Strengths and Weaknesses for Climate Change: Adaptation in Water Governance: A Comparison Across Six European Regions

Abstract

This chapter comparatively analyses the policy and governance contexts of six European regions that are affected by different hydrological impacts of climate change. The results demonstrate that a major governance strength across regions lies in the organization of management capacities to deal with existing water-related risks. For example, the Dutch context focuses on water safety, Cyprus has a clear policy framework to deal with water scarcity and in the Norwegian city of Bergen, wastewater is well managed. As a consequence of this focus on present-day risks, climate adaptation governance also focuses on historical risks. New or exacerbated risks posed by climate change remain largely untreated, and responsibilities for dealing with climate-related risks remain unspecified, as also becomes clear in the German and Spanish cases. A high degree of governmental fragmentation is identified as another point of weakness. Identified most clearly in the Portuguese case but recognizable in all regional contexts, different subdomains of water management are dealt with under separate policies and are governed by different responsible agencies. Consequently, information about current performance of the water system is scattered and coordinative efforts, which are key to developing adaptation strategies, are hampered.

Desempeño Gubernamental Y Cambio Climático en Políticas De Gestión Hídrica Del Lago Titicaca

“…El acceso al agua limpia es vital para la vida y el progreso, y el aumento de la demanda debido al crecimiento poblacional necesita una estrategia integral traducido en una política hídrica que aborde lo técnico, político financiero (Ahmed, 2020;Tsur;Zemel, 2018). La planificación de políticas a largo plazo y el análisis de escenarios son herramientas esenciales para garantizar la seguridad y la sostenibilidad del agua (Bergsma et al, 2018). Es crucial considerar los efectos del cambio climático en los sistemas hídricos para garantizar la sostenibilidad y provisión de agua potable segura y sostenible con una gestión del agua eficiente (Sperotto et al, 2019;Vaseashta et al, 2022).…”

Comparing National Regulatory Processes for Safe Drinking Water

“…The experience in Australia and Canada shows that significant effort is involved in creating and managing a robust and multi‐stakeholder system when water basins are the focus of regulatory action. Reviews of administrative challenges in the United States (National Academies 2019) and EU (Bergsma et al 2018) suggest that the two key hurdles are fragmentation of the regulatory systems (including the SDWA/CWA separation in the United States) and the need for a robust and scientifically defensible watershed model and database, as discussed with the Scientific Advances attribute.…”

Policy integration of climate change adaptation in Central America: A review for development, land‐use planning, and risk management

“…The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also documented that adaptation actions that offer development benefits in the short term and vulnerability reduction in the long term are the most popular, so mainstreaming adaptation in development planning creates greater opportunities for more efficiency and benefits (Huq & Reid, 2004; Mimura et al, 2014). Other sectors in which scientific literature calls for mainstreaming are spatial or land‐use planning (LUP) (Albers & Deppisch, 2013; Hurlimann & March, 2012), public works, infrastructure (NCCARF, 2013), and water (Bergsma et al, 2018), among many others. Mainstreaming and the dedicated approach are essential strategies for the advancement of CCA.…”