Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Download presentation

966 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Download presentation

  1. 1. Australian and U.S. Drought Policy Experiences: Are Lessons Learned Transferable to Africa? Dr. Donald A. Wilhite, Director National Drought Mitigation Center University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska U.S.A.
  2. 2. U.S. and Australia: A Comparative Analysis <ul><li>U.S. and Australia drought prone nations </li></ul><ul><li>National government has played a major role in the provision of drought assistance </li></ul><ul><li>Both governments have traditionally approached drought management via crisis management (response/reactive) </li></ul><ul><li>Recent severe drought events continue to foster an ongoing debate on policies and management strategies </li></ul>
  3. 3. Drought occurs virtually every year in the U.S. Recent 1999 to current drought event
  4. 4. Rainfall percentiles Australian Drought March 2002-January 2003
  5. 5. History of Australian Drought Policy <ul><li>Until 1989, drought was officially considered a natural disaster </li></ul><ul><li>Relief was via State Governments, and increasingly, the national Government often on an ad hoc basis </li></ul><ul><li>In 1989-early 1990s, official view changed – drought should be viewed as a natural part of the Australian environment, and farmers should adopt a risk management approach </li></ul><ul><li>In July 1992, a National Drought Policy was formally agreed </li></ul>
  6. 6. Australia’s National Drought Policy: 1992 <ul><li>Principles: </li></ul><ul><li>Encourage primary producers and other sections of rural Australia to adopt self-reliant approaches to managing climate variability </li></ul><ul><li>Maintain and protect Australia’s agricultural and environmental resource base during extreme climatic stress </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure early recovery of agricultural and rural industries, consistent with long term sustainable levels </li></ul>
  7. 7. Australia’s National Drought Policy <ul><li>Core principle of self-reliance, i.e. farmers in best position to develop agronomic systems, practices, and business strategies to manage agriculture drought </li></ul><ul><li>Moved drought policy from subsidy-based, crisis driven approach </li></ul><ul><li>Focused rural Australia on developing risk management strategies to manage climate and market variability </li></ul>
  8. 8. Australian Drought Policy Components <ul><li>Role of government is to provide farmers with skills/tools to help manage in self-reliant fashion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Research into climate variability and predictions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Seasonal climate predictions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Decision support tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Training and educations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tax incentives and social support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Increase resiliency to drought through proactive, mitigation measures </li></ul>
  9. 9. Drought Exceptional Circumstances (DEC)—1995 <ul><li>Direct government intervention warranted only when </li></ul><ul><li>Drought is “exceptional” event (i.e., rare and severe) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rare = 1 in 20 year event </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Severe = >12 consecutive months or 3 consecutive failed seasons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Drought must affect a significant portion of businesses in the region </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Raised questions and debate over the criteria to be used to make this decision </li></ul>
  10. 10. U.S. Progress in Drought Planning and Policy <ul><li>Before early 1980s, states relied on federal government for assistance </li></ul><ul><li>Early 1980s saw a rapid increase in state drought response plans </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on response planning continues 1996 </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing number of state plans with emphasis on mitigation planning, i.e., risk management </li></ul><ul><li>Currently, 38 states with drought plans </li></ul><ul><li>Movement by states to emphasize drought planning has placed pressure on the federal government to develop a risk-based national policy </li></ul>
  11. 11. <ul><li>Key Components of Drought Plans include </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring, prediction, and early warning </li></ul><ul><li>Risk and impact assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigation and response </li></ul>States with plans emphasizing response Drought plans under revision States with plans emphasizing mitigation States developing long-term plans States delegating drought planning to local authorities States without drought plans Status of Drought Planning January 2005
  12. 12. Benefits of Drought Plans <ul><li>Proactive, emphasizes mitigation and response </li></ul><ul><li>Improves coordination between and within levels of government  organizational structure </li></ul><ul><li>Enhances early warning through integrated monitoring efforts </li></ul><ul><li>Involves stakeholders </li></ul>
  13. 13. Benefits of Drought Plans continued <ul><li>Identifies areas, groups, sectors at risk </li></ul><ul><li>Reduces economic, environmental, and social impacts (i.e., risk) </li></ul><ul><li>Reduces conflicts between water users </li></ul><ul><li>Improves information dissemination  better delivery systems </li></ul><ul><li>Builds public awareness </li></ul>
  14. 14. National Drought Preparedness Act <ul><li>Creates National Drought Council </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal and non-federal members </li></ul></ul><ul><li>National Office of Drought Preparedness </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on risk management </li></ul><ul><li>Promotes drought preparedness planning </li></ul><ul><li>National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Conclusions <ul><li>Political will must be present to change the drought management paradigm </li></ul><ul><li>Leadership and the appropriate organizational framework is critical—collaboration/partnerships within and between levels of government is essential in drought planning and policy development </li></ul><ul><li>Stakeholders must be involved early and often in the development of policies and plans </li></ul><ul><li>Public education and awareness building is critical for decision makers, policy makers, the media, and the public </li></ul>
  16. 16. Conclusions <ul><li>Transitioning from crisis to risk-based drought management requires additional financial resources up front to implement mitigation measures </li></ul><ul><li>Risk-based management will lessen impacts and the need for government and donor intervention through improved self-reliance </li></ul><ul><li>A risk-based management approach requires improved assessment tools and higher resolution analysis to better target mitigation actions and response programs </li></ul>
  17. 17. Conclusions <ul><li>Information for decision support must be efficiently delivered to users that are trained in the application of the information </li></ul><ul><li>Nations can learn from one another, adapting monitoring and risk and impact assessment tools and planning methodologies to national needs </li></ul><ul><li>Drought plans and policies must be dynamic, incorporating lessons learned and changing societal vulnerability because drought risk is a product of both exposure to the hazard and the vulnerability of society to the hazard (i.e., the social dimension of drought) Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability </li></ul>
  18. 18. Visit the NDMC drought.unl.edu [email_address]

×