adaptation of dam management rules (e.g. so that they incorporate drought considerations) is a lengthy procedure.
This said, there is significant capacity, responsibilities and resources to address
different issues in a way that does not interfere with the overall framework; there is
also the will among actors to address new risks and topics. The district authorities
and WVER’s approach to the implementation of European directives foresees
amicable agreements/cooperation with affected parties, showing high degree of
flexibility in on-the-ground implementation. It seems possible to reassign responsibilities in the definition of water resource problems related to flooding, and
possibly nature. Resources, however, seem a different issue altogether, with the
system quite fixed. The question of available resources seems very important in the
final implementation, particularly where municipalities are involved.
Flexibility is also shown in the way that topics pushed by stakeholders have been
taken up by the relevant authorities. The question of enabling the return of salmon
to the region’s rivers was initially pushed by fishermen, who managed to convince
authorities to take up these objectives. Regarding implementation and crisis situations, there does not seem to be much flexibility in moving up and down levels, as
main decisions are mostly taken by the highest authorities in realising certain plans.
Depending on the issue at stake, the decision is often brought up automatically to
the superior levels, e.g. the district government.
The ability to include new actors into formal structures of responsibility seems
questionable as the structures within WVER and its ‘assembly’ seem fixed.
However, informal relationships are seen to be a way forward in this regard, with
new actors being addressed in participation processes, and adjustments to the distributions of responsibility seeming possible.
4.4.4 Intensity
Currently, the relatively weakest point of the governance context for drought
resilience policies and measures is its intensity. (However, this also holds true in
other DROP pilot regions in Northwest Europe, due to the region being overall
quite water-abundant.)
The district government seems to constitute the most relevant level in the
decision chain concerning water issues related to drought. (It should be remembered
that the waterboard only has executing powers, and thus cannot implement on its
own accord measures for a new issue such as drought.) At the national and at the
Länder level, initiatives addressing climate change adaptation have been launched,
but are as yet only limited to knowledge exchange and studies. Improving drought
resilience has no priority on the political agenda (or not yet at least) and no
resources are made available for this topic. According to the district government,
the German and North Rhine-Westphalian Adaptation Strategies do not have
4 Eifel-Rur: Old Water Rights and Fixed Frameworks for Action
77
This said, there is significant capacity, responsibilities and resources to address
different issues in a way that does not interfere with the overall framework; there is
also the will among actors to address new risks and topics. The district authorities
and WVER’s approach to the implementation of European directives foresees
amicable agreements/cooperation with affected parties, showing high degree of
flexibility in on-the-ground implementation. It seems possible to reassign responsibilities in the definition of water resource problems related to flooding, and
possibly nature. Resources, however, seem a different issue altogether, with the
system quite fixed. The question of available resources seems very important in the
final implementation, particularly where municipalities are involved.
Flexibility is also shown in the way that topics pushed by stakeholders have been
taken up by the relevant authorities. The question of enabling the return of salmon
to the region’s rivers was initially pushed by fishermen, who managed to convince
authorities to take up these objectives. Regarding implementation and crisis situations, there does not seem to be much flexibility in moving up and down levels, as
main decisions are mostly taken by the highest authorities in realising certain plans.
Depending on the issue at stake, the decision is often brought up automatically to
the superior levels, e.g. the district government.
The ability to include new actors into formal structures of responsibility seems
questionable as the structures within WVER and its ‘assembly’ seem fixed.
However, informal relationships are seen to be a way forward in this regard, with
new actors being addressed in participation processes, and adjustments to the distributions of responsibility seeming possible.
4.4.4 Intensity
Currently, the relatively weakest point of the governance context for drought
resilience policies and measures is its intensity. (However, this also holds true in
other DROP pilot regions in Northwest Europe, due to the region being overall
quite water-abundant.)
The district government seems to constitute the most relevant level in the
decision chain concerning water issues related to drought. (It should be remembered
that the waterboard only has executing powers, and thus cannot implement on its
own accord measures for a new issue such as drought.) At the national and at the
Länder level, initiatives addressing climate change adaptation have been launched,
but are as yet only limited to knowledge exchange and studies. Improving drought
resilience has no priority on the political agenda (or not yet at least) and no
resources are made available for this topic. According to the district government,
the German and North Rhine-Westphalian Adaptation Strategies do not have
4 Eifel-Rur: Old Water Rights and Fixed Frameworks for Action
77