This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 09 October 2014, At: 13:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Water InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rwin20

European Union policy for improvingdrought preparedness and mitigationGiuseppe Rossi aa University of Catania , Catania, ItalyPublished online: 03 Dec 2009.

To cite this article: Giuseppe Rossi (2009) European Union policy for improving droughtpreparedness and mitigation, Water International, 34:4, 441-450, DOI: 10.1080/02508060903374418

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02508060903374418

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Water InternationalVol. 34, No. 4, December 2009, 441–450

ISSN 0250-8060 print/ISSN 1941-1707 online© 2009 International Water Resources AssociationDOI: 10.1080/02508060903374418http://www.informaworld.com

RWIN0250-80601941-1707Water International, Vol. 34, No. 4, Oct 2009: pp. 0–0Water InternationalEuropean Union policy for improving drought preparedness and mitigationWater InternationalG. RossiGiuseppe Rossi*

University of Catania, Catania, Italy

(Received 25 September 2009; final version received 25 September 2009)

The European Water Framework Directive 2000/60 (WFD), does not appear fully ade-quate to address drought risk. A Group on Drought and Water Scarcity has developedsome proposals to improve the strategy for coping with drought and water scarcityissues. The main proposal consists in supplementing the River Basin Managementindicated by the WFD with a specific Drought Management (sub)Plan aimed at mini-mizing the negative drought impacts on the economy, society and the environment.Also a list of indicators to identify prolonged droughts which permit a temporary sus-pension of the requirements of good ecological status in water bodies has been pro-posed. Some specific recommendations that the EU should issue to nationalgovernments, are discussed. Several criteria are suggested to achieve an effectivedrought management strategy.

Keywords: European Water Framework Directive; drought and water scarcity;drought preparedness measures; drought monitoring

Principles and key objectives of the Water Framework DirectiveIn spite of the interest of the European Union (EU) in water issues since 1968 – as demon-strated by the publication of the European Charter on Water by the European Council and bythe establishment, in following years, of several Directives on water quality topics by theEuropean Commission – a comprehensive legislative tool for Community action in the fieldof water policy was adopted only in 2000 through the Water Framework Directive 2000/60(WFD). The WFD mentions in the preamble a long list of principles for general water man-agement and focuses its objectives on prevention of water quality’s further deterioration andon promotion of sustainable water use and improvement of aquatic ecosystems.

The main principles can be presented as follows:

− water is not considered as a commercial product, but rather as a heritage which mustbe protected, defended and treated as such;

− increasing pressure from the growth in demand calls for action to protect waters inthe Community from both a qualitative and a quantitative point of view;

− the policy on the environment, oriented to the pursuit of the objectives of preserving,protecting and improving the quality of the environment, in prudent and rationalutilization of natural resources, has to be based on the principles of “precaution”,

*Email: grossi@dica.unict.it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

442 G. Rossi

“preventive action” and environmental damage-preventing approaches of “correc-tion at source” and “polluter should pay”;

− specific principles for water policy include the principle of “subsidiarity”, to be takeninto account in the development of a legislative framework, and the principle of “costrecovery” of water services, including those linked to negative impacts on environment;

− decisions on the measures to ensure protection and sustainable use must be as closeas possible to the locations where water is affected or used;

− a close cooperation and coherent action at different levels of government is neces-sary, in addition to information, consultation and involvement of the public, includ-ing users;

− protection and sustainable management of water has to be integrated into otherpolicy areas, such as energy, agriculture, and so on.

Besides the above principles, the main goal of the WFD consists in the achievement ofa good ecological status in all European water bodies, through a complex planning processto be developed at basin level to achieve a management of the quality of water aimed tosafeguard the potential uses of water and protect ecosystems. Due to this priority goal, andperhaps also due to the prevailing role of North European countries which are affectedmore by pollution threats than by water quantity issues, the problems of mitigation offloods and droughts (though mentioned in the preamble), as well as the problems of waterscarcity, as a permanent imbalance among water resources and demands, have a marginalrole in such a legislative framework.

Such a limitation was recognized soon after the establishment of the Directive. Thelong process for dealing with these aspects recently has had two important advancements,with adoption of specific Directives on the protection of groundwater against pollutionand deterioration (2006/118/CE) and assessment and management of flood risks (2007/60/CE). More recently, an analogous process has started for improving European policy onwater scarcity and drought issues.

Weaknesses in WFD and European policy on drought preparedness and mitigationWhat are the main weaknesses of the WFD and European policy in terms of water quantityproblems and of fighting drought and water scarcity? According to its main goal, the focus ofthe Directive is correctly placed on the qualitative dimension of water bodies. However, asignificant weakness stems from the fact that the “control of quantity” is considered “anancillary element in securing good water quality” (Point 19 of preamble) and the assessmentof quantitative status is only required for groundwater and not for surface water bodies. Also,drought risk is marginally addressed since water demand management measures are listedbetween the “supplementary measures” in areas affected by drought in the programme ofmeasures of the River Basin Management Plan that the Member States must prepare for eachriver basin district. The same role is indicated for efficiency and reuse measures, includingwater-efficient technologies in industry and water-saving irrigation techniques. Furthermorea definition of water shortages due to drought is lacking and the impact of drought on naturalwater bodies is faced in an ambiguous way. Indeed, since the WFD declares (art. 4.6) thatprolonged droughts (as well as extreme floods) could not be reasonably foreseen, the tem-porary deterioration of the quality status in a water body is not considered as a violation ofthe Directive prescriptions in such exceptional circumstances. This appears in disagreementwith the general aim of the water resources management to modify the natural hydrologicconditions in order to improve the situation both for human uses and for ecological purposes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Water International 443

In addition, further weaknesses related to drought and water scarcity issues are presentin the current EU technical tools, financial instruments and legal acts, as recently pointedout by the European Water Partnership.

With reference to the EU “technical tools”, first of all an evaluation at the Europeanlevel of the efficiency of different sets of quantitative measures (water saving, reuse, desa-linization, storage, and so on) is not present. Furthermore, the identification of areas atwater scarcity risk at the European level and the organization of European initiatives onpublic awareness of water shortage issues are not provided for. A further gap in the actualEU technical tools concerns the current indicator of water stress (the water exploitationindex) of the European Environment Agency that does not reflect at all the situation in dif-ferent countries. Indeed, the indicator has been calculated considering the whole national ter-ritory, whereas water scarcity is best evaluated at a basin level. Besides, the waterexploitation index is calculated only as a fraction between water volumes withdrawn for theuses and total available volumes, but it should also take into account correctly evapo-transpiration fluxes and storage capacity of soils.

Also, in the current EU “financial instruments”, drought and water shortage problemsare not adequately dealt with, particularly in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and therelated funds’ destination. It should be necessary to revise the actual EU funds allocation forirrigation to avoid encouraging the growth of water-demanding crops where available waterfor irrigation is scarce. Furthermore, the current allocation of structural and regional fundsshould be improved, since water issues should be tackled at basin (or district) level. The EU“civil protection funds” should also be available for drought crisis as they are for floods.

Finally, with reference to the actual EU “legal acts”, the main rules regarding watermanagement and water saving in agriculture are lacking within the CAP. Also, standardsfor marginal waters (e.g. urban treated wastewater) are not defined in EU legislation.

Proposal of the European Group on drought and water scarcityOn the basis of the above-mentioned weaknesses existing in the WFD and in severalEU technical tools, financial instruments and legislation, a political initiative dealingwith drought and water scarcity issues was launched in 2003 at an informal meeting ofthe water directors of the EU (Rome, November 2003). A “Water Scarcity andDrought Group” was established with the aim of developing an improved effort onthese topics within the implementation process of the WFD in the Member States. Aftertwo interim reports, presented in June 2006 and June 2007, the final text was issuedby the European Commission in November 2007 as the “Drought Management PlanReport”, including agricultural drought indicators and climate change aspects(WS&DEN 2007). The main conclusions of the report for improving policy on thesetopics are discussed in what follows.

A first important contribution of the report may be considered the clear distinctionbetween the concepts of drought and water scarcity:

− Drought represents “a natural phenomenon due to a relevant temporary deviationfrom the average level of natural water availability”.

− Water scarcity refers to “a long term water imbalance where the water demandexceeds the water resources exploitable under sustainable conditions”.

It is significant that an official document accepts a distinction between drought and waterscarcity that has been well-established in scientific literature for many decades (Yevjevich

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

444 G. Rossi

1967, Rossi 1979, Easterling 1988, Wilhite 2000), where a further distinction is made withrespect to “aridity” (natural but permanent climatic situation) and “water shortage” consid-ered as a temporary imbalance between demand and availability (influenced as permanentscarcity by characteristics of the water supply system).

