authority as well assumes co-responsibility for nature but only as far as water goals
are addressed and a good water system is needed to support the nature.
Actor and network’ intensity reflects the mixed priorities of these stakeholders.
The realization of drought resilience is seen as a clear priority for the water
authority. This makes them a lead actor, even when they involve other stakeholders
as well in their initiatives. With regard to farmers, their position has considerably
developed in the last few years. The farmers union LTO now wishes to improve
awareness on drought issues to better educate farmers. Moreover, while the EU
milk quota are lifted in 2015, it becomes worthwhile to invest in the quality and
resilience of the land. Individual farmers are willing to cooperate when good
projects are offered, even when the farmers union was still hesitant.
Almost all actors, except the nature organizations, share a preference for voluntary actions. For the farmers freedom of crop choice and increasing productivity
are essential for their support for drought resilience measures. There is a Deltaplan
Agrarian Watermanagement (LTO 2013) in which the LTO seeks to collaborate
with water boards, provinces and ministries in achieving water goals, including a
2 % annual production growth among the objectives. Municipalities do also collaborate but for them often drought is not regarded as a prime problem.
Municipalities experience pressure like budget cuts due to decentralization.
While broad awareness of the drought problem perception is just developing,
external legal pressures stay dominant. The drought problems are taken more
seriously after some recent examples of spring droughts that have more serious
impacts on yields, than summer or autumn droughts. External legal pressures from
Natura 2000 requirements for the designated areas provide a strong stimulus for
drought prevention measures regardless the economic interests and other values,
challenging the farmers to push the boundaries beyond the “business as usual”.
For farmers drought problems are less visible than flood risks. There is a tendency that crop damage results in relatively higher prices so that only farmers that
have been hit in an exceptional degree are disadvantaged. Nevertheless, the farmers
union is now convinced that after working with individual farmers a new approach
in which measures are taken in larger areas at a time is needed.
Whether voluntary projects will ultimately provide sufficient incentive to enable
continuous improvements in drought resilience in the pilot area and elsewhere is an
open question. Due to a lack of strong political support and legal pressures from the
Dutch national level, where drought issues are still just at the beginning of broad
recognition, this question is not really debated. In addition there seem to be no
viable alternative options given the division of responsibilities and resources.
It is hard to say whether the resources will be sufficient for the drought resilience
goals. The province has decided to invest some 330 million Euro in increasing the
buffer zones around Natura 2000 areas. They also took care for replacing national
funding for part of the ecological network EHS and for the Area Vision for
northeast Twente. The farmers union is given a privilege by the province to be the
main implementer of the programme to enlarge the buffer zones around the Natura
2000 areas to increase the drought resilience. The water authority is also prepared to
invest its resources. The nature organizations feel themselves very limited
196
H. Bressers et al.
are addressed and a good water system is needed to support the nature.
Actor and network’ intensity reflects the mixed priorities of these stakeholders.
The realization of drought resilience is seen as a clear priority for the water
authority. This makes them a lead actor, even when they involve other stakeholders
as well in their initiatives. With regard to farmers, their position has considerably
developed in the last few years. The farmers union LTO now wishes to improve
awareness on drought issues to better educate farmers. Moreover, while the EU
milk quota are lifted in 2015, it becomes worthwhile to invest in the quality and
resilience of the land. Individual farmers are willing to cooperate when good
projects are offered, even when the farmers union was still hesitant.
Almost all actors, except the nature organizations, share a preference for voluntary actions. For the farmers freedom of crop choice and increasing productivity
are essential for their support for drought resilience measures. There is a Deltaplan
Agrarian Watermanagement (LTO 2013) in which the LTO seeks to collaborate
with water boards, provinces and ministries in achieving water goals, including a
2 % annual production growth among the objectives. Municipalities do also collaborate but for them often drought is not regarded as a prime problem.
Municipalities experience pressure like budget cuts due to decentralization.
While broad awareness of the drought problem perception is just developing,
external legal pressures stay dominant. The drought problems are taken more
seriously after some recent examples of spring droughts that have more serious
impacts on yields, than summer or autumn droughts. External legal pressures from
Natura 2000 requirements for the designated areas provide a strong stimulus for
drought prevention measures regardless the economic interests and other values,
challenging the farmers to push the boundaries beyond the “business as usual”.
For farmers drought problems are less visible than flood risks. There is a tendency that crop damage results in relatively higher prices so that only farmers that
have been hit in an exceptional degree are disadvantaged. Nevertheless, the farmers
union is now convinced that after working with individual farmers a new approach
in which measures are taken in larger areas at a time is needed.
Whether voluntary projects will ultimately provide sufficient incentive to enable
continuous improvements in drought resilience in the pilot area and elsewhere is an
open question. Due to a lack of strong political support and legal pressures from the
Dutch national level, where drought issues are still just at the beginning of broad
recognition, this question is not really debated. In addition there seem to be no
viable alternative options given the division of responsibilities and resources.
It is hard to say whether the resources will be sufficient for the drought resilience
goals. The province has decided to invest some 330 million Euro in increasing the
buffer zones around Natura 2000 areas. They also took care for replacing national
funding for part of the ecological network EHS and for the Area Vision for
northeast Twente. The farmers union is given a privilege by the province to be the
main implementer of the programme to enlarge the buffer zones around the Natura
2000 areas to increase the drought resilience. The water authority is also prepared to
invest its resources. The nature organizations feel themselves very limited
196
H. Bressers et al.