Key Details
Existing systems increasingly help countries detect drought. The proposed Drought Resilience Capacity Index (DRCI) would assess the harder question: whether institutions, financing and response systems can convert warnings into protection for people, livelihoods and ecosystems.
Area | What the Proposed Index Would Assess |
|---|---|
Anticipate | Risk information, early-warning systems and whether warnings trigger timely action |
Prepare | Drought plans, decision-support systems and safeguards such as insurance and social protection |
Adapt | Long-term resilience programmes, financing mechanisms and systems for monitoring and learning |
Status | The methodology is not final; UNEP proposes piloting it in 10–20 countries over about 12 months |
The Index Looks Beyond Drought Forecasting
The UNEP report responds to a persistent weakness in drought governance: countries may be able to identify an approaching drought without having the institutions, resources or predefined actions needed to limit its effects.
The DRCI therefore measures implementation capacity rather than drought severity or losses. Its nine indicators examine whether countries possess:
usable risk information and early-warning systems;
plans that connect forecasts with decisions;
safeguards for affected households and livelihoods;
sustained adaptation programmes and financing; and
mechanisms for evaluating results and changing course.
Each indicator would receive a score between 0 and 100, ranging from emerging to transformative capacity.
Weak Links Would Lower the Overall Score
The proposed index uses a geometric mean to combine indicator scores. This prevents strong forecasting capacity, for example, from fully compensating for weak preparedness or adaptation.
A country could therefore receive a lower overall score even if it has sophisticated drought monitoring but lacks contingency finance, effective response protocols or long-term water and agricultural adaptation. The underlying indicator scores would remain important because a single national score could conceal substantial institutional and regional differences.
The Framework Still Requires Testing
The DRCI is a proposal, not an adopted global standard. Its indicators depend partly on qualitative national assessments, which introduces scope for subjective scoring.
UNEP proposes addressing this through clearer thresholds, supporting evidence, consultations among government and non-government stakeholders, and external quality assurance. More than 20 countries expressed informal interest in participating in pilots, although the report does not identify them or publish scores for any country.
What the Framework Could Mean for India
The report identifies the South Asia Drought Monitoring System as a regional platform providing high-resolution monitoring and seasonal drought outlooks. For India, the value of the DRCI would lie in examining what happens after such information becomes available.
An Indian assessment could consider whether warnings are consistently connected to:
agricultural advisories and contingency cropping;
reservoir and groundwater management;
crop insurance and anticipatory financing;
disaster response and social-protection systems; and
state, district and river-basin drought plans.
Because drought exposure and administrative capacity vary widely across India, a national score alone may be insufficient. Applying the framework at state or river-basin level could better identify where strong monitoring is not yet matched by preparedness, finance or long-term adaptation.
Follow the Full Report Here: UNEP: Built for Drought Resilience—Proposing a Global Drought Resilience Capacity Index