1

Society for Risk Analysis Europe – 22nd

Annual Conference,

Trondheim 17-19 June 2013

Perceptions of Socio-Economic Drought as causes of Hydrological Drought

mismanagement

I.DASKALAKISa& K.SAPOUNTZAKI

b

a) Department of Geography, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece; b) Department of Geography, Harokopio

University, Athens, Greece.

Corresponding author: Ioannis Daskalakis, Agiou Ioannou Theologou 41, 15561, Holargos, Greece, tel.

00302109231458, email: idaskalakis@hua.gr

Abstract

People use their perceptions of risk in order to make decisions that influence their prospects of survival.

In the case of drought management, the social factor is an important component in planning and implementation

of mitigation measures. Perceptions of social and institutional actors on socio-economic drought aiming to satisfy

particular needs, serve as drivers for interventions in the system of water resources, with disregard of the risks

that these actions entail for the wider society and the hydrological and ecological system. The diversion of

Acheloos River, the water procurement practices in the Dodecanese islands and the construction of the

Aposelemis dam in North-Eastern Crete, represent three cases where certain interest groups take advantage of the

incoherent and un-coordinated decision making system on water policy to pursue rapid mitigation of socio-

economic drought as perceived by them. Such interventions that are not based on reliable water cycle data and

sufficient drought risk communication result in drought risk transference in time and space and transformation of

water into an expensive commodity. These practices tend to amplify the perceived risk of socio-economic drought

and undervalue the importance of hydrological and ecological drought.

Keywords: Drought perception, socio-economic drought risk, hydrological drought risk, water procurement,

Dodecanese, Aposelemis river, Crete

Introduction

Drought is perceived to be a phenomenon that is largely socially constructed (Keenan,

Kranich, 1997). Its appearance depends on the interaction between the natural phenomenon

itself and the way that hydrological systems are operated by humans in order to satisfy water

demand (Mamasis, Koutsogiannis, 2007). As with many similar adverse events, drought

occurrences are hard to forecast and therefore responses are perceptual and intuitive and are

mostly based on past experiences (Keenan, Kranich, 1997).

In many respects, risk understanding is merely subjective and is defined by the way that

individuals consider themselves vulnerable against adverse events and their consequences.

Indeed varying public perceptions of risk, which are forged by intuitive biases, economic

interests and cultural values, may result in risk understanding patterns that partially address

hazardous situations and result in more serious consequences in the end (Kasperson et al,

1988).

The above assumptions prove to be true in the case of social-economic drought

incidents that clearly manifest society’s vulnerability against water shortage. Social and

economic procedures that regulate the supply and demand of water related goods and services

may cause rise of demand which exceeds supply and results in water shortage (Mamasis,

2

Koutsogiannis, 2007). Drought incidents as such occur all the more often due to changes in

lifestyle and the fact that the prevailing capitalistic model promotes an individualized consumer

mentality that is inconsistent with the principles of collective resource management. In

response to partial interests and requests, policy making actors usually prefer to address socio-

economic drought by intervening in the system of water resources, i.e. the supply side.

However, lack of an integrated approach to drought to include and balance measures on the

supply side with others on the demand side is likely to lead to ecological drought (affecting

vegetation and agricultural production) and the more serious and sometimes irreversible hazard

of hydrological drought. This type of hazard is the result of reduced precipitation in the surface

run-off and underground draining and is manifested through reduction of soil moisture, river

flow and source capacity, water level of lakes, reservoirs and groundwater resources (Mamasis,

Koutsogiannis, 2007).

In this paper we examine the three cases of Acheloos River, Dodecanese islands and

North-Eastern Crete which are particularly interesting because of the origin of the interventions

in the respective systems of water resources. In all three cases interventions are the result of

prevailing perceptions of certain groups on drought risk rather than of a more integrated

drought management approach. The analysis of the case studies was based on relevant papers,

research projects and, in the latter two case studies, on structured interviews with the major

policy making actors at the local and regional level. Similarities between the cases of

Dodecanese islands and North-eastern Crete allowed the use of interviews as a research

methodology for both. The questions that were addressed to the interviewees revolved around

three axes: a) Water procurement and consumption patterns and impact on the environment and

the hydrological system, b) Water management policy and c) Perceptions regarding water

resource availability and proper management solutions. In both cases of Dodecanese islands

and North-Eastern Crete, we interviewed actors from Public Water Supply and Sewage

Authorities (DEYA) at the local level and from the Directorate of Water Resources of the

Decentralized Administration of the Aegean and the Decentralized Administration of Crete at

the regional level respectively.

