Draft:Integrated drought management

Integrated Drought Management (IDM) (also Integrated Drought Risk Management) refers to a proactive to drought risk management that focuses on reducing drought risk before drought develops into severe negative outcomes. It integrates a range of measures to anticipate, prepare for, manage and respond to drought to reduce the social, economic, and environmental impacts of drought. In contrast to approaches that primarily rely on emergency relief, IDM promotes long-term planning, risk-informed decision-making, and integrated action. This includes horizontal integration across sectors and institutions, as well as vertical integration across different levels of governance, from local and subnational authorities to national and regional institutions. It represents the drought risk management component of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), extending the principles of coordinated and sustainable water resources management to address the specific challenges posed by drought. Like Integrated Flood Management (IFM), IDM applies a risk-based, cross-sectoral approach, but focuses on managing the risks associated with prolonged water scarcity rather than excess water.

Such integration is essential because drought is a particularly complex natural hazard with wide-ranging and interconnected impacts. It directly and indirectly affects sectors including water resources, agriculture, energy, transport, ecosystems, public health, and livelihoods. Many of these impacts extend well beyond the areas experiencing drought. For example, reduced agricultural production can disrupt supply chains and increase food prices, such as for wheat, affecting consumers and economies far from the drought-affected region. Because these impacts are interconnected, effective drought management requires cooperation and coordination among government agencies, scientific institutions, local communities, and other stakeholders. IDM therefore calls for coordination across sectors and across different levels of governance, from local communities to national and regional institutions.

A key framework for implementing IDM is the three-pillar approach, consisting of three complementary pillars: monitoring and early warning, risk and impact assessment, mitigation, preparedness, and response. A visualization of the three pillars can be seen in Figure 1.

The Three Pillars of Integrated Drought Management

IDM is commonly implemented through three complementary pillars that provide the information, planning, and actions needed to manage drought risk.

Pillar 1: Monitoring and Early Warning Systems

This pillar is considered the foundational pillar of IDM. It monitors drought conditions using indicators such as rainfall, temperature, soil moisture, streamflow, groundwater levels, and vegetation health. These observations are often complemented with weather forecasts, subseasonal-to-seasonal forecasting, climate outlooks, and satellite-based information to detect emerging drought conditions, monitor their evolution, and anticipate future developments.

The resulting information provides the evidence base for issuing drought alerts and warnings. In many countries, official drought alerts are issued by the National Meteorological and Hydrological Service (NMHS) or another designated authority and may trigger predefined actions under national or subnational drought management plans. The information also supports decision-making by governments, water managers, farmers, humanitarian agencies, and other users.

An effective drought early warning system is designed to detect drought and provide timely and actionable information that enables people to prepare before impacts become severe. Such systems are typically operated by National Meteorological and Hydrological Services, often in coordination with government agencies responsible for agricultural, water management and disaster risk management. They translate monitoring and forecasting information into user-oriented products such as drought bulletins, seasonal outlooks, and sector-specific advisories.

Pillar 2: Risk and Impact Assessment

Originally, the second pillar focused on vulnerability and impact assessment. As concepts of disaster risk have evolved, many IDM frameworks have broadened this pillar to encompass drought risk assessment, reflecting the understanding that risk arises from the interaction of hazard, exposure, vulnerability, and capacity.

The purpose of this pillar is to identify who and what is most at risk from drought and to understand why. Drought does not affect all people or places in the same way. The severity of drought impacts depends on the characteristics of the drought itself, as well as on other factors such as water availability, livelihoods, infrastructure, land use, and the capacity of communities and institutions to anticipate, cope with, and recover from prolonged dry conditions.

Risk assessments may examine agriculture, water supply, ecosystems, public health, energy production, and local economies, while also considering vulnerable groups such as smallholder farmers, pastoralists, women, children, Indigenous People, and marginalized communities. These assessments combine information on drought hazards with data on exposure, vulnerability, and coping capacity to identify risk hotspots, prioritize investments, and guide preparedness, mitigation, and response measures.

Common assessment methods include composite vulnerability indices, exposure and sensitivity mapping, and participatory assessments involving affected communities and institutions. Together, these approaches help translate drought information into an understanding of who and what is most at risk, thereby supporting targeted preparedness, risk mitigation, and response measures.

By systematically documenting how drought affects people, ecosystems, infrastructure, and economic activities, it provides the evidence needed to develop, validate, and continuously improve drought risk assessments. Impact information can reveal patterns of vulnerability, exposure, and capacity that are not apparent from hazard information alone and can help explain why similar drought events can have very different consequences across sectors, regions, and population groups.

Ideally, drought impacts are systematically collected, stored, and analysed using standardized methodologies and centralized databases that capture impacts across sectors, administrative levels, and both direct and indirect effects. Such information helps identify recurring patterns, quantify economic losses, evaluate the effectiveness of drought risk reduction measures, and support evidence-based policy and investment decisions. Information is often fragmented across institutions, collected using different methodologies, or not recorded at all. As a result, the full social, economic, and environmental costs of drought—including indirect and cascading impacts—are frequently underestimated, making it difficult to fully understand drought risk and to justify investments in preparedness, mitigation, and long-term resilience.

