governance context has been summarized by assessing each of the 20 cells through
a graphical visualization that shows the matrix with colours (‘score cards’); these
indicate the value of each cell (restrictive, neutral or supportive context).
Based on the conclusions of the cross-cutting perspective chapters and case study
chapters, it is useful to propose a comparative approach of the drought governance
context in the six regions studied. This comparison allows us to outline general trends
that emerged from each of the cases and to show possible specificities of the regions
studied. This comparison also allows us to analyse the specificity of each of the
cross-cutting issues (i.e. nature, fresh water and agriculture) to note the contexts that
facilitate or prevent a better drought governance context.
However, transferring the richness of the data gathered by numerous documents
and interviews into more condensed layers of summary and ultimately into an
overview has both positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, this transfer is
necessary to enable a comparative analysis between several cases; however, on the
other hand, the summary should not hide essential observations that provide evidence for the scores. Thus, one should always remember that such a summary of
summaries is a derivative of a much richer set of observations and their interpretation. In addition, the matrices have been implemented independently by different
leading authors. In order to overcome the fact that certain authors differ slightly in
their ‘judgments’, several meetings with all the analysts have been held in order to
reach a common agreement upon these assessments. Hence, for the comparison of
the assessment of the different case studies, we used a greater amount of the written
text for the assessments and did not only use the comparison of the matrices.
However, to illustrate our comments in this text we based our comparative statements on the coloured matrix stemming from the regional case studies.
This chapter is devoted to concluding remarks. It will first present certain
overarching observations related to case study results (Sect. 13.2) and to the three
cross-cutting perspectives presented in the previous chapters (Sect. 13.3). In conclusion, we will then outline a few recommendations (Sect. 13.4).
13.2 How Governance Can Be Characterized in Each
Region?
The outcomes of the analysis of the drought-related water governance issues in the
NW European regions involved in the DROP project can be summarized by the
three following main points:
• A low level of awareness exists, as regards the drought issue, creating a poor
context for responsibilities and resources, and leading to a very low level of
intensity of drought-related actions
• However, an effective water governance, particularly for networks of actors, and
their involvement at different levels and scales exists in all regions
• Although variable according to the region, there is a low level of flexibility in
the governance context
246
C. Larrue et al.
a graphical visualization that shows the matrix with colours (‘score cards’); these
indicate the value of each cell (restrictive, neutral or supportive context).
Based on the conclusions of the cross-cutting perspective chapters and case study
chapters, it is useful to propose a comparative approach of the drought governance
context in the six regions studied. This comparison allows us to outline general trends
that emerged from each of the cases and to show possible specificities of the regions
studied. This comparison also allows us to analyse the specificity of each of the
cross-cutting issues (i.e. nature, fresh water and agriculture) to note the contexts that
facilitate or prevent a better drought governance context.
However, transferring the richness of the data gathered by numerous documents
and interviews into more condensed layers of summary and ultimately into an
overview has both positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, this transfer is
necessary to enable a comparative analysis between several cases; however, on the
other hand, the summary should not hide essential observations that provide evidence for the scores. Thus, one should always remember that such a summary of
summaries is a derivative of a much richer set of observations and their interpretation. In addition, the matrices have been implemented independently by different
leading authors. In order to overcome the fact that certain authors differ slightly in
their ‘judgments’, several meetings with all the analysts have been held in order to
reach a common agreement upon these assessments. Hence, for the comparison of
the assessment of the different case studies, we used a greater amount of the written
text for the assessments and did not only use the comparison of the matrices.
However, to illustrate our comments in this text we based our comparative statements on the coloured matrix stemming from the regional case studies.
This chapter is devoted to concluding remarks. It will first present certain
overarching observations related to case study results (Sect. 13.2) and to the three
cross-cutting perspectives presented in the previous chapters (Sect. 13.3). In conclusion, we will then outline a few recommendations (Sect. 13.4).
13.2 How Governance Can Be Characterized in Each
Region?
The outcomes of the analysis of the drought-related water governance issues in the
NW European regions involved in the DROP project can be summarized by the
three following main points:
• A low level of awareness exists, as regards the drought issue, creating a poor
context for responsibilities and resources, and leading to a very low level of
intensity of drought-related actions
• However, an effective water governance, particularly for networks of actors, and
their involvement at different levels and scales exists in all regions
• Although variable according to the region, there is a low level of flexibility in
the governance context
246
C. Larrue et al.