Search

Global hydrological reanalyses are modelled datasets providing information on river discharge evolution everywhere in the world. With multi‐decadal daily timeseries, they provide long‐term context to identify extreme hydrological events such as floods and droughts. By covering the majority of the world's land masses, they can fill the many gaps in river discharge in‐situ observational data, especially in the global South. These gaps impede knowledge of both hydrological status and future evolution and hamper the development of reliable early warning systems for hydrological‐related disaster reduction. River discharge is a natural integrator of the water cycle over land. Global hydrological reanalysis datasets offer an understanding of its spatio‐temporal variability and are therefore critical for addressing the water–energy–food–environment nexus. This paper describes how global hydrological reanalyses can fill the lack of ground measurements by using earth system or hydrological models to provide river discharge time series. Following an inventory of alternative sources of river discharge datasets, reviewing their advantages and limitations, the paper introduces the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS) Global Flood Awareness System (GloFAS) modelling chain and its reanalysis dataset as an example of a global hydrological reanalysis dataset. It then reviews examples of downstream applications for global hydrological reanalyses, including monitoring of land water resources and ocean dynamics, understanding large‐scale hydrological extreme fluctuations, early warning systems, earth system model diagnostics and the calibration and training of models, with examples from three Copernicus Services (Emergency Management, Marine and Climate Change). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Responding to disasters triggered by natural hazards is a deeply political process, but it is usually presented by practitioners as an apolitical endeavour. This is striking when disasters occur in authoritarian and politically highly polarised conflict‐affected settings. Although the literature provides leads as to why and how humanitarians depoliticise aid, there has been little empirical research on the implications of depoliticisation, especially at the community level. Based on qualitative fieldwork that focused on the drought responses that overlapped with the 2016–19 sociopolitical crises in Zimbabwe, this paper details the practices, motivations, and implications of humanitarian depoliticisation. It differentiates between strategic, coerced, and routine managerial depoliticisation, and argues that, in an authoritarian conflict‐affected setting, depoliticisation strategically allows state and non‐state actors to defuse sensitive issues and actor relations and to remain safe. However, depoliticisation can also have implications for information management, monitoring, accountability, and protection, and thus ultimately for upholding humanitarian principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]