Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
water used at the individual household level and
charging heavily for usage beyond that limit. Smaller
towns had their water shut off, but at no time was it
suggested that London should have its water supply
reduced. When canals and rivers dried up, there was
concern that the clay linings would desiccate and
crack, leading to expensive repairs to prevent future
leakage or even flooding. Ground subsidence on clay
soils became a major problem, with damage estimated
at close to £50 million. This latter aspect was one of the
costliest consequences of the drought.
The agriculture sector was badly affected and poorly
managed. From the onset, grain and livestock farmers
were disadvantaged by the drier weather, receiving
little assistance. Just when they needed water most - at
the time of highest moisture stress - irrigation farmers
found their water supplies cut by half. Britain's agricul-
ture had become so dependent upon mains water
supply that it virtually lost all ability to respond to the
drought. This was not only a problem with the 1976
drought - it had been a growing concern throughout
the 1960s. Fortunately, because of Britain's entry
into the European Common Market, the agricultural
sector was insulated economically against the full
consequences of the drought. The early part of the
summer saw production surpluses, but at no time did
agricultural production for the domestic market
decrease to unbearable levels. In fact, many farmers
responded to the drought in its early stages and
increased acreages to make up for decreased yields.
The government's response to the drought was
minimal. It began to act only at the beginning of
August 1976: looking in detail at the plight of farmers
and giving water authorities additional powers through
the
Drought Act
. By October, there was considerable
debate in parliament about subsidies and food pricing,
but in fact the drought was over. The drought of 1976
cannot be dismissed as inconsequential; it did disrupt
people's lives at all levels of society. The consequences
were inevitable given the changes in water usage in
the United Kingdom, especially the dependence of
agriculture upon mains supplies and the increases in
domestic water consumption. The national govern-
ment was poorly prepared for the drought and still has
not taken steps to rationalize water management in
the United Kingdom to prepare for inevitable future
droughts. This case illustrates two poorly realized
facts about drought. Firstly, drought is ubiquitous: all
countries can be affected by exceptional aridity.
Drought is as likely in the United Kingdom (or
Indonesia or Canada) as it is in the Sahel, given the
right conditions. Secondly, the national response to
drought in westernized countries is often similar
to that of many Third World countries. The main
difference is that in the Third World, governments are
often inactive, usually because they are not economi-
cally able to develop mechanisms of drought mitigation
and alleviation, while governments in westernized
countries such as the United Kingdom (or other
western European countries, which also experienced
the 1976 drought) are not prepared to accept the fact
that droughts can happen.
Thos
e that lose
(Glantz, 1977; Bryson & Murray, 1977; Whittow, 1980;
Gribbin, 1983; Hidore, 1983)
Africa's Sahel has succumbed to drought since cooling
sea surface temperatures in the adjacent Atlantic
became pronounced in the early 1960s. The seasonal
switch of the intertropical convergence over Africa
failed as a result. The consequences first affected,
between 1968 and 1974, the region between
Mauritania and Ethiopia. Human-induced feedback
mechanisms, as described above, exacerbated drought
conditions. The coping responses of people in the
Sahel soon became inadequate to ensure the survival
of populations. One of the reasons that Sahelian
countries have suffered so dramatically is the relative
inaction of national governments in responding to
drought. In many of these countries, local groups have
traditionally played a crucial role in minimizing the
effects of drought. Farmers have always been able to
adjust their mode of farming to increase the probabil-
ity of some crop production, to diversify, to resort
to drought-tolerant crops, or to respond instantly to
changing soil and weather conditions. Nomads may
resort to cropping under favorable conditions, follow
regional migratory patterns to take advantage of
spatially variable rainfall or, under extreme conditions,
move south to wetter climates. All groups have strong
kinship ties, which permit a destitute family to fall back
on friends or relatives in times of difficulty. There is
very little national direction or control of this type of
activity, especially where national governments are
weak and ineffective. In many of these countries,
colonialism has weakened kin group ties and forced
reliance upon cash cropping. Westernization, espe-
cially since the Second World War, has brought
