Planning for Resilience
Resource Library

Drought Resilience, Adaptation and Management Policy framework (UNCCD 2019)

Summary: The document provides technical guidelines for developing and implementing national drought resilience, adaptation, and management plans, structured around the Drought Resilience, Adaptation and Management Policy (DRAMP) Framework. It emphasizes a comprehensive, multi-pronged approach to drought risk reduction, organized into six interconnected goals and three key pillars: monitoring and early warning, vulnerability and risk assessment, and impact limitation and response. The guidelines highlight the importance of robust indicators, risk assessments, structural and non-structural interventions, and risk-sharing mechanisms. Key Insights and Takeaways: - The DRAMP Framework’s six goals are: reduce exposure, reduce vulnerability, increase resilience, enable transformation, improve preparedness/response/recovery, and transfer/share drought risks. - The three key pillars for national drought policy are: (1) monitoring and early warning, (2) vulnerability and risk assessment, and (3) impact limitation and response. - Effective drought monitoring requires selecting appropriate indicators and triggers, with a recommended 12-step process for indicator selection. Common indices include SPI, VHI, and composite systems like the US Drought Monitor. - Drought risk assessments should integrate hazard and vulnerability, using consistent indicators and multi-dimensional vulnerability assessments (social, economic, environmental, institutional). - Impact limitation measures include diversifying and modernizing agriculture, sustainable land and water management, communication and capacity building, and risk-sharing tools such as weather index insurance and social safety nets. - Timely communication and response are critical; ICT and citizen science can enhance early warning and impact reporting. - The guidelines recommend tailored, sector-specific approaches, consistent use of indicators, and innovative risk-sharing mechanisms to protect vulnerable communities and support recovery.

Grazing management for soil carbon in Australia: a review (McDonald et al 2023)

Summary: The review examines the impact of grazing management (stocking intensity and grazing method) on soil organic carbon (SOC) in Australia. It finds no significant direct effect of these practices on SOC sequestration, but notes that lower stocking intensity and rotational grazing with rest periods improve herbage mass and ground cover, which are important for SOC accumulation. The response of SOC to grazing is highly context-dependent, and grazing management alone is unlikely to be a primary strategy for offsetting livestock emissions, though it offers other productivity and ecosystem benefits. Key Insights and Takeaways: - No significant direct effect of stocking intensity or grazing method on SOC sequestration in Australian studies. - Lower stocking intensity and rotational grazing with rest periods increase herbage mass and ground cover, supporting SOC accumulation. - Minimal impact of grazing management on pasture growth rate and below-ground biomass, with some improvements under certain conditions. - SOC response to grazing is highly context-dependent, influenced by climate, soil type, pasture composition, and management specifics. - Detecting SOC changes is challenging due to slow, small, and spatially variable changes, and study design limitations. - Grazing management should be seen as providing co-benefits for productivity and ecosystem services, not as a primary emissions mitigation strategy. - Future research should focus on plant growth rate, below-ground production, and root dynamics as key drivers of SOC, and consider integrated management practices. - SOC sequestration should be viewed as a co-benefit of improved grazing, not the main objective for emissions mitigation in the Australian livestock industry.

Impact of different destocking strategies on the resilience of dry rangelands (Vignal et al 2023)

Summary: The document examines how different livestock destocking strategies impact the resilience and productivity of dry rangelands using a mathematical model. It finds that while higher stocking densities increase productivity, they reduce ecosystem resilience and risk land degradation. Adaptive destocking—removing animals more quickly as forage declines—enhances resilience to drought and vegetation loss without reducing long-term productivity. Key Insights and Takeaways: - Higher stocking densities decrease rangeland resilience, increasing the risk of collapse. - There is a maximum sustainable livestock density; exceeding it leads to inevitable land degradation. - Adaptive destocking (removing animals in response to declining forage) significantly improves resilience to drought and vegetation loss. - Adaptive strategies allow rangelands to recover from larger vegetation losses, while fixed strategies risk collapse after severe droughts. - Adaptive destocking can improve resilience without sacrificing long-term productivity, breaking the typical trade-off. - Policy and management should support adaptive destocking and livestock mobility for sustainable rangeland management. - The findings support traditional adaptive pastoralism over fixed, high-density stocking. - Insights are applicable to other systems where resource-dependent removal or mortality is possible.