Planning for Drought: Moving from Crisis to Risk Management

1
Australian and U.S. Drought Policy
Experiences Are Lessons Learned Transferable to
Africa?
Dr. Donald A. Wilhite, Director National Drought
Mitigation Center University of Nebraska Lincoln,
Nebraska U.S.A.
2
U.S. and AustraliaA Comparative Analysis

• U.S. and Australia drought prone nations
• National government has played a major role in
  the provision of drought assistance
• Both governments have traditionally approached
  drought management via crisis management
  (response/reactive)
• Recent severe drought events continue to foster
  an ongoing debate on policies and management
  strategies

3
Recent 1999 to current drought event
Drought occurs virtually every year in the U.S.
4
Australian Drought March 2002-January 2003

• Rainfall percentiles

5
History of Australian Drought Policy

• Until 1989, drought was officially considered a
  natural disaster
• Relief was via State Governments, and
  increasingly, the national Government often on an
  ad hoc basis
• In 1989-early 1990s, official view changed
  drought should be viewed as a natural part of the
  Australian environment, and farmers should adopt
  a risk management approach
• In July 1992, a National Drought Policy was
  formally agreed

6
Australias National Drought Policy 1992

• Principles
• Encourage primary producers and other sections of
  rural Australia to adopt self-reliant approaches
  to managing climate variability
• Maintain and protect Australias agricultural and
  environmental resource base during extreme
  climatic stress
• Ensure early recovery of agricultural and rural
  industries, consistent with long term sustainable
  levels

7
Australias National Drought Policy

• Core principle of self-reliance, i.e. farmers in
  best position to develop agronomic systems,
  practices, and business strategies to manage
  agriculture drought
• Moved drought policy from subsidy-based, crisis
  driven approach
• Focused rural Australia on developing risk
  management strategies to manage climate and
  market variability

8
Australian Drought Policy Components

• Role of government is to provide farmers with
  skills/tools to help manage in self-reliant
  fashion
• Research into climate variability and predictions
• Seasonal climate predictions
• Decision support tools
• Training and educations
• Tax incentives and social support
• Increase resiliency to drought through proactive,
  mitigation measures

9
Drought Exceptional Circumstances (DEC)1995

• Direct government intervention warranted only
  when
• Drought is exceptional event (i.e., rare and
  severe)
• Rare 1 in 20 year event
• Severe gt12 consecutive months or 3 consecutive
  failed seasons
• Drought must affect a significant portion of
  businesses in the region
• Raised questions and debate over the criteria to
  be used to make this decision

10
U.S. Progress in Drought Planning and Policy

• Before early 1980s, states relied on federal
  government for assistance
• Early 1980s saw a rapid increase in state drought
  response plans
• Emphasis on response planning continues 1996
• Increasing number of state plans with emphasis on
  mitigation planning, i.e., risk management
• Currently, 38 states with drought plans
• Movement by states to emphasize drought planning
  has placed pressure on the federal government to
  develop a risk-based national policy

11

• Key Components of Drought Plans include
• Monitoring, prediction, and early warning
• Risk and impact assessment
• Mitigation and response

12
Benefits of Drought Plans

• Proactive, emphasizes mitigation and response
• Improves coordination between and within levels
  of government ? organizational structure
• Enhances early warning through integrated
  monitoring efforts
• Involves stakeholders

13
Benefits of Drought Plans continued

• Identifies areas, groups, sectors at risk
• Reduces economic, environmental, and social
  impacts (i.e., risk)
• Reduces conflicts between water users
• Improves information dissemination ? better
  delivery systems
• Builds public awareness

14
National Drought Preparedness Act

• Creates National Drought Council
• Federal and non-federal members
• National Office of Drought Preparedness
• Emphasis on risk management
• Promotes drought preparedness planning
• National Integrated Drought Information System
  (NIDIS)

15
Conclusions

• Political will must be present to change the
  drought management paradigm
• Leadership and the appropriate organizational
  framework is criticalcollaboration/partnerships
  within and between levels of government is
  essential in drought planning and policy
  development
• Stakeholders must be involved early and often in
  the development of policies and plans
• Public education and awareness building is
  critical for decision makers, policy makers, the
  media, and the public

16
Conclusions

• Transitioning from crisis to risk-based drought
  management requires additional financial
  resources up front to implement mitigation
  measures
• Risk-based management will lessen impacts and the
  need for government and donor intervention
  through improved self-reliance
• A risk-based management approach requires
  improved assessment tools and higher resolution
  analysis to better target mitigation actions and
  response programs

17
Conclusions

• Information for decision support must be
  efficiently delivered to users that are trained
  in the application of the information
• Nations can learn from one another, adapting
  monitoring and risk and impact assessment tools
  and planning methodologies to national needs
• Drought plans and policies must be dynamic,
  incorporating lessons learned and changing
  societal vulnerability because drought risk is a
  product of both exposure to the hazard and the
  vulnerability of society to the hazard (i.e., the
  social dimension of drought) Risk Hazard x
  Vulnerability

18
Visit the NDMC drought.unl.edu dwilhite2_at_unl.edu