Diversion of Acheloos river: Socio-economic Drought Mitigation outbalancing Ecological

Drought

The profile of the project, development aims and impacts on the affected Regions

This case study concerns the project of the diversion of Acheloos river in Greece, which

flows in a north – south direction from the northern mountains of the Pindus range to the Ionian

Sea, to the plains of Thessaly, for irrigation and other purposes. This complex and very

expensive project and the controversy surrounding it has occupied the centre of public attention

in Greece for several decades and has caused bitter disputes between proponents and opponents

and between the communities involved, i.e. the Prefecture of Aetoloakarnania, where most of

the Acheloos river basin is located and the region of Thessaly, of which the farmers expect

substantial benefits from the diversion. Although the initial ambitions, as measured by the total

flow volume to be diverted, were later lowered and adapted to a more modest scenario, which

was described as a “partial diversion”, the project remained huge by the standards of public

works in Greece, labelled by its critics as one of pharaonic proportions or of soviet mentality

(ENSURE project, Del. 3.1, Wassenhoven, Sapountzaki et al. 2010).

3

Aetoloakarnania is a relatively undeveloped and poor area of Greece, of which the

agricultural population approaches 50% of the total. It is also an area of great ecological value,

since the Acheloos river delta which is located in the region, is one out of Greece’s 11 wetlands

protected under the Ramsar convention and is also protected as a NATURA area and under the

EU Bird Directive. The future development of Aetoloakarnania requires a careful rural

development and countryside policy and the promotion of alternative forms of tourism, such as

eco-tourism, agro-tourism and cultural tourism. Livestock, fish and biological farming are also

among the priorities. The problem is that water, especially that of Acheloos, is a crucial

parameter.

Agriculture is dominant in the economy of Thessaly, with a share of over 20% of

economic activity. Among the problems of agriculture in the region are the quasi-total

dependence on cotton growing, the absence of products that are likely to be in demand in the

future, such as bio-products or crops with a regional brand, the low percentage of irrigated land,

water deficit, uncontrollable boring of aquifers and negligent use of water. It is remarked in the

2000 – 2006 Regional Operational Programme than in spite of all warnings the cultivation of

cotton and cereals kept growing in the last years of the previous century and that the first

priority is the introduction of cultivation methods which are less wasteful of natural resources,

especially water. To make things worse prices of agricultural produce have collapsed in 2009,

with the price of industrial cultivations, such as cotton, falling by a staggering 38% (ENSURE

project, Del. 3.1, Wassenhoven, Sapountzaki et al. 2010).

The exact nature of the project has changed over the years, first because the volume of

water flow to be diverted was reduced after the initial reactions, i.e. when the so-called “partial

diversion” was adopted, and secondly because the official rhetoric has gradually shifted to

sidestep the accusation that the project was aimed at providing irrigation for water intensive

and wasteful cultivations, without embarking first in a total review of water management in the

plain of Thessaly. The tendency has been to re-label individual dams and reservoirs as serving

energy production objectives, rather than irrigation, thus individual projects described in the

mid-1990s as integral parts of the overall project to divert water to the Thessaly plain were

labeled 10 years later as purely hydroelectric ones. What is more important to stress is that,

regardless of the technical characteristics, the long controversy over the project resulted in a

constant redefinition by the government of the project’s goals in order on one hand to answer

the objections of the Council of State and on the other to pacify and convince the objectors and

the critics that the project was not necessary simply to perpetuate inefficient agricultural

practices. The arguments being put forward were that the project was of course needed for

irrigation (there was no way to deny this), but was equally essential for energy production,

urban water supply and even environmental protection and improvement in Thessaly. It was

argued at the same time that there was no danger of environmental deterioration on the side of

Aetoloakarnania.

Actors and Stakeholders involved, respective perceptions and mutual conflicts

The extent of the geographical area affected by the diversion project, the size of its

population, the complexity, magnitude and cost of the project, the political and social interests

involved, and the social dynamics that grew in the process, particularly in the last 25 years,

explain the number of actors and stakeholders involved and the intricate web of their

interactions:

4

Central government: The first group of actors included the central government, its regional

branches and government – controlled organizations, although the views expressed are not

always identical. The central government consistently supported the realization of the project

and denied its harmful environmental impacts.

