drought resilience. The water authority has tried to harmonize its regulations
regarding irrigation policy and permits for water extraction with the neighbouring
water authorities.
Though a multiplicity of relevant responsibilities and resources resides with
many stakeholders, it is mostly the water authority that clearly frames them in the
view of drought resilience. Formally, the province has the responsibility to set the
goals for water management. The provincial domain also includes responsibilities
in relevant sectors like nature protection, nature development, landscape and
tourism, regional development and agriculture. The water authority implements
these, but with an own domain of taxation and thus with considerable liberties. The
water board also has a lot of specialized knowledge that the other actors need for
their decision-making. On the level of pilots and in the projects with farmers there is
some restriction of instruments to voluntary approaches as well as lacking tax
incentives for farmers as a mechanism to promote drought resilience. There is a big
variety of relevant responsibilities and related resources with involved stakeholders.
However, most responsibilities in relation to drought resilience are with the regional
water authorities.
9.4.2 Coherence: Are the Elements in the Dimensions
of Governance Reinforcing Rather
than Contradicting Each Other?
The coherence aspect has a similar positive assessment, though it is more complex.
At the levels and scales dimension the relationship between the levels is observed as
a soft hierarchy by multilevel agreements. The unique multilevel coordination in
water policy in the Netherlands is guided by so-called National Administrative
Agreements on Water in which all levels from national to local and from government to (drinking water) companies mutually agree on their share of the tasks,
responsibilities and funding. While the recent OECD Dutch water governance
assessment speaks of the lack of “independent oversight” at the multilevel
dimension, there are mechanisms such as multi-stakeholder Delta Programming and
the National Administrative Agreements on Water Management with monitoring
strategies. These should not be underestimated as mechanisms to provide multilevel
coherence without coordination from a central power.
In a similar way in the pilot area all four local authorities, the water board and
the provincial government together made an Area Vision, providing a joint perspective on desirable developments of the northeast area of Twente. Though
drought resilience is included, the main focus is on tourism and recreation. Because
of these collaborative efforts, nature organizations are more open than in the past for
consultations and compromise. The drinking water company has regular contacts
with the farmers union LTO (when trying to find new locations for wells), who
reports that the collaboration with other partners, including the water board and
9 The Fragmentation-Coherence Paradox in Twente
193
regarding irrigation policy and permits for water extraction with the neighbouring
water authorities.
Though a multiplicity of relevant responsibilities and resources resides with
many stakeholders, it is mostly the water authority that clearly frames them in the
view of drought resilience. Formally, the province has the responsibility to set the
goals for water management. The provincial domain also includes responsibilities
in relevant sectors like nature protection, nature development, landscape and
tourism, regional development and agriculture. The water authority implements
these, but with an own domain of taxation and thus with considerable liberties. The
water board also has a lot of specialized knowledge that the other actors need for
their decision-making. On the level of pilots and in the projects with farmers there is
some restriction of instruments to voluntary approaches as well as lacking tax
incentives for farmers as a mechanism to promote drought resilience. There is a big
variety of relevant responsibilities and related resources with involved stakeholders.
However, most responsibilities in relation to drought resilience are with the regional
water authorities.
9.4.2 Coherence: Are the Elements in the Dimensions
of Governance Reinforcing Rather
than Contradicting Each Other?
The coherence aspect has a similar positive assessment, though it is more complex.
At the levels and scales dimension the relationship between the levels is observed as
a soft hierarchy by multilevel agreements. The unique multilevel coordination in
water policy in the Netherlands is guided by so-called National Administrative
Agreements on Water in which all levels from national to local and from government to (drinking water) companies mutually agree on their share of the tasks,
responsibilities and funding. While the recent OECD Dutch water governance
assessment speaks of the lack of “independent oversight” at the multilevel
dimension, there are mechanisms such as multi-stakeholder Delta Programming and
the National Administrative Agreements on Water Management with monitoring
strategies. These should not be underestimated as mechanisms to provide multilevel
coherence without coordination from a central power.
In a similar way in the pilot area all four local authorities, the water board and
the provincial government together made an Area Vision, providing a joint perspective on desirable developments of the northeast area of Twente. Though
drought resilience is included, the main focus is on tourism and recreation. Because
of these collaborative efforts, nature organizations are more open than in the past for
consultations and compromise. The drinking water company has regular contacts
with the farmers union LTO (when trying to find new locations for wells), who
reports that the collaboration with other partners, including the water board and
9 The Fragmentation-Coherence Paradox in Twente
193