At the moment, goals are not at the stage of being discussed within policy
processes, and therefore very far from being operational. Currently, the emphasis is
still on building up a knowledge base. Willingness to find flexible solutions can be
noticed, and water managers do meet and develop solutions, when necessary. This
flexibility is also the result of not really having any formal mechanisms in place.
An element, conducive to flexibility, is the scenario-based planning approach.
Furthermore, several instruments show aspects of flexibility. The short-term permits
for groundwater in problem areas, with continuous search for surface water alternatives, show high degree of flexibility in the design and implementation of measures. Furthermore, the drinking water plans for increasing infrastructure
interconnectivity show a tendency towards increased flexibility, as does the
drinking water companies’ recognizing the need for additional buffering capacity.
The scientific approach used for the development and implementation of flood
measures, was driven by VMM. The stakeholders were presented with suitable
measures, which had already been derived by VMM. In our interviews, some
stakeholders criticized their involvement as being too late (e.g. not participating in
measure selection) and mentioned that the acceptance of the measures is not always
high. Therefore, the flexibility of the approach seems to be limited because the
selection and adjustment of measures by stakeholders and implementers are not a
main focus.
Because there is no assigned budget for droughts, the resources have to come
from different related resources, such as nature and biodiversity; these include
certain flexibility. Synergies occurring with a combination of drought and flooding
are yet not taken into account.
7.4.4 Intensity
As in the other DROP case study areas in Northwest Europe, by far the relatively
weakest point of the governance context for drought resilience policies and measures is its intensity.
The EU level, which has been fundamental in providing impulse to change in
water management in Flanders, is only starting to develop relevant actions for water
scarcity and droughts. There is some movement at the Flanders level, with droughts
being incorporated as an issue into recent policy vision documents, but this has yet
to be translated into actions. At the moment, the Flemish region carries the
responsibility more or less single-handedly to bring in drought aspects into water
planning, which makes activities dependent on this governance level.
VMM is keen to develop some of these actions and is the main driver behind
initiatives to tackle drought—the DROP project being one of them. Although there
is recognition of the importance and desirability of addressing droughts, at the
moment no other actors really have this topic on their agenda or are driving it.
There is only one actor driving change, and the establishment and implementation
of strategies and instruments is very dependent of the Flemish regional level. At the
152
J. Tröltzsch et al.
processes, and therefore very far from being operational. Currently, the emphasis is
still on building up a knowledge base. Willingness to find flexible solutions can be
noticed, and water managers do meet and develop solutions, when necessary. This
flexibility is also the result of not really having any formal mechanisms in place.
An element, conducive to flexibility, is the scenario-based planning approach.
Furthermore, several instruments show aspects of flexibility. The short-term permits
for groundwater in problem areas, with continuous search for surface water alternatives, show high degree of flexibility in the design and implementation of measures. Furthermore, the drinking water plans for increasing infrastructure
interconnectivity show a tendency towards increased flexibility, as does the
drinking water companies’ recognizing the need for additional buffering capacity.
The scientific approach used for the development and implementation of flood
measures, was driven by VMM. The stakeholders were presented with suitable
measures, which had already been derived by VMM. In our interviews, some
stakeholders criticized their involvement as being too late (e.g. not participating in
measure selection) and mentioned that the acceptance of the measures is not always
high. Therefore, the flexibility of the approach seems to be limited because the
selection and adjustment of measures by stakeholders and implementers are not a
main focus.
Because there is no assigned budget for droughts, the resources have to come
from different related resources, such as nature and biodiversity; these include
certain flexibility. Synergies occurring with a combination of drought and flooding
are yet not taken into account.
7.4.4 Intensity
As in the other DROP case study areas in Northwest Europe, by far the relatively
weakest point of the governance context for drought resilience policies and measures is its intensity.
The EU level, which has been fundamental in providing impulse to change in
water management in Flanders, is only starting to develop relevant actions for water
scarcity and droughts. There is some movement at the Flanders level, with droughts
being incorporated as an issue into recent policy vision documents, but this has yet
to be translated into actions. At the moment, the Flemish region carries the
responsibility more or less single-handedly to bring in drought aspects into water
planning, which makes activities dependent on this governance level.
VMM is keen to develop some of these actions and is the main driver behind
initiatives to tackle drought—the DROP project being one of them. Although there
is recognition of the importance and desirability of addressing droughts, at the
moment no other actors really have this topic on their agenda or are driving it.
There is only one actor driving change, and the establishment and implementation
of strategies and instruments is very dependent of the Flemish regional level. At the
152
J. Tröltzsch et al.