Drought Risk Reduction: Changing the Paradigm for Drought Management
Donald A. Wilhite, Professor, School of Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln U.S.A.
Drought is a common feature of the landscape in virtually all climatic regions of the world. In fact, it is a normal part of climate, rather than apart from it. Droughts differ from one another in terms of three important characteristics—intensity, duration, and spatial extent. The frequency and severity (intensity) of drought varies markedly from region to region and, as a result, keeping the attention of water managers, policy makers, and the public on its improved management once it has abated has typically been difficult. Thus, moving societies from a reactive approach to drought management (i.e., crisis management) to a more proactive, risk-based management approach has been a significant challenge.
The crisis management approach that has historically characterized government and donor-driven response to drought throughout the world is illustrated by what I refer to as the hydro-illogical cycle (picture right). Drought is a slow-onset, creeping phenomenon. Absent a comprehensive, integrated early warning system that gathers and assesses the status of water supplies on a regular basis and communicates that assessment to decision makers, the severity of drought often goes undetected until a water shortage reaches crisis stage. Once we have reached a state of crisis, there are few alternatives other than providing relief to the most drought-affected sectors. However, studies have shown that drought or disaster relief does little to reduce societal vulnerability to the next event. It could even increase vulnerability because it encourages the status quo in terms of resource management practices. In other words, vulnerability to drought is often the direct result of poor planning and resource management. If we are to reduce societal vulnerability to drought, we need to encourage improved planning and resource management by redirecting a significant portion of the funds spent on disaster relief to mitigation programs that target those people and sectors most at risk and, thus, create a greater coping capacity through improved resource management.
Changing the Paradigm
To break the hydro-illogical cycle, nations need to establish national integrated drought monitoring and early warning information systems that compile information continuously on the status of all segments of the hydrologic cycle and deliver that information to decision makers quickly so risks can be reduced through the implementation of pre-determined mitigation actions. Needed information includes not only precipitation deficiencies and temperature anomalies but also the status of surface and groundwater supplies, soil moisture, snowpack, and vegetation. Long-term climate forecasts, although not always reliable for many regions, may provide usable information for decision makers as well, especially in areas where phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña result in significant climatic anomalies. Additional research should also be directed to the identification of the key causes of drought in various regions in order to improve seasonal forecast skill to enable better planning.
In the United States, the development of the U.S. Drought Monitor in 1999 signaled a new approach to monitoring drought across the nation. This approach integrates information on a weekly basis from a wide range of sources on many drought indicators and indices (www.drought.unl.edu/monitor) to inform managers, policy makers and the public on the severity of drought conditions across the country. The preparation of this weekly map is a collaborative effort between the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC) at the University of Nebraska, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). This integrated approach for characterizing drought conditions in the United States can be used as a template for other countries, basing their characterization of drought conditions and severity on a broader range of variables than precipitation alone. The development of the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) by NOAA for the United States in 2006 represents the next step in integrating information, including impacts, into national assessments of drought severity and spatial extent (www.drought.gov).
However, the development of integrated drought monitoring and early warning information systems is only the first step that nations can take to be better prepared for future drought conditions. A national, regional, or provincial/state based drought mitigation plan should also be developed and implemented. A drought mitigation plan has these essential elements:
- Monitoring, early warning, and information delivery systems, including integrated monitoring of key indicators, the use of appropriate indicators and indices, and the development of decision support tools;
- Risk and impact assessment, including monitoring and archiving of drought impacts; and
- Mitigation and response measures to lessen impacts and increase coping capacity.
These elements of a drought mitigation plan are incorporated in a 10-step drought planning process that is available on the website (http://drought.unl.edu/portals/0/docs/10StepProcess.pdf) of the NDMC (picture left). The second element above, risk and impact assessment, is a principal part of the drought mitigation planning process since the goal of this process is to reduce the impacts of drought. This element of the drought mitigation plan focuses greater attention on the identification of the most vulnerable sectors, population groups, or regions (i.e., determining who and what is at risk and why). An assessment of the historical and most recent impacts associated with drought allows us to quickly highlight these risks and address them through the implementation of mitigation measures that will improve the coping capacity (i.e., resilience) of these sectors, groups, and regions. Mitigation measures are defined as those actions that are taken in advance that will reduce the impacts of drought when it occurs.
The risk associated with drought (and other natural hazards) is a reflection of both a region’s exposure to drought conditions and its vulnerability. Exposure is defined by the frequency and severity of historical drought occurrences and current trends. It varies regionally and may increase in the future for many areas as a result of a changing climate. Vulnerability is defined by a long list of social factors, including population growth and migration patterns, land use changes, technology, urbanization, environmental degradation, water use trends, government policies, and increased environmental awareness, to name a few. It is difficult to assess how trends in each of these and other factors affect vulnerability, but it is clear that each drought event overlays a society with vulnerabilities that are different from the previous event. Tracking these changes/trends is critically important as part of a drought mitigation planning process.
Since the early 1980s in the United States, there has been a growing trend by states toward the development of drought plans. Although the emphasis of the majority of these plans has historically been on a response-based (reactive) approach, the pattern now is to shift the emphasis to a mitigation-based approach that addresses key areas of vulnerability during non-drought periods, thus reducing impacts when the next drought occurs. Currently, 47 of the 50 U.S. states have developed drought plans, and 12 of these state plans focus greater attention on mitigation actions as an integral part of their drought planning process.
The way forward
There is currently a significant effort globally to change the paradigm for drought management. In March 2013, the High-level Meeting on National Drought Policy (HMNDP) was held in Geneva, Switzerland, with sponsorship by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Secretariat of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), in collaboration with a number of UN agencies and international and regional organizations. The declaration forthcoming from this meeting (www.hmndp.org) calls for the development of national drought policies, based on the principles of drought risk management, by all nations as a means to reduce societal vulnerability to drought. Four follow-on regional workshops are currently being organized by UN-Water, WMO, FAO, and UNCCD. In addition, the Integrated Drought Management Program (IDMP) was launched at the HMNDP, with sponsorship by the Global Water Partnership and the WMO. The goal of IDMP is “to support stakeholders at all levels by providing policy and management guidance and by sharing scientific information, knowledge and best practices for Integrated Drought Management” (http://www.gwp.org/Global/The%20Challenge/Drought/GWP-WMO%20IDMP%20flyer_new.pdf). The success of this program and the follow-on workshops to HMNDP will be crucial to maintaining momentum for drought risk management and a move toward more drought-resilient societies.
About the Author
Donald A. Wilhite is the founding director of the National Drought Mitigation Center in the United States and an expert on drought monitoring, preparedness, and policy.