The increasing frequency and intensity of drought events across the Mediterranean region make it necessary to move beyond an approach based solely on emergency response and towards systems capable of anticipating risks, coordinating stakeholders, and promoting adaptive behaviours. It is within this context that the Yellow Book on Drought was developed under the PROTERINA4Future project as a joint action plan involving Italian and French territories.
The objective of the Yellow Book is to collect and systematise experiences developed across different territories, identify transferable elements, and define a shared strategy to reduce the impacts of drought, water scarcity, and water crises. But how can a common strategy be built among territories characterised by different governance systems, tools, and local conditions?
The starting point: understanding what already exists
The first step consisted of gathering information directly from organisations involved in water resource management to understand how drought risk is integrated into planning and emergency management systems at supra-regional, regional, and local levels.
Within this process, CIMA Research Foundation played the role of facilitator and bridge-builder among territories that have historically operated with different languages, tools, and priorities. Through dedicated questionnaires, the project engaged regions, river basin authorities, environmental agencies, water service providers, and civil protection organisations from both Italy and France.
The analysis revealed a complex picture, characterised by differences but also by numerous common elements.
One of the first aspects examined concerned the organisation of responsibilities and competencies. In Italy, monitoring and forecasting activities are entrusted to a network of regional and supra-regional actors, whereas in France these functions are primarily carried out by national bodies operating at the territorial level. Although this represents a significant difference, it should not be perceived as an obstacle to the development of a common strategy capable of transforming available information into operational decisions on the ground.
Across all territories, drought monitoring systems based on climatic and hydrological indicators such as the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) and the Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) are now widely established, alongside the observation of groundwater levels, river discharges, and reservoir storage. The identification of critical situations does not depend on a single parameter but rather on the combination of climatic data, field observations, and technical assessments.
At the same time, “the comparison highlighted several shared challenges. While the monitoring of meteorological and hydrological drought is now well established, the assessment of impacts on ecosystems, economic activities, and different water uses remains uneven,” said Sabrina Meninno, researcher at CIMA Research Foundation. “Many organisations also point to the need to improve data collection and sharing, particularly in the agricultural, tourism, and industrial sectors.”
The governance challenge
The analysis also underscored the importance of institutional coordination. “In Italy, the Permanent Observatories on Water Uses serve as the main forum for dialogue among regions, river basin authorities, stakeholders, and technical bodies, providing shared assessments of water scarcity severity and supporting decision-making processes,” highlighted Margherita Andreaggi, researcher at CIMA Research Foundation.
However, a common challenge emerged: the severity levels identified by the observatories do not always automatically translate into progressive and coordinated operational measures within the territories concerned. Furthermore, the criteria adopted across different areas are not yet fully harmonised.
Another element to consider concerns the varying levels of maturity in drought management. Some territories already have structured planning and coordination mechanisms developed over time, while others are still strengthening their systems, partly because drought risk was not historically considered a priority.
The comparison with France revealed different yet complementary approaches. In particular, the French system is characterised by a more direct connection between severity levels and restriction measures, through predefined thresholds and territorial procedures that determine limitations on water use.
From questionnaires to direct dialogue
The evidence gathered during the analytical phase became the basis for a workshop held in Genoa in February 2026, where representatives from all territories participating in the Interreg Italy-France Maritime Programme (Liguria, Sardinia, Tuscany, Corsica, and the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur Region) discussed three key issues:
- coordination and information flows between institutions and municipalities;
- anticipatory measures to address water scarcity and the mechanisms required for their gradual activation;
- management of conflicts among competing water uses.
This work identified several shared priorities, including strengthening coordination among organisations involved in water resource management, improving the capacity to forecast water crises, developing common monitoring and early warning tools, defining more harmonised thresholds and severity levels, and identifying progressive measures that can be implemented before emergency conditions arise.
From emergency management to adaptation
One of the most significant outcomes of the entire process concerns the gradual transition from reactive crisis management to preventive risk management.
Practices collected across the participating territories reveal three complementary levels of intervention: emergency response based on restrictions and relief measures; a proactive approach grounded in continuous monitoring, early warning, and gradual demand reduction; and a more systemic perspective focused on long-term adaptation through water-use efficiency, wastewater reuse, spatial planning, and vulnerability reduction.
A key point emerging consistently from the responses is the need to stop viewing drought as a seasonal emergency and instead recognise it as a slow-onset and often silent process whose signals can already be detected during winter or spring, well before impacts become evident. This makes it crucial to strengthen forecasting and anticipatory capacities in order to act before a crisis fully develops.
It is precisely this cultural and operational shift that the Yellow Book aims to support.
An ongoing process
A new milestone has now been added to this journey: the PROTERINA4Future event of 16 June, “Drought, Water Scarcity and Water Crises: Comparing Perspectives.” The event was conceived to further explore issues that emerged during the preparatory work, opening the discussion to experts beyond the project partnership.
Coordination mechanisms among actors involved in water resource management, measures to address water crises, and strategies to prevent impacts on territories and economic sectors are among the key topics under discussion.
As highlighted by Marina Morando, Programme Director at CIMA Research Foundation and Project Manager:“We do not yet have all the answers, but we have begun asking the right questions and building the relationships needed to address them.”
This reflects one of the most strategic aspects of the role played by CIMA Research Foundation: helping transform scientific knowledge into practical tools for public decision-makers, fostering dialogue among institutions and disciplines, and supporting territories in anticipating emerging risks.
The value of the Yellow Book lies not only in the recommendations it provides, but above all in the process that made them possible: bringing together different experiences, challenges, and perspectives and transforming them into a shared strategy capable of strengthening territorial resilience in the face of a challenge that transcends both administrative and national boundaries.