The main contribution of the WS&DEN can be considered the proposal of supple-menting the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) with a specific “Drought Manage-ment Plan” (DMP) to be considered as an annex to the RBMP according to Article 13.5 ofthe WFD. General guidelines to develop this DMP (WS&DEN 2007) have also beendrafted. The Plan has to be prepared when and where needed, in addition to adequate mea-sures included in the programme of measures of the RBMP. It is not mandatory for Mem-ber States, but can be a powerful tool to mitigate drought impacts. In any case, theapplication of a DMP must comply with WFD environmental objectives.

The DMP is mainly aimed to minimize the negative impacts on the economy, social lifeand environment when drought appears. Furthermore, it aims at extending WFD criteria andgoals to implement drought management through a series of specific objectives:

− to guarantee sufficient water availability to cover essential human needs to ensurethe population’s health and life;

− to avoid or minimize negative drought impacts on the status of water bodies;− to minimize negative effects on economic activities, according to the priority given

to the different uses in the River Basin Management Plans as well as in other plan-ning tools (e.g. land-use planning).

In conformity with a proactive approach, the Plan should be prepared in advance,before a drought starts. For its preparation it must carry out careful studies concerning thecharacterization of the drought in the basin, its effects and possible mitigation measures,taking into account the legislation of the specific state. The DMP must be developed atriver-basin or sub-basin scale and as a consequence the institution in charge of the riverbasin planning is the appropriate entity to promote this Plan. Among the measures to beincluded in a DMP, the WS&DEN has also proposed specific actions oriented to reducedrought vulnerability besides those devoted to face the impacts during an ongoingdrought. Such strategic measures appear very interesting because they have to be adoptedunder a so-called “normal” status, since they belong to the water resources planningdomain. In particular, they aim to improve the “robustness” of the water facilities systemin order to increase its response capacity to droughts, meeting both users’ demands andenvironmental requirements.

The Plan can be developed according to a multi-level approach: national, river-basinand local level. At the “national level”, it is necessary to take into consideration essentiallypolicy, legal and institutional aspects and funding to mitigate extreme drought effects. Themeasures to be implemented at national level are strategic measures and, in connectionwith river-basin or local levels, such actions should be oriented to determine drought onsetconditions through a network of global indices and indicators at national, regional or basinlevel, which for instance can activate declaration of calamity for emergency measureswith legal constraints or specific budget application. At the “river-basin level”, the DMPcan be considered as a management plan supplementary to RBMP. At this level, its mainaim is to identify and schedule the activation of tactical interventions to delay and/or miti-gate the drought effects. At the “local level”, the DMP should include both tactical andresponse measures to guarantee essential public water supply as well as awarenessmeasures.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Water International 445

On the basis of WS&DEN indications, the main DMP elements are:

− indicators and thresholds aimed to establish onset, ending and severity levels of thedrought events;

− measures to be adopted in each drought phase in order to prevent deterioration ofwater status and to mitigate negative drought impacts; and

− an organizational framework to deal with drought and the subsequent revision andupdating of the existing drought management plan.

Since the planning process has to be dynamic in order to effectively respond to drought,it appears necessary to carry out periodic revisions of the DMP in terms of achievementsand priorities, readjustment of goals, means and resources, as well as strengthening institu-tional arrangements and policy-making mechanisms for drought mitigation.

Indicators to identify prolonged droughtsIn addition to the items reported above, a DMP should also develop a specific section ded-icated to prolonged droughts (PDs), during which the WFD permits a temporary violationof requirements of good ecological status of water bodies. To this end, the WFD recom-mends that river-basin authorities undertake actions aimed to adopt appropriate indicatorsto identify a PD, to predict possible impacts, to identify the measures to be taken undersuch exceptional circumstances and to review their effects yearly.

The definition of PDs can be very difficult, both because drought duration and impactscan vary considerably from country to country or among regions within a country andbecause there are many variables involved (hydrological and environmental characteris-tics, population density, management capacity, and so on). However, selection of specificindicators to identify PDs in different geographic and climatic contexts is necessary, evenif, due to the differences in EU Member States, it seems that no single indicator can bebroadly applied at the European level.

Following the suggestions of the WS&DEN, the indicators to be used to identify a PDcan be grouped into three different categories (WS&DEN 2007):

− indicators aimed to identify and demonstrate the occurrence of a PD: physical indi-cators based on precipitation or soil moisture that demonstrate the exceptionality orthe reasonable unpredictability of the drought event;

− indicators oriented to prove that a PD has produced a temporary deterioration of oneor more water bodies;

− indicators aimed at identifying the socio-economic impacts of PDs.

