**4. Comparative analysis**

What stands out from the analysis is that overall, existing water management practices are well organized at the different research sites. This becomes visible in all layers of the framework for water governance.

In the content layer, the policy and governance arrangements fit the specific contexts of the six BINGO research sites. The frameworks generally cover relevant aspects of water management at these sites (e.g., flood risks, water quality, waste water and beach management). With the exception of some specific subdomains, actors generally feel that existing policies address the most important contemporary issues in water management. In addition, relevant information is collected to support water management in these different subdomains. Responsible actors have access to the information they need to perform their daily management tasks.

Regional policy frameworks for water management are usually backed by strong institutional arrangements. For the different subsectors of water management, tasks and responsibilities have been clearly outlined and allocated to different actors, at least formally. Overall, administrative resources are also well organized and tailored to these tasks. There is sufficient capacity to implement water management policies, there is sufficient monitoring capacity (e.g., on the price and quality of drinking water), Portugal being the only case where there is substantial concern about monitoring, and in most cases, water management is supported by an adequate financial structure that ensures a long-term and stable source of funding for existing water management practices, but not necessarily climate change adaptation.

A second major weakness is the focus of current water management practices on the existing situation. There is no structural consideration of the potential future changes and risks instigated by climate change in the governance context. This implies that no responsibilities and resources (financial, administrative and knowledge) are assigned to deal with these future risks, but also that if something goes wrong, no one can be held responsible and parties look

Both weaknesses may actually reinforce each other. While climate change is a structural factor in national-level policy documents such as the National Hydrological Plan and the National Adaptation Plan, as well as in national-level initiatives such as the set-up of the OECC, these exertions do not easily trickle down to the regional and local level, where governmental fragmentation hinders cross-sectoral collaboration. With little monitoring and oversight, parties will continue to only operate within their limited set of responsibilities and risks that impact

Three governance needs can be identified. First, there is a need for more knowledge about the impacts of climate change on the different subsectors of water management in Badalona and the water system as a whole. This would help to increase awareness about the possible detrimental effects on the water system and help to better anticipate these effects by developing new adaptation policies. Second, there is a need for more coordination in Badalona's water management. This coordination would not only help to create better links between the different subsectors of water management at different levels of governance (city, metropolitan and regional level), but also to establish important links between the water sector and other sectors, such as spatial planning. Third, there is a need for a new governance style that is anticipatory rather than reactive and for policy measures that target long-term developments rather than the existing situation. Increased awareness and better coordination could be the first steps to realize this change, together with the suitable funding framework that nowadays is not enough to cover all the necessities arising from the water cycle management, especially

What stands out from the analysis is that overall, existing water management practices are well organized at the different research sites. This becomes visible in all layers of the frame-

In the content layer, the policy and governance arrangements fit the specific contexts of the six BINGO research sites. The frameworks generally cover relevant aspects of water management at these sites (e.g., flood risks, water quality, waste water and beach management). With the exception of some specific subdomains, actors generally feel that existing policies address the most important contemporary issues in water management. In addition, relevant information is collected to support water management in these different subdomains. Responsible actors have access to the information they need to perform their daily

at each other to provide a solution.

on the system as a whole will not be anticipated.

236 Achievements and Challenges of Integrated River Basin Management

to those related to the urban drainage system.

**4. Comparative analysis**

work for water governance.

management tasks.

Because responsibilities for existing climate risks are well-defined and allocated, water management at the research sites is generally transparent and open to public inquiry. The existing organizations of water management therefore provide for a necessary amount of public accountability. Also, particularly in Germany and in Norway, links between water management and spatial planning are being developed.

It should be noted that for the subdomains of irrigation and groundwater management, policy frameworks seem to be less well organized. In these subdomains, responsibilities are often unclear and sometimes overlap, and a good financial structure is not guaranteed. These subdomains tend to be characterized by a high degree of self-organization, which, on the positive side, has positive effects on the degree of stakeholder participation in these domains.

In addition to these governance strengths for adaptation to climate-related water risks across the six European regions under study, general governance weaknesses can also be identified.

What stood out first from the analysis is that the policy contexts at the research sites insufficiently take future climate risks into account. Existing policies display a clear focus on contemporary challenges in water management. For example, droughts have always been a major problem in Cyprus, thus there are strong policies to deal with water shortages on the island. In the Dutch lowlands, floods and water quantity management have always been the highest priority. Because of this strong focus on present-day challenges, the future risks posed by climate change are insufficiently incorporated in existing policy frameworks. In Bergen city, for example, risks related to storm water are not yet addressed in the municipal policy framework. One of the causes underlying the strong focus on contemporary problems in regional water management connects to a lack of information about the regional impacts of climate change. While different actors are aware of climate change in general, the impacts are only understood on a global level and there is little data on how climate change affects different aspects of the water system in different localities.

