groundwater quantity and water use (Vlaamse overheid 2011). But a key missing
instrument seems to be the agreement regarding flows over the border with France
for the Scheldt river, and the lack of agreements regarding transboundary
groundwater bodies. There is also significant potential for ‘mainstreaming’ drought
into existing measures to make them serve multiple objectives. In particular, it
would seem that flood prevention infrastructure (often small-scale dams) can be
managed in a way that incorporates drought considerations. Otherwise, Flanders
shows quite a significant number of instruments in place, particularly for groundwater management. However, with VMM which is the only actor developing
measures, and with other stakeholders not having the issue of drought on their
agendas, there does not seem to be a positive extent to the responsibilities and
resources assigned. The level of involvement in planning is seen as insufficient by
some stakeholders, who regret that they are not consulted in the planning phase of
policy (measure selection and prioritization), but only when it comes to implementation questions.
7.4.2 Coherence
Coherence seems to be mildly supportive in the Flemish context, but this evaluation
is mainly dependent on the direction of further activities. Whereas there are as yet
not many actions that address droughts at the Flanders level, there seems to be a
‘culture of coordination’ within the authorities dealing with water topics, and other
existing frameworks seem to be geared towards coherence. At the Belgian level,
there are different coordination committees, but also institutional arrangements,
such as the CIW, which meet frequently. The coordination between different
authorities at the local level with district and province levels, seems to be both
intense and fruitful, and planning moves up and down levels, according to the size
of initiatives. The mentioned ‘culture of coordination’ shows that relevant actors
work well together. There are good and productive relationships in place, with
regular exchange. This is partly due to the long tradition of working together, that
some actors have with the Flemish region. The last few decades have also seen
great improvements in the dialogues with stakeholders traditionally less involved in
decision-making (e.g. nature organizations). However, some smaller actors are
more distant from the processes. At the lower levels, such as municipalities, the
awareness seems to be quite moderate and partially a possible mismatch of
objectives occurs.
Problem perspectives could be more coherent if knowledge-based approaches
for droughts, such as the DROP pilot, are used. The ORBP process for floods
showed that a solid common scientific basis can increase the coherence of perceptions. A need for a more integral vision on the water conditions of other sectors
was already mentioned. Some incoherencies seem to exist between the drinking
water companies (which provide lower water prices for large-volume consumers)
and the environmental objectives of VMM.
150
J. Tröltzsch et al.
instrument seems to be the agreement regarding flows over the border with France
for the Scheldt river, and the lack of agreements regarding transboundary
groundwater bodies. There is also significant potential for ‘mainstreaming’ drought
into existing measures to make them serve multiple objectives. In particular, it
would seem that flood prevention infrastructure (often small-scale dams) can be
managed in a way that incorporates drought considerations. Otherwise, Flanders
shows quite a significant number of instruments in place, particularly for groundwater management. However, with VMM which is the only actor developing
measures, and with other stakeholders not having the issue of drought on their
agendas, there does not seem to be a positive extent to the responsibilities and
resources assigned. The level of involvement in planning is seen as insufficient by
some stakeholders, who regret that they are not consulted in the planning phase of
policy (measure selection and prioritization), but only when it comes to implementation questions.
7.4.2 Coherence
Coherence seems to be mildly supportive in the Flemish context, but this evaluation
is mainly dependent on the direction of further activities. Whereas there are as yet
not many actions that address droughts at the Flanders level, there seems to be a
‘culture of coordination’ within the authorities dealing with water topics, and other
existing frameworks seem to be geared towards coherence. At the Belgian level,
there are different coordination committees, but also institutional arrangements,
such as the CIW, which meet frequently. The coordination between different
authorities at the local level with district and province levels, seems to be both
intense and fruitful, and planning moves up and down levels, according to the size
of initiatives. The mentioned ‘culture of coordination’ shows that relevant actors
work well together. There are good and productive relationships in place, with
regular exchange. This is partly due to the long tradition of working together, that
some actors have with the Flemish region. The last few decades have also seen
great improvements in the dialogues with stakeholders traditionally less involved in
decision-making (e.g. nature organizations). However, some smaller actors are
more distant from the processes. At the lower levels, such as municipalities, the
awareness seems to be quite moderate and partially a possible mismatch of
objectives occurs.
Problem perspectives could be more coherent if knowledge-based approaches
for droughts, such as the DROP pilot, are used. The ORBP process for floods
showed that a solid common scientific basis can increase the coherence of perceptions. A need for a more integral vision on the water conditions of other sectors
was already mentioned. Some incoherencies seem to exist between the drinking
water companies (which provide lower water prices for large-volume consumers)
and the environmental objectives of VMM.
150
J. Tröltzsch et al.