Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Weather and Climate Extremes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wace

Drought preparedness in Brazil

Ana Paula A. Gutirrez a, Nathan L. Engle a,n, Erwin De Nys a, Carmen Molejn a,
Eduardo Svio Martins b
a
b

The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433, United States
Fundao Cearense de Meteorologia e Recursos Hdricos (FUNCEME), Avenida Rui Barbosa, 1246-Aldeota, Fortaleza/Ce CEP: 60.115-221, Brazil

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 12 September 2013
Received in revised form
18 December 2013
Accepted 22 December 2013
Available online 9 January 2014

Large portions of Brazil0 s Northeast have experienced an intense and prolonged drought for the majority of
20102013. This drought, along with other droughts that have hit the South in recent years, has sparked a
new round of discussions to improve drought policy and management at the federal and state levels.
To assist with these efforts, the World Bank recently conducted a series of evaluations on national and subnational drought preparedness measures and approaches across ve country case studies. This particular
article presents the Brazilian case study. The work draws from interviews with key experts and stakeholders,
as well as document analyses, and focuses on preparedness measures and approaches at the national and
one sub-national case; the state of Cear. The analysis shows that although there is a rich history of drought
management throughout Brazil, there are short-term and long-term gaps and opportunities on which
decision makers might consider focusing to improve monitoring, forecasting, and early warning systems,
vulnerability/resilience and impact assessments, and mitigation and response planning measures.
& 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Keywords:
Drought policy
Water resources
Climate change
Resilience
Adaptation

1. Introduction
Climate variability and extreme weather events threaten many
populations throughout the world, and evidence indicates that in
many of these regions, the variability and extreme events are
increasing (Blunden and Arndt, 2012). Perhaps nowhere else is the
change in weather and climate regimes more noticeable than in
the water sector (Kundzewicz et al., 2007). The World Bank0 s
recent 4 degree report indicates that droughts, for example, will
likely increase in severity in southern Africa, the United States
(U.S.), southern Europe, Brazil, and Southeast Asia, amongst other
areas, translating to increasing evapotranspiration and dry periods,
reductions in arable land, and ultimately greater food insecurity
(World Bank, 2012a). The likely intensication of extreme
droughts from climate change in Brazil and many regions across
the planet has magnied the importance of proactive measures to
increase resilience to the expected impacts.
In the case of drought, drought preparedness, and the policies
which facilitate its implementation, can increase adaptive capacity
and resilience of water resources management (Engle, 2012).
Proactive drought preparedness and risk management measures
can also purportedly help reduce economic losses and costs
associated with more reactive disaster response and recovery.

Corresponding author. Tel.: 1 202 473 8809.

E-mail address: [email protected] (N.L. Engle).

Moreover, because a society0 s approach to drought management

is instructive for how it might manage climate change, recent
drought events around the world provide windows of opportunity
to evaluate and subsequently begin to lay the building blocks for
improving climate change management and preparedness.
Within some regions of Brazil, particularly the semi-arid Northeast, an ongoing drought (i.e., for the most of 20102013, with
little relief in between) is the worst in recent decades, if not the
past 100 years; proving devastation to some agricultural, livestock,
and industrial producers. As with many nations, Brazil has historically addressed water scarcity during times of shortage and
droughts through emergency response and large water infrastructure works projects (Malgalhes and Martins, 2011). Despite
decades of infrastructure and technical xes to water management
(which have certainly helped to buffer against water shortages and
have facilitated considerable economic growth throughout Brazil),
signicant impacts from water shortages have persisted. There
have been recent efforts to shift Brazil away from reactionary
drought response and sole dependence in the long-term on
infrastructure solutions to mitigate drought impacts (e.g., through
improved monitoring, decentralization and democratization of
water resources management, etc.), and there is a growing interest
in improving coordination and institutionalizing these elements
into a coherent drought policy, both at the national and subnational levels (Malgalhes and Martins, 2011).
As an example at the federal level, during the recent drought,
the Civil House of the Presidency created the Integrated

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2013.12.001
2212-0947 & 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

96

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

Committee to Combat Drought to monitor and coordinate actions

for drought response in the semi-arid region, and the Ministry of
National Integration (MI) is leading a work group to discuss and
design a National Drought Policy proposal. At the state level, the
government Cear created its own Committee to Combat Drought
in order to coordinate the various emergency activities and
respond to the effects of drought with the participation of local,
state, and federal institutions, municipality ofcials, smallholder
farmers, and agriculture companies, among others. Nevertheless,
much work remains to be done to increase resilience and improve
drought preparedness throughout Brazil.
As decision makers consider crafting these and other future
policies to foster drought preparedness in Brazil, it is important to
exercise prudence and not repeat mistakes from the past. This
paper presents a case study on drought preparedness in Brazil, and
highlights gaps and opportunities as decision makers consider
improving drought policies and programs. The work draws from
interviews with key experts and stakeholders, as well as document
analyses, and focuses on preparedness measures and approaches
at the national and one sub-national case (i.e., Cear).1
It is important to note that the Brazil cases presented here are
part of a larger study being conducted by the World Bank that
evaluates drought preparedness across other national and subnational case studies (i.e., Australia, Mexico, Spain, and the United
States). The purpose of the study is to provide international
lessons and good management practices for Brazil as the country
considers improving its drought policies and programs. This crosscountry analysis is currently being drafted as a separate publication to complement this stand-alone Brazil case.

2. Background
2.1. Climate change and implications for the water sector
Freshwater systems throughout Brazil and much of the world will
experience signicant stress as a result of climate change, including
diminished and altered timing of runoff, saltwater intrusion from
sea-level rise and storm surge, and increased variability and extreme
events (i.e., droughts and oods) (Kundzewicz et al., 2007; Bates
et al., 2008; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012).
Droughts, in particular, are anticipated to increase in frequency and
intensity in the Northeast of Brazil under climate change (World
Bank, 2013). In general, droughts are conditioned by the occurrence
of El Nio, but the observation of more extreme climate variability
over the past ve decades reveals that its incidence and consequences are increasingly linked to human action (Viana, 2013).2
Superimposing droughts and climate change upon pre-existing
stresses will combine to place intense pressure on freshwater
availability and quality in Brazil and other areas throughout the
world. Such increases in extreme droughts from climate change
has piqued interest among natural resource managers, farmers,
development practitioners, researchers, and policy makers to
understand the extent to which these changes will impact water
resources, food production, incomes, and livelihoods. These decision makers are also contemplating the most appropriate choices
1
The complete Brazil case includes two sub-national cases that were selected
specically to demonstrate a diversity of climates and drought management
approaches (i.e., dry/semi-arid in the case of Cear and wet/sub-tropical in the
case of Rio Grande do Sul), and thus to ensure greater applicability of the results.
Due to space limitations, only one sub-national case is presented in this
paper, Cear.
2
The Atlantico Dipole phenomenon also plays an important role in the climate
of the Northeast, which can interact with El Nio. Between 1950 and 1995, for
example, 20 percent of El Nio years were marked with above average rainfall in
Northeast of Brazil.

they can make to prevent, respond to, learn from, and adapt to
these new risks, vulnerabilities, and opportunities.
2.2. Drought management and its role in helping to understand
the climate change management
As with the phenomenon of drought, climate change manifests
over longer time scales, is difcult to dene with respect to impact
attribution, and is a creeping phenomenon (i.e., it is not welldetected until it is advanced and widespread). While there are
obvious differences (e.g., climate change impacts involve much
more than prolonged dry periods), the manner in which a nation,
community, or individual decision maker approaches droughts
through governance, institutions, policies, and choices reects
how a society might approach the problem of climate change.
Hence, the recent widespread manifestation of drought crises
around the world may reveal the extent to which societies will be
successful in managing climate change, as many of the mechanisms
for effectively preparing for and responding to droughts run parallel
to the tools and procedures for readying a society for climate change.
2.3. Role of drought preparedness for increasing resilience
and adaptive capacity
Drought preparedness involves monitoring and forecasting,
vulnerability/resilience and impact assessments, and mitigation
and response planning and measures (Wilhite et al., 2005). These
drought preparedness measures are similar to the World Bank0 s
work on disaster risk management, which is divided into ve
pillars (see Fig. 1, below). The framework mostly deals with preevent actions that can be taken in order to reduce human,
environmental, and economic impacts.
Instituting proactive drought preparedness and risk management approaches can purportedly pay dividends in the form of
more resilient water systems and communities, fewer economic
losses, and improved disaster response and recovery. Through
drought preparedness efforts, as facilitated by national and state
drought policies and planning mechanisms (Sivakumar, 2011;
Wilhite, 2011; UNCCD, FAO, and WMO, 2012a, 2012b), the

Fig. 1. World Bank's disaster risk management framework.