As a consequence of the present-day focus in regional water management, climate adaptation policies in the BINGO regions tend to target historical risks. For example, in Cyprus climate change is mostly linked to increasing water scarcity and as a result, existing policies in this field are strengthened to deal with this increased risk. In the Netherlands, climate change adaptation is incorporated under the header of water management, while climate-related water quality and health risks remain untreated. At the same time, it should be noted that these adaptation policies remain highly strategic; the importance of adaptation is particularly emphasized in strategic visions and policy lines at higher levels of governance, but the translation of these visions in actual adaptation policies is difficult in all regions. Because adaptation policies are mainly formulated at a strategic level, clear adaptation targets have not been specified, responsibilities have not been defined, and structural financial resources have not been allocated to address new risks of climate change adaptation.

Second, there is a need for a more holistic governance approach. Climate change not only affects water management but a whole range of sectors and actors. Therefore, stakeholders from different sectors need to be involved in the formulation of adaptation solutions. Also, better links should be established between the different subsectors of water management (e.g., storm water and waste water in Bergen, or beach management and water quality management in Badalona) to effectively deal with climate change risks. To establish a more holistic approach, the governmental fragmentation that currently characterizes regional water management should be reduced and regional coordination should be improved to enlarge integrative capacities of water governance. Third, the effective implementation of adaptation measures should be strengthened. To this end, institutional resources need to be organized for climate change adaptation. Policies should define adaptation targets for the treatment of different risks, and allocate responsibili-

Strengths and Weaknesses for Climate Change: Adaptation in Water Governance…

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74401

239

The research underlying this chapter was performed within the European Union's Horizon 2020 BINGO ("Bringing INnovation to onGOing water management: A better future under climate change", Grant Agreement No. 641739) project, which aims to provide more insight into the regional impacts of climate change on the water cycle across Europe and develop

, A. Bruggeman<sup>2</sup>

, F. Rocha<sup>7</sup>

1 Department of Resilient Water Management and Governance, KWR Watercycle Research

2 Energy, Environment and Water Research Center (EEWRC), the Cyprus Institute (CYI),

4 Department of Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of

5 Department of Water Quantity Management and Flood Protection, Wupperverband,

6 Aquatec Urban Drainage Direction, Suez Water Advanced Solutions, Barcelona, Spain 7 Hydraulics and Environment Department, National Laboratory for Civil Engineering

, E. Giannakis<sup>2</sup>

, T. Viseu<sup>7</sup>

, J. Koti<sup>3</sup>

and C. Zoumides<sup>2</sup>

, E. Kristvik<sup>4</sup>

,

ties and administrative and financial resources accordingly.

tailored adaptation strategies to address these impacts.

\*, H. Van Alphen<sup>1</sup>

3 IWW Water Center, Mulheim an der Ruhr, Germany

Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway

, T.M. Muthanna<sup>4</sup>

\*Address all correspondence to: emmy.bergsma@kwrwater.nl

**Acknowledgements**

**Author details**

Emmy Bergsma1

Nicosia, Cyprus

Wuppertal, Germany

(LNEC), Lisboa, Portugal

, M. Martinez<sup>6</sup>

Institute, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

P. Loza<sup>5</sup>

Another governance weakness is the high degree of fragmentation that characterizes existing water management practices in the regional governance contexts. At the six research sites, different subdomains of water management are governed by different actors and through a different subset of policies. In Cyprus, Spain and Portugal, drinking water, irrigation, waste water and flood risk management are, for example, dealt with under separate policies and by different responsible agencies. Because of this, information about the water system and its current performances is also scattered across different subdomains of water management. This hampers the coordinative capacities of the management system.

A related weakness lies in the lack of collaboration, not only between the different subdomains of water management but also between water management and other sectors such as spatial planning, environmental management, agriculture and tourism. In some regional governance contexts, links with other sectors (mainly spatial planning) have been established, but in general, linkages could be improved. Also, a lack of stakeholder participation was identified. While the structural integration of stakeholder participation varies across regional governance contexts, overall, but problems were experienced with the involvement of new types of stakeholders in water management, such as end-users or the private sector. It is difficult to organize participation of these new stakeholders because they are often not fully aware of the impacts of climate change on their own operations, and because they often have conflicting interests.