All categories of indicators should be used to inform both water users and the public onthe occurrence of a PD and related effects.

With the aim to identify a PD, WS&DEN has suggested using several variables (e.g.precipitation or net rainfall, flow in rivers, storage level in reservoirs, soil moisturecontent, environmental parameters) in order to compare their values during drought withso-called “normal” conditions. In order to express adequately the severity of drought, itcan be useful to characterize the extreme event in terms of duration and intensity, as wellas frequency.

Since the WFD permits temporary derogations when a PD is recognized, it can be use-ful to include some impact indicators, for both physical impacts on water bodies and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

446 G. Rossi

neighbouring terrestrial areas and socio-economic impacts. A synthesis of cited variablesand indicators is reported in Table 1.

Recommendations to national governments for improving legislation and institutional capacity and for raising public awareness and participationAn efficient strategy to deal with drought requires a suitable legislative framework to facedrought and water shortage at the national level, which specifies objectives and contentsof the proposed DMP. Such legislation must identify appropriate criteria for drought mon-itoring as well as suitable modalities for selecting and implementing measures in eachcountry according to the institutional features and should count on public awareness andparticipation. To this end, the general indications that the European Commission couldaddress to national governments are here reported, drawn from the results obtained in tworecent European projects: MEDROPLAN (Mediterranean Drought Preparedness and Mit-igation Planning) (Iglesias et al. 2007) and PRODIM (Proactive Management of WaterSystems to Face Drought and Water Scarcity on Islands and Coastal Areas of the Mediter-ranean) (Rossi et al. 2008).

First of all, each state should have a “specific legislative framework” to deal effi-ciently with droughts and water shortages (Rossi et al. 2008). Within such a legislativeframework, some ethical principles on the water use, shared at world level, should beincluded, though with different applications at the local level. In particular, in addition tothe principles already present in WFD 2000/60, the national legislation framework shouldalso include specific “recommendations on drought planning” for reducing droughtvulnerability and for mitigating its impacts. To this end, the legislation should provide forthe preparation of plans and sub-plans at different territory levels, including possible inter-ventions against drought, with particular reference to water shortage problems in water

Table 1. Variables and indicators of a prolonged drought (PD).

A. Variables to be analysed for identifying a PDRainfall or precipitationFlow in riversStorage level in reservoirsSoil moisture content

B. Indicators for identifying a PDDurationIntensity

C. Indicators for identifying a PD’s physical impacts on water bodies and neighbouring terrestrial areasHydraulic characteristics (e.g. minimum flow, minimum stage, number of days with dry bed)Ecological characteristics (e.g. number of dead species of fish or individuals, number of flora

species not present, reduction in wetland extension)Neighbourhood land (e.g. number of forest fires)

D. Indicators for identifying a PD’s socio-economic impactsDrinking supply (e.g. decrease of service’s reliability as restrictions in duration of supply or

reduced quality)Tourism (e.g. damage due to the decrease of quantity or quality of supply)Industrial use (e.g. damage due to the decrease of quantity or quality of supply)Agricultural use (e.g. damage due to the decrease of quantity or quality of supply)Hydropower (e.g. damage due to the decrease of quantity or quality of energy production)Water rights (e.g. transfer of water rights towards priority uses)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Water International 447

supply systems. In particular, specific legislation must also indicate the various authoritiesand agencies involved and share the competences to implement specific actions. Amongthe planning contents specified at a normative level, it is very important to provide forindications on management of drought emergency, which must be carried out through thestructures of the Civil Protection Service at both the national and local levels.

Efficient drought management depends also on the capacity to monitor the phenome-non and its effects. Therefore, the specific legislation on drought should also indicate suit-able “criteria for drought monitoring systems” since they represent an important supporttool for the decision makers, by enabling the identification of the drought warning condi-tions and providing timely and useful information both for an objective drought declara-tion and for the adoption of the most appropriate combination of long- and short-termmitigation measures (Rossi 2003). In order to be effective, the drought monitoring sys-tems should give particular emphasis to graphical and understandable representation ofthe results of the monitoring phase in order to get an immediate understanding of thedrought event both in terms of severity and evolution. A further feature of such systemsconcerns the capacity to reach and inform as many water users as possible (besides thepublic institutions) through easy access to information (e.g. through public websites).With reference to responsibility sharing for monitoring actions of droughts and watershortages, meteorological or hydrographic services should be the responsible authoritiesfor monitoring drought, whereas management agencies or national committees shoulddeal with monitoring water shortage in supply systems.

