Farming accounts for approximately 70 percent of freshwater withdrawals worldwide, and it often constitutes the lowest value use of freshwater. Where water is scarce, advanced irrigation technologies such as drip and piped delivery systems have been promoted as “water conservation technologies” (WCTs) that reduce agricultural water consumption, thus releasing water to alternative uses (e.g., the environment). This article examines whether this is true, discussing how WCTs contribute, in theory and practice, to water conservation. Based on an extensive review of more than 230 theoretical and empirical papers, we argue that WCTs should not be viewed as a tool for achieving water conservation, but rather as a means for stabilizing and increasing agricultural water productivity and farmers’ income in places where water is scarce. We conclude that, if the ultimate objective is water conservation, it is essential to adopt water conservation policies—that is, governance instruments aimed at reallocating available resources among uses (e.g., from irrigation to the environment)

a cranfield Water science Institute, cranfield university, uK; b raas Division, centro euro-mediterraneo sui cambiamenti climatici (cmcc), venice, Italy; c Department of economics, universidad de alcalá, alcalá de Henares, spain; d fondazione eni enrico mattei (feem), venice, Italy; e Water policy center, public policy Institute of california, san francisco, usa; f fundación observatorio del cambio climático, valencia, spain; g Institute for environmental studies (Ivm), vu university amsterdam ABSTRACT A growing number of countries are reforming their water allocation regimes through the use of economic instruments. This article analyzes the performance of economic instruments in water allocation reforms compared against their original design objectives in five European countries: England, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands. We identify the strengths of, barriers to and unintended consequences of economic instruments in the varying socio-economic, legal, institutional and biophysical context in each case study area, and use this evidence to draw out underlying common guidelines and recommendations. These lessons will help improve the effectiveness of future reforms while supporting more efficient water resources allocation.

This document is the author's final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. AbstractFlood insurance differs widely in scope and form across Europe. Against the backdrop of rising flood losses a debate about the role of EU policy in shaping the future of this compensation mechanism is led by policy makers and industry. In this paper we investigate if and how current EU policies influence flood insurance. While the question of supply and demand is at the core of the debate, we argue that another key dimension is often overlooked: how to use insurance as a lever for risk reduction and prevention efforts. We investigate if and how current EU policies interplay with these two dimensions and then reflect on the national policy level. We illustrate two conflicting cases of flood insurance: the United Kingdom (UK), where flood insurance provision is widely available, but subject to current reform, and the Netherlands, where efforts to introduce a broad flood insurance coverage have only recently failed. In analysing the current positions on the role of the EU in shaping flood insurance we conclude that there is wide agreement that a complete harmonisation of flood insurance offering across the EU is unlikely to be effective. We determine that there is clear scope for the EU to play a greater role in linking risk transfer and prevention, beyond existing channels, to ensure an integrated approach to flood risk management across the EU.

This document is the author's final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it. AbstractFlood insurance differs widely in scope and form across Europe. Against the backdrop of rising flood losses a debate about the role of EU policy in shaping the future of this compensation mechanism is led by policy makers and industry. In this paper we investigate if and how current EU policies influence flood insurance. While the question of supply and demand is at the core of the debate, we argue that another key dimension is often overlooked: how to use insurance as a lever for risk reduction and prevention efforts. We investigate if and how current EU policies interplay with these two dimensions and then reflect on the national policy level. We illustrate two conflicting cases of flood insurance: the United Kingdom (UK), where flood insurance provision is widely available, but subject to current reform, and the Netherlands, where efforts to introduce a broad flood insurance coverage have only recently failed. In analysing the current positions on the role of the EU in shaping flood insurance we conclude that there is wide agreement that a complete harmonisation of flood insurance offering across the EU is unlikely to be effective. We determine that there is clear scope for the EU to play a greater role in linking risk transfer and prevention, beyond existing channels, to ensure an integrated approach to flood risk management across the EU.

Greening the economy is mostly about improving water governance and not only about putting the existing resource saving technical alternatives into practice. Focusing on the second and forgetting the first risks finishing with a highly efficient use of water services at the level of each individual user but with an unsustainable amount of water use for the entire economy. This might be happening already in many places with the modernization of irrigated agriculture, the world's largest water user and the one offering the most promising water saving opportunities. In spite of high expectations, modern irrigation techniques seem not to be contributing to reduce water scarcity and increase drought resiliency. In fact, according to the little evidence available, in some areas they are resulting in higher water use. Building on basic economic principles this study aims to show the conditions under which this apparently paradoxical outcome, known as the Jevons' Paradox, might appear. This basic model is expected to serve as guidance for assessing the actual outcomes of increasing irrigation efficiency and to discuss the changes in water governance that would be required for this to make a real contribution to sustainable water management.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract