natural causes, such as drought, but can also be induced by human activities only, or,
as is usually the case, may result from the interaction of both (Pereira et al. 2002).
Drought is expected to increase in the future as a result of climate change. In 2007
11 % of the European population and 17 % of the European territory were affected
by drought (EC 2007). Already, it can be noted that the number of people and areas
in Europe affected by drought and water scarcity has increased with 20 % between
1976 and 2006 (EC 2007). The total cost of these 30 years of droughts amounts to
100 billion euros (ibid.). This makes it very important to deal with drought and water
scarcity now, and to increase drought resilience before the problem grows even
bigger. In the 2007 Communication the European Union clearly states that devising
effective drought risk management strategies has to be regarded an EU priority.
But in order to optimize drought resilience not only the physical situation must be
studied and worked on. The governance setting matters a great deal in determining the
effectiveness of drought adaptation measures and facilitating their implementation.
Governance ultimately revolves around the social, organizational, political and
juridical dimensions and how actors operate in these dimensions to work on issues
such as drought resilience. In many instances (technological) innovations for
increasing drought resilience do exist, but their implementation is hampered because
of factors in the governance setting. As an example, an innovation is developed and
tested by a local actor, but its upscaling for broader application is limited because
actors in the region do not engage in intensive networking or suffer from the ‘not
invented here’ syndrome and the resulting lack of ownership decreases the potential to
upscale. Another example is when the ideas for an innovation do exist, but resources
lack to fund their proper development, as a result of little experienced urgency for
change at regime level. In other words; governance matters, and governance is broader
than just the (governmental) actors and their adoption of drought resilience measures.
In the upcoming chapters governance and the role of governance in drought
resilience will be further discussed, translated into a fully developed governance
assessment model, and applied to real-life cases. Through this discussion, development and application we want to provide assistance to practitioners working on
increasing drought resilience. This book is primarily written by scientists, but
strongly embedded in our interaction with practitioners. Some chapters are also
co-written by these practitioners. We believe that this work on the edge of science
and practice contributes to an innovative perspective on drought resilience, and is
an example of the novelty and applicability of our work.
1.2 Defining Governance
Governance has been extensively discussed in political sciences and public
administration literature. It is often presented as part of a more general shift from
government to governance (Kooiman 1993, 2003; Klijn and Koppenjan 2000).
Governance in that sense is the interaction of public and private actors aimed at
solving societal problems or creating societal opportunities in an institutional
1 Introduction
3
as is usually the case, may result from the interaction of both (Pereira et al. 2002).
Drought is expected to increase in the future as a result of climate change. In 2007
11 % of the European population and 17 % of the European territory were affected
by drought (EC 2007). Already, it can be noted that the number of people and areas
in Europe affected by drought and water scarcity has increased with 20 % between
1976 and 2006 (EC 2007). The total cost of these 30 years of droughts amounts to
100 billion euros (ibid.). This makes it very important to deal with drought and water
scarcity now, and to increase drought resilience before the problem grows even
bigger. In the 2007 Communication the European Union clearly states that devising
effective drought risk management strategies has to be regarded an EU priority.
But in order to optimize drought resilience not only the physical situation must be
studied and worked on. The governance setting matters a great deal in determining the
effectiveness of drought adaptation measures and facilitating their implementation.
Governance ultimately revolves around the social, organizational, political and
juridical dimensions and how actors operate in these dimensions to work on issues
such as drought resilience. In many instances (technological) innovations for
increasing drought resilience do exist, but their implementation is hampered because
of factors in the governance setting. As an example, an innovation is developed and
tested by a local actor, but its upscaling for broader application is limited because
actors in the region do not engage in intensive networking or suffer from the ‘not
invented here’ syndrome and the resulting lack of ownership decreases the potential to
upscale. Another example is when the ideas for an innovation do exist, but resources
lack to fund their proper development, as a result of little experienced urgency for
change at regime level. In other words; governance matters, and governance is broader
than just the (governmental) actors and their adoption of drought resilience measures.
In the upcoming chapters governance and the role of governance in drought
resilience will be further discussed, translated into a fully developed governance
assessment model, and applied to real-life cases. Through this discussion, development and application we want to provide assistance to practitioners working on
increasing drought resilience. This book is primarily written by scientists, but
strongly embedded in our interaction with practitioners. Some chapters are also
co-written by these practitioners. We believe that this work on the edge of science
and practice contributes to an innovative perspective on drought resilience, and is
an example of the novelty and applicability of our work.
1.2 Defining Governance
Governance has been extensively discussed in political sciences and public
administration literature. It is often presented as part of a more general shift from
government to governance (Kooiman 1993, 2003; Klijn and Koppenjan 2000).
Governance in that sense is the interaction of public and private actors aimed at
solving societal problems or creating societal opportunities in an institutional
1 Introduction
3