untitled

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices: Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Published by the United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland, in partnership

with the National Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A. August 2009

May be referenced as “UNISDR, 2009. Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices: Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo

Framework for Action. United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland, 213 pp.”

Any part of this text may be reproduced without permission provided that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context and the

source of the material is clearly acknowledged by means of the above title, publisher and date. The wide dissemination, reproduction and

use of the document are encouraged. If any reproductions, translations or quotations are generated, a copy of the document or quotation is

requested to be forwarded to the UNISDR.

Disclaimer: This publication has been assembled on a best endeavours basis and the UNISDR regrets any errors or omissions present.

The information provided does not necessarily reﬂect the views of the United Nations Secretariat, the members of the ISDR system or the

organizations referred to in the publication. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply

the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations or the UNISDR concerning the legal status of any

country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

United Nations secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

International Environment House II

7-9 Chemin de Balexert

CH-1219 Chatelaine, Geneva, Switzerland

www.unisdr.org and www.preventionweb.net

Email: isdr@un.org

USA National Drought Mitigation Center,

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

P.O. Box 830988

Lincoln, NE 68583-0988, USA

www.drought.unl.edu

Email: ndmc@unl.edu

Photo cover: Drip system in Cauliﬂower in Churiya, Makawanpur, Nepal. Boosting Poor Households’ Crop Production with Drip and Sprinkler

Irrigation. Manahari Development Institute – Nepal (MDI-Nepal).

iii

Foreword

In an increasingly vulnerable world, nations, communities and individuals are confronted daily with suffering and

loss of lives and livelihoods resulting from disasters triggered by natural and human-induced hazards. Worldwide,

the number of disasters has grown over recent decades. This trend will be aggravated with the projections related

to global climate change. Coordinated actions of the international community are urgently needed in order to

address the root causes of disasters and to signiﬁcantly increase national, local and community capacities to reduce

their vulnerabilities.

Drought is one of the major natural hazard threats to people’s livelihoods and community socio-economic

development. Each year, disasters originating from prolonged drought not only affect tens of millions of people,

but also contribute to famine and starvation among millions of people, particularly in some African countries.

Drought is a slow-onset hazard, which provides time to consider and address its complex root causes, such as

understanding people’s vulnerabilities and identifying unsafe conditions related to poverty, fragile local economy,

livelihoods at risk, lack of strategies and plans, limited institutional capacities and resources. Understanding these

issues allows government authorities and the public to undertake effective drought mitigation and preparedness

measures.

In January 2005, governments adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of

Nations and Communities to Disasters, with the primary goal of achieving a substantial global reduction in disaster

risk, and contributing to the sustainable development of nations. The HFA provides comprehensive action-

oriented policy guidance based on a holistic understanding of disasters, as induced by human vulnerability to

natural hazards, and it reﬂects a solid commitment by governments and organizations to implement an effective

disaster reduction agenda. In order to support the implementation of the HFA at all levels, a strong partnership is

being forged throught the ISDR system. It comprises government representatives; international, regional, and UN

organizations; and civil society organizations, and aims at coordinating programmes and activities, identify good

practices and gaps, and promote positive action.

With the aim of guiding the implementation of the HFA in respect to drought, the UNISDR secretariat in

cooperation with the National Drought Mitigation Center (University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA) and other partners

has developed the present document, based on current thinking and practice in many countries. It elaborates a

framework for understanding drought and vulnerability to drought, and provides guidance on actions to reduce

the risks associated with drought. The document discusses drought policy and governance, risk identiﬁcation and

early warning, awareness and knowledge management, and effective mitigation and preparedness measures.

These framework elements are illustrated with practical examples, techniques, and extensive background

information.

Drought Risk Reduction framework and practices: Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for

Action is intended to assist national governments and local communities, as well as international, regional and

donor communities, to address the root causes of drought-related disasters, and to reduce drought impacts and

the consequences for human welfare and food insecurity. The UNISDR will welcome any feedback, which will be

incorporated in complementary versions.

Margareta Wahlström

Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction

Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, United Nations

Acknowledgements

The document draws on several sources and expert meetings:

In 2003, the UNISDR convened an Ad Hoc Discussion Group on Drought at the request of the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on

Disaster Reduction. Experts and practitioners of several institutes and UN agencies discussed new paradigms and actions required to reduce

global drought risk. These discussions were captured in a document entitled “Living with Risk: An Integrated Approach to Reducing Societal

Vulnerability to Drought”, which is one of the guiding documents for the current discussion (see http://www.unisdr.org/eng/task%20force/tf-

adhoc/droughts/WGD-doc1.pdf).

In June 2006, some members of the Ad Hoc Group were re-convened in Beijing with the support of the Ministry of Civil Affairs of China and

the China National Committee for Disaster Reduction. The group discussions contributed to developing the main elements for a Drought Risk

Reduction framework.

In October 2006, a ﬁrst document was presented in Nairobi at the 2nd African Drought Risk Reduction Forum organized by the UNDP/Drylands

Development Centre and the UNISDR. Governments, policymakers, UN organizations, experts and practitioners participated in this forum

provided valuable recommendations, information and good practices.

On this basis and considering ongoing discussions, the UNISDR, under the guidance and coordination of Pedro Basabe; and the National

Drought Mitigation Center (NDMC), University of Nebraska-Lincoln, United States, with the substantive support of Dr. Cody Knutson, have

worked together in identifying and analyzing practical information and tools to present an integrated global framework geared toward deﬁning

concepts, understanding people’s vulnerability and proposing key elements for a Drought Risk Reduction framework illustrated with practices

to guide the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action. Complementing this information, the last chapter of this document informs

about existing institutions and networks working in drought issues and proposes a global network to enhance knowledge sharing and promote

drought risk reduction.

The preliminary version of this document entitled “Drought Risk Reduction framework and practices: contributing to the implementation of the

Hyogo Framework for Action” was realised in May 2007.

We wish to express appreciation to other contributors for the 2007 edition, namely:

Nancy Balfour, European Commission Humanitarian Ofﬁce (ECHO), Nairobi, Kenya

Adelia Branco, Brazil

Alexandre Côté, UNISDR Africa, Nairobi, Kenya

Ulrich Hess, UN World Food Programme, Rome, Italy

Ana Iglesias, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain

David Jones, National Climate Center, Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Melbourne, Australia

Henri Josserand, FAO, Rome, Italy

Pak Sum Low, UNESCAP, Bangkok, Thailand

Hongjun Miao, UNISDR, Beijing, China

Edward Namusasi, IGAD Climate Prediction and Applications Centre (ICPAC) Nairobi, Kenya

Laban A. Ogallo, IGAD ICPAC, Nairobi, Kenya

Mohammed Omar Mukhier, IFRC, Geneva, Switzerland

Eric Patrick, UNDP Drylands Development Centre, Nairobi, Kenya

Chris Reij, Center for International Cooperation, Vrije University, Amsterdam, Netherlands

S. Piers Simpkin, ICRC, Nairobi, Kenya

M.V.K. Sivakumar, World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Vladimir Smakhtin, International Water Mgt Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka

Lena Tallaksen, University of Oslo, Norway

Henny A.J. Van Lanen, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands

Bangzhong Wang, China Meteorological Administration, Beijing, China

ZhenYao Wang, National Disaster Reduction Center of China, Beijing

Richard Wilcox, WFP, Rome, Italy

Donald Wilhite, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA

The present 2009 edition of “Drought Risk Reduction framework and practices: contributing to the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for

Action” was revised by the UNISDR, mainly by Pedro Basabe and Yoko Hagiwara, based on additional discussions and contribution made at the 3rd

African Drought Adaptation Forum in Addis Ababa in September 2008, and complementary research, inputs and comments received from various

experts, other UN actors, academic and research institutions and NGOs listed above. It was also reviewed by Sálvano Briceño, Director, UNISDR

and UNDP/DDC. Good practices on annex 3 were compiled by Elena Dokhlik under the guidance of Feng Min Kan and edited by Alain Valency. The

UNISDR is grateful to Dr. Cody Knutson of the National Drought Mitigation Center, U.S.A. for substantive contributions to the contents of the revised

document, and to Ms. Deborah Wood for editing the document. Graphic design was done by Mario Barrantes of UNISDR.

The UNISDR would like to express appreciation to other contributors for the present edition, namely:

Stephan Baas, FAO, Rome, Italy

Inés Brill, OCHA, Geneva, Switzerland

Emmanuel Chinyamakobvu, UNCCD secretariat, Bonn, Germany

Elysabeth David, UNCCD secretariat, Bonn, Germany

Sabine Dier, CARE Deutschland-Luxemburg, Bonn, Germany

Ira Frydman, UNDP Drylands Development Centre, Nairobi, Kenya

Ulrich Hess, WFP, Rome, Italy

Yukie Hori, UNCCD secretariat, Bonn, Germany

Jennifer Nyberg, FAO, Rome, Italy

Mikhail Outkine, UNCCD secretariat, Bonn, Germany

Paolo Paron, FAO, Nairobi, Kenya

Eric Patrick, UNDP Drylands Development Centre, Nairobi, Kenya

Lene Poulsen, Consultant and former UNDP staff

Sálvano Briceño, Feng-Min Kan, Elena Dokhlik, Silvia Llosa, Yvette Stevens, Marilise Turnbull and Juliet Khisa of UNISDR

Valentijn Venus, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Netherlands

Sergio Zelaya, UNCCD Secretariat, Bonn, Germany

We also acknowledge the valuable contribution of good practices’ authors presented in Annex 3.

The production of this report was made possible through contributions to the ISDR Trust Fund for Disaster Reduction by the following

governments: Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Philippines, South Africa, Sweden,

Switzerland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Commission and the World Bank’s Global Facility for

Disaster Reduction and Recovery.

List of Acronyms

ACMAD

African Centre for Meteorological Applications to Development, Niamey, Niger

ADPC

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Bangkok, Thailand

AfDB

African Development Bank

AGRHYMET

Regional Centre for Training and Application in Agro-meteorology and Operational Hydrology,

Niamey, Niger

AMCEN

African Ministerial Conference on the Environment

AU African

Union

AUC

African Union Commission

CADRI

Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative

CBO Community-based

Organization

CIDA

Canadian International Development Agency

CIHEAM

International Center for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies

COP

Conference of the Parties

CRED

Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters

CWWG

Crop Weather Watch Group, India

DFID

Department for International Development, United Kingdom

DMC

Drought Monitoring Centre

ECOWAS

Economic Community of Western African States

ESA

European Space Agency

FAO

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FEWS NET

Famine Early Warning System

FIVIMS

Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems

GEF

Global Environment Facility

GFDRR

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery

GIEWS

Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture

GIS

Geographic Information System

HFA

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to

Disasters

IASC

Inter-Agency Standing Committee

ICARDA

International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas

IFAD

International Fund for Agricultural Development

IGAD

Intergovernmental Authority on Development

IGAD ICPAC

IGAD Climate Prediction and Application Centre, Nairobi, Kenya

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IRI

International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Columbia University, U.S.A.

ITC

International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Netherlands

MDGs

Millennium Development Goals

MEAs

Multilateral Environmental Agreements

NADM

North American Drought Monitor

NAPs

National Action Programmes

vii

NASA

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S.A.

NCSA

National Capacity Self Assessment

NDMC

National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, U.S.A.

NEPAD

New Partnership for Africa’s Development

NGO Non-governmental

Organization

NIDIS

National Integrated Drought Information System, U.S.A.

NOAA

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.A.

OAS

Organization of American States

OCHA

United Nations Ofﬁce for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

SADC

Southern African Development Community

SADM

South Asia Drought Monitor

SADNET

Southern Africa Drought Technology Network

SIDA

Swedish International Development Agency

UNCBD

United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity

UNCCD

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertiﬁcation

UNDAF

United Nations Development Assistance Framework

UNDESA

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

UNDP

United Nations Development Programme

UNDP BCPR

UNDP Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery

UNDP DDC

UNDP Drylands Development Centre

UNECA

United Nations Economic Commission for Africa

UNEP

United Nations Environment Programme

UNESCAP

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Paciﬁc

UNESCWA

United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UN-HABITAT

United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UNHCR

UN High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF

United Nations Children’s Fund

UNISDR

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

UNOCHA

United Nations Ofﬁce for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs

UNU

United Nations University

USAID

United States Agency for International Development

USDM

United States Drought Monitor

USGS

United States Geological Survey

VAM

Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping (WFP’s programme)

WB World

Bank

WFP

United Nations World Food Programme

WHO

World Health Organization

WMO

World Meteorological Organization

WSSD

World Summit on Sustainable Development

viii

Executive Summary

Drought is a slow-onset natural hazard that allows for the implementation of disaster risk reduction measures

as requested by the Hyogo Framework for Action. In order for planners and the public to implement effective

mitigation and preparedness measures to reduce drought impacts, they have to understand its evolution,

complexity, social implications and people’s vulnerability. To this end, wide-ranging and well-coordinated efforts at

international, regional, and national levels are needed to build drought-resilient communities and societies.

Drought is a natural part of climate, although it may be erroneously considered as a rare and random event. It

occurs in virtually all climatic zones, but its characteristics vary signiﬁcantly from one region to another. Drought is

a temporary aberration; it differs from aridity, which is restricted to low rainfall regions.

Drought is categorized as a hydro-meteorological hazard. According to the UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk

Reduction 2009, “hazard” is deﬁned as “a dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that

may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and

economic disruption, or environmental damage”. In technical settings, hazards are often described quantitatively by

the likely frequency of occurrence of different intensities for different areas, as determined from historical data or

scientiﬁc analysis.

A broad deﬁnition of drought is a deﬁciency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or

more, which results in a water shortage for some activity, group, or environmental sectors. However, in terms of

typologies, droughts are classiﬁed as meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, and socio-economic.

Meteorological drought is a natural event that results from climatic causes, which differ from region to region.

Agricultural, hydrological, and socio-economic drought, however, place greater emphasis on the human or social

aspects of drought. They highlight the interaction between the natural characteristics of meteorological drought

and human activities that depend on precipitation to provide adequate water supplies to meet societal and

environmental demands.

Multilateral Environmental Agreements such as the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertiﬁcation (UNCCD)

and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are also strongly linked to some

aspects of drought risk reduction framework and practices. The UNCCD has its speciﬁc deﬁnition of “drought” as

“the naturally occurring phenomenon that exists when precipitation has been signiﬁcantly below normal recorded

levels, causing serious hydrological imbalances that adversely affect land resource production systems”.

The risk associated with drought for any region or group is a product of the exposure to the natural hazard and

the vulnerability of the society to the event. The UNISDR deﬁnition for “vulnerability” is “the characteristics and

circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard.

Leaders and planners in drought-prone regions should conduct risk assessments to both better understand the

drought hazard and identify the factors and processes concerning who and what is most at risk to drought, and

why.

The present document proposes main elements of a drought risk reduction framework in line with the priorities

of the Hyogo Framework, namely i) policy and governance, ii) drought risk identiﬁcation and early warning, iii)

awareness and education, iv) reducing underlying factors of drought risk, and v) mitigation and preparedness, as

well as cross-cutting issues.

Drought risk reduction is a long-term commitment that should complement long-term sustainable development

planning efforts, such as meeting the United Nations Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and in the Poverty

Reduction Strategies. Mainstreaming drought risk reduction into these national development frameworks requires

political commitment, high-level engagement, strong institutions and appropriate governance.

The process of drought risk reduction and its mainstreaming into national development frameworks should be

participatory, involving a wide range of stakeholders such as national and local governments, community-based

and civil society organizations, regional and sub-regional organizations, multilateral and bilateral international

bodies, the scientiﬁc community, the private sector and the media.

Another important cross-cutting aspect for drought risk reduction is capacity development. Capacity development

can be conceived at three different levels, namely individual and group level, institutional level and systematic

level. Capacity development for drought risk reduction can be coordinated, implemented and monitored under

holistic and nationally owned coordination mechanisms for disaster risk reduction such as multi-sectoral national

platforms for disaster risk reduction. Other capacity building activities for drought risk reduction can build on the

existing initiatives of ISDR system partners.

As stated earlier, the present document proposes that the ﬁve main elements in line with the priorities of the

Hyogo Framework be considered for a drought risk reduction framework. An effective drought policy either at

national/state/provincial level or local/community level should also take them into consideration.

The ﬁrst element, policy and governance should be based on local needs, community participation and political

commitment, networks and mechanisms and resource availability. In addition to national and state/provincial

drought policies, increased importance has also been placed on local/community level drought policy and

planning, emphasizing self-reliance and drought resilience.

Guiding principles

The development of national and local strategies for reducing drought risk, together with the implementation of

such a strategy, should be guided by the following principles:

1. Political commitment, high-level engagement, strong institutional setting, clear responsibilities both at central

and local levels and appropriate governance are essential for integrating drought risk issues into a sustainable

development and disaster risk reduction process;

2. A bottom-up approach with effective decentralization and active community participation for drought risk

management in planning, decision making and implementation, is essential to move from policy to practice;

3. Capacity building and knowledge development are usually required to help build political commitment,

competent institutions and an informed constituency;

4. Drought risk reduction policies should establish a clear set of principles or operating guidelines to govern the

management of drought and its impacts, including the development of a preparedness plan that lays out a

strategy to achieve these objectives;

5. Drought-related policies and plans should emphasize risk reduction (prevention, mitigation and preparedness)

rather than relying solely on drought (often turned into famine) relief;

6. Drought monitoring, risk assessment and other appropriate risk reduction measures are principal components

of drought policies and plans;

7. Institutional mechanisms (policy, legislative and organizational) should be developed and enforced to ensure

that drought risk reduction strategies are carried out; and

8. Sound development of long-term investment in risk reduction measures (prevention, mitigation and

preparedness) is essential to reduce the effects of drought.

The second element, drought risk identiﬁcation, risk monitoring and early warning, can be a starting point

for promoting a culture of resilience in combination with enhancing knowledge about hazard occurrence, the

potential effects of the hazard, and the related vulnerabilities of potentially affected people and activities. Risk

assessment methodologies such as hazard assessment, drought impact assessment and vulnerability analysis will

be useful in order to better understand speciﬁc trends, vulnerability and impacts of drought for speciﬁc drought

prone areas. It is recommended that common methodologies for deﬁning and assessing risks as well as appropriate

drought hazard and vulnerability indicators be developed to meet speciﬁc local needs. Enhancing drought

monitoring and early warning capacities is also crucial.

Guiding principles

Drought risk identiﬁcation, impact assessment, and early warning activities should be guided by the following

principles:

1. Drought risk is the combination of the natural hazard and the human, social, economic and environmental

vulnerability of a community or country, and managing risk requires understanding these two components and

related factors in space and time;

2. Increasing individual, community, institutional and national capacities is essential to reducing vulnerability to

drought impact;

3. Impact assessment plays an important role in drought risk management, in particular, identifying most

vulnerable groups and sectors during drought;

4. Drought monitoring and early warning systems play an important role in risk identiﬁcation, assessment and

management; and

5. Changing climate and the associated changing nature of drought poses a serious risk to the environment,

hence to sustainable development and the society.

The third element, drought awareness, knowledge management and education, is another enabling factor

for drought risk reduction. Collection, compilation, and dissemination of relevant knowledge and information

on hazards, vulnerabilities, and capacities should be linked to community drought risk reduction awareness

campaigns, programmes, and projects. Interaction between the generators and users of information is essential for

developing useful messages and helping to ensure the use of the information. Education for disaster risk reduction

is an interactive process of mutual learning among people and institutions which also involves traditional wisdom

and local knowledge. Various educational programmes that focus on drought risk reduction exist in addition to

general programmes on DRR.

Guiding principles

In general, drought awareness and knowledge management activities should be guided by the following

principles:

1. The effects of drought can be substantially reduced if people are well informed and motivated toward a culture

of disaster prevention and resilience;

2. Effective information management and exchange requires strengthening dialogue and networks among

disaster researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders in order to foster consistent knowledge collection and

meaningful message dissemination;

3. Public awareness programmes should be designed and implemented with a clear understanding of local

perspectives and needs, and promote engagement of the media to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience,

including resilience to drought and strong community involvement; and

4. Education and training are essential for all people in order to reduce local drought risk.

The fourth element, reducing underlying factors of drought risk will also contribute to reducing drought

vulnerability. These risk factors can be reviewed and reduced by effective environmental and natural resource

management, social and economic development practices, and land-use planning and other technical measures.

These factors that have an impact on vulnerability to drought need to be reﬂected in national poverty reduction

strategies, development plans, sector development planning and programmes, and environment and natural

resource management strategies as well as in post-disaster situations so that effective preparedness and mitigation

measures can be considered.

Guiding principles

1. Mechanisms should be in place to systematically bring together practitioners in disaster risk reduction (e.g.,

national platform members) and key institutions involved in environmental management (e.g., adaptation to

climate change, desertiﬁcation and biodiversity);

2. Areas of overlap and synergy should be identiﬁed between existing environmental programmes and disaster

risk reduction activities;

3. A mechanism for carrying out joint assessments should be institutionalized to integrate disaster risk reduction

and environmental protection parameters (e.g., integrated risk-and-environmental-impact assessments);

4. Speciﬁc attention should be given to socio-economic high-risk factors such as age, disabilities, social disparities

and gender. By focusing on protection of the most vulnerable groups, the impacts of disasters can be reduced;

5. Post-drought recovery planning can incorporate drought risk reduction strategies for the future; and

6. Safety nets such as insurance mechanisms for properties as well as microcredit and ﬁnancing for ensuring

minimum livelihood means can accelerate post-drought recovery process.

The ﬁfth element, enhancing mitigation measures and preparedness for drought substantially reduce drought

impacts and losses if authorities, individuals, and communities are well-prepared, ready to act, and equipped with

the knowledge and capacities for effective drought management. It should be recognized that mitigation and

preparedness have a greater impact on reducing the scale and effects of drought disasters than ad-hoc emergency

response measures.

Guiding principles

1. Prevention, mitigation and preparedness are central components of disaster risk reduction, and are more

important than relying solely on ad-hoc emergency response measures;

2. Dialogue, exchange of information, and coordination are needed between disaster risk reduction, development

and emergency management actors;

3. The selection of appropriate drought risk reduction (prevention, mitigation and preparedness) measures

requires many considerations, such as integrated environmental and natural resource management, social and

economic development, land use planning opportunities, and climate change adaptations;

4. A combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches is required for development and implementation of

effective mitigation and preparedness measures;

5. Institutional capacity, coordinated mechanisms, identiﬁcation of local needs and indigenous knowledge are

required to implement effective mitigation and preparedness strategies;

6. Monitoring and early warning are key elements of disaster risk reduction and must be closely linked to other

risk reduction actions; and

7. Drought risk reduction (prevention, mitigation and preparedness) requires a long-term commitment of

resources.

Currently, various drought preparedness networks, mechanisms and institutions already exist. In order to

strengthen them, it is crucial to link the knowledge, expertise and activities of various institutions working in each

specialized thematic area related to drought. Among these networks, mechanisms and institutions, the present

xii

document introduces the World Bank’s Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), collaboration

between the UNISDR and speciﬁc institutions and networks such as the National Drought Mitigation Center

(NDMC), University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA, UNOCHA, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC), and UNDP

Drylands Development Centre (DDC). Some regional networks proposed in Africa, Mediterranean, Near East, South-

Eastern Europe, Asia and the Paciﬁc, South America and North America are also presented.

There is a need to establish a strategy on drought risk reduction that is based on a new approach that is more

focused on the human dimensions of drought and proactive risk reduction measures. To accomplish this strategy

shift, the report of the ISDR Ad-Hoc Discussion Group on Drought in April 2003, Drought: Living with Risk: An

Integrated Approach to Reducing Societal Vulnerability to Drought, identiﬁed the key issues associated with

drought risk reduction, and recommended the development of a global network. Such a network would not

duplicate the work of regional or sub-regional networks, but would strengthen and complement activities and

capacity development and provide a forum for interregional exchange of ideas, technology and experiences.

In line with the above-mentioned criteria, the present document proposes a “Global Drought Risk Reduction

Network” relying mainly on internet and regional forums (e.g., e-workshops) for linking institutions within and

between regions to enhance knowledge and communication exchange for more effective policy guidance at

all levels. This virtual global network aims to foster the exchange of information to document and support the

implementation of practical, real-world drought risk reduction activities and provide better technical assistance to

governments and other organizations working on reducing risk and vulnerability to drought.

The ISDR system, comprising governments and international, regional and UN organizations, will continue to seek

ways to promote and implement drought risk reduction programmes and knowledge networks to facilitate the

implementation of the Hyogo Framework. Although activities will be supported worldwide, the initial emphasis

may be placed in Africa, where drought and related factors result in the greatest loss of lives and livelihoods.

The UNISDR could help in promoting and supporting these efforts by the ISDR system partners, through advocacy,

information generation, promotion with donor organizations and programmes, coordination of ISDR thematic

platforms, and through the encouragement of networks. The regional ofﬁces of the UNISDR could actively support

related efforts at the regional level.

xiii

Table of contents

Foreword

iii

Acknowledgements

List of Acronyms

Executive summary

viii

Chapter 1

Context and objectives

Chapter 2

Drought deﬁnition and typology

Chapter 3

Understanding drought risk and vulnerability

Chapter 4

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

4.1 Policies and governance for drought risk reduction

4.1.1 Building political and public alliances

4.1.2 Capacity development

4.1.3 Components of a drought policy

4.1.4 National drought policy case studies

4.1.5 Local and community drought policy case studies

4.2 Drought risk identiﬁcation, impact assessment and early warning

4.2.1 Local, national, and transboundary risk assessments

4.2.2 Risk assessment methodology

4.2.3 Enhancing risk assessment methodology and applications

4.2.4 Drought monitoring and early warning

4.2.5 Enhancing drought monitoring and early warning capacities

4.3 Drought awareness and knowledge management

4.3.1 Developing a culture of drought prevention and resilience

4.3.2 Effective information management and exchange

4.3.3 Education and training

4.4 Reducing underlying factors of drought risk

4.4.1 Environmental management and climate change

4.4.2 Socio-economic factors, consideration of vulnerable groups and gender

4.5 Effective drought mitigation and preparedness measures

4.5.1 Considerations and methodologies in selecting drought mitigation and

preparedness

measures

4.5.2 Implementing drought mitigation and preparedness measures

4.5.3

Tracking

progress

Chapter 5

Networks and mechanisms related to Drought Risk Reduction

5.1 Mapping of mechanisms and institutions related to drought risk reduction

5.2 Progress on the development of regional networks

5.3 Need for a global drought risk reduction network

xiv

Annexes

Annex 1:

2009 UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction

Annex 2:

Directory of drought-related organizations

106

1. United Nations System

106

2. International institutions, networks and centres

109

3. Regional institutions, networks and organizations

111

4. Country-based organizations

117

5. Development agencies and ﬁnancing mechanisms

121

6. International non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

125

Annex 3:

Examples of Drought Risk Reduction Good Practices

127

Annex 4:

Key information, good practices and challenges to illustrate the proposed drought risk

reduction framework, results of the 3rd African Drought Adaptation Forum,

17-19 September 2008, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

169

Annex 5:

Drought-related bibliographic references

177

Annex 6:

Summary of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of

Nations and Communities to Disasters

196

List of tables, ﬁgures and boxes

Table 1

Example of responsibilities of various bodies involved in drought management in Viet Nam

Table 2

Example of a common data set for monitoring desertiﬁcation, climate change adaptation

and biodiversity

Table 3

Examples of climate change adaptation options in water, agriculture and human health sectors

Table 4

Proposed indicators for monitoring the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Figure 1

Proportion of disaster occurrence by continent: 1970-2008

Figure 2

Proportion of persons affected by each disaster type per continent: 1970-2008

Figure 3

Number of drought disasters reported by country: 1970-2008

Figure 4

Number of persons reported affected by drought disasters: 1970-2008

Figure 5

Relationship between meteorological, agricultural, hydrological, and socio-economic drought

Figure 6

Global trends and risk components

Figure 7

Characteristics of drought vulnerable and drought resilient societies

Figure 8

Proposed main elements for Drought Risk Reduction Framework

Figure 9

Capacity development process

Figure 10 Development and revision of a drought management plan based on the MEDROPLAN

Guidelines

Figure 11 Components of a risk assessment process

Figure 12 Number of municipalities needing to increase transport of water supply or cut/reduce

household

supply

Figure 13 Risk results from a combination of hazard occurrence and vulnerability to the hazard

Figure 14 Micro and macro linkages for analyzing household vulnerability

Figure 15 An example of a simpliﬁed agricultural impact tree diagram

Figure 16 An example of an impact tree diagram for animal husbandry

Figure 17 Percentage of undernourished population, by country, 2003-2005

Figure 18 Example: Cumulative rainfall over parts of Kenya

Figure 19 Example of Climate Outlook Product of Seasonal Forecast for the Greater Horn of Africa

Figure 20 Example of Food Security Alerts in Sub-Saharan Africa (November-December 2007)

Figure 21 GIEWS Workstation home page

Figure 22 The North American Drought Monitor

Figure 23 South-West Asia Drought Monitor, example of on-line drought monitoring report at a

district/village scale with Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) and time series of

drought anomalies, date 2004

Figure 24 Seasonal forecast for the year 2007 July-August-September cumulative rainfall in

Western

Africa

Figure 25 Mapping of key organizations, institutions, centres and networks working on drought issues

around the world

Figure 26 Map of some drought risk reduction networks around the world

Box 1

UNCCD deﬁnition of “Drought”

Box 2

Pastoralism as a risk management strategy

Box 3

Generic steps for drylands mainstreaming

Box 4

Capacity building for Drought Risk Reduction – Examples from the Horn of Africa

Box 5

Proposed components of a drought risk reduction policy and plan

Box 6

Key indicators for the review of the implementation of the UNCCD

Box 7

European Commission-supported drought management guidelines for Mediterranean

countries (MEDROPLAN Guidelines)

Box 8

Major ﬁndings of the review of existing drought risk reduction policies and programmes in

the Horn of Africa

Box 9

Portugal: Assessing drought impacts

Box 10

West Asia: Drought vulnerability analysis

Box 11

India: Collaborative drought monitoring and utilizing existing resources

Box 12

India: Indigenous drought prediction in the upper north-west Himalayas

Box 13

Mali: Involvement of local farmers in drought monitoring

Box 14

Ethiopia: FAO/WFP collaboration on weather-indexed livelihood protection scheme

Box 15

Essential drought messages

Box 16

Africa: Southern Africa Drought Technology Network - SADNET

Box 17

Africa: RANET - New technologies for drought communication

Box 18

UNISDR Biennial Campaigns on Disaster Risk Reduction

Box 19

Brazil: Sustainable use of water resources and the role of environmental education and

gender roles in north-east Brazil

Box 20

Brazil: Role of women in the face of drought

Box 21

Kenya: Green Belt Movement

Box 22

Deﬁnitions: Mitigation and preparedness

Box 23

India: National and state level drought contingency plans

Box 24

United States: Drought mitigation planning, Indian Hopi Nation

Box 25

Groundwater dam built by a community – a solution to water scarcity

Box 26

Kenya: Combining pastoralist drought preparedness and mitigation

Box 27

Africa: Innovative market-based solutions for drought risk reduction

Box 28

Ethiopia: Cost effectiveness of livestock feeding support during drought

Box 29

Two-Prong Approach for Drought Risk Reduction

Box 30

The Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)

Box 31

Key messages resulting from the Third African Drought Adaptation Forum held in Addis

Ababa in September 2008

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Drought is one of the major threats among natural

hazards to people’s livelihoods and socio-economic

development. Drought tends to occur less

frequently than other hazards (Figure 1). However,

when it does occur, it generally affects a broad

region for seasons or years at a time. This can result

in a larger proportion of the population being

affected by drought than by other disasters (Figure

2). For example, Figures 1 and 2 show that drought

disasters account for less than 20 percent of all

disaster occurrences in Africa, but they account

for more than 80 percent of all people affected by

natural disasters in the continent.