Source: World Bank, 2012 (World Bank, 2012b).

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

emphasis shifts from ad hoc drought relief and response to

proactive risk management (Hayes et al., 2004).

2.4. Climatic conditions and recent drought events

Brazil has a variety of climates, ranging from tropical in the
center-north to temperate in the south, and from humid at the
north part of the Amazon region to semi-arid serto region in
greater part of northeastern Brazil. Such droughts are often related
to the El Nio Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon. The
positive ENSO phase, known as El Nio, is normally related to
droughts in the northern part of the country, including the
Amazon Rain Forest and the semi-arid Northeast, within which
the State of Cear is located. The negative ENSO phase (La Nia)
normally intensies the drought spells in southern Brazil.
The recent drought (20102013, but most impactful during
20122013)3 in the Northeast has been one of the worst in the past
100 years (Cear, 2013), especially during 2013 in terms of water
availability, proving devastating to some agricultural, livestock,
and industrial producers.4 It has caused a lack of drinking water in
residential wells, and left dams and streams completely dry. By
April 2013, some 880,000 rural farmers had received federal
assistance through social support programs. The impacts of the
recent drought, as well as many previous droughts, are not only
manifested throughout the economy, but also exacerbate many
social problems through the indebtedness of farmers, migration,
disease, and malnutrition, among others.
In Cear specically, temporal and spatial variability of rainfall
is among the highest in the world, having a concentrated rainy
season from February to May, accounting for about 70 percent of
the annual rainfall. The current multi-year drought started with a
dry year in 2010, followed by a relatively normal year of rainfall
distribution in 2011 (with good agricultural production), and then
a very dry year in 2012 and the beginning months of 2013. Even
though rainfall was relatively higher than average between May
and July 2013, which helped to alleviate some of the impacts to the
livestock and agricultural sector, the rst half of the year was in
the below average category. The hydrological systems are still far
below normal, with many key reservoirs below 15 percent
capacity. The drought has been attributed to the occurrence of
two coupled atmospheric phenomena: (1) an slight increase in the
sea surface temperature, between 0.5 1C and 1.5 1C in the Central
and East Equatorial Pacic Ocean, which indicates an ENSO
phenomenon; and (2) the conditions in the Atlantic that were
not favorable to rain in the region (i.e. a positive Atlantico Dipole
and lighter warm air to Brazil0 s north).
As shown in Fig. 2, which represents a particularly acute period
of the recent drought from MarchMay 2012, precipitation
amounts across nearly the entire Northeast were classied as
dry, very dry or extremely dry. Moreover, during this period,
which is normally the rainy season, precipitation was observed
at 299.2 mm, which is 50.7 percent below its historical average
3
There is an important technical distinction between two Brazilian Portuguese
concepts that relate to drought: estiagem, which is related to the reduction in
rainfall, the delay of the rainy periods, or lack of rainfall provided for a particular
season, in which the loss of soil moisture is higher than its replacement; and seca,
which from the meteorological point of view, is a prolonged estiagem, characterized
by a sustained reduction of existing water reserves. Seca, as a disaster, is also
considered a social phenomenon, characterized as a situation of poverty and
economic stagnation, arising from the impact of the drought event. In this
situation, the local economy does not have the ability to generate nancial reserves
or store food and other inputs. For the purpose of this Brazil case study, the
denition of drought will follow the rationale under the denition of seca.
4
In 2013, reservoir levels were extremely low, with the exception of the very
large reservoirs. There were serious restrictions to water supply to some municipalities, and pasture availability was diminished due to the late arrival of the rain.

97

during these months (606.4 mm). Specically in Cear, this caused

a devastating situation, which by the end of May 2013 had led to
175 out of 184 municipalities declaring situations of emergency for
180 days; 39 of them lost at least 90 percent of their crop harvests,
estimates of grain production pointed to a reduction of 81 percent,
and the main products of rain-fed agriculture (i.e., beans and corn)
suffered losses of 87.3 percent and 92.9 percent, respectively,
when compared to that of 2011 (Cear, 2013).
Fig. 3 shows the monthly average rainfall from 2008 to present
for Cear. For reference, the average year is included in each
gure.5 In terms of meteorological drought, the gure shows that
the 2012 drought was the most severe, followed by the 2010
drought (again, in terms of meteorological drought). However, it
should be noted that 2010 followed a rainy year, 2009, while the
current 2013 drought follows the most severe meteorological
drought in the past 4050 years (i.e., 2012). Thus, in terms of
severity and subsequent impacts, the 2013 drought can is considered more severe than the 2010 drought.6
2.5. The institutional history and context for drought management
in Brazil
2.5.1. National
Brazil began to focus on mitigating against droughts after a
particularly harsh event from 1877-79. In 1886, under a monarchy
with a strong central government, the construction of the rst
reservoir, or aude (the Portuguese word for dam), represented the
start of the institutional design for building infrastructure to
address droughts. Hence, it is important to understand the evolution of drought policy construction from the perspective and
associated phases of water management. The initial phase is
recognized by the creation of the Inspection Agency for Works
against Drought (IOCS), in 1909, with a strong emphasis on
building infrastructure for water distribution throughout the
Northeast. It later became the Federal Inspection Agency for Works
against Drought (IFOCS), and then nally the National Department
of Works against Drought (DNOCS), which is the current agency
under the MI. DNOCS served as the primary governmental agency
building infrastructure in the region, such as roads, dams, bridges,
ports, railways, hospitals, and hydroelectric facilities.
In the 1930s, a new cycle of sequential droughts led to the
Water Code (1934), which became the milestone for the classication and use of water resources, with emphasis on the use of the
country0 s hydraulic potential, but also with principles for multiple
water uses, with concern for water quality and economic value.
Then, in the early 1950s, several key federal government supported institutions to foster water and economic development
were introduced, such as the creation of the Bank of Northeast
Brazil (BNB) to help regional economic development through
subsidized credit to farmers in the region. Also, integrated actions
for water infrastructure, in response to the severe drought of 1958,
were institutionalized with the creation of the Superintendence
for the Development of the Northeast (SUDENE). SUDENE was
abolished several decades later, but in 2001 it was re-introduced
as the Agency for the Development of the Northeast (ADENE) and
then, in 2007, recreated as SUDENE under the MI.
From the end of the 20th century to the beginning of the 21st,
a period of management and control was initiated upon the
reform of the Federal Constitution, in 1988, which created a
national system of water management and the denition of
criteria for granting water use rights. Particularly important was
5
The average year is a statistical concept and reects the fact that the monthly
rainfall of such year is computed as the mean of the rainfall that occurs in that
particular month.
6
Based on data provided by FUNCEME.

98

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

Fig. 2. Precipitation in Brazil from March 2012 to May 2012; Cear is indicated by the arrow.
Source: INMET.

Fig. 3. Monthly average rainfall for Cear from 2008-present (for each year, January-December is depicted from left to right). The average year is depicted to the right for
reference.
Source: Data provided by FUNCEME.

the installment of a National Policy of Water Resources, as well as

the creation of the National System of Water Resource Management and the National Water Agency (ANA) as an implementing
and coordinating institution of the National System. ANA belongs
above all to the Federal Government, yet it has duties that
transcend the federal domain. As per the Constitution, water is a
limited natural resource and an inalienable public good that
belongs either to the Federal or the state government.7 ANA and
the deliberative agencies of the Water Resource Management

7
Water belongs to the Federal Government when it is in lakes, rivers, and
streams within its territory, or when it crosses through more than one state, serves
as boundaries with other countries, or extends to or comes from foreign territories.
Surface water or groundwater, owing, emerging, or in storage belongs to the State,
with the exception of those waters deemed federal (e.g., held in a reservoir
constructed by a federal agency, such as DNOCS).

System (i.e. councils and committees), basin agencies, and other

entities involved (e.g., civil society stakeholders) are the organizations entitled to award Federal and State water use permits or
outorga (the Portuguese word for water permits/grants). The
instrument of a grant is applied to ensure the user has effective
access to water, as well as to perform quantitative and qualitative
control of the resource.
While these stages of water management are important for
understanding Brazil0 s approach to drought policy, it is also
important to acknowledge the existence of two very different
worlds in which drought is experienced in Brazil. On one hand,
there are many people who have reliable access to water because
they are connected to the perennial water systems. People within
these communities are the direct beneciaries of the abovementioned evolution of water policies and projects, which serve
as a form of drought management. On the other hand, there are

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

the diffuse populations and rain-fed farmers who still have no

reliable access to water, but instead have been dependent on
piecemeal mechanisms to address water scarcity and droughts.
For this second group, drought management has been done over
the years either reactively (e.g. rain-fed water cisterns construction, well drilling and recovery, dam and pumping station construction, and social safety net mechanisms such as Operao Pipa,
Bolsa Estiagem, and Garantia Safra, elaborated upon in the discussion section below), or to a lesser extent proactively (e.g. building
resilience at the farm level, work on drought resilient crops by the
Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), etc.).
These mechanisms and the general public policy in the semi-arid
regions of Brazil that stresses coexistence with droughts and
water scarcity realities have not been substantially modied to
address the existing scenario (e.g., increasing water demands and
heightened drought conditions from climate change). Moreover,
the water supply programs to diffuse populations still lack the
ability to meet the currently observed needs, let alone anticipated
needs from these future stresses.
Despite this long and detailed institutional history in managing
and adapting to droughts in Brazil, the extent of the impacts from
the current Northeast droughts indicates that there is still a need
to improve preparation and response measures, keeping in mind
that there cannot be one blueprint solution. Rather, it is
imperative to recognize the heterogeneity and local context of
each municipality and community, and to come up with contextspecic solutions for access to water for human consumption,
agriculture, animal grazing, and food security.

99

and participatory management, dening water as a nite and

fragile resource and as an economic good, and implementing
integrated water management with the river basin as a planning
and implementing unit. Likewise, Cear helped pioneer the same
management instruments later instituted by the federal law
including state and basin water resource plans, bulk water use
permits, bulk water charges for exercising these permits, and a
water resource information system
Whereas these actions mostly target the extension and management of the perennial water system, it is important to also
mention the One Million Cisterns Program (P1MC) initiative,8
which has existed since 2003. The P1MC was created and led by
the Articulation of the Brazilian Semi-arid (ASA), which gathers
around one thousand NGOs to strengthen the role of civil society
in building participatory processes for sustainable development. In
partnership with the Ministry of Social Development and Combat
to Hunger (MDS) and the Foundation of the Banco do Brasil, the
P1MC triggers joint action among communities for sustainable
coexistence with the semi-arid ecosystem through the involvement and empowerment of families. The program0 s goal is to
benet about 5 million people across the region with potable
water for drinking and cooking, through the construction of
cisterns, which all together form a decentralized infrastructure
with the capacity to supply 16 billion liters of water.

3. Framework and methods

3.1. Evaluating drought preparedness

2.5.2. State of Cear

Cear is among the poorest states in Brazil, as the climate and
the recurrent droughts in the state traditionally allowed only
precarious subsistence farming and extensive animal grazing. Of
the more than eight million people living in Cear, 75 percent live
in urban areas. Many of those remaining outside the cities are
dispersed and disconnected from perennial water supplies. This
makes these communities extremely vulnerable to droughts. As
the dams in these areas are small and somewhat precarious, they
generally do not retain enough water to provide a buffer for
extended periods of drought; much less for drought periods that
last for multiple years. The abandonment of such dams is a serious
problem in the semi-arid region, leading to degradation of the
dam walls, deforestation, increased soil erosion, silting of reservoirs, inappropriate uses of water, poor sewage drainage, and the
build-up of garbage and pesticides in the water sources. Combined
with droughts, these factors contribute to a lower availability of
high-quality water, which, in turn, increases the cost of water
treatment (where there is treatment in the rst place). In addition,
due to a major rural exodus, which contributed in large part to the
rapid growth of the Fortaleza Metropolitan Region during the last
70 years, providing water to the increasing population has been a
serious challenge.
The adoption of new water management policies between 1987
and 1996 helped making Cear a pioneer of water resource
management in Brazil. Until the beginning of a water reform
process in the early 1990s, the issue of water scarcity, exacerbated
by unpredictable rainfall and recurrent drought, was treated as
essentially a supply problem to be resolved through massive
construction of reservoirs and related water infrastructure. As a
result, Cear has a large water infrastructure network and is
considered a pioneer in the region. Without water storage infrastructure in Cear, all rivers would be ephemeral across the 12
major state watersheds. The state0 s experience has directly inuenced federal guidelines on modern water resource management
in the past two decades, mostly through embracing decentralized

Drought preparedness can increase adaptive capacity and

resilience,9 because it moves beyond the traditional reactive
approach that has resulted in reduced self-reliance and limited
coordination across institutions and sectors (Engle, 2012; Hayes
et al., 2004). The characteristics that constitute effective drought
preparedness are different depending on the scale at which one is
evaluating it, as well as the sector of interest. The evaluation
presented in this case study focuses on drought preparedness
broadly at the national and state-level sub-case, with an eye
toward the water and agriculture/livestock sectors. At these higher
scales of decision making (i.e., national and state/river basin),
drought preparedness encapsulates three basic categories; monitoring and early warning/prediction, vulnerability/resilience and
impact assessments, and mitigation and response planning and
measures (Wilhite et al., 2005).

3.2. Data collection and analysis

The evaluation draws from document analysis and literature
reviews, as well as semi-structured interviews to assess drought
preparedness. For the Brazil case, interviews were conducted in
person and over the telephone with 24 key informants. Criteria for
interviewee selection included; (1) proven expertise in water,
climate, and/or drought management, and (2) diversity of perspectives, including ofcials from national, state, and local government
agencies, water and climate related non-governmental organization
(NGO) leaders, technical experts, professional association executives, and/or industry representatives. Once identied, key
8
These refer to rain-fed cisterns, which individually are able to store 16,000 l
of water, enough for a family of ve to have water for drinking and cooking for a
period of 6 to 8 months.
9
Resilience is dened for this study as the ability to absorb and withstand
disturbances, the capacity to adapt and learn, and the capability to rapidly recover
and exibly reposition to new opportunities.

100

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

informants were contacted via email, and then upon afrmation of

participation, the study team emailed a checklist for the participant
to complete before the interview. The checklist served dual purposes. First, it allowed for a quick numerical snapshot on the extent
to which drought preparedness mechanisms were currently being
implemented (i.e., from 0 to 3, 0none,1minimum, 2some/
average, and 3maximum, based on the factors outlined in
Table 1), which served as cues for probing questions during the
interviews. Second, sending the checklist beforehand allowed the
participants to become familiar with the types of information in
which the project team was interested with respect to drought
preparedness and policies.
During the interviews, the team gathered information on the
status and effectiveness of past and current drought preparedness
and policies, as evaluated against recent extreme droughts. Most
importantly, the interviews focused on particularly innovative
ideas or important elements of the national or sub-national

case examples to offer lessons (both positive and negative experiences) from which decision makers in the Federal, regional,
state, and local levels might consider when perfecting their own
drought preparedness policies. The study team evaluated the
interviews to identify recurring themes, policy gaps and lessons/
recommendations that participants deemed especially important
or relevant.

4. Evaluation and discussion

This section describes the most important drought preparedness mechanisms in the Brazil national and sub-national Cear
case, as gathered from the interviews and document reviews, and
also as illustrated during recent drought events. The information
for each of the cases is presented in the format of the analytical
framework categories i.e., (1) monitoring and early warning/

Table 1
Emergency actions associated with the Casa Civil0 s Integrated Committee.
Sector

Program

Deccription and responsibility

Water delivery

Operao CarroPipa, or operation

water delivery
trucks

These are under responsibility of the MD, more specically the National Army, and coordinated by the SEDEC/MI.
From 2011 until April 2013, the MI disbursed US$ 325 million and hired 4649 water trucks, which have supplied more
than 3 million people in 763 municipalities in the Northeast. For a municipality to receive carros-pipa, it has to be
under a situation of emergency and have a Municipal Coordinating Organization of Civil Defense (COMDEC). Yet, in
the most vulnerable and distant rural communities where communities lack operational capacity for a COMDEC,
carros-pipa are oftentimes either opportunistically used by candidates and public servants as instruments of political
campaigns to gain votes, or deployed by local rms (i.e. pipeiros), which have historically used drought episodes to
sell either water trucks or raw water for high prices. In these cases, the water is sometimes polluted, exposing people,
mostly children and the elderly, to gastrointestinal and dermatologic diseases.
Part of the Water for All Program which is under the Brazil Without Misery policy and has the goal of universal water
access and use by populations in extreme poverty. It is under coordination of MI (DNOCS and CODEVASF) and MDS
under the Cisterns Program. NGOs are involved in this process, mainly through the ASA, which along Federal
intervention, has spurred the construction of a network of 400 thousand cisterns, since 2003, for human supply,
through P1MC.b
Under the responsibility of SEDEC/MI. The diagnosis on the need and where depends upon the Integrated Committee
to Combat Drought and the information provided by the MI.
Under responsibility of DNOCS, SUDENE, and CODEVASF.

Rain-fed water
cisterns
construction for
human supply and
for productiona
Well drilling and
recovery
Building dams,
aqueducts and
pumping stations
Installing deep
wells of large ows
in sedimentary
basins
Support to
Farmers

Garantia-Safra

Bolsa Estiagem

Selling maize for

animal feed at
subsidized prices
Expanding
emergency credit
lines to farmers,
traders, and
industry sectors
Renegotiation of
the debt of farmers
Support to
municipalities

PAC equipamentos
Funds transfers

a
b

Done to initiate a strategic network of permanent sources of water supply, and wells in crystalline rocks in the most
drought prone municipalities. This is under the Geological Service of Brazil/MME (CPRM or former Research
Company on Mineral Resources).

Granted to farmers affected by the drought, with income up to 1.5 times the minimum wage, who joined the program
and lost at least 50 percent of the production of maize, beans, rice, cassava, and cotton, or were not able to plant, due
to climatic conditions. Between 2011 and 2013, it has helped around 769 thousand farmers in 1015 municipalities.
It is under coordination of the MDA.
Created in July 2012, has assisted more than 880 thousand families in 1316 cities of the Northeast. It consists of a
benet up to US$ 760 and is disbursed in monthly tranches of US$ 40. It is granted to smallholder farmers with
income of up to two minimum salaries, and those who did not join the Garantia-Safra in 2011/2012, but are
registered in the Cadastro nico of Social Programs (e.g. Bolsa Famlia of the federal government). It is an emergency
tool covering the area of intervention of SUDENE. For other drought affected municipalities under an emergency or
calamity state, the benet is of US$ 200. The program is under coordination of the MI.
Granted to producers acknowledged by the National Program of Family Agriculture (PRONAF) and located in
municipalities declared as in public calamity. It is under responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of
Planning, and of the National Company of Supply (CONAB), linked to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply
(MAPA).
Available in the municipalities declared as in emergency or public calamity since December 2011, which are under
the jurisdiction of SUDENE. The credit line uses resources of the Constitutional Fund for Financing the Northeast
(FNE/SUDENE) and is administered by the Bank of the Northeast (BNB).

Also available to those located in municipalities in situations of emergency and recognized as such by the Federal
Government. This is also carried out by BNB.
The provision of backhoes, bulldozers, loaders, bucket trucks, and water trucks to affected municipalities for
structural actions.
Simplifying the transfer of funds.

Each cistern is able to store 16,000 liters of water, enough for a family of ve people have water for drinking and cooking for a period of 6 to 8 months.
Over US$ 600 million have been spent on cisterns in Northeast Brazil in the last 10 years.

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

prediction; (2) vulnerability/resilience and impact assessment;

and (3) mitigation and response planning.
4.1. National
4.1.1. Monitoring and early warning/prediction
In Brazil, drought monitoring and early warning is supported
by an array of various Ministries and agencies, including

 Weather and climate forecasting: National Institute for Amazo-

nian Research (INPA); the Center for Weather Forecasting and

Climate Studies (CPTEC), which belongs to the National Institute for Space Research (INPE); the National Center of Monitoring and Early Warning on Natural Disasters (CEMADEN). All of
these entities are linked to Ministry of Science, Technology and
Innovation (MCTI). The National Institute of Meteorology
(INMET) also performs weather and climate forecasting.
Water resources information: ANA, within the MMA, captures
water data from a hydrometeorologic network with 283 telemetric stations, 1075 uviometric stations and another 981
rainfall stations, all of which are distributed across the 12
Brazilian Hydrographic Regions. The information is captured
and processed in Data Collecting Platforms, in partnership with
the satellites of INPE. It aims at improving the evaluation of
energy potential and the realization of water balance in almost
real time, in order to improve control of water resources,
to make current data available to society, and to provide a
broad conceptualization of rational and multiple water use.
ANA also recently signed a cooperation agreement with many
states that has state agencies sending their data to ANA.
Agrometeorological information: INMET and Agrometeorological
Information System (AGRITEMPO) of EMBRAPA (Brazilian Agricultural Research Company) are linked to the Ministry of
Agriculture, Livestock and Supply (MAPA). By 2014, in partnership with the Interamerican Institute of Cooperation for Agriculture (IICA) and the World Meteorological Organization
(WMO), INMET expects to have innovative and consolidated
technologies in the areas of weather forecasting, meteorological observations, storage and processing of data, modeling,
simulation scenarios, climatology, remote sensing, monitoring,
research, and development fully deployed. This will promote
the integration with national and international meteorological
systems and propel greater ownership of INMET products by
conventional users and farmers (IICA, 2013). This effort presents an opportunity for also improving drought preparedness
through better coordinated monitoring and early warning/
forecasting.
Research: Laboratories and Federal Universities are of great
importance for national drought monitoring. Still, many of the
most innovative efforts in this realm are at state level, such as:
Cear Foundation for Meteorology and Water Resources (FUNCEME); Centre for Meteorological and Climate Research Applied
to Agriculture (CEPAGRI/UNICAMP); Institute of Astronomy, Geophysics and Atmospheric Sciences (IAG/USP); Institute of Meteorological Research (IPMET/UNESP); Technological Institute of
Paran (SIMEPAR), Centre for Information on Environmental
Resources and Hydrometeorology of Santa Catarina (CIRAM),
University Center of Study and Research on Disasters, in Santa
Catarina (CEPED/UFSC), among others.

Despite the work of several federal and state agencies to develop

monitoring/forecasting and early warning systems, the precision,
coordination, and use of these systems needs further improvement
in order to allow for more efcient and informed decision making.
The atmospheric and oceanic eld collection stations, as well as the
models made possible by the data collection station are regarded as

101

relatively high quality. However, as is often the case with translating

data and information into decision support tools, scientists and
researchers are often frustrated by the misinterpretations regarding
the probabilities and statistics associated with the data and information. Moreover, there is an expressed need for a more comprehensive
understanding of the institutional relationships and technical compatibility/interoperability within and between federal and state
agencies with respect to meteorological, climatological, hydrological,
and agricultural data, information, and tools. One recent study
describes these relationships and capacities across several state and
federal agencies. However, this evaluation, which focuses mainly on
meteorological data and information, does not include all states, nor
does it investigate other drought-relevant data and information (e.g.,
agricultural and hydrological).
Finally, there have been proposals over the past few years to
institutionally integrate efforts, through an Agreement of Cooperation between INMET (essentially the equipment and data collection infrastructure) and CPTEC ( essentially the technicians and
tools developers). The ultimate purpose would be to build a
Monitoring System, integrating products (tablets, mobile, and
web) and applications, in collaboration with CENAD. Again, along
with the INMET/IICA technological innovation initiative, bringing
INMET and CPTEC together for the purpose of better institutional
coordination represents an important opportunity to improve
drought preparedness through monitoring and early warning. In
this context, it would also be important to include ANA/MMA to
ensure that hydrological data and information is also integrated.
4.1.2. Vulnerability/resilience and impact assessment
At the national level, vulnerability/resilience assessments have
not been formalized, nor have the networks for monitoring and
evaluating associated vulnerability indicators. Raising awareness
of the importance of these exercises through participatory processes are under discussion, as noted above, and they still need to
consider economic analyses on the costs and benets of drought
preparedness.
On impacts reporting, thanks to the strong collaboration with
the states and the academia (e.g., CEPED/UFSC), SENAD recently
produced the Brazilian Atlas on Natural Disasters. The aim of this
work was to compile and make information available on the
registered disasters in the country between 1991 and 2010, by
producing 26 State Volumes and one Brazil Volume. Thus far, these
publications are the rst of this kind in the country, which were
able to integrate historical records, enabling the elaboration of
thematic maps and an analysis of the frequency of the observed
patterns, the periods of highest incidence, and their relations with
other global climate events. Gathering all needed nationwide
information from 1991 onwards became a pioneering experience
because, during the research period, it was not possible to nd any
systematized information or data base on disaster occurrence.
From October 2010 to May 2011, CEPED researchers went to the 27
Brazilian capitals to gather all ofcial data from the CODECs and
SENAD to digitalize all relevant information using a portable
scanner. This effort provides a benchmark of a historic overview
of the occurrence and recurrence of disasters in the country and
their specicities. Notwithstanding this result, it would be important for future assessments to include climate change projections
in States and Regions, in order to support planning and management for drought preparedness and climate resilience.

4.1.3. Mitigation and response

The federal government recognizes one of two special states
that can be declared by an affected region during a drought event:
(1) a Situation of Emergency (less severe); and (2) a State of Public

102

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

Calamity (more severe). Guidelines for the declaration of either

indicate that their situation/state should be as short as possible,
lasting only for as long as it is strictly necessary for reestablishing
normality, and also only include the areas affected by the drought
declaration. By denition, the Situation of Emergency is an
abnormal situation provoked by disasters that cause damages
and losses, which are grave enough for the local government to
be partially unable to respond. The State of Public Calamity is an
abnormal situation provoked by disasters that cause damages
and losses, which are grave enough for the local government to
be substantially unable to respond. Despite this differentiation,
there is not a systematic procedure for how to make the
declarations for the municipalities and what necessarily distinguishes between public calamity and emergency. The decision
relies on whether or not there is local capacity to support
municipal response action on the environmental, economic, and
social impacts of the disaster.
The procedure of declaration of one of these states is, in a
simplied way, as follows: The Mayor of an affected municipality
declares the abnormal situation and sends a homologation request
to the State Government. Once homologated by the state, the
Federal Government (i.e. through the MI) must approve and
decide the length and affected areas, as well as the disaster0 s
severity level before the situation of emergency or public calamity
takes effect. However, the classication of the disaster is really
assessed on a case-by-case basis and there is no evidence of a real
trigger or specic methodology to follow. In some cases, state
and/or federal ofcials might make an ofcial inspection to the
affected areas to evaluate and conrm the impacts are occurring.
Funds approved by the MI for relief actions to the affected areas
are based on this severity and according to the available budget, on
a case by case basis. Without a specic set of proven criteria on
which to base the declaration, it is often very politically driven and
can often also lead to poorly targeted responses.
Broadly on mitigation policies, there are several important efforts
that could eventually be integrated into a more coherent drought
policy framework. First, there are several programs that are related to
a diversity of natural disaster, which are structured and implemented
by the MI, most recently through the National Policy of Protection
and Civil Defense. This law was passed after a series of particularly
devastating ooding events from 20082011, which made it strongly
focused on response (over mitigation) and, most importantly,
towards landslide and ood risk events (over droughts). It has not
been regulated by Decree and it does not give much specic
treatment to drought. Nevertheless, it includes a set of instruments
that potentially relevant to drought preparedness, including:
(1) Financial Resources and Planning for Civil Defense, currently
envisioned under the National Plan on Risk Management and
Response to Natural Disasters (20122014), which is divided into
four themes: prevention, mapping, monitoring and early warning,
and disaster response,10 and (2) National System of Civil Defense
(SINDEC), led by the National Secretariat of Civil Defense (SEDEC).11
Another important step at the federal level is the National
Action Program to Combat Desertication and Mitigate the
Effects of Drought (PAN-Brazil 2004), articulated through the
guidelines of the United Nations Convention to Combat
10
The planning foresees an investment of US$ 9.4 billion until 2014, to benet
821 municipalities in the country as part of the Growth Acceleration Federal
Program (PAC2). Specically on drought, the plan maintains some focus on
infrastructure approaches through the investments in the construction of dams,
pipelines, and urban systems of water supply in the semi-arid region of the
Northeast.
11
SEDEC coordinates the National Center of Disaster and Risk Management
(CENAD) and has 26 State Coordinating Organizations of Civil Defense (CEDECs), as
well as Municipal Coordinating Organizations of Civil Defense (COMDECs) that
cover at least 80 percent of the municipalities in the country.

