times of drought to protect the drinking, industrial and environmental uses.
Currently, there are no comprehensive measures to address the water scarcity and
drought from cross-sectorial perspectives, such as the monitoring or metering of
irrigation water use at the field level or the enforcement of the new irrigation policy
also for the existing groundwater wells. Nevertheless, there is a growing awareness
on the impacts of drought and other climate extremes.
In the Vilaine region, the demand from the agricultural sector does not constitute
a significant pressure on other uses, except the eastern part of the upstream Vilaine,
where irrigation and nature protection are the two competing water uses. Similar to
the Salland and Vechtstromen cases, water withdrawals by agro-industries and
farmers are not monitored, yet it is planned. Furthermore, the CAP impacts the
agricultural water use as well as the consumption of different products, while the
measures related to the implementation of the CAP do not address potential
interactions with the water policy. However, an agro-environmental measure is
funded by the SAGE and implemented by the IAV, through offering contractual
measures over five years to farmers who manage wet meadows in the marshes and
can receive financial subsidies to maintain the marshes.
In Somerset, there are cross-boundary issues that span drinking water supply,
environmental flow, and agricultural water use, but planning activities are not
coherent. The Environment Agency has a drought plan that covers both water
supply and agriculture and irrigation that covers a region rather than a water
company. But the water companies have drought plans which cover drinking water
supply (in balance with other environmental factors like flow). A more integrated
approach could improve the activities. Furthermore, in Somerset it is clear to all
actors (it was at least before the flood) that water scarcity and drought is a problem
and will probably increase. A difference was in the recognition of the extent of the
water scarcity and drought issues and the measures which should be taken
up. Problem perceptions were largely defined by sectorial interests, particularly
agriculture and nature on the Levels and Moors. For the Levels and Moors there are
no real mechanisms to persuade landowners to keep their stock out of the grass and
to keep the water levels up for delivery of other ecosystems services other than
agriculture and no reason not to intensify agricultural production in those fields.
Higher tier agriculture Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) focused on
exclusivity but not interconnectivity, for example they are not linked-up special
sites. Although there are designated SSSI areas there is seen to be not enough
guidance for farmers outside these specially designated areas, and little opportunity
to “enforce”. The range of measures are largely positive, however, in the context of
decreased regulation and public spending the extent to which these are monitored
and enforced going forward is uncertain. Furthermore, the subsidy regime was not
developed with the aim that farmers should directly manage water and a system of
monitoring or enforcement related to this was not established. For example, issues
such as soil compaction were seen as voluntary actions as opposed to embedded in
subsidized actions. A fuller range of agricultural measures could still be implemented, e.g. agricultural mitigation measures and the adoption of clearer monitoring and enforcement.
208
G. Özerol and J. Troeltzsch
Currently, there are no comprehensive measures to address the water scarcity and
drought from cross-sectorial perspectives, such as the monitoring or metering of
irrigation water use at the field level or the enforcement of the new irrigation policy
also for the existing groundwater wells. Nevertheless, there is a growing awareness
on the impacts of drought and other climate extremes.
In the Vilaine region, the demand from the agricultural sector does not constitute
a significant pressure on other uses, except the eastern part of the upstream Vilaine,
where irrigation and nature protection are the two competing water uses. Similar to
the Salland and Vechtstromen cases, water withdrawals by agro-industries and
farmers are not monitored, yet it is planned. Furthermore, the CAP impacts the
agricultural water use as well as the consumption of different products, while the
measures related to the implementation of the CAP do not address potential
interactions with the water policy. However, an agro-environmental measure is
funded by the SAGE and implemented by the IAV, through offering contractual
measures over five years to farmers who manage wet meadows in the marshes and
can receive financial subsidies to maintain the marshes.
In Somerset, there are cross-boundary issues that span drinking water supply,
environmental flow, and agricultural water use, but planning activities are not
coherent. The Environment Agency has a drought plan that covers both water
supply and agriculture and irrigation that covers a region rather than a water
company. But the water companies have drought plans which cover drinking water
supply (in balance with other environmental factors like flow). A more integrated
approach could improve the activities. Furthermore, in Somerset it is clear to all
actors (it was at least before the flood) that water scarcity and drought is a problem
and will probably increase. A difference was in the recognition of the extent of the
water scarcity and drought issues and the measures which should be taken
up. Problem perceptions were largely defined by sectorial interests, particularly
agriculture and nature on the Levels and Moors. For the Levels and Moors there are
no real mechanisms to persuade landowners to keep their stock out of the grass and
to keep the water levels up for delivery of other ecosystems services other than
agriculture and no reason not to intensify agricultural production in those fields.
Higher tier agriculture Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) focused on
exclusivity but not interconnectivity, for example they are not linked-up special
sites. Although there are designated SSSI areas there is seen to be not enough
guidance for farmers outside these specially designated areas, and little opportunity
to “enforce”. The range of measures are largely positive, however, in the context of
decreased regulation and public spending the extent to which these are monitored
and enforced going forward is uncertain. Furthermore, the subsidy regime was not
developed with the aim that farmers should directly manage water and a system of
monitoring or enforcement related to this was not established. For example, issues
such as soil compaction were seen as voluntary actions as opposed to embedded in
subsidized actions. A fuller range of agricultural measures could still be implemented, e.g. agricultural mitigation measures and the adoption of clearer monitoring and enforcement.
208
G. Özerol and J. Troeltzsch