Some regions are more prone to drought disasters

(Figure 3), and each country differs in its capacity to

effectively prepare for and respond to the effects of

drought. Therefore, the number of people affected

by drought and the types of impacts experienced

will vary by region (Figure 4). In the Asian region,

in particular, India and China recorded the largest

number of people affected by drought from 1980

to 2006. However, for the same period, it was Africa

that recorded the largest number of peopled

killed due to the catastrophic droughts in Ethiopia,

Sudan and Mozambique in the 1980s (see http://

www.emdat.be/). Disasters triggered by prolonged

drought in developing countries can severely harm

countries’ development, affect millions of people

and contribute to malnutrition, famine, loss of life

and livelihoods, emigration and conﬂict situations;

whereas droughts in developed countries primarily

result in economic losses.

In 2006, extreme drought affected several

countries in the Horn of Africa. Especially hard hit

were people in the countries of Ethiopia, Somalia,

Kenya, Eritrea, and Djibouti, where nearly 18

million people were estimated to be suffering

from food shortages during the drought’s peak

in early 2006. UNICEF surveys revealed acute

malnutrition rates of approximately 20 percent

among children in many drought-affected

communities. In 2008, the Horn of Africa,

especially Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Eritrea,

northern Kenya and North-eastern Uganda,

faced a humanitarian emergency again because

of the recurrence of drought combined with

unprecedented food price increases and, in some

places, levels of conﬂict that had not been seen

since the 1990s. (http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.

nsf/db900SID/EDIS-7JMQCU)

Figure 1:

Proportion of

disaster occurrence

by continent:

1970-2008

Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database – www.emdat.be – Université catholique de Louvain – Brussels – Belgium

Chapter 1:

Context and objectives

In order to reduce the threat of drought around

the world, an increasing number of national,

regional, and international entities have begun to

take action. For example, in 2003, the secretariat

of the United Nations International Strategy

for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR) facilitated the

creation of an Ad Hoc Discussion Group on

drought at the request of the United Nations

Inter-Agency Task Force on Disaster Reduction.

The endeavour brought together prominent

scientists and practitioners from a variety of

institutes and UN agencies to propose new

paradigms and actions required to reduce

global drought risk. The initiative resulted in

an integrated approach to reducing societal

vulnerability to drought, which has been used

to promote drought-resilient nations and

communities around the world (see http://www.

unisdr.org/eng/task%20force/tf-adhoc/droughts/

WGD-doc1.pdf ).

Subsequently, the second World Conference on

Disaster Reduction was held in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan,

in January 2005, where governments adopted the

landmark “Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015:

Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities

to Disasters”. This Framework outlines ﬁve priorities

to build resilience of nations and communities to

natural hazards (see http://www.unisdr.org/hfa):

frameworks;

early warning;

recovery.

The primary responsibility for implementing

the Hyogo Framework for Action lies with

governments of UN Member States, but the

ISDR system including UN agencies, regional

organizations, academic and civil society

institutions and international organizations is also

actively involved.

Drought is a slow-onset natural hazard that

allows for the implementation of disaster risk

reduction measures as requested by the Hyogo

Framework for Action. Understanding drought’s

evolution, complexity, and social implications

including people’s vulnerability to drought, permits

planners and the public to implement effective

Figure 2:

Proportion of persons

affected by each

disaster type per

continent:

1970-2008

Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database – www.emdat.be – Université catholique de Louvain – Brussels – Belgium

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

mitigation and preparedness measures to reduce

drought impacts. To this end, wide-ranging and

well-coordinated efforts at international, regional,

and national levels are needed to build drought-

resilient communities and societies.

In order to merge criteria from the UNISDR’s 2003

drought risk reduction integrated approach and

the Hyogo Framework for Action, the members of

the Ad Hoc Group on drought were re-convened

in Beijing, China, in June 2006, with the support of

the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the China National

Committee for Disaster Reduction. At this meeting,

the members discussed elements for drought

policies in line with the priorities of the Hyogo

Framework for Action. Later on, an initial draft,

which outlined the elements of a framework for

drought risk reduction, was presented at the 2nd

African Drought Risk and Development Forum.

The forum, organized by the UNDP/Drylands

Development Centre (DDC) and the UNISDR

in Nairobi in October 2006, brought together

representatives of governments; international,

regional and UN organizations; experts; and

practitioners who provided valuable comments

to the paper. The preliminary version has been

reviewed by various experts and organizations

since 2007. Additional contributions were made at

the 3rd African Drought Adaptation Forum in Addis

Ababa in September 2008. The recommendations

made at the Forum are introduced in Chapter 5. A

summary of the group discussion at the 3rd African

Drought Adaptation Forum is also available in

Annex 4.

The present document considers the

recommendations of the cited international

meetings, ongoing discussions, and the

identiﬁcation of information and good practices

to present an integrated global framework geared

toward reducing the effects of drought as part of

the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for

Action.

The present drought risk reduction framework

proposes the following ﬁve main elements for

consideration, namely:

i) Policies and governance for drought risk

reduction,

ii) Drought risk identiﬁcation, impact assessment,

and early warning,

Figure 3:

Number of drought

disasters reported by

country: 1970-2008

Chapter 1:

Context and objectives

iii) Drought awareness and knowledge

management

iv) Reducing underlying factors of drought risk,

and

v) Effective drought mitigation and preparedness

measures

The ﬁve elements correspond to the ﬁve priorities

of the Hyogo Framework for Action. The framework

is complemented with information on existing

networks and mechanisms to encourage the

implementation of international, regional and

national programmes for drought risk reduction.

The drought risk reduction framework should also

build on the work of various existing networks

contributing to negotiations for the multilateral

environmental agreements (MEAs) such as the

Convention to Combat Desertiﬁcation (UNCCD)

and United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on

Biological Diversity (CBD).

The UNCCD is rooted in a Plan of Action to Combat

Desertiﬁcation, adopted by the United Nations

Conference on Desertiﬁcation in 1977. The UNCCD

was adopted in 1994 and came into force two

years later. As of 31 January 2009, the Convention

had 193 country Parties. The eighth session of

the Conference of the Parties (COP 8) held in

Madrid, Spain, in June 2007, adopted a 10-year

strategic plan and framework to enhance the

implementation of the Convention (2008-2018)

and effectively combat desertiﬁcation and drought

(see report of the COP 8 at http://www.unccd.int/).

The 10-year plan clearly deﬁnes goals and a time

frame with the recognition that the UNCCD had

previously lacked such a strategic framework for

effective implementation.

The strategic plan will operate through ﬁve speciﬁc

objectives: 1) advocacy, awareness-raising and

education, 2) enhanced policy framework, 3)

science and technology, 4) capacity building, and

5) ﬁnancing and technology transfer. In addition,

roles and responsibilities of the various UNCCD

institutions, partners and stakeholders have been

reshaped, including those of the Committee on

Science and Technology (CST), the Committee

for the Review of the Implementation of the

Convention (CRIC), the Global Mechanism (GM) and

the UNCCD secretariat.

Figure 4:

Number of persons

reported affected by

drought disasters:

1970-2008

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Drought risk reduction is also connected with

another important international environmental

convention, the UNFCCC. The UNFCCC encourages

the Parties to cooperate in preparing for

adaptation to the impacts of climate change

and to develop appropriate plans for various

areas including water resources, agriculture and

rehabilitation of regions, particularly in Africa,

affected by drought, desertiﬁcation and ﬂoods

(see http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/

conveng.pdf ). There are at least two areas where

activities related to drought risk reduction can be

undertaken within the UNFCCC-led framework:

1) adaptation to the impacts of climate change,

and 2) research and systematic observation.

Developing more coordination between these

types of drought-related programmes is essential

for fostering drought risk reduction.

The Bali Action Plan that was agreed by the

UNFCCC Thirteenth Conference of the Parties, held

in Bali, Indonesia, 3-14 December 2007, sets out

directions for adaptation in its Paragraph 1(c). Sub-

paragraph 1 (c) (ii) and (iii) call for enhanced action

on adaptation through consideration of:

including risk sharing and transfer mechanisms

such as insurance;

address loss and damage associated with

climate change impacts in developing countries

that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse

effects of climate change.

Through these elements the Parties have made

clear that existing knowledge and capacities for

coping with extreme weather events must be

harnessed to adapt to climate change.

In addition, Sub-paragraph 1 (c) (i) identiﬁes a

number of general principles and requirements

necessary for adaptation. Many of these have been

identiﬁed in other settings as being highly relevant

to reducing disaster risk, particularly vulnerability

assessments, capacity-building and response

strategies, as well as integration of actions into

sectoral and national planning. There are clear

linkages between adaptation and disaster risk

reduction. (For full text of the Bali Action Plan,

see http://unfccc.int/ﬁles/meetings/cop_13/

application/pdf/cp_bali_action.pdf ).

Environmental management and climate change

are discussed in greater detail under Section 4.4.1

of this document.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD),

administered by UNEP, provides another

relevant framework for drought risk reduction. In

particular, its programmes on Dry and Sub-humid

Lands Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge,

Innovations and Practices, offer valuable expertise

and networks to promote and support the

objectives of drought risk reduction (for more

information, see http://www.cbd.int/drylands/ and

http://www.cbd.int/traditional/).

In close collaboration with these existing initiatives

and programmes, this document also highlights

the need to foster proactive drought risk reduction

strategies and activities to address drought’s root

causes rather than relying solely on emergency

response measures. It also stresses a move from

policies to practices through the development

of a knowledge network to identify indigenous

practices, exchange expertise, and propose simple

and affordable technologies and good practices

that can be promoted and implemented in

vulnerable communities through coordinated

programmes and projects.

Considerable progress is being made in drought

monitoring, mitigation, and preparedness policies

and practices in many countries. Collaboration

between countries experienced in drought

risk reduction and interaction with regional

and international initiatives can contribute to

enhancement of knowledge networks to reduce

the effects of drought.

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Drought is a natural part of climate, although

it may be erroneously considered as a rare and

random event. It occurs in virtually all climatic

zones, but its characteristics vary signiﬁcantly from

one region to another. Drought is a temporary

aberration; it differs from aridity, which is restricted

to low rainfall regions and is a permanent feature

of climate.

Drought is categorized as a hydro-meteorological

hazard. According to the UNISDR Terminology

on Disaster Risk Reduction 2009, hazard is

deﬁned as “a dangerous phenomenon, substance,

human activity or condition that may cause loss

of life, injury or other health impacts, property

damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social

and economic disruption, or environmental

damage”. In technical settings, hazards are often

described quantitatively by the likely frequency

of occurrence of different intensities for different

areas, as determined from historical data or

scientiﬁc analysis.

The above-mentioned publication, “2009

UNISDR Terminology”, aims to promote common

understanding and common usage of disaster

risk reduction concepts and to assist the disaster

risk reduction efforts of authorities, practitioners

and the public. The 2009 UNISDR Terminology is

the result of a process of ongoing review by the

UNISDR and consultations with a broad range of

experts and practitioners in various international

venues, regional discussions and national settings.

The Terminology is available in Annex 1. It is

also available at: http://www.unisdr.org/eng/

terminology/UNISDR-Terminology-English.pdf as

well as in the other UN languages. For more details

of other hazard-related terms such as biological

hazard, geological hazard, natural hazard, socio-

natural hazard and technological hazard, see

Annex 1.

A broad deﬁnition of drought is a deﬁciency of

precipitation over an extended period of time,

usually a season or more, which results in a water

shortage for some activity, group, or environmental

sectors. However, in terms of typologies, droughts

are classiﬁed as meteorological, agricultural,

hydrological, and socio-economic (Figure 5).

Meteorological drought is a natural event that

results from climatic causes, which differ from

region to region. Agricultural, hydrological, and

socio-economic drought, however, place greater

emphasis on the human or social aspects of

drought. They highlight the interaction between

the natural characteristics of meteorological

drought and human activities that depend on

precipitation to provide adequate water supplies

to meet societal and environmental demands.

Meteorological drought is usually deﬁned by a

precipitation deﬁciency over a pre-determined

period of time. The thresholds chosen, such as 50

percent of normal precipitation over a six-month

time period, will vary by location according to user

needs or applications.

Agricultural drought is deﬁned more commonly

by the lack of availability of soil water to support

crop and forage growth than by the departure of

normal precipitation over some speciﬁed period of

time.

The relationship between precipitation and

inﬁltration of precipitation into the soil is often

not direct. Inﬁltration rates vary depending on

antecedent moisture conditions, slope, soil type,

and the intensity of the precipitation event. Soil

characteristics also differ. For example, some soils

have a higher water-holding capacity, which makes

them less vulnerable to drought.

Hydrological drought is normally deﬁned by

deﬁciencies in surface and subsurface water

supplies relative to average conditions at various

points in time through the seasons.

Like agricultural drought, there is no direct

relationship between precipitation amounts

and the status of surface and subsurface water

supplies in lakes, reservoirs, aquifers, and streams

because these hydrological system components

are used for multiple and competing purposes,

such as irrigation, recreation, tourism, ﬂood

control, transportation, hydroelectric power

production, domestic water supply, protection

of endangered species, and environmental and

ecosystem management and preservation. There

is also a considerable time lag between departures

Chapter 2:

Drought deﬁnition and typology

of precipitation and the point at which these

deﬁciencies become evident in surface and

subsurface components of the hydrologic system.

Socio-economic drought differs markedly from

the other types of drought because it reﬂects the

relationship between the supply and demand

for some commodity or economic good (such as

water, livestock forage, or hydroelectric power)

that is dependent on precipitation. Supply varies

annually as a function of precipitation or water

availability. Demand also ﬂuctuates and is often

associated with a positive trend as a result of

increasing population, development and other

factors.

The relationship between these types of drought is

illustrated in Figure 5. Agricultural, hydrological and

socio-economic drought, occur less frequently than

meteorological drought because impacts in these

sectors are related to the availability of surface and

subsurface water supplies. It usually takes several

weeks before precipitation deﬁciencies begin to

produce soil moisture deﬁciencies leading to stress

on crops, pastures, and rangeland. Continued dry

conditions for several months at a time bring about

a decline in streamﬂow and reduced reservoir

and lake levels and, potentially, a lowering of the

groundwater table.

When drought conditions persist for a period of

time, agricultural, hydrological and socio-economic

drought occur, producing associated impacts.

During drought, not only are inﬂows to recharge

surface and subsurface supplies reduced, but

demand for these resources increases dramatically

as well.

As illustrated in Figure 5, the direct linkage

between the main types of drought and

precipitation deﬁciencies is reduced over

time because water availability in surface

and subsurface systems is affected by how

these systems are managed. Changes in the

management of these water supplies can either

reduce or aggravate the effects of drought. For

example, the adoption of appropriate tillage

practices and planting more drought-resistant

Figure 5:

Relationship between

meteorological,

agricultural,

hydrological and

socio-economic

drought

Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

crop varieties can diminish the effect of drought

signiﬁcantly by conserving soil water and reducing

transpiration. Therefore, the effects of drought are

a product of both the physical nature of the hazard

and our ability to manage risk.

As explained in Chapter 3, drought does not

automatically lead to a disaster. Disaster only

occurs when there is a serious disruption of the

functioning of a community or a society, which

involves widespread human, material, economic

or environmental losses and impacts, and which

exceeds the ability of the affected community

or society to cope using its own resources. These

potential disaster losses, in lives, health status,

livelihoods, assets and services, which could occur

to a particular community or a society over some

speciﬁed future time period, are deﬁned as “disaster

risk”.

The term “drought risk” used in this document is

coherent with the above-mentioned deﬁnition

of “disaster risk”. By adapting the UNISDR

Terminology for “disaster risk management”,

“drought risk management” can be deﬁned as

“the systematic process of using administrative

directives, organizations and operational skills

and capacities to implement strategies, policies

and measures for improved coping capacities in

order to lessen, i.e., prevent, mitigate and prepare

for, the adverse impacts of drought and the

possibility of disaster”.

Likewise, “drought risk reduction” can be deﬁned as

“the concept and practice of reducing disaster risks

though systematic efforts to analyse and manage

the causal factors of disasters, including through

reduced exposure to drought (prevention),

lessened vulnerability of people and property

(mitigation), wise management of land and the

environment, and improved preparedness for

adverse events”, or simply, as the purpose of

disaster risk management. Furthermore, “drought

mitigation” can be deﬁned as “the lessening or

limitation of the adverse impacts of drought and

related disasters”.

A methodology of “drought risk assessment” aims

to determine the nature and extent of drought

risk by analysing potential hazards and evaluating

existing conditions of vulnerability that together

could potentially harm exposed people, property,

services, livelihoods and the environment on

which they depend. Drought risk assessments (and

associated risk mapping) include: a review of the

technical characteristics of drought such as their

location, intensity, frequency and probability, the

analysis of exposure and vulnerability including

the physical, social, health, economic and

environmental dimensions; and the evaluation

of the effectiveness of prevailing and alternative

coping capacities in respect to likely risk scenarios.

This series of activities is sometimes known as a

risk analysis process. More detailed information on

drought risk assessment is found in Chapter 4 (4.2).

Box 1:

UNCCD deﬁnition of

“drought”

Article 1 of the UNCCD deﬁnes “drought” as “the naturally occurring phenomenon that exists when precipitation

has been signiﬁcantly below normal recorded levels, causing serious hydrological imbalances that adversely affect

land resource production systems”. Article 1 also deﬁnes “mitigating the effects of drought” as “activities related

to the prediction of drought and intended to reduce the vulnerability of society and natural systems to drought as it

relates to combating desertiﬁcation” (www.unccd.int/convention/text/convention.php).

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

As mentioned in Chapter 2, “disaster risk” is

deﬁned as “the potential disaster losses, in lives,

health status, livelihoods, assets and services,

which could occur to a particular community or

a society over some speciﬁed future time period”,

based on a deﬁnition of “risk” as “the combination

of the probability of an event and its negative

consequences”.

The risk associated with drought for any region

or group is a product of the exposure to the

natural hazard and the vulnerability of the society

to the event (Figure 6). The UNISDR deﬁnition

for “vulnerability” is “the characteristics and

circumstances of a community, system or asset that

make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a

hazard” (http://www.unisdr.org/eng/terminology/

UNISDR-Terminology-English.pdf ). Therefore,

leaders and planners in drought-prone regions

should conduct risk assessments to both better

understand the drought hazard and identify the

factors and processes concerning who and what is

most at risk to drought, and why. For information

on drought risk assessment see Chapter 4 (4.2).

Exposure to drought varies regionally and over

time, and there is little, if anything, that can

be done to alter its occurrence. However, it is

critically important for scientists to understand

and communicate the probability of drought

events of various levels of intensity and duration.

It is also essential to understand precipitation

and temperature trends, including changes in

variability, because these key meteorological

variables may indicate potential changes in the

frequency and severity of future drought episodes.

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) released the report “Impacts,

Adaptation and Vulnerability”, as a part of its Fourth

Assessment Report “Climate Change 2007”. The

report conﬁrms that our atmosphere is warming,

a trend that will have an impact on the frequency

and severity of some natural hazards, such as

drought (see http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/

ar4-wg2.htm). The report notes that recent climate

changes and variations are beginning to affect

many natural and human systems. For example,

in the Sahel region of Africa, warmer and drier

conditions have led to a reduced length of the

growing season, with detrimental effects on

crops. In southern Africa, longer dry seasons and

more uncertain rainfall are prompting adaptation

measures. The report also notes that drought-

Figure 6:

Global trends and

risk components

Natural and human-induced hazards: Increase in frequency,

severity, duration and extent, e.g.: drought and ﬂoods combine with extreme

climatic events.

Increasing vulnerability (some factors)

Socio-economic:

People’s vulnerability, poverty, unsafe conditions, fragile local economy,

livelihoods at risk, lack of awareness and plans, limited institutional capacities

and resources, etc.

Physical:

Insufﬁcient land use planning, housing and infrastructures located in hazard

prone areas, etc.

Environmental:

Degradation of ecosystems, inappropriate or unsustainable management of

natural and water resources, etc.

Source: The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, UNISDR

Chapter 3:

Understanding drought risk and vulnerability

affected areas will likely increase in extent. Climate

change is, therefore, an important factor to be

considered in drought risk analysis.

Drought by itself does not trigger an emergency.

Whether it becomes an emergency or not

depends on its effect on local people, communities

and society, and this, in turn, depends on their

vulnerability to the stress of the drought.

People’s vulnerability to drought is complex.

Drought results in substantial effects in both

developing and developed countries, but the

characteristics of these effects differ considerably.

The ability to cope with drought also varies

considerably from country to country and from

one region, community, or group to another

when “coping capacity” is deﬁned as “the ability

of people, organizations and systems, using

available skills and resources, to face and manage

adverse conditions, emergencies or disasters”

(see Annex 1 of 2009 UNISDR Terminology).

Therefore, a vulnerability proﬁle, including analysis

of vulnerability factors, is an invaluable tool in

assessing local risk. The vulnerability proﬁle is a

cornerstone of drought risk reduction planning.

A complete vulnerability analysis requires an

assessment of both the macro and micro contexts,

and of local people’s response to that context. For

example, the effect of drought in southern Africa

must consider the context of violent conﬂict in

some areas, a major health crisis in the form of the

HIV/AIDS pandemic and deepening poverty in

many parts of the region. Added to this are well-

documented cases of damaging policies, such as

the mismanagement of strategic grain reserves

and slowness in international relief operations. This

macro context has resulted in large numbers of

people who are now more vulnerable to the drought

than they were ten years ago. The micro context

varies, of course, from one location to another.

Micro and macro contexts are also important in

developed countries such as the United States,

Canada and Australia, where droughts have

resulted in widespread and severe effects in many

sectors. In these instances, greater institutional

capacity and resources are available to monitor,

prepare for, and respond to drought, but the

effects are still devastating to individual families’

livelihoods, as well as to the environment and

social fabric of local communities. The interaction

and linkage between macro and micro level

initiatives are elaborated in Figure 14 in Chapter 4.

To understand what is happening at the micro

level requires an understanding of local livelihoods

and of coping strategies and capacities. How

diverse and drought-resistant are local people’s

livelihoods? How strong is their asset base to tide

them over during a prolonged period of drought?

What claims can the most vulnerable groups

make on those groups that are not as vulnerable?

Understanding these dynamics is essential in

understanding vulnerability, the likely effect of

drought and appropriate responses.

One way to better understand vulnerability is

through a livelihoods approach, especially if it

captures both macro and micro factors and long-

term trends that affect vulnerability and the impact

of short-term shocks. Much work has been done by

operational agencies and by researchers to develop

various livelihoods frameworks, to make sense of the

complex ways in which individuals, households, and

communities achieve and sustain their livelihoods,

and the likely impact of an external shock such as

drought on both lives and livelihoods.

The essence of a livelihoods approach is that it puts

people at the centre of the analysis and is cross-

sectoral, taking into account economic, political

and cultural factors. Understanding the asset base

is also crucial, including physical assets such as

land and livestock, human capital and social capital.

Generally speaking, the stronger and more diverse

the household’s asset base, the more drought-

resilient it is likely to be and the greater its ability

to switch between different livelihood strategies.

For example, drought conditions can severely affect

agricultural and pastoral livelihoods and increase

vulnerability and risks for farmers, pastoralists

and people depending on such livelihoods. For

farmers who are strongly dependent on rainfall

for agricultural activities, crop failure caused by

drought can lead to household food insecurity. If

appropriate drought mitigation and preparedness

actions are not implemented, the only means left

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

for those households to purchase food and basic

necessities at the time of continued drought could

be selling assets such as tools and animals.

For pastoralists and agro-pastoralists whose

livelihoods and food security depend on livestock,

drought conditions can cause malnutrition or

disease in livestock because of insufﬁcient fodder

and deterioration in pastoral lands. The impacts on

local markets can cause a hike in the prices of feed

and a signiﬁcant drop in the prices of livestock.

(http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_

assistance/disaster_assistance/countries/horn_of_

africa/template/ﬁles/drought_response_summary.

pdf ).

These negative impacts on life and livelihoods

have been often reduced by the application of

pastoralism. This is a highly ﬂexible and adaptive

livelihood strategy that has been adopted as a

coping strategy by pastoralists for mitigating

drought risks. For further details, see Box 2.

It is important to assess livelihood vulnerability

in order to fully understand underlying risks

and vulnerabilities in speciﬁc drought-affected

Box 2:

Pastoralism as a risk

management strategy

Drought does not automatically lead to disaster. Only when it hits vulnerable people who are unable to cope

with its effects does it become a disaster. For example, in order to mitigate risks in variable and unpredictable

rangeland environments, pastoralism provides a highly ﬂexible and adaptive livelihood strategy. It incorporates a

variety of risk management strategies and resilience enhancement mechanisms, as follows:

1. Livestock mobility: mobility optimizes the use of range, using large diverse ranges comprising wet, dry and

drought time grazing areas managed as common property

2. Livestock density: diverse herds and ﬂocks (grazers and browsers) reduces risk from disease, drought and

parasites

3. Maximizing stock densities: stock accumulation helps to ensure long term survival after drought stock loss

4. Redistributing assets: mutually supportive relationships and support networks are critical for coping with crises

5. Livelihood diversiﬁcation: mitigating risk from drought may involve diversiﬁcation into distant labour or trading

markets

6. Herd splitting: herd splitting spreads risks and enables systems of strong social relations and security to be

maintained

7. Use of wild foods: households may gather foods in order to supplement reduced yields during droughts

8. Opportunistic cultivation: rain-fed or ﬂood recession agriculture is practiced to spread risk

However, a range of social, economical and political factors can lead to pastoralists’ inability to cope with drought.

Mobility is an integral aspect of pastoralist methods of coping with drought. However, in many cases their freedom

of movement has been restricted because of the creation of national and district boundaries, fencing and tilling

of the land, and the establishment of national park and reserves. Water sources are frequently inaccessible to

the herds and pastoralists are forced to remain in marginalized areas that are prone to severe natural resource

degradation. Conﬂict and insecurity further restrict mobility in some areas where pastoralists are afraid to utilize

the good rangelands. Inadequate physical infrastructure, poorly functioning markets and inaccessibility of market

information means that pastoralists do not sell their animals when they need to, thereby negatively affecting off-

take rates. Furthermore, pastoralists’ interests are often not reﬂected in government policies. Absent or inadequate

policies related to marketing of livestock products and dryland commodities, education, and health (reinforced by

weak service delivery and lack of local capacity, especially among women) can further hamper pastoralists’ ability

to cope with drought, leaving them among the most vulnerable people in the African dryland areas.

Source: WISP Policy Note No. 04, 2007. Pastoralists as Shrewd Managers of Risk and Resilience in the Horn of Africa

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

communities. Tree diagrams (Figure 15 and

16) illustrating underlying causes for drought

impacts for the agriculture sector and the animal

husbandry sector, respectively, are shown in the

section on risk assessment methodology (Section

4.2.2).

There are subtle differences between the

various agencies’ frameworks for analyzing and

understanding livelihoods. Those that focus on the

macro context and political factors are stronger in

incorporating power relationships that are often

underplayed.

Overall, drought risk assessment must consider

both an improved understanding of the natural

hazard and human exposure to this climatic

extreme, as well as a better understanding of the

micro and macro context of people’s vulnerability

to drought. With this understanding, enhanced

drought mitigation, preparedness, and response

measures can be identiﬁed and implemented

to create a more drought resilient society.

Some examples of sector-wise drought impact

assessment that involved the analysis of livelihoods

in Portugal, the United States, and Viet Nam are

introduced in Chapter 4.

Figure 7 illustrates the differences between a

society vulnerable to drought and a society

resilient to drought, taking into consideration

societal behaviour, vulnerability factors, and

consequences.

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

The elements for a drought risk reduction

framework can be summarized in ﬁve main areas

of endeavour (Figure 8), all of which consider

priorities of the UN International Strategy for

Disaster Reduction, the Hyogo Framework for

Action, regional strategies, and thematic risk

reduction documents:

1. Policy and governance as an essential element

for drought risk management and political

commitment.

2. Drought risk identiﬁcation, impact assessment,

and early warning, which includes hazard

monitoring and analysis, vulnerability and

capability analysis, assessments of possible

impacts, and the development of early warning

and communication systems.

3. Drought awareness and knowledge management

to create the basis for a culture of drought risk

reduction and resilient communities.

4. Reducing underlying factors of drought risk

such as changing social, economic and

environmental conditions, land use, weather,

water, climate variability and climate change.

5. Strengthening preparedness for drought to move

from policies to practices in order to reduce the

potential negative effects of drought.

All of these elements need strong political

commitment, community participation, and

consideration of local realities and indigenous

knowledge. The international and regional

communities also play an important role in

coordinating activities, transferring knowledge,

supporting project implementation, and facilitating

effective and affordable practices.

Figure 8:

Proposed main

elements for Drought

Risk Reduction

Framework

Source: UNISDR and National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

Leaders and other high-level authorities at the

apex of political and economic power need to

be fully aware of the danger that drought poses,

aware of the hardship it creates for people

whose livelihoods are vulnerable to drought, and

committed to disseminating information and

implementing policies to help reduce human

suffering and environmental degradation.

Often, people at all levels of government in

both developed and developing countries are

preoccupied with other faster-moving, seemingly

more urgent problems, until drought strikes, at

which point it is difﬁcult to implement change.

Building drought resilience thus needs to be part

of long-term development considerations and

an integral part of policies related to agriculture,

water, food security and hazard risk management,

ideally, in accord with community-based policies

and practices, encouraging practices that reduce

vulnerability to drought. All this requires sustainable

policies and governance, which may necessitate

capacity development to foster meaningful

participation in policy and planning processes.

Guiding principles

The development of national and local strategies

for reducing drought risk, together with the

implementation of such a strategy, should be

guided by the following principles:

1 Political commitment, high-level engagement,

strong institutional setting, clear responsibilities

both at central and local levels and appropriate

governance are essential for integrating drought

risk issues into a sustainable development and

disaster risk reduction process,

2 A bottom-up approach with effective

decentralization and active community

participation for drought risk management in

planning, decision making and implementation,

is essential to move from policy to practice,

3 Capacity building and knowledge development

are usually required to help build political

commitment, competent institutions and an

informed constituency,

4 Drought risk reduction policies should establish

a clear set of principles or operating guidelines

to govern the management of drought and

its impacts, including the development of a

preparedness plan that lays out a strategy to

achieve these objectives,

5 Drought-related policies and plans should

emphasize risk reduction (prevention,

mitigation and preparedness) rather than

relying solely on drought (often turned into

famine) relief,

6 Drought monitoring, risk assessment and

other appropriate risk reduction measures are

principal components of drought policies and

plans,

7 Institutional mechanisms (policy, legislative

and organizational) should be developed and

enforced to ensure that drought risk reduction

strategies are carried out, and

8 Sound development of long-term investment

in risk reduction measures (prevention,

mitigation and preparedness) is essential to

reduce the effects of drought.

4.1.1 Building political and public
alliances

Political commitment, high-level engagement,

strong institutions and appropriate governance

are essential for building and maintaining

the necessary support to formulate drought

policies, and for integrating drought risk issues

into a disaster risk reduction and sustainable

development process. Drought risk reduction is a

long-term commitment that should complement

long-term sustainable development planning

efforts, such as meeting the United Nations

4.1

Policies and governance for drought risk reduction

Related to Priority 1 of the Hyogo Framework for Action: To ensure that drought risk reduction is a

national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation.

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) (www.

un.org/millenniumgoals) and in the Poverty

Reduction Strategies.

A partnership between UNDP/DDC, UNEP and the

Global Mechanism of the UNCCD facilitated the

production of a preliminary version of a practical

guide for mainstreaming drought risk reduction

into national development frameworks in 2007,

entitled “Generic Guidelines for Mainstreaming

Environment with a particular focus on Drylands

into National Development Frameworks”. The

Guidelines include a wide range of mainstreaming

tools, from which to choose for each major step

of the mainstreaming process (see Box 3) based

on analysis of case studies of various countries

in Africa, Asia, Paciﬁc and Latin America and

Caribbean.

Community participation, both in decision making

and implementation, is also essential in order

to move from policy to practice. Participation

is required to develop policies and strategies

that are relevant, feasible and equitable at the

local level. It may also help create a larger sense

of community ownership among stakeholders

that will foster commitment and responsibility

when implementing drought policy. Developing

an effective drought risk reduction strategy and

implementing it in practical actions requires the

contribution and coordination of organizations

and institutions at all levels. Each has a particular

function for which it is responsible and

accountable.

The Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) describes

the responsibilities of different actors for its

Box 3:

Generic steps

for drylands

mainstreaming

Strategic assessment phase

Step 1: Identifying and analyzing the status of land issues and their environmental, economic and social

impacts, taking into account the various direct and indirect drivers of change affecting land issues

Step 2: Identifying and ﬁlling information needs/analysis

Step 3: Assessing legal, political and institutional environment for mainstreaming

Step 4: Conducting a stakeholder analysis and deﬁning roles, responsibilities and obligations

Step 5: Carrying out capacity assessment

Awareness, participation and partnership-building phase

Step 1: Drawing up a communication and awareness creation strategy

Step 2: Building partnerships for mainstreaming

Step 3: Planning for participation and consultation processes

Planning phase

Step 1: Undertaking iterative and integrated planning

Step 2: Linking the plans to budgets and funding mechanisms

Implementation phase

Step 1: Building capacity

Step 2: Implementing the plans

Learning, monitoring and evaluation phase

Step 1: M&E of planning frameworks for impacts

Step 2: Evaluation of the effectiveness of mainstreaming processes

Step 3: Revision of the planning frameworks.

Source: Generic Guidelines for Drylands Mainstreaming, Part I: Generic Guidelines for Mainstreaming Drylands Issues into National

Development Frameworks, 1st Edition, UNDP, October 2008 available at http://www.undp.org/drylands/docs/publications/Guidelines_Lessons_

Learned_for_Mainstreaming_Drylands.pdf

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

implementation. According to the HFA, the ISDR

system supports national policies and coordination

mechanisms, facilitates regional and international

coordination, stimulates the exchange of good

practices, reviews and documents progress toward

implementation of the HFA, and produces practical

tools to help policymakers and decision makers

promote and implement disaster risk reduction

measures in their respective countries and regions.

In this document, the term “ISDR system” is referred

to collectively as various international, regional

and national bodies, platforms, programmes and

mechanisms expressly established to support the

implementation of the ISDR and the HFA.

(http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/Words-into-

action/Words-Into-Action.pdf )

The roles and responsibilities of the main

categories of stakeholders are summarized as

below:

A. Community-based organizations, particularly

those representing the most vulnerable, are

key to people-centred drought risk reduction

strategies and actions. Their indigenous

knowledge and ability to cope with drought

and to respond will ultimately determine the

extent of risk and drought impact. They should

be aware of drought hazards and the related

effects to which they are exposed, and be

able to take speciﬁc actions to minimize the

threat of loss or damage. Local communities

also promote the use of traditional and local

knowledge and know-how.

B. Local governments usually have direct

responsibilities for citizen safety and

considerable knowledge of the hazards to

which their communities are exposed. They

must be actively involved in the design and

implementation of drought risk reduction

programmes and projects, and understand all

advisory and warning information received in

order to be able to advise, instruct, or engage

the local population in a manner that increases

their safety and reduces the possible loss

of resources and livelihoods on which the

community depends. Local government also

serves as the interface between local and

national governments.

C. National governments are responsible for

policies and frameworks (including national

development plans, reﬂecting the Hyogo

Framework, MDGs, PRSPs and MEAs) that

facilitate drought risk reduction practices,

as well as the technical systems required for

preparing and issuing timely warnings. National

governments ensure coordination among

different line ministries as well as with bilateral

and multilateral partners through national

platforms for disaster risk reduction (http://

www.unisdr.org/guidelines-np¬eng) and other

existing mechanisms.

National governments have responsibility to

ensure the implementation of policies and legal

instruments, develop risk reduction measures

(prevention, mitigation and preparedness),

and ensure that transition warnings and

related responses address all the population,

particularly the most vulnerable. They provide

support to local governments and communities

to develop coping capabilities and translate

drought risk reduction policies into local

practices. Undertaking baseline assessments

and reviewing the progress toward achieving

the objectives and priorities of the Hyogo

Framework are also the responsibility of the

national governments.

D. Regional institutions and organizations provide

specialized knowledge and advice in support

of national efforts to develop or sustain coping

and operational capabilities of countries that

share a common drought-prone geographical

environment. Regional organizations are crucial to

linking international capabilities to the particular

needs of individual countries and in facilitating

effective drought risk reduction practices among

adjacent countries in regard to transboundary

disaster risk reduction issues and response

(e.g., drought-triggered refugees or migrants).

Areas for such regional technical support could

include regional baseline assessments, progress

reviewing, development of regional early warning

capacities and other capacities such as education,

training and awareness.

E. International bodies (multilateral and bilateral)

provide support for national drought risk

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

reduction programmes and projects and

foster the exchange of globally consistent

data and knowledge among countries.

Support may include provision of advisory

information, technical assistance, and policy

and organizational support necessary to ensure

the development of the operational capabilities

of national authorities or agencies responsible

for disaster and drought risk reduction.

International partners mobilize technical and

ﬁnancial resources to support the preparation,

adoption, implementation and review of global

agreements such as the Hyogo Framework,

MDGs, PRSPs and MEAs. International partners

also develop information resources including

policy and technical guidance materials as well

as tools such as indicators, procedures, good

practices, training modules, etc.

F. Civil society organizations play a critical role

in raising awareness among individuals and

neighbourhoods for the implementation of

drought risk reduction policies and practices

at the community level. This includes religious

leaders and organizations that have a

powerful voice in communities and can help

raising awareness and disseminating public

information. In addition, these individuals and

groups play an important advocacy role to help

ensure that reducing drought risk stays on the

agenda of high-level government leaders and

policymakers. Some actions promoted by CBOs

and NGOs are at the cutting edge of people-

centred drought risk reduction practices. They

usually have a level of ﬂexibility in accessing

funding and implementing pilot strategies

and programmes that can inform national and

international drought risk reduction policy and

practice.

G. The private sector has an important and diverse

role to play in drought risk reduction, including

developing coping capabilities within their

own businesses (mainly for business continuity

but also for corporate social responsibility).

In addition, the private sector has a large

untapped potential to help provide skilled

services in the form of technical resources,

know-¬how, and donations (in-kind and

cash) of goods or services, especially for the

communication and dissemination of risk

reduction measures (prevention, mitigation

and preparedness), including the development

and communication of early warnings to

reduce drought impacts. Contributions

and interventions of the private sector that

augment and comply with international good

practices are essential.

H. The media also plays an important role in

developing and enhancing disaster reduction

consciousness of the general population

as well as disseminating early warnings. In

many cases, the media is the primary means

of communication between policymakers,

practitioners and the public. In this regard, the

media carries a great responsibility to serve the

needs of their audiences, and policymakers and

practitioners are tasked with improving ways

to formulate messages that are “newsworthy”

attracting the public attention through the

media.

I. The scientiﬁc community has a central and

critical role in providing specialized scientiﬁc

and technical input to assist governments and

communities in drought risk reduction. Their

expertise is fundamental to analyzing natural

hazard risks facing communities; identifying

and analyzing vulnerability of people and

livelihoods; supporting the design of scientiﬁc

and systematic monitoring, communications,

and warning services; supporting data

exchange; translating scientiﬁc or technical

information into comprehensible messages;

and disseminating understandable warnings

to those at risk. Scientists also analyse and

promote the use of traditional and local

knowledge as well as the transfer and

adaptation of appropriate technology. Through

research they assess, promote and further

develop a body of knowledge based on lessons

learned from concrete experiences in the ﬁeld.

4.1.2 Capacity development

While political momentum may exist to create new

institutional (policy, legislation and organizational)

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

Body

Responsibility

Central government

Provide guidance at the national level

Provincial governments

Provide guidance at the provincial level

Ministry of Agriculture and Rural development
- Department of Irrigation
- Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in
provincial areas

Water supply
Research on strategies for land-use planning and water regulation
Cropping patterns
Cropping schedules

Ministry of Health

Provide health facilities in case of emergency

Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment
- Department of Natural Resource and Environment

Drought forecasting
Drought declaration
Drought assessment
Development planning

Ministry of Labour

Food supply
Implementation of food-for-work programmes

Ministry of Transportation

Support for other organizations in case of emergency
Water-transportation management

Ministry of Finance

Provide finances for long-term and short-term programmes to
cope with and mitigate impacts of drought

Other social organizations (women’s union, farmers’
associations, etc.)

Participate in meetings
Provide ideas for better implementation
Promote public participation in programmes

Red Cross (and other international NGOs)

Provide relief
Conduct strategic research
Assess community needs

Local NGOs

Food assistance
Capacity building
Promotion of sustainable livelihoods for communities

Scientists and research institutes

Conduct research and training in drought-risk mitigation
Develop sustainable livelihoods for communities

Communities

Participate in programmes
Help various stakeholders to understand impacts of drought and to
design better management programmes
Cope with impacts of drought

Water supply and irrigation companies

Water supply
Implementation of water regulations

Media

Disseminate drought forecasts and better management practices

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Negotiate the sharing of water resource with other countries

Source: Oxfam in Viet Nam and Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies of Kyoto University, Japan, 2007, Drought-Management

Considerations for Climate- Change Adaptation: Focus on the Mekong Region

Table 1:

Example of

responsibilities

of various bodies

involved in drought

management in

Viet Nam

mechanisms for reducing risks, lack of dedicated

ﬁnancial resources in national budgets and trained

personnel to implement plans may inhibit the

operation of existing systems and mechanisms.

Capacity development is indeed a central strategy

for reducing disaster risk. The UNISDR’s “Words

Into Action: A Guide for Implementing the Hyogo

Framework” speciﬁes that “capacity development is

needed to build and maintain the ability of people,

organizations and societies to manage their risks

successfully themselves”. This requires not only

training and specialized technical assistance,

but also the strengthening of the capacities

of communities and individuals to recognize

and reduce risks in their localities. It includes

sustainable technology transfer, information

exchange, network development, management

skills, professional linkages and other resources.

Capacity development needs to be sustained

through institutions that support capacity-building

and capacity maintenance as permanent ongoing

objectives. (http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/docs/

Words-into-action/Words-Into-Action.pdf )

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

According to the ISDR’s Inter-Agency Task Force

for Disaster Reduction, “Current conceptual

approaches conceive capacity building at three

different levels. At the individual and group

level, capacity building refers to the process of

changing attitudes and developing skills while

maximizing the beneﬁts of participation and

knowledge exchange. At the institutional level,

capacity building concentrates on organizational

performance and functional capabilities. In recent

years, increased emphasis has also been placed

on a third level, the systemic dimension of capacity

development, with emphasis on the overall policy

framework in which individuals and organizations

interact with the environment.” (Source: Capacity

Building for Developing Countries: Inter-Agency

Task Force on Disaster Reduction, DOC TF2/6

October 2000, http://www.undp.org/cpr/disred/

documents/news/2006/11%20DMTP%20

CapacityBuildingConceptSummary%20(2).pdf )

A typical capacity development process is shown

in Figure 9. It starts with engaging partners

and all parties involved and building consensus.

Then, comprehensive and participatory capacity

assessment is undertaken to identify speciﬁc

needs and gaps at different levels. Following the

assessment, capacity development strategies

and activities are formulated to ﬁll these gaps.

These speciﬁc activities are implemented and

monitored. Finally, enhanced capacity is reassessed,

and the strategies and process are evaluated to

review whether any further capacity development

activities are needed.

Because disaster risk reduction requires an

interdisciplinary approach, capacity development

for drought risk reduction should be dealt with

in a holistic manner by building on or linking to

ongoing capacity building activities across various

sectors at all levels. In order to strengthen national

institutional capacity for disaster risk reduction,

the HFA calls on all nations to establish nationally

owned coordination mechanisms for disaster

risk reduction, such as multi-sectoral national

platforms for disaster risk reduction. The capacity

building activities for drought risk reduction can be

coordinated, implemented and monitored under

these mechanisms.

In a case where National Platforms for DRR have

not been established or are not fully operational,

capacity development for drought risk reduction

can be facilitated by the development of a

drought risk reduction (prevention, mitigation and

preparedness) policy and designation of a leading

institution. Examples of capacity development

activities from the Horn of Africa are presented in

Box 4.

Various initiatives, programmes, projects and

networks for enhancing capacity for drought risk

assessment, monitoring and early warning to

facilitate actions in HFA Priority 2 are elaborated in

Section 4.2 of this document.

Capacity development for drought risk reduction

could also build on relevant capacity building

programmes in the environment sector, such

as the ones for the UN Convention to Combat

Desertiﬁcation (UNCCD), UN Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the

UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD). For

the implementation of the three Rio Conventions

alone, various capacity assessment tools,

programmes and projects supported the countries

in need. For example, the National Capacity Self

Assessment programme (NCSA), supported by

the Global Environment Facility (GEF), undertakes

Figure 9:

Capacity

development

process

Source: J. Colville and K. Wignaraja, Capacity Assessment Practice

Note, UNDP http://www.capacity.undp.org/).

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

reviews of the existing national capacity and

gaps in fully participatory manner regarding the

implementation of the UNCCD, the UNFCCC and

the UNCBD. The Nairobi Work Programme, a ﬁve-

year programme to enhance the decision-making

capacity of the UNFCCC on a sound scientiﬁc,

technical and socio-economic basis, is another

example of these capacity development activities

(see Section 4.4).

In addition to the direct support for the national

and regional level capacity development, there are

also mechanisms such as the Capacity for Disaster

Reduction Initiative (CADRI) to enhance capacity

of the international institutions involved in disaster

risk reduction. CADRI, a thematic platform of

the ISDR system, was created in 2007 by United

Nations Development Programme Bureau for

Crisis Prevention and Recovery (UNDP/BCPR),

the UN Ofﬁce for Coordination of Humanitarian

Affairs (UNOCHA) and the UNISDR (http://www.

unisdr.org/cadri/index.html). CADRI’s areas of

emphasis and support includes enhancement of

the UN system’s capacity at the national level to

effectively execute its disaster risk reduction roles,

and support to countries to integrate disaster

risk reduction into preparedness for response to

disasters.

Box 4:

Capacity Building

for Drought Risk

Reduction –

Examples from the

Horn of Africa

For the period 2006-2007, with funding from the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA), UNISDR

Africa has coordinated support to countries in the Horn of Africa for enhancing coordination mechanisms and

harmonizing policies on drought risk reduction. These activities are being implemented in close collaboration with

government agencies, bilateral and multilateral agencies, civil society organizations and scientiﬁc and academic

institutions.

In Kenya, SIDA activities have enabled the National Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction to set up a thematic group

of experts on drought. The government is also in the process of adopting a National Disaster Mitigation Policy as

well as an Arid and Semi-Arid Land Policy, both of which are factors in drought risk reduction. An analytical report

on ways and means of strengthening drought prevention and response is being ﬁnalized.

In Uganda, SIDA support has enabled the government to advance the process of consultations toward

development of a National Policy on Drought Risk Reduction. The Drought Policy will complement the ongoing

capacity building efforts of the government for strengthening national policy framework on disaster risk reduction

supported by OCHA, UNDP and UNISDR Africa Regional Unit.

Other countries in the sub-region, in particular Djibouti and Eritrea, have received support to hold consultations

to initiate formulation of national drought and disaster risk reduction policies. In Eritrea, under the United Nations

Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), close collaboration with the UN Country Team and the government

is expected to lead to the preparation of a National Disaster Policy as well as the establishment of early warning

systems on drought.

In order to complement support to national governments, a Horn of Africa Sub-Regional Drought Risk Reduction

Policy Framework is being developed in collaboration with the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).

This catalytic funding and soft assistance directed toward capacity building of national and sub-regional policies

and institutions is expected to enable the countries in the Horn of Africa to address future droughts in a more

systematic manner.

Source: The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

4.1.3 Components of a drought policy

A drought policy can take many forms, such as a

legislative act, a planning document, a group of

related programmes, or an informal understanding

among collaborators. Nonetheless, the goal in

developing any drought policy is that it should

establish a clear set of principles, strategy

objectives, or operating guidelines for drought risk

mitigation and preparedness, drought response,

and early recovery and livelihood rehabilitation.

A drought policy should consider the main

elements of the proposed drought risk reduction

framework based on local needs, community

participation and political commitment (Chapter

4), networks and mechanisms (Chapter 5), and

resource availability. Major components of effective

drought risk reduction policies and plans are

proposed in Box 5, in line with the HFA.

As their foundation, drought policies and plans

should emphasize prevention, mitigation and

preparedness rather than relying solely on crisis

management, which has been the primary focus

in the past. Drought response efforts are essential,

but many actions can be implemented before a

drought develops, to reduce the potential effects

on people, livelihoods and the environment.

Drought identiﬁcation, monitoring, vulnerability

analysis (risk identiﬁcation), and risk management

are the cornerstones of drought risk reduction

(prevention, mitigation and preparedness) plans.

A drought monitoring system can provide a

historical record to assess changing conditions

and provide early warnings of potential threats

to people and activities at risk. Risk identiﬁcation

will help to determine regions, population groups,

and economic and environmental sectors most

vulnerable to the effects of drought, so that

risk management actions can be identiﬁed and

implemented to reduce those risks.

Ultimately, preparedness plans will improve

coordination within and between levels of

government; procedures for monitoring, assessing,

and responding to water shortages; information

ﬂow to primary users; and efﬁciency of resource

allocation. The goals of these plans are to reduce

water shortage impacts, personal hardships, and

conﬂicts between water and other natural resource

users. These plans should promote self-reliance

by systematically addressing issues of principal

concern to the region or nation in question.

Legislation to ensure that drought risk reduction

policies are carried out should be developed

and enforced. Creating a drought policy is one

task; ensuring the actions identiﬁed in the policy

are implemented is another task. Political and

ﬁnancial investment in prevention, mitigation and

preparedness measures are essential to reduce

the effects of drought. Investing in reducing risk

of drought impacts is more humane and cost-

effective than only dealing with them after they

have occurred.

Since entering into force in 1996, the UNCCD

has been assisting the affected country Parties

in combating desertiﬁcation and mitigating the

effects of drought. Article 10 of the UNCCD obliges

the affected developing Parties to prepare national

action programmes (NAPs) (http://www.unccd.int/

convention/text/convention.php).

A NAP advocates the importance of developing

long-term drought risk reduction (prevention,

mitigation and preparedness) policies and

enhancing national capabilities. A NAP also

speciﬁes the respective roles and responsibilities

of government, local communities and land users

and the resources needed to implement the

Convention. As of 1 March 2008, 102 Parties have

formulated their NAPs, including 41 countries in

Africa, 29 in Asia and the Paciﬁc, 23 in Latin America

and the Caribbean, and 9 in Europe.

A NAP includes an assessment of existing drought-

related policies and gap areas. The creation of a

NAP and other key indicators for the review of the

implementation of the UNCCD are shown in Box

6. More general indicators for the review of the

Hyogo Framework are presented in the section on

tracking progress (Section 4.5.3)

The UNCCD’s action programmes can also be

prepared at regional and sub-regional levels

according to Article 11 of the UNCCD, based

on speciﬁc conditions of each affected region

and sub-region. The UNCCD has ﬁve Regional

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

Implementation Annexes for Africa, Asia, Latin

America and the Caribbean, the Northern

Mediterranean, and Central and Eastern Europe

to support this process. Such cooperation may

include joint programmes for the sustainable

management of transboundary natural resources,

scientiﬁc and technical cooperation, and

strengthening of relevant institutions. To date,

regional action programmes (RAPs) have been

developed for Africa, Asia and Latin America.

The sub-regional action programmes (SRAPs)

have been developed mainly in Africa (West

Africa, North Africa, Central Africa, East Africa

and Southern Africa). Main regional institutions

which have been involved in the development of

SRAPs are listed in Annex 2 (http://www.unccd.int/

convention/text/convention.php).

Various guides for drought management

have been developed at national and regional

levels to meet the needs of speciﬁc users. For

example, the European Commission-funded

collaboration between scientists from Cyprus,

Greece, Italy, Morocco, Spain, and Tunisia has

developed Drought Management Guidelines for

Mediterranean countries (MEDROPLAN Guidelines)

Box 5:

Proposed

components of a

drought risk reduction

policy and plan

A drought policy should establish a clear set of principles or operating guidelines to govern the mitigation and

management of drought and its impacts as well as the development of a preparedness plan that lays out a

strategy to achieve these objectives.

A national policy and plan shall specify the respective roles of government, local communities and land users, and

the resources available and required to implement appropriate drought risk reduction activities. Although drought

policies will vary to reﬂect local needs, drought risk reduction (prevention, mitigation and preparedness) policies

should also address the following concepts:

1 Provide for effective participation at the local, national, and regional levels of non-governmental organizations

and populations (both women and men) in policy planning, decision making, and implementation and review of

national action programmes;

2 Be rooted in thorough vulnerability, risk, capacity, and needs assessments, highlighting the root causes of the

issues related to drought at national, sub-national, local, and transboundary scales;

3 Focus on strengthening the capacities of governments and communities to identify, assess, and monitor

drought risks at national and sub-national levels for effective development planning, including strengthening of

people-centred early warning systems and preparedness;

4 Incorporate both short and long-term strategies to build the resilience of governments and communities to

reduce the risks associated with drought, emphasize implementation of these strategies, and ensure they are

integrated with national policies for sustainable development;

5 Link drought early warning indicators with appropriate drought mitigation and response actions to ensure

effective drought management;

6 Allow for modiﬁcations to be made in response to changing circumstances and be sufﬁciently ﬂexible at the

local level to cope with different socio-economic, biological and geo-physical conditions;

7 Promote policies and strengthen institutional frameworks which develop cooperation and coordination,

in a spirit of partnership, between the donor community, governments at all levels, local populations, and

community groups, and facilitate access by local populations to appropriate information and technology;

8 Designate agencies and stakeholders responsible for carrying out drought mitigation and response actions,

and require regular review of, and progress reports on, their implementation.

9 Strengthen drought preparedness and management, including drought contingency plans at the local, national,

sub-regional and regional levels that take into consideration seasonal to inter-annual climate predictions.

Source: USA National Drought Mitigation Center, University of Nebraska-Lincoln; UNDP; UNCCD and UNISDR, 2007

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Box 6:

Key indicators for

the review of the

implementation of the

UNCCD

Box 7:

European

Commission-

supported drought

management

guidelines for

Mediterranean

countries

(MEDROPLAN

Guidelines)

The UNCCD’s guidelines for national reporting provide a list of key elements to be used to review the progress of

the implementation of the Convention. These elements include:

1. Designation of a national focal point institution for the UNCCD;

2. Formulation of a National Action Programme (NAP);

3. The implementation of the NAP in the priority ﬁelds set out by Decision 8/COP.4, such as:

4. Establishment of a National Coordinating Body (NCB) as a supervisory body in promoting the implementation of

the UNCCD;

5. Development of an institutional framework for coherent and functional desertiﬁcation control;

6. Development of a coherent and functional legal and regulatory framework (e.g., acts and laws);

7. Integration of the NAP into national development and poverty reduction strategies and plans;

8. Making the NAP coherent with other environmental strategic and planning frameworks;

9. Implementation of relevant projects which are directly or indirectly related to the UNCCD;

10. Development, at the national level, of programmes of a sub-regional or regional character;

11. Insurance of effective participation of relevant actors, including local authorities, nongovernmental

organizations (NGOs), community based organizations (CBOs), and women’s and youth groups in deﬁning

national priorities;

12. Strengthening of relevant scientiﬁc networks at the national, sub-regional and regional levels for technical

cooperation;

13. Recommendation of items by the Committee on Science and Technology, including development and use of

benchmarks and indicators, promotion of traditional knowledge, use of early warning systems, training and

ﬁeld studies to identify pilot sites;

14. Adoption of internal and external ﬁnancial mechanisms and international partnerships;

15. Operational mechanisms for monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the UNCCD

Source: The UNCCD secretariat, National Reporting Process of Affected Country Parties - Explanatory Note and Help Guide, December 2005

(ICCD/CRIC(5)/INF.3), available at: http://www.unccd.int/cop/ofﬁcialdocs/cric5/pdf/inf3eng.pdf

The MEDROPLAN guidelines provide a systematic approach to developing drought management plans. Although

targeted toward Mediterranean countries, the guidelines can provide insights into drought planning in any country

(see http://www.iamz.ciheam.org/medroplan/).

The MEDROPLAN Guidelines are designed to contribute to answering key social and policy questions such as:

(1) How water management can be improved and how people can best beneﬁt from such changes; and (2) How

research can help to develop innovative institutional arrangements and decision-support tools. The Guidelines’

systematic approach contributes to linking academic knowledge to operational and policy aspects of drought

risk management. The Guidelines place emphasis on the institutional and legal framework and on stakeholder

participation, and establishing a wide range of methodologies to cope with drought. The Guidelines are designed

to appeal to a broad audience, with special reference to policymakers. The Guidelines have been translated into six

languages (Arabic, English, French, Greek, Italian and Spanish).

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

(see Box 7 and Figure 10). The National Drought

Mitigation Center (USA) has also developed the

Ten-Step Drought Planning Process (http://www.

drought.unl.edu/plan/handbook/10step_rev.pdf )

that has been utilized worldwide, and worked

with the United Nations Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) to develop the “Near East

Drought Planning Manual”.

4.1.4 National drought policy case studies

Because of an increased understanding of the

effects of drought on people and livelihoods

and greater awareness of the value of disaster

risk reduction (prevention, mitigation and

preparedness), an increasing number of nations

have begun developing drought planning and

policies processes over the last two decades.

For example, as mentioned earlier, with the support

of SIDA and the UNISDR Africa Regional Unit,

solid progress has been made on the formulation

of a drought risk reduction policy framework at

national and sub-regional levels for the countries

in the Horn of Africa. This has been in line with

the Africa Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk

Reduction, adopted by the African Ministerial

Conference on the Environment in 2004, and the

Hyogo Framework (HFA) adopted in 2005; http://

www.unisdr.org/africa/af-hfa/docs/africa-regional-

strategy.pdf ). In consultation with relevant national

stakeholders, existing drought risk reduction

policies and programmes in ﬁve countries

(Djibouti, Eritrea, Kenya, Somalia and Uganda) were

reviewed and analysed in 2007. The major ﬁndings

of the reports from Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda

are presented in Box 8. Integration of Uganda’s

drought risk reduction policy into the country’s

disaster risk reduction policy is further elaborated

in Box 8. Other examples of the development of

national drought policies in Namibia, South Africa,

Australia and the United States are also shown in

this section.

Case Study from Uganda:

Drought risk reduction policy as an integral part of

the national disaster risk reduction policy

The government of Uganda has been preparing

a drought risk reduction policy framework in

parallel with its efforts to review and strengthen

Figure 10:

Development and

revision of a drought

management

plan based on

the MEDROPLAN

guidelines

Source: http://www.iamz.ciheam.org/medroplan/guidelines/planning_framework_deﬁning.html

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

the existing national disaster risk reduction and

management policy framework.

The Ugandan government has reviewed its existing

National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management

Policy to move its focus from emergency relief to

more comprehensive disaster risk management

covering disaster mitigation, preparedness and

response. Strengthening institutional frameworks

and capacity, including district authorities’ ability

to assess, coordinate and respond to disasters, and

clarifying the roles and responsibilities of relevant

institutions are some of the ﬁrst challenges in

the process. In order to facilitate the necessary

consultation process, OCHA, UNDP and UNISDR

Africa Regional Unit have been supporting various

workshops and meetings in the country.

The preparation of an effective drought

risk reduction policy has been a part of the

above-mentioned overall national efforts. The

government has continued to demonstrate its

commitment to drought risk reduction issues. In

fact, the government has identiﬁed drought risk

reduction as a possible area to be assigned a high

priority because of 1) its seriousness or urgency,

2) its potential contributions to the economy and

social well-being, and 3) the potential of a drought

risk policy to be successful.

In order to facilitate the process of formulating

a more comprehensive drought risk reduction

policy, UNDP and the UNCCD secretariat initially

provided some inputs to the government.

Recently, SIDA’s support to the UNISDR, through

its Horn of Africa drought risk reduction

programme, has helped the Ugandan government

to undertake an analysis of the current status of

the development of a comprehensive drought risk

reduction policy.

Box 8:

Major ﬁndings

of the review of

existing drought risk

reduction policies and

programmes in the

Horn of Africa

The review of the existing drought risk reduction policies and programmes in Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda, facilitated

by the UNISDR Africa Regional Unit, resulted in the following ﬁndings.

Drought is one of the major threats for Eritrea, Kenya and Uganda, and therefore national drought policy needed to

be developed urgently. The three countries already have various drought-related policies and programmes but do

not have comprehensive drought risk reduction policies.

Kenya and Uganda have developed a national policy on disaster risk reduction and have responsible institutions

for disaster risk reduction. Eritrea is in the process of developing a policy, and has not yet designated a focal point

institution for disaster risk reduction. No country has designated a “drought risk reduction” focal point yet.

Within the existing disaster risk reduction policy and designated institutional structure, “drought risk reduction” has

not yet been adequately addressed. Inadequate prioritization of “drought risk reduction” has resulted in inadequate

allocation and disbursement of funding for drought risk reduction programmes by government.

Most of the key components proposed earlier in this Chapter (see Box 5) were recommended in these reviews for

an effective drought risk reduction policy. In addition, decentralization of administrative systems to local levels has

been identiﬁed as a crucial component of drought risk reduction. Local and community level capacity building,

awareness raising, dissemination of information and early warning, and development of coping mechanisms

remain as gap areas in addition to the national level gaps.

Although adoption and transfer of new drought management technologies and practices are increasing, traditional

drought management and coping mechanisms have still proven effective at community level.

Coordination and harmonization of policies and programmes are necessary within the government. In addition,

coordination between external partners such as the UN system and bilateral development agencies are also

crucial.

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

The study found that the national disaster risk

reduction policy still has gaps in its approach to

drought risk reduction, particularly in the areas

of preparedness, resilience, and prevention.

Other gaps were identiﬁed in the areas of

institutional frameworks, governance, drought

risk identiﬁcation, and knowledge management.

The recommendations from the study will be

presented to the government to accelerate the

development of a comprehensive drought risk

reduction policy and the necessary legal and

institutional framework for effective mitigation and

coordination for drought risk reduction.

Source: Review and Analysis of Existing Drought

Risk Reduction Policies and Programmes in

Uganda, Second Working Draft, UNISDR, 2007

Case Study from Namibia:

National drought policy

When introducing a package of short-term

drought relief measures in May 1995, the

government simultaneously established a task

force to draw up a national emergency and long-

term drought management policy. This was done

in recognition of the fact that Namibia is an arid

country where dry years are the norm. Declaring

drought too frequently is expensive for the

government, can create dependency among aid

recipients, and can promote resource degradation

through inappropriate assistance.

The Task Force convened several consultations

from 1996 until the endorsement of the national

drought policy by the government in 2005.

Namibia’s drought policy is concerned with

developing an efﬁcient, equitable and sustainable

approach to drought management. The policy aims

to shift responsibility for managing drought risk

from the government to the farmer, with ﬁnancial

assistance and food security interventions only

being considered in the event of an extreme or

“disaster” drought being declared.

The thrust of the policy is a move away from

regular ﬁnancial assistance to large numbers of

private-tenure and communal-tenure farmers to

measures that support the on-farm management

of risk. The government’s involvement with

drought will move beyond an exclusive focus on

emergency drought programmes to a broader,

longer-term perspective.

Sources: 2nd African Drought Risk and

Development Forum Report, Nairobi, October,

2006; Republic of Namibia, National Drought Policy

and Strategy, 1997.

Case Study from South Africa:

National drought policy

South Africa has invested a great deal of time and

effort into developing a cohesive national drought

policy. These efforts were accelerated by the

development of the National Consultative Forum

on Drought in the early 1990s, which brought more

stakeholders to the planning table and allowed

more sectors to be included in drought planning

efforts.

These efforts resulted in new drought policies

that strove to encourage risk management, assist

farmers ﬁnancially, protect natural resources,

promote the best use of resources for individual

farmers, and help farmers maintain a nucleus

breeding herd during a drought. With this

policy, farmers must adopt speciﬁc resource

conservation and long-term sustainability

measures, such as adherence to established

grazing capacities, to be eligible for ﬁnancial

aid. An agricultural risk insurance bill was also

developed in 2002 that sought to supplement

agricultural producers’ incomes for those most

susceptible to crop and livestock losses from

natural disasters.

The country’s primary challenge has become

the maintenance of a policy balance between

encouraging a risk management approach for

large agricultural enterprises and providing a

safety net for the resource-limited sectors of the

population.

Source: National Drought Policy, Wilhite et al.,

Drought and Water Crises: Taylor and Francis,

2005.

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Case Study from Australia:

National drought policy

Australia developed a national drought policy

in 1992 based on recommendations from the

country’s Drought Policy Review Task Force.

Although the drought policy has been revised over

the years, it primarily focuses on improving self-

reliance and minimizing the need for government

intervention by promoting the implementation of

pro-active risk management strategies.

The policy stresses risk management and

preparedness rather than disaster response,

given the propensity of the Australian climate

toward drought. Risk management assistance was

initially provided through the main agricultural

programme, the Rural Adjustment Scheme.

Under this policy, ofﬁcials decided when an area

was experiencing “exceptional circumstances”

in terms of weather and at what point ﬁnancial

support became available. The Rural Adjustment

Scheme also stressed improved risk management

by encouraging farmers to have ﬁnancial reserves

for times of crisis. In 1997, this scheme was replaced

with new programmes under the umbrella

Agriculture-Advancing Australia, although the

new programmes are very similar to the ones they

replaced.

The Australian government is still striving to make

the policy more efﬁcient, equitable, and cost-

effective.

Source: National Drought Policy, Wilhite et al.,

Drought and Water Crises: Taylor and Francis, 2005.

Case Study from United States:

National and State Drought Policy

In July 1998, the U.S. Congress enacted the

National Drought Policy Act that established

an advisory commission to provide advice and

recommendations on the creation of a national

drought policy. The resulting National Drought

Policy Commission published a report that

represents the basis for a national drought

policy and called for commitment and resolve in

providing sufﬁcient resources to achieve the policy

goals (http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/drought/

ﬁnalreport/fullreport/pdf/reportfull.pdf ).

Several state governments and American Indian

tribes in the United States have also made

substantial progress in developing drought

policies and plans. During the widespread U.S.

drought of 1976-77, no state had a formal drought

plan, and in 1982, only three states had drought

plans. But as of October 2006, thirty-seven states

had drought plans, two delegated planning to

local authorities instead of having a single state-

level plan, and two states were in the process of

developing a plan. Only nine states did not have

formal drought plans. Although the majority of

state drought plans focus on drought response

activities, a growing number of them are focusing

more attention on drought mitigation. These state

drought plans are available online at (drought.unl.

edu/planstateplans.htm).

Source: National Drought Mitigation Center,

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, USA

In response to especially severe drought during

the late 1990s and early twenty-ﬁrst century,

several other countries in the Near East, Central

Asia and Caucasus have also undertaken national

drought planning efforts. For example, FAO

through its Near East Regional Ofﬁce has been

working with the governments of Syria, Jordan

and Iran to initiate drought planning activities

and propose national drought mitigation and

response policies (see http://www.fao.org/world/

regional/rne/). The FAO livelihood approach is

explained in Chapter 3.

Similarly, the Canadian International Development

Agency has supported research and analysis by

the World Bank to better understand drought

impacts, vulnerabilities, and mitigation and

preparedness options in Central Asia and the

Caucasus (see http://www.worldbank.org/eca/

drought). The results of this research have been

incorporated into draft National Drought Plans

for Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, the

Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and

Uzbekistan.

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

4.1.5 Local and Community drought policy
case studies

In addition to national and state/provincial

drought policies, increased importance has also

been placed on local/community level drought

policy and planning, emphasizing self-reliance and

drought resilience.

Case Study from Australia:

Local drought planning, Melbourne

The availability of water has been instrumental

in the development of Victoria. Melbourne was

settled in 1835 and the city’s ﬁrst water supply

reservoir, Yan Yean, came on line in 1857. Australian

colonial ofﬁcials denied the existence of drought

during the late 19th century as part of their efforts

to attract more European immigrants.

In the 20th century, drought was treated as

something to be fought, cured, or beaten. Many

schemes in Victoria tried to “drought-proof” towns,

districts, or regions by capturing streamﬂows,

building storages, and managing the distribution

of water. Managing water demand during drought

involved restrictions designed to curb use and

conserve water.

After the severe 1972-73 drought, water

restrictions were formalized. In 1975, the

Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works

(Melbourne Water’s predecessor) and the State

Rivers and Water Supply Commission produced

an eight-stage set of restrictions. The 1982-83

drought affected most of eastern Australia, and

Stage 6 restrictions were introduced in February

1983. Since then, Victorian water authorities

have worked to plan for drought and simplify

restrictions.

Today, the Australian government and

Melbourne Water recognize that traditional

water development approaches are no longer

sustainable. Therefore, in the early 1990s, drought-

management guidelines were completed for non-

metropolitan areas, and in 1995, drought response

plans were completed for the newly formed

metropolitan retail water companies. In March

2005, the government introduced permanent

water saving rules across Victoria and penalties

for breaches. The 2006 Central Region Sustainable

Water Strategy also outlines actions to secure

water supplies for urban and industrial use to the

year 2055 by exploring alternative water sources,

such as re-use, recycling, conservation, increasing

efﬁciency, capturing storm water, desalination, and

tapping aquifers.

Source: Living with Drought, Melbourne Water,

(http://drought.melbournewater.com.au/Default.

asp?bhcp=1)

Case Study from United States:

Hualapai Tribe drought planning

In the United States, at least eight American Indian

tribes in the United States are in the process of

developing drought plans detailing operational

guidelines to help them better prepare for and

respond to drought on their reservation lands.

These are the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation, Kaibab-

Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, San Carlos Apache

Tribe, and Zuni Pueblo in the states of New Mexico

and Arizona and the Fort Peck Tribes and Northern

Cheyenne Tribe in the state of Montana.

The Federal Bureau of Reclamation provided

funding for the Hualapai Tribe in Arizona, United

States, to develop a comprehensive drought

plan. The Hualapai Tribe’s Department of Natural

Resources took the primary lead in developing

the plan, but the process ultimately became a

collaborative endeavour between several tribal

and federal agencies. Community meetings were

also held to gather feedback from tribal members

throughout the development of the plan.

In developing the plan, the tribe ﬁrst identiﬁed the

most vulnerable physical and social sectors of the

reservation and tribal population. Based on this

understanding, a range of appropriate drought

mitigation and response actions were then

identiﬁed, including the development of a drought

early warning system.

The plan is to be reviewed and adapted as

necessary on a bi-annual basis. The Hualapai Tribal

Council approved and adopted the plan in January

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

2004 after soliciting comments and review by

the cooperating partners. At the request of the

Hualapai Tribe, the National Drought Mitigation

Center evaluated the Hualapai Drought Plan and

conducted a drought exercise to educate tribal

members and agency personnel about their roles

in implementing the plan, and also to identify

potential barriers to the plan’s full implementation.

Source: Analyzing Tribal Drought Management,

Knutson et al., 2006, www.colorado.edu/hazards/

research/qr/qr183/qr183.html

4.2

Drought risk identiﬁcation, impact assessment and

early

warning

Related to Priority 2 of the Hyogo Framework for Action: To identify, assess and monitor disaster risks

and enhance early warning.

A starting point for reducing drought risk and

promoting a culture of resilience lies in gaining

knowledge about hazard occurrence, the potential

effects of the hazard, and the related vulnerabilities

of potentially affected people and activities.

The latter includes the physical, political, social,

economic, and environmental vulnerabilities to

drought that most societies face and the ways in

which hazards and vulnerabilities are changing in

the short- and long-term.

Understanding the physical nature of the drought

hazard and the corresponding impacts and

underlying vulnerabilities, and communicating

these dangers in an effective manner, forms the

basis for developing informed drought mitigation

and preparedness measures to reduce the effect of

impact of drought while contributing to drought-

resilient societies.

Guiding principles

Drought risk identiﬁcation, impact assessment, and

early warning activities should be guided by the

following principles:

1 Drought risk is the combination of the natural

hazard and the human, social, economic and

environmental vulnerability of a community

or country, and managing risk requires

understanding these two components and

related factors in space and time.

2 Increasing individual, community, institutional

and national capacities is essential to reducing

vulnerability to drought impact.

3 Impact assessment plays an important role

in drought risk management, in particular,

identifying most vulnerable groups and sectors

during drought.

4 Drought monitoring and early warning systems

play an important role in risk identiﬁcation,

assessment and management.

5 Changing climate and the associated

changing nature of drought poses a serious

risk to the environment, hence to sustainable

development and the society.

4.2.1 Local, national, and transboundary
risk assessments

Drought risk is based on a combination of the

frequency, severity, and spatial extent of drought

(the physical nature of drought) and the degree

to which a population or activity is vulnerable to

the effects of drought. The degree of a region’s

vulnerability depends on the environmental and

social characteristics of the region and is measured

by inhabitants’ ability to anticipate, cope with,

resist, and recover from drought.

Vulnerability to drought can be reduced by

increasing individual, community, institutional,

and national capacities. This capacity refers to the

identiﬁcation, communication and reduction of

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

risk, as well as absorbing the effects of drought

when they occur. A goal of capacity development

should be to enable self-reliance in preparing for

and responding to drought.

Researchers and practitioners are increasingly

promoting the use of consistent terminology and

strategies for assessing risk and analyzing the

strengths and weakness of these approaches. A risk

assessment process promoted by the ISDR system

is shown in Figure 11.

The UNISDR and several partners (e.g., UN-HABITAT,

UNDP/BCPR, Organization of American States,

Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre) have created

the Disaster Risk Assessment Portal (http://www.

disasterassessment.org/). This portal provides a

forum for members of the disaster management

community to exchange tools and case studies

related to disaster risk assessment. This type

of communication and assessment is essential

for helping planners determine appropriate

methodologies for assessing risk.

In terms of drought, the USA National Drought

Mitigation Center has developed a guide, “How

to Reduce Drought Risk”, to help national entities

better understand their own drought risk and

develop locally based risk reduction measures

(www.drought.unl.edu/planhandbook/risk.pdf ).

This document provides a step-by-step process for

self-assessing drought risk and has been used by

planners in several countries.

The risk assessment portion of the guide advocates

the analysis of the historical frequency, severity and

extent of drought; the identiﬁcation and ranking

of drought-related impacts; and a vulnerability

analysis to investigate why the impacts occur. This

type of risk assessment identiﬁes the underlying

causes of drought impacts, which is essential

for identifying effective drought risk reduction

(prevention, mitigation and preparedness for

response) measures.

4.2.2. Risk assessment methodology

Hazard assessment

The frequency of occurrence of meteorological

drought at various levels of intensity and duration

deﬁnes the drought hazard for drought-prone

nations and regions. It is critical for countries

to better understand this hazard and how it

varies temporally and spatially, and to establish

comprehensive and integrated drought early

warning systems that incorporate climate, soil

and water supply factors such as precipitation,

temperature, soil moisture, snowpack, reservoir and

lake levels, groundwater levels and streamﬂow.

For example, researchers in India have investigated

the historical occurrence of drought in the country

and classiﬁed India’s most drought-prone and

chronically drought-affected areas. Based on such

studies, India’s Ministry of Rural Development

manages the Drought Prone Areas Programme to

target resources to those people most at risk from

severe drought conditions (see http://rural.nic.in/).

It is also essential to identify trends in

temperature and precipitation amounts, changes

in the seasonal distribution and intensity of

precipitation events, and other changes in climate

that might be helpful in understanding how

the hazard may change in duration, frequency

and extent in the future. The 2007 IPCC Fourth

Assessment Report provides a great deal of

information on potential changes in climate

around the world (see http://www.ipcc.ch/).

Figure 11:

Components of a risk

assessment process

Source: Living with Risk, Chapter 2, UNISDR, http://www.unisdr.org/

eng/about_isdr/basic_docs/LwR2004/ch2_Section3.pdf

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

Drought Impact Assessment

Similarly, understanding trends in drought-related

impacts over time is important for projecting

future impacts and understanding changing

vulnerabilities. Each drought produces a unique set

of impacts, depending not only on the drought’s

severity, duration and spatial extent but also on

ever-changing social conditions.

For practical purposes, drought impacts can be

classiﬁed as economic, environmental, or social,

even though several of the impacts may actually

span more than one sector. These impacts are

symptoms of underlying vulnerabilities. Therefore,

impact assessments are a good starting point to

determine underlying vulnerabilities to target

response measures during drought. An impact

assessment highlights sectors, populations, or

activities that are vulnerable to drought.

Drought impact assessments begin by identifying

direct consequences of drought, such as reduced

crop yields, livestock losses and reservoir depletion.

These direct outcomes can then be traced to

secondary consequences (often social effects),

such as the forced sale of household assets or

land, dislocation, or physical and emotional stress.

Impacts should be examined for their occurrence

in past or recent droughts, but consideration

should also be given to the question “What

drought impacts will be seen in the future?” This

last question is crucial as populations shift and

water demands change.

For example, in response to severe drought in

1996, the state of New Mexico in the United States

completed a drought mitigation plan in 1998.

To better understand drought impacts within

the state, New Mexico organized four impact

assessment subgroups representing the sectors

most affected by drought in the state, including

(1) agriculture, (2) drinking water, (3) wildlife and

wildﬁre protection, and (4) tourism and economic

impacts. These subgroups identiﬁed the major

drought impacts occurring in each sector, although

they did not assess how vulnerability is increasing

or decreasing.

A second example, an assessment of drought

impacts conducted by the Government of Portugal

after the severe drought in the country in 2004-

2005, also helps to clarify the effects of drought on

people and their livelihoods (see Box 9).

A third example, a study carried out by Oxfam

in Viet Nam and the Graduate School of Global

Environmental Studies of Kyoto University, Japan,

in 2007, involved a drought impact assessment

at the community level in the context of climate

change (see the case study in Section 4.5.1).

The study focused on the impacts of the severe

drought of 2004 in the most drought-prone areas

in Ninh Thuan province, Viet Nam. It elaborated the

livelihoods impacts, food security impacts, health

impacts, economic impacts, social impacts and

environmental impacts. An impact-tree diagram

for animal husbandry in this study and suggested

policy options are introduced in Chapter 4.

Although the method of impact data collection

may vary by country because of technological,

ﬁnancial, political, and other factors, it is essential

Box 9:

Portugal: Assessing

drought impacts

Portugal was affected by a severe drought in

2004-2005. The government conducted an

assessment of impacts that occurred during the

drought to better understand the effects of drought

on the country, its people, and their livelihoods.

The primary impacts identiﬁed were related to

agriculture and cattle breeding, energy, urban

water supply, and forest ﬁres.

For example, the drought caused the drying

out of water sources and the loss of their

annual replenishing capability. The people and

municipalities primarily affected were those with

small caption systems in small river basins, or

small underground reservoirs. The number of

municipalities that were forced to increased

water supplies or implement water supply cuts/

reductions is listed in Figure 12. This type of

impact assessment is essential for identifying

vulnerable sectors and populations, and targeting

limited resources to high-priority needs.

Source: Institute of Meteorology, Portugal

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

that impacts are assessed and archived in some

manner. Institutional memory is often short and

people’s recollections biased. Accurate records of

drought impacts will help provide more objective

information on which to base planning decisions.

Once a drought impact assessment has been

performed, the next step is to rank the highest

priority impacts. Drought can result in many direct

and indirect impacts. Some of these may be more

important than others in terms of values and

interests. Addressing the most signiﬁcant impacts

ﬁrst will help target limited resources and hopefully

have a larger effect in reducing drought impacts.

At the provincial level, for example, rankings should

take into consideration concerns such as cost, areal

extent, trends over time, public opinion, fairness,

and the ability of the affected area to recover.

To assist in this ranking and ensure equitable

policy formulation, the general public, community

advisory committees, and groups of relevant

scientists and policymakers should be included in

the process.

In the United States, the National Drought

Mitigation Center has created a national drought

impact database to assist in documenting and

understanding the effects of drought. Users can

query the Drought Impact Reporter database

to search for impacts that are occurring or have

occurred in their region (see http://drought

reporter.unl.edu). Impacts are grouped by category,

such as agriculture, water, energy, environment, ﬁre,

social, etc. This type of activity will help planners

identify the range of impacts that are important in

a region.

Vulnerability Analysis

Vulnerability analysis provides a framework for

identifying the human, social, economic, political,

physical, and environmental causes of drought

impacts. It directs attention to the underlying

causes of vulnerability rather than to its result, the

negative impacts, which follow triggering events

such as drought.

For example, in drought conditions, the direct

impact of a lack of precipitation may be reduced

crop yields. The underlying cause of this impact,

however, may be that farmers did not plant

appropriate crops because of cultural preference

or government incentives, other seeds were

unavailable or too expensive, or there was no

drought warning. Hence, to conduct a vulnerability

analysis, begin by asking why signiﬁcant impacts

have occurred (or why they might occur). It is

important to realize that a combination of factors

(e.g., environmental, economic, and social factors)

or underlying causes (e.g., livelihoods at risk,

incentive preferences, and inappropriate crops)

might produce a given event.

Figure 12:

Number of

municipalities

needing to increase

transport of water

supply or cut/reduce

household supply

Source: Institute of Meteorology, Portugal,

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

In general terms, Figure 13 illustrates the idea

that underlying causes of vulnerability can lead

to unsafe conditions that are more susceptible to

natural hazards. There are many underlying causes

of vulnerability

In assessing vulnerability, it might also be beneﬁcial

to diagram these causal relationships in some form

of a tree diagram. An example of a tree diagram

related to income losses due to crop failures is

shown in Figure 15 and a tree diagram for animal

husbandry is shown in Figure 16. The tree diagrams

illustrate the complexity of understanding drought

impacts, and demonstrate that impacts must be

examined from several perspectives to expose their

true underlying causes. Case studies and scenario

building are other ways to better understand

drought vulnerability.

It is also useful to analyse micro-macro linkages

to better understand vulnerability (Figure 14).

Policy instruments such as macroeconomic policy

can either positively or negatively inﬂuence

households and communities, which, in turn, could

either increase or decrease their vulnerability.

Good practices to reduce pastoralists’ vulnerability

in Ethiopia and Kenya are introduced in Annex 3.

Other resources for gathering information on

vulnerable populations, particularly in regard

to famine, include programmes such as the

Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information

and Mapping Systems (FIVIMS), the World Food

Programme’s Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping

(VAM) system and the UN Food and Agriculture

Organization’s food security system.

FIVIMS are networks of national information

systems that assemble, analyse, and disseminate

data on food insecurity and vulnerability. Their

objectives are to raise awareness about food

security issues, improve the quality of food security

related data and analysis, facilitate integration

of complementary information, promote better

understanding of users’ needs and better use of

information, and improve access to information

through networking and sharing.

VAM uses a wide array of technological sources

and analytical methods: satellite imagery and

Figure 13:

Risk results from

a combination of

hazard occurrence

and vulnerability to

the hazard

Source: Adapted from Blaikie et al., 1994

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

spatial analysis, monitoring of food prices in

local markets, exhaustive household surveys, and

discussions with members of poor and food-

insecure households to understand the nature of

food insecurity and the risks to livelihoods. VAM

monitors and analyses emerging food security

problems, and help WFP’s decision making at

key points in the design and management of

emergency and development programmes. VAM

works in close collaboration with many partners

worldwide, including governments, other UN

agencies (such as FAO, UNICEF, WHO), local and

international NGOs, universities and the private

sector. These partnerships ensure a shared

understanding of food security problems and

common priorities for action.

Another example is the UN Food and Agriculture

Organization, which also supplies food security

statistics and maps, such as a map of the

percentage of undernourished population by

country around the world (Figure 17). Gathering

and sharing this type of information is essential

for analyzing drought vulnerabilities and helping

decision makers target mitigation actions that

will help address the real causes of drought

impacts.

Figure 14:

Micro and macro

linkages for

analyzing household

vulnerability

Source: Drylands Development Centre, UNDP, 2007

Box 10:

West Asia: Drought

vulnerability analysis

Seeing a need for more research on water

development and drought, the United

Nations Economic and Social Commission

for Western Asia undertook studies from

2004 to 2005 to better understand drought

vulnerability in West Asia. The researchers

developed three case studies (i.e., Jordan,

Syria, and Yemen) to investigate drought

vulnerabilities and how countries in

the region are currently mitigating and

managing drought risk.

Climatic, water resource, agricultural,

environmental and socio-economic

vulnerabilities; drought early warning

systems; and mitigation strategies were

investigated in each country. Although a

good deal of information was obtained

during the study, researchers found that

there is a general lack of understanding and

awareness of drought and its impacts in West

Asia and that this type of research should be

continued throughout the region.

Source: UNESCWA (2005), Water Development Report 1:

Vulnerability of the Region to Socio-Economic Drought.

Drought Risk Reduction Framework and Practices:
Contributing to the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action

4.2.3 Enhancing risk assessment
methodology and applications

Risk assessment methodologies, maps and

standards should continue to be tested and

modiﬁed to meet the needs of stakeholders. They

should also be required as part of national and

local planning strategies. Institutionalizing the

processes will help ensure they are carried out as

administrations and initiatives change over time.

In order to enhance risk assessment efforts, it is

recommended that researchers and planning

entities support the development of common

methodologies for deﬁning and assessing risks,

thereby encouraging the identiﬁcation and

Figure 15:

An example of a

simpliﬁed agricultural

impact tree diagram

Figure 16:

An example of an

impact tree diagram

for animal husbandry

Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, USA

Source: Oxfam in Viet Nam and Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies of Kyoto University, Japan, 2007,

Drought-Management Considerations for Climate- Change Adaptation: Focus on the Mekong Region

Chapter 4:

Main elements for a drought risk reduction framework

adoption of best international practices. This

includes the adoption of drought hazard and

vulnerability indicators and using metrics most

relevant to decision makers and clients (e.g.,

identifying the agricultural drought hazard rather

than simply the climate hazard).

In addition, researchers and practitioners should

develop, update periodically and disseminate

risk maps and related information on drought

exposure and vulnerability, with special emphasis

on those populations most at risk. Institutions must

also cooperate regionally and internationally, as

appropriate, to assess and monitor regional and

transboundary hazards and vulnerabilities and

exchange relevant information.

4.2.4 Drought monitoring and early
warning

Drought is typically a slow-onset phenomenon,

which means that it is often possible to provide

early warning of an emerging drought. Such

information allows for a shift from reactive to

proactive hazard management and represents a

change in focus from disaster recovery to disaster

prevention.

Because there is no single deﬁnition for drought,

its onset and termination are difﬁcult to determine.

We can, however, identify various indicators of

drought speciﬁc to sectors or water uses, and

tracking these indicators provides us with a crucial

means of monitoring and providing early drought

warnings.

The UNISDR Platform for the Promotion of

Early Warning completed a global survey of

early warning systems in 2006. The survey

found that early warning systems for drought

are more complex than those for other hydro-

meteorological hazards and are, consequently,

relatively less developed globally (see http://

www.unisdr.org/ppew/). They are heavily reliant

on monitoring observed patterns of monthly

and seasonal rainfall, streamﬂow, groundwater

levels, snowpack and other parameters and the

use of historical and statistical data. The study also

stressed the importance of “people-centred” early

warning systems, i.e., systems that are focused on

reaching the people affected and providing them

with meaningful information that they can act on.

Global Circulation Models (GCMs) and associated

statistical ensemble methods are being routinely

used to provide predictions of upcoming climate

anomalies and offer promise for increasingly useful

Figure 17:

Percentage of

undernourished

population, by

country, 2003-2005

Source: UN Food and Agriculture Organization at http://faostat.fao.org/site/563/default.aspx