Evaluating Responses to Drought

Two countries, different response priorities

A drought response can tackle the immediate shortage or reduce vulnerability to future droughts. Emergency food and water supplies protect people now; repairing leaks and improving water management help supplies last longer. Neither approach makes rain fall, so responses must manage the consequences of the shortage.

The USA, using California’s 2011–17 drought, provides a developed-country example. Ethiopia, using the 2015–16 drought, provides a developing-country comparison. California could draw on extensive water infrastructure, research and regulation. In Ethiopia, failed seasonal rains threatened farming livelihoods and access to food and safe water, making emergency assistance particularly important.

In both cases, individuals, organisations and governments contributed. The difference is not that one country responded and the other did not, but the resources available and the problems that needed the most urgent attention.

California: individuals reducing demand

Households reduced sprinkler use, replaced lawns, repaired leaking taps and installed more efficient toilets and washing machines. These actions conserved water by reducing unnecessary use rather than finding a new supply. Homeowners were also advised to check for leaks, while farmers were encouraged to adopt water-efficient methods such as drip irrigation.

Small household savings can become substantial when repeated across millions of homes. However, replacing appliances or irrigation equipment involves an initial cost, so not everyone can make the same changes easily. Efficient irrigation also cannot remove crops’ need for water during a prolonged drought.

Some individuals protested against companies selling bottled local water. Such campaigning challenged how scarce water was allocated, but protest alone could not replenish water supplies.

California: organisations and government coordinating action

University of California research investigated more effective groundwater management. This could support better decisions about a vital reserve when rivers and reservoirs were depleted. Its main value was longer-term management: research was not an immediate replacement for missing rainfall.

The state government ran water-saving education campaigns and introduced a 25% water-use reduction target. Government action gave conservation a shared direction rather than leaving it entirely to voluntary household choices.

There was evidence of substantial saving: between June 2015 and March 2016, reported water use fell by 23.9% compared with the same months in 2013. This demonstrates a large reduction, although it should not be treated as proof that every community or sector achieved the same saving.

In May 2016, Governor Brown ordered longer-term measures, including permanent monthly reporting by urban water suppliers, restrictions on wasteful practices such as hosing pavements, and stronger drought planning. Water districts were to prepare for droughts lasting at least five years. These measures linked immediate conservation to future resilience.

Nevertheless, depleted groundwater and limited drinking water supplies persisted in some communities. Successful demand reduction helped manage the drought; it did not end it.

Ethiopia: relief through governments and organisations

Ethiopia’s government worked with UNICEF and humanitarian partners to address malnutrition and shortages of safe water. Overseas governments supplied funding: in 2015, the USA provided $128.4 million in food aid.

In June 2016, Sweden contributed US$5.7 million to UNICEF for children affected by the drought. Donor support enabled UNICEF to purchase therapeutic food for severely malnourished children. The new Swedish funding was intended to strengthen mobile health and nutrition teams, develop treatment capacity and provide water for drinking and handwashing in primary schools in Oromia.

These responses addressed linked problems. Food treatment tackled malnutrition, while safe water and hygiene support could reduce the risk of disease. Mobile teams could take services into badly affected areas rather than relying only on people reaching fixed health centres.

Aid agencies including Oxfam and UNICEF also helped secure water supplies. Education charities helped people obtain jobs in urban areas, offering an alternative to livelihoods dependent on unreliable rainfall.

Emergency aid can protect lives quickly, but food deliveries do not restore failed rains or automatically rebuild farming livelihoods. Longer-term effectiveness depends on continued support and measures that reduce future vulnerability. Employment support may widen people’s options, but it does not directly solve rural water shortages.

Individuals supporting Ethiopia’s drought response

Individuals outside Ethiopia also contributed through fundraising and donations. Live Aid is an example of a large charity event that raised money and awareness during earlier Ethiopian drought and famine; it was not a response to the 2015–16 event.

Individual donations allow relief organisations to purchase and distribute assistance. However, the usefulness of fundraising depends on money being converted into effective help where it is needed. Awareness and funds are contributions to a response, not evidence that drought vulnerability has been removed.

Judging which responses are effective

Effectiveness depends on the aim. For someone facing severe malnutrition, food and medical treatment are more urgent than a long-term conservation campaign. Where a large water network already exists, reducing waste and regulating demand can conserve supplies across a wide area.

California placed greater emphasis on demand management, monitoring and preparation, while Ethiopia’s response placed greater emphasis on emergency relief supported by international funding. Development helps explain this contrast, but the immediate severity of food and water insecurity matters too.

The strongest overall response combines short-term protection with long-term resilience. Emergency aid protects people during the crisis; efficient water use, reliable management and less vulnerable livelihoods reduce the damage when drought returns.