LD
Lucia De Stefano
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
2 records found
1
Growing evidence suggests that freshwater ecosystems incur exacerbated impacts during drought due to anthropogenic activities. This has prompted calls for the development of drought management strategies that more effectively incorporate these ecosystems. Efforts to examine how drought management instruments care for freshwater ecosystems are scarce, limited to a few geographic regions, and do not systematically analyse each of the elements of the drought management process. In this study, we review drought management instruments in 26 countries or regions within countries to assess the extent and the manner with which freshwater ecosystems are considered. We apply an analytical framework integrating knowledge from drought management, ecological risk assessment and ecological drought to extract data from these instruments and identify patterns and gaps. Results indicate that care for freshwater ecosystems in drought management is as yet at an early stage. This is reflected in the limited inclusion of freshwater ecosystems across critical elements of the drought management process, as well as significant shortcomings in how these ecosystems are considered. We synthesise these shortcomings in four gaps. First, the socio-ecological perspective of ecological drought, particularly regarding the combined natural-human causes of drought impacts on freshwater ecosystems, is often lacking in drought definitions, exposure and vulnerability assessments. Second, despite their importance to ecosystems, there is limited consideration of variables related to groundwater, water quality, and aquatic habitats in freshwater ecosystem indicators, exposure assessments and measures. Third, the duration, frequency and timing of drought, which are relevant to the ecology of freshwater ecosystems, are rarely considered in drought indicators and measures. Finally, exposure and vulnerability assessments often lack a comprehensive understanding of ecological drought risk in freshwater ecosystems. We discuss these gaps and provide an outlook towards more integrated and sustainable drought policy and management.
...
Growing evidence suggests that freshwater ecosystems incur exacerbated impacts during drought due to anthropogenic activities. This has prompted calls for the development of drought management strategies that more effectively incorporate these ecosystems. Efforts to examine how drought management instruments care for freshwater ecosystems are scarce, limited to a few geographic regions, and do not systematically analyse each of the elements of the drought management process. In this study, we review drought management instruments in 26 countries or regions within countries to assess the extent and the manner with which freshwater ecosystems are considered. We apply an analytical framework integrating knowledge from drought management, ecological risk assessment and ecological drought to extract data from these instruments and identify patterns and gaps. Results indicate that care for freshwater ecosystems in drought management is as yet at an early stage. This is reflected in the limited inclusion of freshwater ecosystems across critical elements of the drought management process, as well as significant shortcomings in how these ecosystems are considered. We synthesise these shortcomings in four gaps. First, the socio-ecological perspective of ecological drought, particularly regarding the combined natural-human causes of drought impacts on freshwater ecosystems, is often lacking in drought definitions, exposure and vulnerability assessments. Second, despite their importance to ecosystems, there is limited consideration of variables related to groundwater, water quality, and aquatic habitats in freshwater ecosystem indicators, exposure assessments and measures. Third, the duration, frequency and timing of drought, which are relevant to the ecology of freshwater ecosystems, are rarely considered in drought indicators and measures. Finally, exposure and vulnerability assessments often lack a comprehensive understanding of ecological drought risk in freshwater ecosystems. We discuss these gaps and provide an outlook towards more integrated and sustainable drought policy and management.
Book chapter
(2014)
-
Lucia De Stefano, Pedro Roberto Jacobi, Elena López-Gunn, Miguel Solanes, Gonzalo Delacámara, Gonzalo Marín, Antonio Embid, Natalia Uribe, J.I. Montenegro Gambini, More Authors...
Water governance can be defined as a system that makes water management more effective, accountable and participatory, thus strengthening the role of multiple stakeholders in institutional capacity bUilding, improving coordination, broadening participation and consolidating partnerships Uacobi, 2009). Water governance structures in some LAC have undergone reforms that implied not only re-orientation of policy priorities and approaches, but also the restructuring of institutional frameworks. This has led to the need for new intermediate institutions that enable a negotiated approach to water governance. Two issues hamper the capacity of institutions to improve and adjust to constantly changing conditions: the lack of proper evaluation of the quality of policies - often a consequence of lack of transparency and accountability that may favour some actors and their private interests over others; and the lack of adequate control over bureaucratic systems. Institutional reforms involved changes in the ‘rules of the game’, expressed by the coexistence of formal laws, informal norms and practices, and organizational structures, as well as strengthening institutional capacity.
...
Water governance can be defined as a system that makes water management more effective, accountable and participatory, thus strengthening the role of multiple stakeholders in institutional capacity bUilding, improving coordination, broadening participation and consolidating partnerships Uacobi, 2009). Water governance structures in some LAC have undergone reforms that implied not only re-orientation of policy priorities and approaches, but also the restructuring of institutional frameworks. This has led to the need for new intermediate institutions that enable a negotiated approach to water governance. Two issues hamper the capacity of institutions to improve and adjust to constantly changing conditions: the lack of proper evaluation of the quality of policies - often a consequence of lack of transparency and accountability that may favour some actors and their private interests over others; and the lack of adequate control over bureaucratic systems. Institutional reforms involved changes in the ‘rules of the game’, expressed by the coexistence of formal laws, informal norms and practices, and organizational structures, as well as strengthening institutional capacity.