Local organizations: Local actors comprised municipalities and the then prefectures (1st and

2nd

tier local government respectively), municipal and prefectural development companies,

rural cooperatives, trades unions and producer chambers. Their views depend on their regional /

local perspective. The organizations of Thessaly especially, have lobbied the government

systematically and have supported the project either by exerting pressure to speed up the

process or by intervening in court cases to lend legal support to the government The political

clout of Thessaly exceeds by far that of Aetoloakarnania, hence the organizations of the latter

had to rely on the moral support and the technical and legal resources of nationwide

environmental organizations, especially in court cases.

The Council of State: Appeals to the court were lodged by local authorities of

Aetoloakarnania, citizen movements and, what is most important because of their legal

resources, by national NGOs. In general the rulings of the CoS have been dismissive for the

project on the basis of various arguments such failure to environmentally assess the project

with respect to the entire Acheloos river basin etc. In 2006, the then minister of Environment,

Spatial Planning and Public Works was clearly in difficulty to conceal his anger over the

rulings regarding the Acheloos diversion and spoke of the “incomprehensible stubbornness” of

certain CoS judges (Ministry for the Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works, 2009).

National environmental NGOs: Non-governmental organizations were the main movers of

court actions to block government decisions. They were WWF Hellas, the Greek Society for

the Protection of the Environment and Cultural Heritage, the Greek Ornithological Society and

the Greek Society for the Protection of Nature. Their position on the substance of the project

was that there would be serious environmental damage in the Acheloos river basin as a result of

it, that environmental deterioration in the plains of Thessaly is the result of chronic natural

resource mismanagement and that its restoration could be achieved by wise management to

stop the squandering and pollution of available water resources and by restructuring

cultivations.

The experts: The experts are a mixed group, of which the allegiance to a particular cause

may be influenced by client relations. In the long history of the Acheloos project, this diffuse

group of experts had an important role. A large number of Greek and foreign consultants

produced a record number of studies. Apart from purely engineering studies, private firms,

university committees, university teachers, professional organizations and individual experts

have carried out numerous studies and assessments as regards the project. In the Acheloos case,

putting aside consultancy work commissioned and paid by the central government, the balance

of expert opinion was against the project, although there have been exceptions.

Political parties and politicians: The two major political parties which have alternately

occupied power in the decade 2000-2010 are in agreement with the project. These parties

however, are not single actors speaking with one voice. Individual politicians are influenced by

the voters of their constituencies, which becomes amply evident when for instance a politician

elected in Thessaly occupies a crucial ministerial post.

Local Societies and Movements: It has been indicated already that local societies are

important actors. The farmers of Thessaly are well organized and the defense of their economic

interests takes regularly an extremely aggressive form. It is not insignificant that the completion

5

of the diversion project was among their claims when they blocked all national highways in

2010 to press the government over other issues and claims.

European Commission: The EC has systematically remained aloof of this process. This is

surprising given the size of funds channeled into Greece during the last 25 years under the EU

Structural Policy. The EU decided at an early stage not to co-finance the project, although it

had funded some minor work at the beginning, probably because feasibility studies it

commissioned showed that the project was uneconomic. It intervened at some point to

challenge the legality of contract awards to construction companies, but on the whole kept its

distance.

Construction companies: The construction companies executing the project are no doubt

important “behind-the-scenes” actors, whose role however it is extremely difficult to assess.

Media: The media have played a role in the history of the project. Naturally they do not

have a uniform attitude, but they have given great prominence to the issue, with a constant

stream of reports. There are of course newspapers which champion environmental causes and

have maintained a critical stance all along. The local press, either in Thessaly or

Aetoloakarnania, has supported the views of their readers.

Consumers and taxpayers: The national consumer and taxpayer is not directly involved in

the controversy and the shifting of costs, risks and vulnerabilities. But he / she bears the cost of

agricultural produce when it reaches the shelves of super markets and greengrocers and

shoulders the cost of the construction projects.

