communities and municipalities, as well as strong interactions between different
actors and networks. The fact that the national (Belgian) level is receding to mainly
a coordinating role is not considered to be a problem. The Flemish level is the key
agent in generating initiatives and policy. However, there is a negative trend in
which municipalities seem to be disengaging from water management responsibilities, for instance in their handing over responsibilities for “type 3” (small)
watercourses to the provinces. This could mean that municipalities end up ‘out of
the loop’ regarding, for example, water quality and nature protection, and thus may
be unaware of opportunities for synergies related to water management, such as
drought preparedness. This is problematic as they keep the responsibility for flood
measures, and measures to dovetail drought prevention while addressing flood, may
not be incorporated as they could. This is also relevant when considering that
groundwater permits are given by towns and municipalities. This being said,
interviewed stakeholders tended not to see this change as a problem.
Specifically in drought terms, extent is more limited, as initiatives are restricted
to the higher levels, i.e. policy visions and planning initiatives for Flanders. The fact
that recent European directives such as the Floods Directive, have a broader perspective which includes social and ecological criteria, has recently expanded the
extent of actors and networks involved in water policy. The commitment to
intersectoral involvement can be seen in the CIW, which includes leading officials
of agriculture, nature and planning. However, involvement of stakeholders and the
public in Flemish water planning is seen by many interviewees as closer to pro
forma than to the aim of shaping environmental actions. Interviewees highlighted
that they are not involved in the planning phase of policy, such as in the selection
and prioritization of measures to be implemented, but only in the implementation
phase itself. The wish to be involved earlier in the planning process was expressed
clearly by several stakeholders. In addition, the lower level is not always actively
participating in these processes, e.g. polders and wateringen, which are public
authorities responsible for water resources management in the polder areas.
In general, drought is not yet an issue compared to the perception of flooding
impacts for the region. The awareness of water scarcity and drought problems is
very low for some stakeholders. Drought resilience, as a topic, is weakly developed
in current constellations of problems and goals defined by stakeholders in the
region. Various problem perspectives, e.g. from farmers, nature organizations,
drinking water availability, are being taken into account in discussions, but there is
as yet not much work on prioritization of drought and water scarcity as an issue.
In terms of instruments, different instruments are already implemented, such as
groundwater taxes for business users (handpumps and households not included),
groundwater permits, and restrictions for water extraction. Furthermore, important
strategies integrate water scarcity and water demand, e.g. the ‘Flemish vision on
water policy’ from 2005 to 2013 includes the sustainable use of water, and states
that it is necessary to deal coherently with water shortage (CIW 2005, 2013). It has
been agreed that the second River Basin Management Plans (due in 2015) should
also include measures for water scarcity and droughts. In addition, the
Environmental Policy Plan 2011–2015 ‘MINA-Plan 4’ mentions as objective:
7 Flanders: Regional Organization of Water and Drought …
149
actors and networks. The fact that the national (Belgian) level is receding to mainly
a coordinating role is not considered to be a problem. The Flemish level is the key
agent in generating initiatives and policy. However, there is a negative trend in
which municipalities seem to be disengaging from water management responsibilities, for instance in their handing over responsibilities for “type 3” (small)
watercourses to the provinces. This could mean that municipalities end up ‘out of
the loop’ regarding, for example, water quality and nature protection, and thus may
be unaware of opportunities for synergies related to water management, such as
drought preparedness. This is problematic as they keep the responsibility for flood
measures, and measures to dovetail drought prevention while addressing flood, may
not be incorporated as they could. This is also relevant when considering that
groundwater permits are given by towns and municipalities. This being said,
interviewed stakeholders tended not to see this change as a problem.
Specifically in drought terms, extent is more limited, as initiatives are restricted
to the higher levels, i.e. policy visions and planning initiatives for Flanders. The fact
that recent European directives such as the Floods Directive, have a broader perspective which includes social and ecological criteria, has recently expanded the
extent of actors and networks involved in water policy. The commitment to
intersectoral involvement can be seen in the CIW, which includes leading officials
of agriculture, nature and planning. However, involvement of stakeholders and the
public in Flemish water planning is seen by many interviewees as closer to pro
forma than to the aim of shaping environmental actions. Interviewees highlighted
that they are not involved in the planning phase of policy, such as in the selection
and prioritization of measures to be implemented, but only in the implementation
phase itself. The wish to be involved earlier in the planning process was expressed
clearly by several stakeholders. In addition, the lower level is not always actively
participating in these processes, e.g. polders and wateringen, which are public
authorities responsible for water resources management in the polder areas.
In general, drought is not yet an issue compared to the perception of flooding
impacts for the region. The awareness of water scarcity and drought problems is
very low for some stakeholders. Drought resilience, as a topic, is weakly developed
in current constellations of problems and goals defined by stakeholders in the
region. Various problem perspectives, e.g. from farmers, nature organizations,
drinking water availability, are being taken into account in discussions, but there is
as yet not much work on prioritization of drought and water scarcity as an issue.
In terms of instruments, different instruments are already implemented, such as
groundwater taxes for business users (handpumps and households not included),
groundwater permits, and restrictions for water extraction. Furthermore, important
strategies integrate water scarcity and water demand, e.g. the ‘Flemish vision on
water policy’ from 2005 to 2013 includes the sustainable use of water, and states
that it is necessary to deal coherently with water shortage (CIW 2005, 2013). It has
been agreed that the second River Basin Management Plans (due in 2015) should
also include measures for water scarcity and droughts. In addition, the
Environmental Policy Plan 2011–2015 ‘MINA-Plan 4’ mentions as objective:
7 Flanders: Regional Organization of Water and Drought …
149