Another important issue in drought management concerns the identification of the“decisions” to be taken “to implement mitigation measures” included in the planning tools.

In relation to the natural dimension of drought and, in particular, to agriculturaldrought, two different aspects have to be considered:

− the declaration of drought as a natural calamity that must be linked to an effectivemonitoring system;

− the definition of a responsive political strategy for choosing between damagesrecovery based on governmental support or on private insurance (eventually fos-tered by national funds).

With reference to water shortages due to drought, the implementation of related mea-sures should be carried out following up the development of triggering levels that shouldbe suitably linked to specific thresholds on available water reserves in order to avoidcrises. In particular, the Drought Management Guidelines developed within the MEDRO-PLAN project suggest three threshold levels to individuate different drought phases and toselect related mitigation measures: pre-alert, alert and emergency (Iglesias et al. 2007).

The first situation (“pre-alert scenario”) is declared when the monitoring systemshows the initial stage of a drought, which corresponds to moderate risk (i.e. 10%) ofconsuming all water stored in the system and not being able to meet water demands. Theobjective of this initial management phase is to be prepared for an oncoming drought. Tothis end, it needs to ensure public acceptance of actions to be implemented by increasingpublic awareness of the possibility of social impacts due to drought. The suggestedmeasures for this situation are generally indirect and non-structural, are to be implementedvoluntarily by stakeholders and usually have a low cost; their aim is avoiding alert oremergency situations.

The “alert scenario” is declared when the monitoring shows that drought is occur-ring and will probably have impacts in the future if measures are not taken immediately.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

448 G. Rossi

In this case, there is a significant probability (i.e. >30%) of forthcoming water deficits.The aim of this phase is to avoid a drought that is underway and avoid an emergency byapplying water conservation policies and mobilizing additional water supplies. Unlikethe previous scenario, the actions to be implemented in the alert situation are generallyof direct nature, coercive and, in general, of low/medium implementation cost, althoughthey may have significant economic impacts on stakeholders. Suggested measures aremainly not structural, are directed to specific water-use groups and generally includepartial restrictions for water uses other than drinking water or water exchange betweenuses, but can modify water users’ rights and priorities in normal conditions in order toreallocate water for priority uses (if national legislation allows such a transfer of waterrights).

The third situation (“emergency scenario”) is declared when indicators show thatdrought impacts have occurred and water supply is not guaranteed if the event per-sists. Under emergency conditions the main purpose is the mitigation of impacts andthe minimization of related damages. The priority is satisfying the minimum requirementsfor drinking water. The suggested measures in an emergency are direct and restrictive andtheir economic and social costs are very high. Such exceptional actions can be structural(e.g. new wells for overexploiting groundwater abstraction, water transfer facilities, andso on) or not structural (e.g. water restrictions for all users, subsidies and low-interestloans).

In the case of a multipurpose water supply system, the choice of mitigation measures tobe implemented depends also on priority of different water uses, besides the triggering lev-els. To this end, a preliminary choosing of the priorities in water allocation under shortageconditions is necessary, also in order to distribute possible water deficits. Although such achoice must be taken on the basis of the legislative framework and of the economic, socialand institutional conditions of an area, two levels of priority can be considered (Iglesiaset al. 2007): the first is aimed to ensure adequate supplies of domestic water available forpublic health, safety and welfare, and the second is oriented to minimize negative droughteffects on the economy, the environment and social well-being.

In order to improve the implementation of mitigation measures during emergencysituations, it could be useful to establish suitable task forces aimed to coordinate theactions against drought. In particular, such groups should be formed by both representa-tives of regional government (civil protection, provinces, municipalities, land reclamationconsortia) and environmental and public interest groups and representatives from theprivate sectors.

Finally, the strategy to face drought must also include public awareness and parti-cipation. In accordance with the WFD indications, providing proper information onplanned measures before their adoption is very important to guarantee the involvementof the general public, including water users. Therefore, educational public campaigns ondrought events, their potential economic and social impacts and possible adoption ofplanned measures should increase both public awareness and the likelihood of plans’implementation, since the effectiveness of the planned measures depends strongly onpublic acceptance and cooperation. Public participation should be involved throughactions aimed to ensure transparent and useful information to users, represent the deci-sions on measures in realistic terms, identify possible incentives for raising involvementand emphasize the importance of the users’ indications within the drought managementprocess.