All in all, opposition to the project originates mainly in Aetoloakarnania, represented by

local government and local citizen movements, and focuses mostly on environmental issues

and the degradation of valuable ecological resources, which also impacts on the local economy

and the prospects of development, primarily of tourism. Practically all the large environmental

NGOs of the country have lent their support to protesters and were among the first to challenge

government decisions in the courts. On the other hand, support for the project came from

administrative authorities, farming cooperatives and other organizations of Thessaly, but above

all from two extremely powerful actors, the central government and the Greek Public Power

Corporation. It should be noted that some of the project components (dams, reservoirs and

power stations) can become operational solely for electric energy production, a possibility

which could justify their existence even if the project’s irrigation role is terminated. Attitudes

on the side of central government seem to be changing after the October 2009 national

elections and the formation of a new ministry (Ministry for the Environment, Energy and

Climate Change). It may be the case that current economic crisis will resolve conflicts by

cancelling the project altogether (ENSURE project, Del. 3.1, Wassenhoven, Sapountzaki et al.

2010).

Winners and losers out of a project for mitigation of Social-Economic Drought

The threats the entire project area (both Thessaly and Aetoloakarnania) is facing today

include drought, declining precipitations, ecological degradation and decline of quality of

environmental flows, all exacerbated by the process of climate change. The latter’s impact is

well documented in EU reports (Commission of the European Communities, 2008 and 2009).

In the last few years the effect of climate change and its implications for the Acheloos project

has been repeatedly stressed by experts as evidence mounts that there will be important impacts

on the amount of water reaching the river basin (Mylopoulos, 2007; Mylopoulos et al., 2009).

6

There are already indications of a reduced flow. There is therefore an open question regarding

the contribution that the river can make in the future to the water economy of Thessaly. The

magnitude of the task is such that elementary respect to the precautionary principle should at

least make policy makers more cautious.

If concerns for the future

of the Acheloos catchment basin,

its mountain hinterland and its

estuary are justified then we have

a clear case of the vulnerability

of the farmers and the

agricultural economy of Thessaly

being transferred to

Aetoloakarnania, through the

diversion of the river. An

extremely complex eco-human

system is involved in this case,

but there is clearly an ecological

system (that of the Acheloos

river basin) which is called

upon to provide the natural

capital for the mitigation of risks to which the farming community of Thessaly is exposed and

vulnerable. The opposing argument is that the natural resources necessary for risk mitigation

and vulnerability adaptation exist within the territorial entity of Thessaly itself.

The case of the Acheloos diversion revolves around the interaction of macro-scale

vulnerability actors (each with own perceptions). Local vulnerability actors are also present in

this interplay, given the local impact of some of the project components. What is now being

recognized is that there is a broader socio-environmental context the vulnerability of which has

been unappreciated. To appreciate it properly demands a fresh look at the whole problem and

the recognition that attention to fragmented vulnerabilities ought to give way to the

vulnerability of a more global social and environmental system. In conclusion the Acheloos

project is a gigantic case of vulnerability transference particularly from the farmers and the

agricultural economy of Thessaly to the eco-human system of Aetoloakarnania and to the

taxpayers (ENSURE project, Del. 3.1, Wassenhoven, Sapountzaki et al. 2010).

Dodecanese Islands: Multiple perceptions on Socio-economic Drought conflicting with

one another

Prevailing development and water consumption patterns

The Dodecanese islands complex in Aegean Sea, Greece, is characterized by territorial

and administrative fragmentation, development disparities and local economy particularities,

water resource scarcity and fragile ecosystems. In terms of local climatic conditions the region

represents a case of low precipitation, high duration of sunshine and as a result high

evapotranspiration (Kehagias, Tselepidou, 2010).

In terms of water resource availability the islands of the complex can be classified to

those endowed with groundwater resources and those without where the latter are considered

Figure 1 :Map of the project area: The Acheloos river basin on the west and the Thessaly plain on the east of the Pindus range (source: ENVIPLAN s.a.)

7

Figure 2: The Dodecanese islands complex. Islands with bright colour rely partially or exclusively on water carriers for the procurement of

their water resources. (Source: Regional Authority of Southern

Aegean - www.notioaigaio.gr).

arid. In the past, management of water

resources was on par with the environmental

limits; however, in recent decades

perceptions and demands of the water users

as regards the availability and use of water

resources have changed significantly.

