A hunger stone is a manmade structure placed in a river during a drought as a warning for future generations: if the river drops to this water level again, famine will follow.
Hunger stones refresh our short memory, as they are indeed messages from the past.
Indeed, the hunger stones tell stories of severe hardship due to droughts. Of course, they become visible when it is too late, as they lay below normal water level.
Today, we will discuss if these events actually constitute divergence from the long-term business-as-usual, if they are “unprecedented” as the media claim, and what their frequency may actually be. We discuss this in depth in our latest book Convergent Leadership Divergent Exposures. This is important in view of mitigation, adaptation and policies.
Where are the Hunger Stones?
Hunger stones are present in various riverbeds in Germany, Czech Republic and Switzerland, in rivers like the Rhine, the Elbe, etc.
How Often Did Severe Droughts Hit Those Basins?
People reportedly left these “messages” in 1857, 1959 and 1963 on the Rhine, and on the Elbe in 1417, 1616, 1707, 1746, 1790, 1800, 1811, 1830, 1842, 1868, and 1892 in the period before 1900. A particular hunger stone in the Elbe states: Wenn du mich siehst, dann weine (“If you can see me, then cry”). Each of those years saw an exceptional drought, not necessarily due to lack of precipitation, and related scarcity of food and poor harvests. In 2003 and 2008, the water depth in the German city of Worms measured only 33 cm. The year 2011 was worse, with 22 cm of water measured in the Rhine.
These stones were well-known. There have been studies covering the historical records such as the 2013 article “Droughts in the Czech Lands, 1090–2012 AD.” In 2022, media outlets declared the drought as “unprecedented” or even “biblical.” Perhaps it is, in terms of the impacted geographic area, but we propose there is possible historical underreporting.
Like Usual, Different Versions Appear
The reported severity of the drought varies depending on the source. For example, in Italy, the government stated this was the worst drought in 70 years, not an “unprecedented” event. The statement, however, is in contrast with scientists at the European Drought Observatory who said that the drought is on track to be the worst one in 500 years. We do not know if the difference is due to the widespread impact of the present drought, or to the desire to calm the crowds. Indeed, it is important to note that the Observatory looks at the whole European territory and that, for example, the 2018 event was not as bad for Southern Europe as it was for Central Europe.
What are “the Numbers?”
So, although the numbers are not yet in, it seems we are facing the 1/500 drought event. That is 2*10-3. Other events (less pronounced and/or less widespread) seem to be in the 1/100 to 1/50 range and even more frequent. The observation is that the droughts seem to increase in frequency and that they do not represent an “unprecedented” event.
Going back to our latest book Convergent Leadership Divergent Exposures, several sections seem to fit very well in this discussion, namely:
- Section 1.1 where we discuss black-swans, dragon-kings, gray rhinos and black elephants. These constitute what we call the modern risk manager mythological zoo.
- Chapter 4, business-as-usual vs. divergent hazards
- Chapter 11, convergent risk assessment for divergent exposures
Droughts, Floods and Risk Management
A recently published paper, “The challenge of unprecedented floods and droughts in risk management,” discusses this aspect.
The paper recognizes that risk management may well lead to reduced vulnerability to floods and droughts, but the impacts are increasing. The authors immediately recognize the lack of empirical data, a problem we also note when discussing tailings dams failures.
Nevertheless, they manage to study 45 pairs of events in a same area. They show that classic risk management approaches fail to consider divergent events, as they are “business-as-usual”−oriented.
They conclude their study with an alarming statement related to the lack of convergent risk management when facing divergent events. We could not agree more!
