Vilaine region, Eifel-Rur, and Flanders saw the topic as an issue but not significant
enough to consider it one of their priorities.
It is probably for this reason that drought is not very present on the political
agendas of the analyzed regions: since stakeholders groups as yet mostly are disengaged with the topic, there is no pressure by the electorate or by interest groups
on the political or administrative levels to support this topic. In addition, issues of
water use and expansion of water use often involve strong economic interests.
Stakeholders express that it can be very hard to argue against economic uses of
water. In the Eifel-Rur region the paper industry and farmers have significant
political influence, also related to the amount of jobs they create in the region.
A similar situation was observed for farmers in Flanders and Somerset (UK). With
the current political agenda very much pro-growth, it would seem that there is not
much potential for the uptake of an issue which stakeholders reject due to the
possible impacts on business opportunities.
11.6 Conclusion: Diagnosis and Scenarios
Currently, drought management practices in NWE are largely based on crisis
management. The effectiveness of these practices is questionable because they are
reactive, dealing only with the impacts of drought rather than tackling the causes of
the vulnerabilities. This does not promote the anticipation of adaptation strategy
development while measures can require time to be operational. Proactive management has generally been implemented in case studies following drastic droughts
(Dennis 2013; Krysanova et al. 2008). The consequences of disasters can create
sufficient public and institutional willpower to lead authorities and stakeholders to
design and implement proactive approaches to mitigate impacts of future drought
episodes.
In the case of the Northwest European region, there is still a visible inertia to
start moving toward the development of adaptation measures to improve drinking
water supply systems’ robustness. This inertia seems to be mostly due to the lack of
severe drought and water scarcity episodes in the collective memory that motivate
other regions to mobilize stakeholders of all levels to tackle these problems when
they are really experienced.
Even in these cases where climate change awareness is still quite low and where
drought and water scarcity have hardly been experienced, the essentiality of
drinking water supply and freshwater availability may be the leading entryway to
the development of drought risk awareness and drought adaptation measures. Most
people are aware that fresh water is a limited resource and that water demand is
indeed increasing with population growth and economic development. This perception helps them realize that the threat of water scarcity is possible and foreseeable, even if they have not experienced it in the past. That is why the issue of
drinking water provision is a key factor to be highlighted to push forward adaptation measures to prevent drought and water scarcity.
228
C. Furusho et al.
enough to consider it one of their priorities.
It is probably for this reason that drought is not very present on the political
agendas of the analyzed regions: since stakeholders groups as yet mostly are disengaged with the topic, there is no pressure by the electorate or by interest groups
on the political or administrative levels to support this topic. In addition, issues of
water use and expansion of water use often involve strong economic interests.
Stakeholders express that it can be very hard to argue against economic uses of
water. In the Eifel-Rur region the paper industry and farmers have significant
political influence, also related to the amount of jobs they create in the region.
A similar situation was observed for farmers in Flanders and Somerset (UK). With
the current political agenda very much pro-growth, it would seem that there is not
much potential for the uptake of an issue which stakeholders reject due to the
possible impacts on business opportunities.
11.6 Conclusion: Diagnosis and Scenarios
Currently, drought management practices in NWE are largely based on crisis
management. The effectiveness of these practices is questionable because they are
reactive, dealing only with the impacts of drought rather than tackling the causes of
the vulnerabilities. This does not promote the anticipation of adaptation strategy
development while measures can require time to be operational. Proactive management has generally been implemented in case studies following drastic droughts
(Dennis 2013; Krysanova et al. 2008). The consequences of disasters can create
sufficient public and institutional willpower to lead authorities and stakeholders to
design and implement proactive approaches to mitigate impacts of future drought
episodes.
In the case of the Northwest European region, there is still a visible inertia to
start moving toward the development of adaptation measures to improve drinking
water supply systems’ robustness. This inertia seems to be mostly due to the lack of
severe drought and water scarcity episodes in the collective memory that motivate
other regions to mobilize stakeholders of all levels to tackle these problems when
they are really experienced.
Even in these cases where climate change awareness is still quite low and where
drought and water scarcity have hardly been experienced, the essentiality of
drinking water supply and freshwater availability may be the leading entryway to
the development of drought risk awareness and drought adaptation measures. Most
people are aware that fresh water is a limited resource and that water demand is
indeed increasing with population growth and economic development. This perception helps them realize that the threat of water scarcity is possible and foreseeable, even if they have not experienced it in the past. That is why the issue of
drinking water provision is a key factor to be highlighted to push forward adaptation measures to prevent drought and water scarcity.
228
C. Furusho et al.