Desertication (UNCCD) and elaborated and led by the Ministry

of Environment (MMA), with IICA providing technical cooperation. Even though the aim is to turn the PAN-Brazil into a policy,
it deals more with initiatives to address desertication than those
relating to mitigating the effects of drought. Still, while it might
not contribute signicantly to mitigating the immediate effects of
drought, it could be eventually integrated into drought preparedness efforts in the mid- and long-terms (i.e., through avoiding
land degradation and improving land management).
Perhaps the most relevant federal activity in recent years
related to drought preparedness, in parallel with these other
efforts, is a work group led by the MI, specically under its
Secretariat of Water Infrastructure (SIH), to identify principles for
a national policy to mitigate the effects of drought. This group is
formed by agencies directly linked to the MI.12 It was originally
created to prepare a national drought policy diagnosis for the
Brazilian participation in the High-Level Meeting on National
Drought Policy (HMNDP), facilitated by the World Meteorological
Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the
UNCCD, in March 2013, in Geneva, Switzerland. The work group
is still active and in response to the commitments made by Brazil
during the HMNDP to embark on more proactive risk-based
management of droughts. Even though it is expected that this
MI process will dene objectives as well as sub-regional and sector
guidelines to address drought, the process is not directly linked to
the actions to prevent desertication nor the processes associated
with SINDEC and SEDEC (both described above). Although the MI
has political representation in the National Commission to Combat
Desertication, it has not internalized the importance of desertication within its institutional vision and actions. With regards to
drought management, both Ministries (i.e., MI and MMA) have
overlapping priorities, but ill-coordinated programs, which highlights the existing inefciency in articulating a single and consistent drought policy design.
As discussed, the severity of the 20102013 Northeast drought
has moved beyond the typical agricultural impacts in that it is
also affecting the supply of water for human consumption. These
impacts have spurred the need to attempt to coordinate joint
relief efforts from the federal, state, and municipal governments
to meet the needs of the rural populations in vulnerable situations. Therefore, in addition to the federal efforts just described
above, the Civil House of the Presidency created an interministerial committee (i.e., Integrated Committee to Combat
Drought) to monitor and coordinate actions for this specic
drought response in the semi-arid region, carried out by the
federal, state, and municipal governments. The Integrated Committee was created for the response to the recent drought event,
and for as long as it lasts, has all member institutions as the
ofcial data providers for policy and decision making. It is
important to note that this Committee does not have any formal
relationship to the previously discussed National Commission to
Combat Desertication and Mitigate the Effects of Drought (via
the MMA) nor to the work group for a National Drought Policy
(via the MI), which were ofcially created for policy making
purposes. Even though the Civil House Committee is able to
provide immediate relief through the emergency actions as
presented below, it is an instrument of temporary nature that
could be better integrated into the dialog of policy construction
of the MMA and the MI work group; since, (1) mitigating drought

12
The MI work group (led by SIH) dealing with the design of a National
Drought Policy is integrated across the MI through the Secretariat of Regional
Development (SDR); the National Secretariat of Civil Defense (SEDEC); the National
Department of Works against Droughts (DNOCS); the Development Company of
San Francisco and Parnaiba River Valleys (CODEVASF); and, the Superintendence
for the Development of the Northeast (SUDENE).

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

effects is still a priority of the Presidency, and there is a window

to raise attention to a development policy towards drought
preparedness; and, (2) the Integrated Committee also gathers
representatives of different Ministries, which could contribute to
a comprehensive and sustainable drought policy design and
implementation that includes aspects of prevention, in addition
to those of mitigation. For example, the participation of other
sectors linked to MMA, including ANA, can integrate efforts of
recovery and conservation within drought mitigation and prevention actions, as well as with soil and water management in
drought prone regions like the Northeast. Thus, it is important to
better coordinate programs to correct (prevent) the drivers that
aggravate drought impacts.
As part of the emergency actions in place through the Casa Civil0 s
Integrated Committee, the most current tranche of funding totals US$
4.5 billion, which is on top of the initial US$ 3.8 billion of the PAC 2 to
be spread out among strategic fronts, described in Table 1.
It is also important to highlight that there are other institutional actions associated with the Integrated Committee, particularly the creation of an Emergency National Force on Drought,
formed by CODEVASF, DNOCS, CHESF, ANA, BNB, and CPRM, and
coordinated by the MI. Notably, this effort is not directly linked to
the MI drought policy work group; rather it is part of the action
package within the Casa Civil0 s Integrated Committee. Its
immediate action is to increase monitoring, evaluate the status
of water supply in the Northeast, and indicate measures to
mitigate the low water levels in the reservoirs. ANA, more
specically, has been directed to monitor 44 major reservoirs in
the Northeast and to perform scenario planning on the water
levels, provide technical capacity, and improve monitoring and
instrumentation of the reservoirs.
Although there is a signicant array of institutions and federal
initiatives dealing with drought and disaster risk management in
general and with the recent drought in particular, there could be
improved articulation of responsibilities and integration between the
federal, state, and municipal agencies. Moreover, there is a tendency
to respond to the droughts rather than prioritizing strategic and
proactive approaches to mitigating the droughts in the rst place (i.e.,
other than the traditional large water infrastructure works). Institutional weaknesses are sometimes evident in terms of personnel and
necessary capabilities to operationalize these proactive approaches.
Changes of municipal governments with discontinuity of previous
activities, disconnection with the population affected by the droughts,
and changes in priorities make many regions even more vulnerable.
Even though water management initiatives have been positively
implemented by monitoring rainfall, building irrigation projects and
dams, as well as assisting drought-stricken regions with water supply,
the limited proactive planning has made structural works less
effective. That is, it will likely be more successful moving forward if
it is planned as an even more integrated and comprehensive development policy, placed into the context of current processes like the
MI, Casa Civil, MMA, and SEDEC efforts, outlined above.

4.2. State of Cear

4.2.1. Monitoring and early warning/prediction
The main stakeholders associated with drought monitoring in
Cear include

 The Cear Foundation for Meteorology and Water Resources



(FUNCEME), for monitoring and forecasting weather and

climate.
And the Water Resources Management Company (COGERH),
and Superintendence of Water Works (SOHIDRA), which are
both linked to the Secretariat of Water Resources (SRH).

103

 The Cear Technical Assistance and Rural Extension Business

(EMATERCE), for monitoring agricultural production and impacts,
linked to the Secretariat for Agrarian Development (SDA).
Among other functions, SRH executes infrastructure projects
and collects information on demand and supply within the basins,
aiming at permanent control of water balances throughout
the State. Currently, COGERH operates and manages, through an
agreement with DNOCS, all major reservoirs in the State, accounting for over 90 percent of the state0 s water storage. Its work also
involves the creation and support of Basin Committees, which
integrate the bulk water users that, by 2012, accounted for 15,500
registered water users. COGERH publishes on its website current
data for reservoir levels and rainfall in the state, based on a very
strong collaboration with FUNCEME. There is also some collaboration between FUNCEME and EMATERCE with respect to agricultural drought.
Still, important challenges need to be overcome, mostly related to
access to all data between state agencies, between the state and
federal agencies, and in terms of increasing the use of the information and data by the local municipalities and cities. Currently, a
partnership started in January 2012, between CPTEC, INMET, and
FUNCEME expects to develop a suitable model to objectively
integrate predictions from different federal and state institutions
and produce a Northeast Drought Monitor (NEDM) for institutional
and technical diagnosis of data and information services.13

4.2.2. Vulnerability/resilience and impact assessment

In Cear, formalized drought vulnerability/resilience assessment is not very prominent beyond several academic institutions
that have embarked on localized research projects. On impacts
reporting and evaluation, specically for the current multi-year
drought, the State Legislative Assembly created, in March of 2013,
a Special Committee to Accompany the Problem of Drought and
Rainfall Prevision in the State of Cear which, in July 2013,
delivered a Partial Report of Activities that is meant to be turned
into a technical opinion for policy making (Cear, 2013). As with
the National level, there is the Brazilian Atlas of Natural Disasters,
Volume Cear, created by the MI and the Center of Studies and
Research on Natural Disasters from the Federal University of Santa
Catarina (CEPEDUFSC). Specically on drought, from 1991 to 2010
it has registered 1340 ofcial recorded impacts across almost all
municipalities in the state. Despite this piloting effort to integrate
all data related to natural disasters in the state and the country,
the Atlas is unclear on what is meant by affected (e.g. economically,
environmentally, socially, health, cattle ranching, agriculture
and/or water supply, etc.). Therefore, more clarity on denitions
would be important in future iterations of the Atlas, as be
including climate change predictions and their implications for
water and drought management.
4.2.3. Mitigation and response
Despite recent coordinating efforts, there is not a clear
drought institutional framework, nor a sustained mindset that
people in the Northeast need to live in coexistence with droughts
(i.e., the responses are mainly reactive, short-term, and suggest
an element of being caught by surprise). Still, there have been a
few pilot actions with a long-term view. After a very severe
drought in 1998, the Hydro-environmental Development Project
(PRODHAM) was implemented. PRODHAM is a multi-sector
project in the semi-arid region to test the technical and social
viability of soil and moisture conservation and to learn lessons
13

This effort is also being supported by the World Bank.