Water shortage in arid islands in

combination with tourism growth has led

local people to gradually abandon agriculture

as their main occupation and turn massively

to the tertiary sector of production by

establishing accommodation and service

facilities for tourists. Agriculture is still being

practiced today in larger islands but its

products are usually distributed locally.

Secondary sector of production has only a

small share in the total GDP. Naturally then,

primary and tertiary sectors account for the

majority of water consumption in the Dodecanese.

Besides, more than 90% of the water that is being consumed for such purposes

originates from sources that are private, non-monitored and in many cases unlicensed.

Consequently, the Dodecanese islands – especially the smaller ones - are highly vulnerable to

social-economic and ecological drought

which is further exacerbated during the

summer season when population is doubled

or even trebled with the arrival of tourists and

summer holiday makers.

Water consumers’ perceptions and consequent practices

“Water users prefer to avoid requesting permission to bore; they’d rather bypass the

bureaucratic procedure and proceed to private water abstraction by breaching the law”. This

phrase, which was mentioned during the interview with officials of the Decentralized

Administration of the Aegean, illuminates perceptions of a crowd of water users when they are

faced with the risk of drought. Indeed, the ineffective and vulnerable to lobbying and

corruption decision-making system combined with the lack of an integrated plan for water

resource management and relevant public information has allowed the expansion of such

practices of arbitrary and often illegal water procurement. Furthermore, managing authorities at

the regional (self-government) level are not inclined to reject requests on water abstraction

licenses - especially in the large islands – for reasons related to electoral clientele relationships

with the water users (Sapountzaki, Wassenhoven, 2005). This policy of general acceptance of

requested licenses in combination with local incapability to monitor illegal drillings results to

the transference of drought risk to lawful public and private water consumers, to the

transformation of social-economic drought to ecological and ultimately to always more severe

cases of hydrological drought in the long run. Under the circumstances, costly emergency

measures during the summer are indispensable and become the predominant mode of only

8

social-economic drought management always to the detriment of permanent population water

rights and needs

In the small island of Leros for instance there are more than 60 legal and illegal drillings

which contribute to the adverse environmental effects that are observed in the underground

aquifer (Sapountzaki, Wassenhoven, 2005).

Traditional practices of water management such as rainwater collection and storage in

the buildings that could serve as a preventive, permanent drought mitigation measure are rarely

being practiced today and the current regulatory framework does not consider such practices as

compulsory. Moreover, traditional practices have become insufficient since changes in lifestyle

have resulted in a much higher water demand. In the island of Kos for instance a large number

of houses have lawn, a trend that is inconsistent with the sustainable use of the island’s limited

water resources.

Other modern water management practices such as recycling of wastewater are

practiced only by hotels for purposes of irrigation of lawn and ornamental plants. However, this

is not part of a wider conscious private initiative towards drought mitigation, since many hotels

in the Dodecanese rely on their own boreholes for the necessary and unrestricted water

procurement, thus minimizing their dependence upon the public water supply network.

Nevertheless, groups of permanent population who have experienced drought incidents

tend to be more rational users. For instance, several farming groups the income of which is

based on irrigation water quality and availability on a yearly basis are forced to make sensible

use of their sole private (legal or illegal) source of water abstraction. Otherwise, they will be

confronted with very high water prices and dependency on unreliable networks of water supply.

In any case private individual rationality cannot substitute collective. Wise use of water

resources by some private individuals does not benefit them or the whole community due to the

fact that nearly all water consumers (legal and illegal, rational and irrational) drill from the

same aquifer (Sapountzaki, Wassenhoven, 2005).

Social-economic Drought mitigation solutions and impact on the long term hazard and

vulnerability

Arid islands rely exclusively on carriers or desalinization for their water procurement.

Despite the fact that water transportation is subsidized by the government in order to maintain

the public utility character of water supply, there is growing concern that certain interest groups

regulate water demand. Such speculation could be boosted further by the fact that in the past 15

years the transportation cost per cubic meter has multiplied, whereas the total amount of

transported water has been significantly reduced (Table 1). In all respects, this practice clearly

demonstrates that water is not perceived as a common good but rather a privatized commodity.

Furthermore, the alternative solution of desalinization has been only partially

implemented. Unfortunately, desalinated water tends to be very expensive, i.e. surpassing even

the cost of transported water. As long as arid islands continue to depend on privatized and

temporary solutions of water procurement, their vulnerability to social-economic and

hydrological drought will retain or even be amplified in the future.

