
periods. This creation of new instruments seems, in fact, to be more flexible than
the national policy. However, drought is not yet integrated into most of the existing
instruments. Drought issues still rely on crisis management and not on anticipatory
measures. However, given the impacts of low flows and drought periods on the
various water uses of the Arzal reservoir, and considering the two pilot measures
being developed by IAV, the flexibility of the multi-use reservoir is expected to be
enhanced by decreasing the impact on water quality of the passage of the lock by
boats and improving low-flow risk management. These measures would also imply
a more favourable adjustment of the level of water in the dam for the wetlands
during the dry periods.
The decentralization of responsibilities is currently an important issue in France
due to a new governing body for the management of aquatic environments and
flood prevention (GEMAPI), which will be transferred to local governments. Its
creation is interpreted differently according to actors for the impact on
128
I. La Jeunesse et al.
the State lacks the flexibility to better coordinate crosscutting issues. The current
structures managed by the State work with a top-down approach. The two different
speeds of operation and decision-making, the speed of the State and the speed of the
LWC, represent a cogent reality for the LWC. The meetings held by the LWC are
very pragmatic and achieve high goals in terms of water management, while State
services struggle to advance equally rapidly and anticipate the coordination needs
of stakeholders. At the catchment level, the LWC makes substantial efforts to
integrate the different levels and scales of decision-making.
Actors and networks are all represented in the LWC, and there is real flexibility
at the catchment level to allow the creation of committees devoted to special areas
and topics. However, there is currently no committee for drought management and
adaptation issues. Moreover, it appears that the priority given to drinking water is
not flexible, as the quantity of water dedicated to this use needs legally to be
delivered by IAV.
For the Arzal dam, there is little flexibility of problem perceptions and goal
ambitions because of the importance given to the drinking water service. However,
at the level of the catchment scale, the interconnection between the various drinking
water networks allows some flexibility in water management even if it may not be
sustainable on a long-term basis. Considering drought management because this is
an issue that is not easily addressed by most of the actors, we can state the
hypothesis that there is little flexibility in problem perceptions and goal ambitions
related to drought.
At the local scale, there is a certain flexibility in adapting strategy and
instruments. A concrete example is the change of the name of the Natura 2000
Commission initiated by the Mayors of the municipalities of the Vilaine catchment:
they changed its name to “Vivre les marais” (“Living the marshes”) as a way to
gain more local support for the initiative. Additionally, “regional doctrine” for
irrigation has been stated in the SAGE for the eastern areas of the Vilaine catchment, which are more vulnerable to low flows, under which the financing of water
reservoirs is allowed only if there is no impact on the river flow during low-flow
periods. This creation of new instruments seems, in fact, to be more flexible than
the national policy. However, drought is not yet integrated into most of the existing
instruments. Drought issues still rely on crisis management and not on anticipatory
measures. However, given the impacts of low flows and drought periods on the
various water uses of the Arzal reservoir, and considering the two pilot measures
being developed by IAV, the flexibility of the multi-use reservoir is expected to be
enhanced by decreasing the impact on water quality of the passage of the lock by
boats and improving low-flow risk management. These measures would also imply
a more favourable adjustment of the level of water in the dam for the wetlands
during the dry periods.
The decentralization of responsibilities is currently an important issue in France
due to a new governing body for the management of aquatic environments and
flood prevention (GEMAPI), which will be transferred to local governments. Its
creation is interpreted differently according to actors for the impact on
128
I. La Jeunesse et al.