Pillar 3: Risk Mitigation, Preparedness, and Response

This pillar comprises the measures taken based on findings from the drought monitoring and risk assessment. It encompasses measures implemented over different time horizons, ranging from long-term risk reduction to preparedness before a drought event and response during and after drought. Together, these measures aim to reduce drought impacts while strengthening resilience to future events.

Risk mitigation comprises long-term prospective and corrective measures that reduce existing drought risk and prevent new risks. Such measures include improving water-use efficiency, promoting drought-tolerant crops, restoring watersheds, implementing Nature-based solutions, strengthening groundwater management, and developing supportive policies, legislation and institutional coordination.

Preparedness focuses on ensuring that institutions, sectors, and communities are ready to respond effectively before drought impacts happen and mitigate these impacts. While risk mitigation addresses long-term risk reduction, preparedness is oriented to specific events and links appropriate responses to the development of drought conditions.

A central element of preparedness is the development and regular updating of drought management plans or drought action plans. These plans are informed by the drought risk assessments described under Pillar 2, helping to identify priority sectors, vulnerable areas, and appropriate preparedness measures. They establish governance arrangements by defining institutional roles and responsibilities, coordination mechanisms, communication procedures, and sector-specific actions. They also identify objective drought indicators, thresholds, or trigger levels that activate predefined preparedness and response measures as drought conditions evolve. In many countries, such plans are supported by legislation or other institutional arrangements that clarify mandates and responsibilities.

Preparedness therefore depends on the drought monitoring and early warning systems described under Pillar 1, which provide the information needed to determine drought severity and trigger timely action. Preparedness activities also include measures such as developing standard operating procedures, conducting training and simulation exercises, strengthening institutional capacities, raising public awareness, and ensuring that early warning information is translated into coordinated action across sectors and levels of governance.

Response comprises the measures implemented during and after a drought event to reduce its humanitarian, social, economic, and environmental impacts. Unlike preparedness, which focuses on planning before impacts occur, response begins once predefined drought thresholds have been reached or significant impacts are observed. Because drought is usually a slow-onset hazard, response often continues beyond the end of the drought as impacts on water resources, agriculture, ecosystems, livelihoods, and economies can persist.

Response measures may include emergency water supply, temporary water use restrictions, food or cash assistance, livestock support, financial assistance, public health interventions, and ecosystem restoration. In many countries, these measures are guided by drought management plans, which define responsibilities and actions linked to drought indicators and trigger levels established under Pillar 1. Within IDM, response complements long-term risk mitigation and preparedness, while lessons learned from drought events help improve future monitoring, risk assessment, and planning.

National drought policies and drought management plans outline the governance framework for implementing the three pillars. Effective implementation requires clear policies, strong institutions, and coordination among sectors responsible for managing drought risk. Many countries have developed national drought policies and drought management plans that define institutional roles and responsibilities, establish monitoring and early warning systems, guide drought risk assessment, and coordinate preparedness and response measures. These frameworks outline the shift from emergency relief to proactive drought risk management and can be adapted to national priorities, institutional arrangements, and local conditions .

History and Institutional Development

The intellectual origin of IDM trace back in the 1980s and 1990s, when researchers, including Donald A. Wilhite, began advocating a shift from reactive drought response towards proactive drought planning and risk management. This work challenged the prevailing emphasis on emergency relief and highlighted the need for preparedness, vulnerability assessment, and coordinated policies to reduce drought risk.

These ideas gained increasing international recognition during the 2000s. In March 2013, the High-level Meeting on National Drought Policy (HMNDP) was held in Geneva in March 2013, bringing together governments, United Nations agencies, scientific institutions, and other stakeholders. The meeting’s outcome advocated for a transition  from crisis management towards risk-based national drought policies.

Following the meeting, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the Global Water Partnership Organisation (GWPO) launched the Integrated Drought Management Programme (IDMP) in 2013 to support countries in implementing the IDM approach. The program provides technical guidance, policy support, regional programmes, capacity development, and knowledge exchange in the context of IDM.

International frameworks for disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, and sustainable development have increasingly incorporated different aspects of drought management associated with IDM. The approach is promoted globally through IDMP, while the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) provides the principal intergovernmental mandate for proactive drought management through its Drought Initiative and related decisions of its Conference of the Parties. The approach also contributes to broader international efforts on disaster risk reduction, climate adaptation, and sustainable development, including the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Paris Agreement, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those focusing on zero hunger (SDG 2), clean water and sanitation (SDG 6), and climate action (SDG 13).IDM has also been recognized and promoted by the International Drought Resilience Alliance (IDRA) and is reflected in the work of numerous international organizations and global frameworks concerned with drought resilience, disaster risk reduction, water resources management, and climate adaptation. As understanding of drought has evolved, IDM is now widely understood as an integrated drought risk management approach that addresses the underlying drivers of drought risk while strengthening resilience across sectors and governance levels.

See also

• Drought
• Integrated Water Resources Management
• Integrated Flood Management
• Disaster risk reduction
• Climate change adaptation
• World Meteorological Organisation
• Early warning system
• Water security