Congress Resources: Papers, posters and presentations

< Return to abstract list

A New Framework For Drought Risk Management

Congress: 2015
Author(s): Paul Sayers, Catherine Moncrieff, Yuanyuan Li, Gang Lei
Sayers and Partners, Watlington, Oxfordshire, UK and Senior Fellow, Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography, Univers1, General Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Planning (GIWP), China2, WWF-China3

Keyword(s): Sub-theme 11: Key vulnerabilities and security risks,
AbstractINTRODUCTION
Internationally, governments are committing significant resources to manage water better. One particular issue of increasing global concern is drought. The inadequacy of current practice (as observed through the continued impacts droughts have) underpins the general consensus that drought management approaches must improve and that a transformational change in approach is required; away from a 'reactive, episodic, process based on an emergency response' towards a 'proactive, continuous, process of risk management'. Although some progress has been made in recent years (e.g. Hall et al, 2013; Wilhite, 2014; Wilhite et al, 2000) this transition is only in its infancy. Ambiguity in the terminology of 'drought' and the lack of a strategic framework of analysis and management, as now well developed in the context of many other natural hazards (e.g. Sayers et al, 2013, Paton & Johnston, 2006), are important reasons for the slow uptake. This paper presents a new ontology of drought and outlines a new framework for strategic drought management that integrates risk and ecosystem-based approaches.

METHODS
The findings presented here are based upon the results of a longstanding collaboration between WWF and the GIWP (General Institute of Water and Hydropower, China) to develop a new strategic approach to drought risk management in order to support water managers and policy makers (both in China and globally) in delivering better drought risk management and therefore better social, economic and ecological outcomes. This highly productive collaboration has included (i) a review of international best practice, (ii) the identification of lessons from historical droughts, and (iii) various face-to-face expert working sessions involving WWF (UK and China), leading specialists in China (from the GIWP), and international experts.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The paper will clarify what is meant by a 'drought' in modern times and propose an ontology, or organised structure, for articulating the various components of droughts. Building on this and recent developments in risk management and ecosystem management, a new framework for modern drought risk management is proposed. The text below presents the highlights from this work.

How to distinguish between drought and water scarcity? Beyond the general understanding that drought is about the lack of water, there is a multitude of formal definitions that reflect evolving perceptions of drought and its impact. Drought relates to an extreme event and should be viewed as distinct from the longer-term issue of water scarcity. Water scarcity arises when the average water demand (from humans and the environment) is higher than the long-term renewable supply. The degree of water scarcity within a basin will influence drought risk and how to manage it.

An organised structure, or ontology, of drought is proposed that highlights the twin drivers of drought: climate variability and anthropogenic effects. It distinguishes the different types of drought (i.e. Meteorological, Blue Water and Green Water Droughts), illustrating how they are linked. It also defines the associated impacts of drought on human systems and ecosystems.

The purpose of modern drought risk management. Through the study there emerged four main goals: (1) to safeguard individual needs, (2) to safeguard and promote ecosystems, (3) to maintain economic functions, (4) to ensure societal well-being. The second purpose emerges from an increasing awareness of the benefits of on ecosystems-based approach to disaster risk reduction, highlighted by the Hyogo Framework for Action (2005), as well as a need to take a 'whole systems' view of drought management - i.e. understand the interdependencies of the humans and ecosystems and work to build the resilience of this interconnected system.

A new framework of strategic drought risk management is proposed that consists of 3 inter-related phases: (1) Preparedness phase, that takes a long term view and focuses on building resilience to future droughts; (2) Response phase, where the focus becomes increasingly centred on actions to minimise impacts and where actions escalate through 3 stages: pre-alert, alert, emergency; (3) Recovery phase, where the focus moves to promoting rapid recovery of the human and freshwater systems.

A key outcome of the study was the development of a set of characteristics that underpin a strategic and effective approach to drought risk management:
Characteristic 1: Understands the whole system behaviour (including the relationships between humans and ecosystems) and aims to achieve societal goals.
Characteristic 2: Uses knowledge of risk and uncertainty to inform decisions.
Characteristic 3: Implements a portfolio of measures and instruments (including capitalising on the benefits that good ecosystem management can bring to reducing drought risks).
Characteristic 4: Monitors, reviews and adapts.

CONCLUSIONS
Through synthesising lessons and best practice from past drought experiences it is clear that significant opportunity exists to manage drought better. In particular, (1) there is still much ambiguity over what is meant by drought and how this differs from water scarcity; (2) risk-based approaches to drought management are only just emerging, with much of drought risk management still based on a 'standards based' approach that use historical 'reference droughts' as the basis of planning; (3) the importance of protecting ecosystems in order to reduce drought risk has not yet been fully realised in drought management. The new conceptual understanding of drought risk management to be presented in this paper provides a useful guidance to make this transition.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study has been made possible through an ongoing partnership between WWF and the GIWP, China. The contribution from various colleagues in WWF and the GIWP (including Dr Dave Tickner and Prof Li) as well as various international collaborators is gratefully acknowledged. 1.Hall, J.W., Watts, G., Keil, M., de Vial, L., Street, R., Conlan, K., O'Connell, P.E., Beven, K.J. and Kilsby, C.G., 2012. Towards risk-based water resources planning in England Wales under a changing climate. Water and Environment Journal, 26(1): 118-129.

2.Paton, D. and Johnston, D., 2006. Disaster Resilience: An integrated approach. Springfield, Ill., Charles C. Thomas.

3.Sayers, P., Li, Y., Galloway, G., Penning-Rowsell, E., Shen, F., Wen, K., Chen Y., Le Quesne. T., 2013. Flood Risk Management: A strategic approach. Paris, UNESCO, WWF, ADB, GIWP.

4.Wilhite, D.A., 2014. Changing the paradigm for drought management: Can we break the Hydro-illogical Cycle? Water Resources Impact (Invited essay, Special Issue, AWRA at 50: The Future for Water Resources in the United States) January. American Water Resources Association.

5.Wilhite, D.A., Hayes, M.J., Knutson, C., and Smith K.H., 2000. Planning for Drought: Moving from Crisis to Risk Management. J. of Amer. Water Res. Assoc. 36:697-710.

2011 IWRA - International Water Resources Association office@iwra.org - http://www.iwra.org - Admin