104

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

from these experiences. As such, SRH used the technique of

building successive dams of stones in order to retain sediments,
involving local communities living in the area of this pilot to play
a major role in order to mitigate both environmental and socioeconomic degradation effects in four micro-basins. As a result,
3332 successive dams were built between 2001 and 2009,
creating microclimates that ultimately provided increased reforestation, recovered riverine vegetation (47.6 ha), recovered
degraded areas (5.3 ha), increased biological diversity by maintaining for longer periods the moisture storage in soils and
reduced soil losses, and documented lessons learned. The Project
was also a pioneer in building 27 underground dams to increase
groundwater availability in the dry season
Even though the current drought is devastating the region, the
existence of several programs has made people less vulnerable to
drought, which include: (1) programs of social assistance since
2000 under the pioneering Zero Hunger Program (Fome Zero),
which later integrated all social programs into Bolsa Famlia; (2) the
construction of a network of 700,000 rainwater storage cisterns;
(3) an increase in average household income; and (4) other social
policies [e.g. rural retirement, the Food Acquisition Program (PAA),
and the purchase of school meals (PNAE)]. These measures were not
directly formulated as a response to the recent drought, but have
served as tools to mitigate at least some of the devastating drought
effects, especially in the Northeast. Overall, these programs have
helped avoid a great social turmoil and have made possible decreasing migration rates from the countryside to the cities, as well as
having dispensed the creation of work fronts (i.e. alternative income
activities to unemployed people and farmers by building structural
works during drought).
As mentioned, on the response, specically upon the establishment of the National Integrated Committee, the Cear government
created its own Committee to Combat Drought in order to
coordinate the various emergency activities and respond to the
effects of drought. It ofcially involves local, state, and federal
institutions, and works to coordinate the response and through
weekly meetings to assess the drought situation. It attempts to
get ahead of drought impacts through targeted and more
coordinated activities. The Committee is still active because the
reservoir levels are well below average for this time of year (i.e.,
the mean of water stored in Cear dams is below 50 percent of
their capacity).
Some of the actions of the Committee include the implementation of federal Programs, such as Programa Garantia Safra. Cear is
the state that has the maximum number of beneciaries through
this program, which reaches 240,000 farmers in the State. In 2013,
the number of beneciaries will be extended to 350,000 and the
maximum value paid will be increased from US$ 350 to US$ 600.
Another important action to minimize the impacts is the Operao
Carro-Pipa, which has supplied water in 171 municipalities in the
state through the Brazilian Army. Even though it becomes a key
ally for water supply in dry periods, water is still used as currency
for political interests and prot.
In light of the current activity in Cear and at the federal level,
it is imperative to take advantage of the political window of
opportunity opened by the high level interest in this topic so as
to better institutionalize any reforms that are developed.

5. Gaps and opportunities for drought preparedness

and policy in Brazil
The gaps and opportunities are highlighted below in the three
drought preparedness categories and also identied as either
shorter-term issues, or those that can be more quickly addressed
without the need for signicant institutional or political reform,

and longer-term issues, or those which will likely require more

comprehensive measures and capacity building.
5.1. Monitoring and early warning/prediction
5.1.1. Integrating drought monitoring and forecasting data
and technical capacity longer term
Brazil has signicant scientic and technical knowledge and
expertise in meteorological, climatological, agricultural, and hydrological monitoring and forecasting. However, these capabilities are
not always well-integrated within and between states and monitoring/forecasting communities of practice and networks have not been
well-institutionalized. There is a need to systematically identify the
reforms that are necessary to address these limitations and integrate
across administrative levels (e.g., between municipalities, states, and
the federal government). It is also important to improve the translation of the information into useable tools and products that make it
into the hands of decision makers (from individuals up to state/
national levels), and to foster and maintain a network of technical
experts that can institutionalize drought monitoring and forecasting
processes and products. Finally, there is also a perceived need to
address the issue of subjectivity inuencing the climate forecasting
system.
5.2. Vulnerability/resilience and impact assessment
5.2.1. Expanding the role of international organizations shorter
term
Reportedly, there is difculty in generating effective and sustained dialog between the states and municipalities. International
organizations can play an important role in bringing external
support to strengthen the role of institutions within the country
that are working on these challenging issues across jurisdictions.
For example, this strategy could be used to coordinate and plan
participatory vulnerability and resilience assessment workshops
with interested experts and stakeholders to produce priority
indicators and mechanisms to monitor and evaluate impacts.
In addition to helping convene the right stakeholders and experts,
international organizations could also help to use the process to
produce a targeted cost-benet analysis on drought preparedness.
5.2.2. Improving data collection and information
organization shorter term
Currently, there is no national archive that provides comprehensive information on the effects of disasters for determining
vulnerabilities and impacts trends, and eventually, whether natural disaster mitigation programs are proving to be effective in risk
reduction. It would be particularly helpful to develop such a
system that would ultimately integrate scientic and monitoring
functions to support a broader drought policy.
5.2.3. Developing vulnerability assessments longer term
Vulnerability and resilience assessments are important for
proactive risk-based management for several reasons. First, they
create a dialog amongst stakeholders before the crisis of drought
hits so that priorities are discussed and negotiated during less
emotive situations. Second, indicators and impacts reporting/
tracking procedures established through these assessments can
help improve the timing and expediency of planning and management once a drought hits. And third, tracking impacts (or lack
thereof) can provide critical information for monitoring and
evaluating the socio-economic benets and costs of drought
preparedness (i.e., making the cost-benet analysis case for
drought preparedness to policy makers). For these reasons,

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

emphasis on such assessments could improve drought preparedness in Brazil.

5.2.4. Improving economic and social impacts
understanding longer term
Despite the severe nature of the current drought situation in
many regions throughout Brazil, higher-levels of decision making
are often slow to react to the immediate and long-term needs of
these regions. Developing mechanisms for real-time reporting of
social and economic impacts, as well as developing robust economic analyses on the benets of drought preparedness and risk
management could help raise important attention regarding the
severity of these and similar future situations.
5.2.5. Introducing climate change projections into impact
assessments longer term
There has been a great effort to provide the Brazilian Atlas of
Natural Disasters (19912010) as a benchmark for an historic
overview of the occurrence and recurrence of disasters in the
country and their specicities. Notwithstanding this development,
it would be important for future assessments to include climate
change projections in states and regions in order to support
planning and management for drought preparedness and climate
resilience (i.e., learn from past disasters, but also utilize forecasts,
scenarios, and projects of future conditions).
5.3. Mitigation and response planning and measures
5.3.1. Taking advantage of droughts to advance the conversation and
facilitate learning and action, and conducting systematic reviews of
where things are and where they need to be shorter-term
Proactive, risk-based approaches do not develop overnight.
Rather, the shift takes many years of bold intentions after a
particular drought event, only to be effectively watered down in
subsequent non-drought years. There appears to be overlapping
drought related duties and responsibilities between MI (e.g.,
drought coordination and response through the Emergency
National Force on Drought, as well as the drought policy discussion within the work group), MMA (e.g., desertication and
adaptation to climate change), and Civil House of the Presidency
(e.g., Integrated Committee during droughts), with limited coordination between the various efforts. The process of improving
integration and articulation of responsibilities will require the
leadership and guidance at the highest levels of decision making,
however. The work group, the MI0 s contributions to the HMNDP,
and the current extreme droughts ravishing large portions of the
nation, however, create a potential window of opportunity to raise
this as an even greater national priority; particularly to gain the
focused attention of the President and the Civil House of the
Presidency. In Cear, there is also a potential window for discussing a drought policy through the Integrated Committee to Combat
Drought. Clarifying and better integrating these promising activities should be a priority. There is a chance that Brazil will nd
itself in a similar situation in the coming years, and decision
makers should be ready to expediently evaluate, review, and
improve.
5.3.2. Improving institutional memory and administrative continuity
shorter term
Related to the above point, it is important to strengthen the
institutions at different levels to build real and sustained capacity
for managing droughts. A lot of reinventing the wheel occurs
within local municipalities after a change in political leadership;
leaving these ofcials scrambling and struggling to protect their
citizens during times of drought. In many areas that are not as

