implications for their daily work, because they are too unspecific to result in
concrete requirements and actions. As a consequence, there seems to be a lack of
plans or other instruments regarding drought adaptation, as well as a lack of
long-term vision for this issue.
This means that the district government is under no pressure due to obligations
on the topic of climate change adaptation in general or drought in particular, and
nor have the relevant resources been made available. Although they recognise the
importance of the issue, they do not see themselves in a position to take it up, and
so the district government is currently not driving any process (e.g. establishing its
own guidelines, programmes, or implementing adaptation initiatives). It is individual actors that are initiating interesting activities—the DROP project being one
of them. The Waterboard Eifel-Rur, a drinking water producer and a hydroelectricity producer interviewed all emphasised the existence of technical projects to
enhance the system’s robustness, improve risk management and develop backup
solutions in case of extreme events. We can say that drought prevention is being
addressed in the context of general risk management strategies that use as inputs’
precipitation patterns.
WVER can thus be described as the driving force of change in the region. As the
responsible for most things water in the Eifel, they are also the first in line to be
affected by drought issues, which explains their taking a proactive approach. The
overall assessment of the intensity is thus low, but with increasing strength.
4.5 Improving Drought Governance in the Eifel:
Conclusions and Recommendations
4.5.1 Conclusions
The observations mentioned in the above section let us conclude that the governance context for drought resilience in the Eifel-Rur can be regarded at the moment
as “intermediate”. Figure 4.2 shows that the system is overall coherent and shows a
fair extent in most governance dimensions, but there is plenty of room for
improvements in terms of flexibility and intensity.
This evaluation of the drought governance system as “intermediate” is the result
of a general framework which is quite positive for overall water management, but
which from a perspective specific to droughts includes interactions which detract
from this positive evaluation. We would like to highlight two main ones in this
concluding section. First, the system of water rights and the associated water user
charges is unduly inflexible, in which it does not allow for creating incentives to
reduce water rights. The water rights’ system provides strong guarantees for
users—in line with a water provision which can offer high security of supply due to
its system of reservoirs—but this rigidity has the potential to become problematic
both under drought conditions and when faced with longer term impacts of climate
78
R. Vidaurre et al.
concrete requirements and actions. As a consequence, there seems to be a lack of
plans or other instruments regarding drought adaptation, as well as a lack of
long-term vision for this issue.
This means that the district government is under no pressure due to obligations
on the topic of climate change adaptation in general or drought in particular, and
nor have the relevant resources been made available. Although they recognise the
importance of the issue, they do not see themselves in a position to take it up, and
so the district government is currently not driving any process (e.g. establishing its
own guidelines, programmes, or implementing adaptation initiatives). It is individual actors that are initiating interesting activities—the DROP project being one
of them. The Waterboard Eifel-Rur, a drinking water producer and a hydroelectricity producer interviewed all emphasised the existence of technical projects to
enhance the system’s robustness, improve risk management and develop backup
solutions in case of extreme events. We can say that drought prevention is being
addressed in the context of general risk management strategies that use as inputs’
precipitation patterns.
WVER can thus be described as the driving force of change in the region. As the
responsible for most things water in the Eifel, they are also the first in line to be
affected by drought issues, which explains their taking a proactive approach. The
overall assessment of the intensity is thus low, but with increasing strength.
4.5 Improving Drought Governance in the Eifel:
Conclusions and Recommendations
4.5.1 Conclusions
The observations mentioned in the above section let us conclude that the governance context for drought resilience in the Eifel-Rur can be regarded at the moment
as “intermediate”. Figure 4.2 shows that the system is overall coherent and shows a
fair extent in most governance dimensions, but there is plenty of room for
improvements in terms of flexibility and intensity.
This evaluation of the drought governance system as “intermediate” is the result
of a general framework which is quite positive for overall water management, but
which from a perspective specific to droughts includes interactions which detract
from this positive evaluation. We would like to highlight two main ones in this
concluding section. First, the system of water rights and the associated water user
charges is unduly inflexible, in which it does not allow for creating incentives to
reduce water rights. The water rights’ system provides strong guarantees for
users—in line with a water provision which can offer high security of supply due to
its system of reservoirs—but this rigidity has the potential to become problematic
both under drought conditions and when faced with longer term impacts of climate
78
R. Vidaurre et al.