A synthesis of the proposed recommendations from the EU to national governmentson drought and water shortage mitigation policy is reported in Table 2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Water International 449

SummaryThe European Water Framework Directive 2000/60 is primarily aimed at achieving agood ecological status in all European water bodies, and although indicating among itsobjectives the mitigation of drought impacts, it does not appear adequate to deal withdrought risk. In addition, other weaknesses related to drought and water scarcity issues arepresent in the current EU technical tools, financial instruments and legal acts.

In order to improve drought preparedness and mitigation, the European Group onDrought and Water Scarcity has proposed to prepare a specific “Drought ManagementPlan” (DMP) as an annex to the River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) provided by theWFD. Since it permits a temporary deterioration of the water body status under prolongeddrought (PD) conditions, a section of the DMP should be dedicated to PDs. To this end,indicators to identify such exceptional droughts have been suggested by the WS&DENwithin a larger set of indicators for monitoring droughts and water shortages.

Table 2. Recommendations to be proposed by the EU to national governments on drought andwater shortage mitigation policy.

Recommendations for a specific national legislation on drought and water shortage• Principles and recommendations for drought preparedness and mitigation planning

– Ethical principles (also inspired by principles included in WFD 2000/60)– Recommendations for the preparation of plans and sub-plans at different territory levels

• Principles for responsibility sharing among institutions– Individuation of different authorities and agencies involved in actions to cope with drought

and water shortage problems– Improvement of the coordination among various authorities and agencies individuated– Sharing of the competences to implement specific actions at different territory levels

• Criteria for drought and water shortage monitoring network– Definition of appropriate indicators for monitoring– Individuation of responsible authorities to compute indicators

• Criteria for declaration of drought as a natural calamity

Recommendations on the actions to be adopted within the water resources management at different levels and for various uses’ sectors

• Principles for selecting different measures oriented to reduce drought vulnerability in water supply systems

– Definition of triggering levels suitably linked to specific thresholds on available water resources

– Definition of priority of different water uses• Criteria for triggering drought and shortage mitigation measures

– Definition of different scenarios of drought risk connected with a monitoring system– Definition of objectives and specific actions for each scenario

• Criteria for implementing emergency measures through cooperation– Collaboration among structures of civil protection at different levels to carry out actions of aid

population– Establishment of apposite task forces on drought including institutions and representatives of

private and public sectors

Recommendations for improving public awareness and participation• Educational public campaigns on drought events and their potential economic and social impacts• Transparent and proper information on planned measures to improve public acceptance and

cooperation• Identification of possible incentives to increase public involvement• Adoption of users’ indications into the drought management process

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4

450 G. Rossi

Finally, on the basis of results of recent European research projects, some indicationsto be given to national governments by the European Commission have been discussed.They are related to the legislative and institutional dimensions of an efficient droughtmanagement strategy, including drought and water shortage monitoring, implementationof measures and public involvement.

ReferencesEasterling, W.E., 1988. Coping with drought hazard: recent progress and research priorities. In:

F. Siccardi and R.L Bras, eds. Natural disasters in European Mediterranean countries. Perugia,Italy: NSF and NRC, 231–270.

Iglesias, A., et al., 2007. Drought management guidelines and examples of application. Availablefrom: http://www.iamz.ciheam.org/medroplan [Accessed 9 October 2009].

Rossi, G., 1979. Characteristics of drought over a region and shortage control strategies. In: Proceedings ofthe XVIII Congress of the International Association for Hydraulics Research, Cagliari, Italy, 295–305.

Rossi, G., 2003. Requisites for a drought watch system. In: G. Rossi, A. Cancelliere, L. Pereira, T.Oweis, M. Shatanawi, and A. Zairi, eds. Tools for drought mitigation in Mediterranean regions.Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishing, 147–157.

Rossi, G., Nicolosi, V., and Cancelliere, A., 2008. Strategic water shortage preparedness plan forcomplex water supply systems. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium Water ShortageManagement. Athens, Greece: NTUA.

WS&DEN (Water Scarcity and Droughts Expert Network), 2007. Drought management plan report.Including agricultural, drought indicators and climate change aspects. Technical Report, 2008-023. Luxembourg, November 2007.

Wilhite, D.A., 2000. Drought: a global assessment. Vol. II. London: Routledge.Yevjevich, V., 1967. An objective approach to definitions and investigations of continental hydro-

logic droughts. Hydrology Papers, No. 23, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

3:25

09

Oct

ober

201

4