9

Islands endowed with groundwater resources on the other hand, although seemingly less

vulnerable to drought, they might face hazardous conditions as a result of the prevailing modes

and patterns of water abstraction and consumption. The widespread perception that large

islands don’t lack water resources inhibits actors from viewing the imbalance between offer

and demand owing to excessive development of water-consuming activities and overpopulation

during the summer months. Indeed, the conditions of repeated and non-monitored drilling,

allotting water to smaller islands and delay in the implementation of more permanent measures

to restrict demand may lead to always more frequent hydrological drought incidents.

Restrictions imposed through pricing policies

have been applied in several cases of large

islands but they do not yield the expected

results. Expensive public water pushes users to

seek private, inexpensive and in some cases

more reliable sources of abstraction that better

suit their demands. In such cases stiff water

pricing does not act as a driver toward wiser

consumption, but rather as an excuse for users

to rely on private (even illegal) sources of

water procurement.

In all respects, reliance on external

water resource subsidies somewhat distorts

drought risk and vulnerability perceptions. On

the other hand, lack of a robust and coherent

water management strategy that will address

issues of water use optimization and responses

on drought incidents has allowed the

continuation of private water procurement, thus

increasing the risk of hydrological drought.

North-Eastern Crete: Misleading perceptions of socio-economic drought allowing

development that overrides environmental limits.

Land-use pattern and its impact on water availability

The imposing forms of the mountains of Idi, White Mountains and Dikti which

characterize the rough Cretan terrain are covered with snow for at least six months every year.

However, proximity to the sea, uneven geographical and seasonal distribution of precipitation

and the fact that the majority of the abstracted water originates from underground resources

result in the formulation of drought-prone areas, especially in the Eastern part of the island.

Indeed, according to available data only 13% of the total abstracted water resources are derived

from surface water sources (Chartzoulakis et al., 2001).

Administratively, the north-eastern part of Crete consists of the Prefectures of Iraklio

and Lassithi. During the past decades, this area has been extensively developed along the

waterfront in an unplanned and disorderly way with several cases of adjacent conflicting land

uses. The most common land uses today include urban and holiday residence, large hotel

ANNUAL QUANTITIES OF AND COST FOR

TRANSPORTED WATER IN THE PREFECTURE OF

DODECANESE ISLANDS

YEAR Quantities

(in m3)

Cost per cubic meter

(in Euros)

1997 402.295 2,32

1998 484.994 2,71

1999 461.855 3,05

2000 555.212 3,61

2001 621.297 4,38

2002 617.745 5,03

2003 605.019 5,31

2004 759.737 5,31

2005 969.676 5,24

2006 1.005.338 4,88

2007 1.101.628 4,61

2008 1.141.724 5,05

2009 826.910 5,05

2010 413.909 9,81

2011 288.885 11,07

2012 248.846 11,07

TOTAL 10.505.070

Table 1: Annual quantities of and expenses for transported water in the Prefecture of Dodecanese islands. (Source: Decentralized

Authority of the Aegean).

10

complexes and leisure facilities for tourists, retail and agricultural production, also industrial

and transportation infrastructure.

Concentration of all these facilities in such a small geographical area in combination

with the fact that many of them are quite water consuming has placed excessive pressure on

local water resources. Choices regarding the development of, say, golf courses, the installation

of swimming pools and the application of water demanding crops were based mainly on socio-

political criteria rather than environmental ones. Such decisions lead to a pattern of water

consumption that by far exceeds water availability and supply possibilities, thus potentially

instigating ecological and hydrological drought risk. Indeed, the annual demand for water per

capita of permanent population in the Prefectures of Iraklio and Lassithi is 915 cubic meters,

which is significantly higher than the national average of approximately 750 cubic meters.

(Papamastorakis, Kritsotakis et al, 2001).

Current practices of water procurement and emerging perceptions

The inherently unpredictable nature of drought events may compel managing authorities

to seek emergency measures such as drilling of new boreholes or renting of existing ones that

can produce immediate results. It is apparent that although these measures briefly achieve their

goals, the repeatability of these practices is likely to result in the amplification of hydrological

drought risk. This hazardous situation is exacerbated by the fact that no mitigation plan on how

to cope with long-term drought is available at the moment. Furthermore, the adoption of

modern and more permanent methods of water acquisition such as recycling and desalinization

have taken longer than expected to be implemented mostly because of conflicts of perceptions

and interests and inevitable lack of coordination between the administrative and other actors

involved in the management of water resources.

