4.4.1 Extent
The extent aspects of the governance context can mostly be regarded as somewhat
positive, covering all levels and scales of the system. Many administrative levels are
directly involved in the water management system. The two main actors are the
district government (second authority level) and the waterboard itself. When it
comes to droughts, the national level (German Ministry of Environment) is still
somewhat decoupled, mainly providing first studies and visions. The EU level is
quite relevant for its directives. However, a negative point is that municipalities are
seen to be withdrawing from their water management responsibilities, mainly due to
serious resource issues.
When focussing on the actors, the same positive extent can be appreciated. This
is a result of the design of the North Rhine-Westphalian waterboards: according to
the law regulating WVER, users with a water right of a certain size are automatically members of the waterboard, whether they like it or not. This means that all
major users participate—also economically—in the management of the water basin.
There are, however, some restrictions to this positive extent regarding actor
involvement. Smaller (and thus non-paying) actors, such as farmers and nature
organisations, do not have the same voice as larger actors. This been said, there is a
strong movement towards collaborative and inclusive decision-making processes
on the side of the water authorities, as well as on relationship building on the side of
WVER. The implementation of the WFD and the Floods Directive for instance
were based on a huge number of participatory workshops and roundtable discussions, and there is a strong emphasis on voluntary implementation of measures.
Interviewed stakeholders repeatedly mentioned that the developments over the last
decades had been very positive in this sense.
The implementation of WFD and Floods Directive has provided the region with
a set of new instruments and experience in consultation processes with stakeholders, and all in all, there is a broad extent of strategies and instruments in place.
However, from a drought perspective there are very significant elements still
missing, e.g. water demand management, drought contingency planning, communication, etc. In this context there is still room for improvement, e.g. via knowledge
transfer of experiences from other pilot regions. Another point affecting drought
management in particular is the fact that the district government does not currently
see itself in a position to actively push the topic of droughts—whereas they welcome the waterboard’s actions on the topic, they are currently suffering due to
overstretched resources. This means that those actors could implement measures on
the ground if they were required to face no external pressure to act on the topic.
74
R. Vidaurre et al.
The extent aspects of the governance context can mostly be regarded as somewhat
positive, covering all levels and scales of the system. Many administrative levels are
directly involved in the water management system. The two main actors are the
district government (second authority level) and the waterboard itself. When it
comes to droughts, the national level (German Ministry of Environment) is still
somewhat decoupled, mainly providing first studies and visions. The EU level is
quite relevant for its directives. However, a negative point is that municipalities are
seen to be withdrawing from their water management responsibilities, mainly due to
serious resource issues.
When focussing on the actors, the same positive extent can be appreciated. This
is a result of the design of the North Rhine-Westphalian waterboards: according to
the law regulating WVER, users with a water right of a certain size are automatically members of the waterboard, whether they like it or not. This means that all
major users participate—also economically—in the management of the water basin.
There are, however, some restrictions to this positive extent regarding actor
involvement. Smaller (and thus non-paying) actors, such as farmers and nature
organisations, do not have the same voice as larger actors. This been said, there is a
strong movement towards collaborative and inclusive decision-making processes
on the side of the water authorities, as well as on relationship building on the side of
WVER. The implementation of the WFD and the Floods Directive for instance
were based on a huge number of participatory workshops and roundtable discussions, and there is a strong emphasis on voluntary implementation of measures.
Interviewed stakeholders repeatedly mentioned that the developments over the last
decades had been very positive in this sense.
The implementation of WFD and Floods Directive has provided the region with
a set of new instruments and experience in consultation processes with stakeholders, and all in all, there is a broad extent of strategies and instruments in place.
However, from a drought perspective there are very significant elements still
missing, e.g. water demand management, drought contingency planning, communication, etc. In this context there is still room for improvement, e.g. via knowledge
transfer of experiences from other pilot regions. Another point affecting drought
management in particular is the fact that the district government does not currently
see itself in a position to actively push the topic of droughts—whereas they welcome the waterboard’s actions on the topic, they are currently suffering due to
overstretched resources. This means that those actors could implement measures on
the ground if they were required to face no external pressure to act on the topic.
74
R. Vidaurre et al.