105

familiar with droughts, there are few if any contiguous and

ongoing policies for drought preparation and response. Finally,
and perhaps most importantly, in many regions there can be rapid
shifts from extreme droughts to extreme ooding, and thus, it
might be worth considering coordinated policies that build climate
resilience.
5.3.3. Designing robust and sustained social safety nets that reach
into the heart of rural areas shorter term
Investments are needed for reaching dispersed rural communities affected by droughts through social policies and relief
mechanisms that provide continued development and commitment to these vulnerable populations. In some areas, such as in the
case of Cear, access to credit during droughts has been bureaucratic and piecemeal. Also, many rural communities have defense
mechanisms to address droughts, but it is well understood that
social capital and networks represent the main facilitative function
for these informal coping mechanisms. There is a need to
strengthen communities and reduce vulnerability to droughts by
reinforcing and building from these social capital networks and
community building opportunities.
5.3.4. Clarifying and integrating institutional
responsibilities longer term
There is a need to evaluate and provide clarity on the roles and
responsibilities of the various institutions involved with drought
preparedness (e.g., who is ultimately responsible for vulnerability
assessments, monitoring, mitigation and adaptation actions, relief
and recovery, etc.). For example, based on the interviews conducted for this study, the modern roles of DNOCS and SUDENE are
unclear, and how these organizations overlap with or complement
other institutions at the federal and state level is not well-dened.
Also, various policy, planning, and management efforts being led
by the MI, MMA, Casa Civil, and SEDEC, for instance, are reportedly
not well-integrated despite a shared focus on droughts and/or
disaster risk management. Again, better integration and articulation of responsibilities will ultimately need to be orchestrated by a
lead individual and/or agency at the highest levels of decision
making and also must win the buy-in from other decision making
entities involved with mitigating and responding to droughts
(e.g., other federal agencies, Congress, etc.).
5.3.5. Articulating the role of drought preparedness in the context
of watershed management areas longer term
The relatively new water reforms across Brazil do not directly
address the issue of drought planning and management. A more
coherent drought policy might benet from focused consideration
and clear denitions and responsibilities with respect to the role of
river basin committees and management bodies in drought preparedness (e.g., drought stages and forecasts provided at the river
basin scale, plans implemented by the Committees, etc.). Furthermore, guidelines are nonexistent on how states and municipalities
should act in preparedness and mitigation of droughts.
5.3.6. Improving the currently limited, scattered, and usually
reactionary nancing mechanisms longer term
The Brazilian system does not have robust and dedicated
funding mechanisms to address droughts. There are opportunities
to build from current existing broader social safety net systems
and water charging mechanisms to fund drought preparedness,
but these will require bold political action and could take a
signicant amount of time. Additionally, states largely depend on
these dwindling federal resources and lack adequate funding
mechanisms of their own.

106

A.P.A. Gutirrez et al. / Weather and Climate Extremes 3 (2014) 95106

6. Conclusion
The recent droughts that have hit Brazil are spurring a familiar
dialog within the country to improve drought policy and management. In the past, this conversation has waxed and waned with
respect to the drought cycle, with only incremental progress being
made to foster more proactive risk-based drought preparedness
approaches.
The drought currently affecting the Northeast, however, is the
most intense and impactful in several decades. Along with the
impacts and subsequent federal and state responses to these
impacts, the increased attention worldwide to draft and implement coordinated national drought policies around the concept of
drought preparedness, and national and international attention on
building climate change resilience, Brazil has a unique opportunity
to better institutionalize these proactive approaches to drought
management that have thus far eluded some decision making
processes throughout the country.

Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper was conducted by the World
Bank and funded in part by the Spanish Fund for Latin America
and The Caribbean. The authors are grateful for comments on the
manuscript from colleagues at the World Bank and also the input
from two anonymous peer-reviewers.
References
Bates, B.C., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Wu, S., Palutikof, E.J.P., 2008. Climate Change and
Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
edited by I. Secretariat. Geneva.
Blunden, J., Arndt, D.S., 2012. State of the Climate in 2011. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
93 (7), S1S264.
Cear, 2013. Comisso Especial da Assemblia Legislativa para Acompanhar a
Problemtica da Estiagem e as Perspectivas de Chuvas no Estado do Cear,
Relatrio Final de Atividades, Julho.

Engle, N.L., 2012. The role of drought preparedness in building and mobilizing
adaptive capacity in states and their community water systems. Climatic
Change 118, 291306, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0657-4.
Hayes, M.J., Wilhelmi, O.V., Knutson, C.L., 2004. Reducing drought risk: bridging
theory and practice. Nat. Hazards Rev. 5 (2), 106113.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2012. Managing the Risks of
extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. In: Field, C.B.,
Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J.,
Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), A Special Report of
Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, p. 582
Kundzewicz, Z.W., Mata, L.J., Arnell, N.W., Dll, P., Kabat, P., Jimnez, B., Miller, K.A.,
Oki, T., Sen, Z., Shiklomanov, I.A., 2007. Freshwater resources and their
management. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
In: Change, M.L., Parry, O.F., Canziani, J.P., Palutikof, P.J., van der Linden, Hanson,
C.E. (Eds.), Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate. C.U. Press, Cambridge, UK
Malgalhes, A.R., Martins, E.S., 2011. Drought and drought policy in Brazil. In:
Towards a Compendium on National Drought Policy: Proceedings of an Expert
Meeting. July 1415, 2011, Washington, DC.
Sivakumar, M.V.K., 2011. Current droughts: context and need for national drought
policies. In: Towards a Compendium on National Drought Policy: Proceedings
of an Expert Meeting. Washington, DC, July 1415, 2011.
UNCCD, FAO, and WMO, 2012a. Policy Document: National Drought Management
Policy. Prepared for the High Level Meeting on National Drought Policy
(HMNDP) CICG, Geneva, 1115 March 2013.
UNCCD, FAO, and WMO, 2012b. Science Document: Best Practices on National
Drought Management Policy. Prepared for the High Level Meeting on National
Drought Policy (HMNDP) CICG, Geneva, 1115 March 2013.
Viana, C.F.G., 2013. Da Seca como Episdio Deserticao como Processo: uma
questo (no)institucionalizada. Center of Sustainable Development, University
of Brasilia, Brazil.
Wilhite, D.A., 2011. National drought policies: addressing impacts and societal
vulnerability. In: Towards a Compendium on National Drought Policy: Proceedings of an Expert Meeting. July 1415, 2011, Washington DC.
Wilhite, D.A., Hayes, M.J., Knutson, C.L., 2005. Drought preparedness planning:
building institutional capacity. In: Wilhite, D.A. (Ed.), Drought and Water
Crises: Science, Technology, and Management Issues. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida
World Bank, 2012a. Turn down the Heat: Why a 4 1C Warmer World Must Be
Avoided: World Bank Group, Washington DC.
World Bank, 2012b. The Sendai Report: Managing Disaster Risks for a Resilient
Future. Washington DC, 68 pp. http://www.gfdrr.org/sites/gfdrr.org/les/Sen
dai_Report_051012.pdf.
World Bank, 2013. Water Resources Planning and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Climate Change in Selected River Basins in Northeast Brazil. Final
Report on a Non Lending Technical Assistance program (P123869). World
Bank, Washington DC.