At the same time, many

privately owned plots and

agricultural holdings use a private –

and often illegal – network of

boreholes and wells, despite the

fact that drilling is strictly

prohibited in the overpopulated

parts of the island. It is estimated

that approximately 50% of the

water used for agriculture today is

abstracted from private boreholes

which the authorities are unable to

monitor (Papamastorakis,

Kritsotakis et al., 2001).

Lack of sufficient monitoring is combined with public water shortage and high water

rates, compels users to continue using this private network of water abstraction. This trend has

led to frequent hydrological drought incidents, with the most recent occurring in 2010. Despite

the fact of repeated experiences of drought and respective impacts, water law offenders

continue with the same practices of abstraction and consumption. This reveals a learning gap

where vivid memory does not act as a risk aversion factor. Simultaneously, dissemination of

Figure 3: Map of Eastern Crete, showing the areas where restrictions on drilling of bores and wells apply. (Source: Decentralized Administration of Crete).

11

information regarding drought risk and the possibilities for a viable water policy on the basis of

consultation of and consensus among stakeholders is minimal.

In the long run, these practices of irrational water abstraction and consumption have

resulted in the extensive salinization of the underground aquifer in many parts of north-eastern

Crete. Severe degradation in the quality of water has had negative impact on both the

availability of water resources and the quality and quantity of the agricultural products of the

wider area

The Aposelemis dam as a permanent drought mitigation solution.

In response to this manmade hydrological drought, the authorities aimed at a more

permanent mitigation solution by constructing a dam that would exploit the Aposelemis river

water volume. The Aposelemis river is located in the region of Lassithi and is one of only few

perennial streams of north-eastern Crete. It flows from the mountains of Dikti towards the sea

and is the main draining corridor for the Lassithi plateau, which lies within its catchment basin.

The dam, which was planned and developed by the former Ministry of Public Works, has a

reservoir capacity of 27 million cubic meters and enough supply to alleviate water shortage

issues that north-eastern Crete is facing today. The authorities anticipate that access to such

abundant water resources will contribute to the reduction of use of a large number of boreholes

that are operated by the authorities today.

At the same time however the new misleading perceptions of water abundance as

created by the dam do not help users to change their mentalities as regards their current malign

water-wasting practices. The dam is also likely to alter the geological and ecological conditions

of the area. During the interviews, concern was raised on the negative impact the dam may

have on the draining process of the Lassithi plateau as well as on the refilling of the

underground aquifer of the areas located immediately downstream. Moreover, the abrupt halt of

the river’s water supply at its delta will most certainly allow the sea to move further inland,

worsening the salinization of the aquifer and further reducing the fertility of the land and the

quality of the agricultural products in the area of Malia. When interventions of such scale are

designed and implemented by central authorities, they are usually not tailored accordingly to

the prevailing local conditions. Consequently, the ensuing impacts on the local environment,

ecology and society are likely to be underestimated.

One might wonder whether the dam project would be a necessary solution to drought

should competent authorities conducted better monitoring of water data, mutual coordination

and appropriate public information and stakeholders’ participation in drafting and

implementing an integrated water policy. The authors of this article are convinced that local

people mentalities prioritizing tourism development and income growth over the risk of

hydrological drought would be very difficult to reverse. This kind of perceptions attributing

low priority to hydrological drought and showing preference to individualized solutions to

social-economic vulnerability to drought tend to drive hydrological regions far beyond their

bearing capacity. In such cases and as responsible authorities follow the will of their political

clientele one major technical intervention (like the Aposelepis dam) will not ever suffice and

subsequent interventions will certainly follow.

12

Conclusion

In the beginning of this paper we stated that drought incidents are to a great extent

socially constructed. Furthermore, human responses towards drought mitigation are based on

the way that individuals consider themselves vulnerable against drought incidents. Past

experience in combination with drought risk information may retain high levels of risk

perception. However, different priorities and approaches of individual actors and stakeholders

lead to multiple interpretations of vulnerability and consequently non-univocal perceptions and

responses on drought risk. These result in non-preemptive drought mitigation measures that

focus on the problem only according to the views and perceptions of the actors involved and

often fail to sufficiently address drought issues that are observed in the ecological and

hydrological system.

