Upload
ngotu
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Drought Management: Shifting the Paradigm from Crisis to Risk Management:
Challenges and Opportunities
Dr. Donald A. Wilhite, DirectorNational Drought Mitigation Center
Professor, School of Natural ResourcesUniversity of Nebraska-Lincoln
• annual losses $6-8 billion
• 2002 losses >$20 billion
• increasing vulnerability
•increasing impacts
•complexity of impacts
• national/global issue
“Drought is the ‘Rodney Dangerfield’ of natural hazards.”
Where’s the respect?
Why the lack of respect?
Slow-onset, creeping hazardNo universal definitionNon-structural impacts, minimal property damageMinimal loss of lifeDifficult to assess severity and impacts
Multiple indicators and indices
Drought cycles vs. political cyclesPolitical will
Top-down vs. bottom-up management approach
Percent Area of the United States in Severe and Extreme Drought
January 1895–September 2003
%
Based on data from the National Climatic Data Center/NOAA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995
Characteristics of Crisis Managementreactive, post-impactpoorly coordinateduntimelypoorly targetedineffectivedecreases self-reliance greater vulnerability
Since 1988, the U.S. Congress has appropriated $48 billion in drought relief.
Has this expenditure reduced or increased vulnerability to drought?
Drought differs from other natural hazards
Slow-onset, creeping phenomena (early warning systems, impact assessment, response)Absence of universal definition (leads to confusion and inaction)Severity is best described through multiple indicators and indices (early warning systems)Impacts are non-structural and spread over large areas (makes assessment and response difficult; mitigation actions less obvious)RESULT, progress on drought preparedness has been slow
Lessons Learned—U.S.
Federal assistance programs are numerous, poorly coordinated, and reactive (response oriented)Relief increases vulnerability, no incentive to change resource management practices greater impacts, increased need for government assistancePreparedness and mitigation reduces vulnerability, impacts, and the need for government intervention; a good investmentEarly warning is the foundation of effective drought planning and mitigation integrated early warning
Improve monitoring networks and information delivery to end users to improve decision making reduces risk and impactsComprehensive, integrated assessments
Natural and Social Dimensions of Drought
Decreasing emphasis on the natural event (precipitation deficiencies)
MeteorologicalAgricultural
Hydrological
Socio-economic
Increasing emphasis on water/natural resource management
Increasing complexity of impacts and conflicts
Time/Duration of the event
National Drought Mitigation Center
Mission: To lessen societal vulnerability to drought by promoting
planning and the adoption of appropriate risk management
techniques.
Components of Drought Risk Management
(social factors)(natural event)
A New Paradigm for Drought Management
Challenges and Opportunities
Integrated Climate/Drought/Water Supply Monitoring and Early Warning
Consultation with end usersImproved delivery systemsTraining in the use of informationUser feedback
U.S. Drought MonitorSeveral key indices and ancillary indicatorsAttempts to capture conditions across widespectrum of drought conditions
Challenges and Opportunities
Integrated Climate/Drought and Water Supply Monitoring and Early WarningImproved Seasonal Climate Forecasts
Increased reliabilitySpatial scaleTemporal scale
Challenges and Opportunities
Integrated Climate/Drought and Water Supply Monitoring and Early WarningImproved Seasonal Climate ForecastsEnhance drought preparedness planning
Move from response to mitigation planningEmphasize risk assessment and mitigation at local, state, tribal, and national level—acknowledge drought as a normal part of climate
Status of State Drought Planning
in the United States, 2004
States with plans emphasizing response
Drought plans under revision
States with plans emphasizing mitigationStates developing long-term plansStates delegating drought planning to local authoritiesStates without drought plans
Moving toward Drought Risk Management: Components of
Drought Mitigation PlansMonitoring, early warning, and prediction
Climate indices and indicators, water supply assessments, forecasts, delivery and feedback systems Foundation of a DEWS
Risk and impact assessmentWho and what is at risk and why?
Mitigation and responsePro-active programs and actions to reduce risksSafety net/programs
Response Mitigation
Increasing need for timely and reliable climate/water supply assessments
Increasing need for higher resolution analysis for policy decision support
Challenges and Opportunities
Integrated Climate/Drought and Water Supply Monitoring and Early WarningImproved Seasonal Climate ForecastsEnhance drought preparedness planningNational Drought Policy
National Drought Preparedness Act—pending in U.S. CongressAre there discussions in Canada about a national drought policy?
Why should the U.S. develop a national drought policy?
Canada
Crisis management ineffective, increases vulnerability, decreases self-relianceLittle coordination between agencies on drought management—national and state levelsPromotes improved monitoring, planning, and mitigation at all levels of governmentParadigm shift—institutional inertiaEducate policy makers and the public
National Drought Preparedness Act
Creates National Drought CouncilFederal and non-federal members
National Office of Drought PreparednessEmphasis on risk managementPromotes drought preparedness planningNational Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS)
Challenges and Opportunities
Integrated Climate/Drought and Water Supply Monitoring and Early WarningImproved Seasonal Climate ForecastsEnhance drought preparedness planningNational Drought PolicyDrought Preparedness: A Global Issue
Regional Drought Preparedness NetworksGlobal Drought Preparedness Network
Global Drought Preparedness Network
GOAL:To help nations build greater institutional
capacity to cope with drought by promoting risk management and sharing lessons learned on drought monitoring and prediction, mitigation, and preparedness.
Building a Network of Regional Networks through Regional and Global Partnerships
Drought Resilient Society
Risk-based drought policy and plans
Society resilientto drought
Drought mitigation actions implemented
Policies to enhance social adaptive capacity, at both local and national scales
Authorities aware and accountable to vulnerable populations, sectors, regions
Appropriate land tenure arrangements
Security
rein
forc
ent
Fact
ors
Red
ucin
g vu
lner
abili
tySo
ciet
al
resp
ok
Nat
ure
Political capital
All groups able to claim rights
Cul
ture
of p
reve
ntio
n,
early
war
ning
sys
tem
s
Integrated Drought EWS
Society exposed to droughtns
e to
liv
ing
with
ris
Con
sequ
ence
s,
em
Impacts reduced or avoidedLessons
learned
ConclusionsDrought is a normal part of climate for virtually all climate regimes—a global issueDrought is the most costly natural disaster, resulting in serious economic, social and environmental lossesImpacts are increasing in magnitude and complexity—increasing vulnerabilityImproved preparedness requires improved drought early warning and greater emphasis on risk-based planning and mitigationParadigm shift is critical to change institutional inertia—crisis to risk management
Drought policies and plans can . . .
improve detection, assessment, mitigation, and level of preparednessimprove coordinationreduce vulnerability and impactsprovide incentives to improve natural resources management practicesimprove self-reliancelessen the need for government and donor interventionreduce vulnerability to climate change.
Recommendations
Create a national drought centerDevelop a partnership to develop a Canadian Drought Monitor mapInitiate discussions about changing the paradigm of drought management in Canada—move away from crisis management to risk management!Cross the 49th parallel—build partnershipsCreate a North American drought preparedness network with U.S. and Mexico