The common point of all three cases that were discussed above is that drought

mitigation measures aim at satisfying the current and future water demand, regardless of the

fact that drought risk and the related perceptions stems from unwise practices of water

abstraction. This mismatch indicates that drought mitigation measures are often decided on the

basis of insufficient knowledge dissemination and risk communication. The prevailing

interventions are made in a top-down mode of response to drought and pursue satisfaction of

partial development interests ignoring the wider public interest and hydrological system

protection.

We maintain that unilateral use of perceptions of socio-economic drought as drivers of

water resource (and drought risk) management is a recipe of hydrological and ecological

drought mismanagement. An integrated approach is necessary; one that would incorporate

ecological perspective, promote the importance of collective solutions to water shortage and

encompass all actors involved in the management of water resources. The way forward is to

achieve convergence of different perceptions through enhanced drought risk communication

and promotion of a mentality that through time would result in the abolishment of malign

practices in water use.

References

Chartzoulakis, Papanychianakis, Angelakis (2001) “Water Resources Management in the

Island of Crete, Greece, with emphasis on the agricultural use”, on Water Policy, 3, pp. 193-

205.

Commission of the European Communities (2010), ENSURE Project (Enhancing Resilience

of Communities and Territories Facing Natural and Na-tech Hazards) (2009-2011) financed

with the contribution of the European Commission, 7th

Framework Programme (FP7). Del. 3.1,

“Analysis of vulnerability factors versus time” (Wassenhoven L., Sapountzaki K. et.al. 2010).

http://www.ensureproject.eu/

Commission of the European Communities. 2008, Regions 2020: An assessment of future

challenges for EU regions, Commission Staff Working Document, SEC(2008), Brussels,

November 2008.

Commission of the European Communities. 2009, White Paper “Adapting to climate

change: Towards a European framework for action”, COM(2009) 147 final, Brussels,

1.4.2009.

13

ENVIPLAN (G. Tsekouras & Associates), 2004, Evaluation of the Acheloos River Diversion

Project, Summary, Athens.

Kasperson R., Renn O., Slovic P., Brown H.S., Emel J., Goble R., Kasperson J.X., Ratick S.

(1988) “The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework”, Risk Analysis, 8 (2),

pp.177-187.

Keenan S.P., Krannich R.S. (1997) “Social context of perceived drought vulnerability”,

Rural Sociology, 62(1), pp. 69-88.

Kehagias E., Tselepidou K., et al. (2010) “Planning water resources management in small

islands: typical cases from South Aegean, Greece”, online at:

http://invenio.lib.auth.gr/record/124540/files/Dodekanisa%20IARH.doc

Mamasis N, Koutsogiannis D, (2007) “Natural, social and technological aspects of drought

– The example of Athens”. In Sapounzaki K (ed.), To avrio en kindino, Athens: Gutenberg (in

Greek).

Ministry of Development, Competitiveness, Infrastructure, Transportation and Networks

(2007), “Regional Operational Framework for Crete and Southern Aegean”, ESPA 2007-

2013, online at: http://www.espa.gr/elibrary/Episimo_Keimeno_Kritis-Nison_Aigaiou.pdf

Ministry for the Environment, Spatial Planning and Public Works (2009) “Statement to the

press of the Minister G. Souflias on the Acheloos project”, 9 April 2009, Athens.

Mylopoulos, I. (2007) “Climate change and the environment”, Nomos kai Physi, September

2007 (in Greek).

Mylopoulos, I. (coordinator) et al., 2009, “Climate change, natural environment and

countryside development”. In ISTAME (Institute of Strategic and Development Studies), Green

Development, Reports for consultation, Athens, pp. 55-162 (in Greek).

Papamastorakis, Kritsotakis et al. (2001) “Study on the Integrated Management of Water

Resources of Crete”, Iraklio, Region of Crete.

Sapountzaki K., Wassenhoven L. (2005) “Consensus building and sustainability: Some

lessons from an adverse local experience in Greece”, on Environment, Development and

Sustainability, 7, pp. 433-452.