Policy Brief Can climate vulnerability and risk be measured through global indices? September 2017

This policy brief ... Vulnerability indices are not appropriate for identifying particularly vulnerable countries This policy brief addresses the through country rankings difficulties of determining vulnerability through global Reducing vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change is one part of the global indices and gives recommendations goal on adaptation established by the Paris Agreement. Vulnerability is a broad concept on how to use and interpret them with varying conceptualisations and there is no objective way of measuring it. A num- including in the international ber of global indices exist which select certain indicators to quantify and compare the climate policy context. The policy vulnerability of countries. However, the results of different vulnerability indices vary brief is based on a comparison strongly and it is practically impossible to determine the most vulnerable countries. of country rankings of four common One reason is the divergent design of indices, which follows many normative, conceptu- vulnerability and risk indices. al and methodological assumptions and decisions. The results, therefore, are a product of the specific choice of indicators and their respective weighting. It becomes obvious that no single index can capture the multiple dimensions of vulnerability completely, but can only provide a preliminary assessment. Consequently, important political de- cisions should not be based solely on country rankings of vulnerability indices. Due to their conceptual limitations and differing results, they are not appropriate as sole basis for decision making on, for instance, international funding allocations that are supposed to be based on objective criteria. Instead, clustering countries into groups of similar levels of vulnerability or focusing the analysis on specific underlying indicators can provide useful information. Before using any index, it is important to understand its methodology and assess whether it fits the intended purpose.

Adaptation aims to reduce nent of the long-term global response vulnerability, but vulnerability to climate change and the needs of is not clearly defined and it developing countries that are particu- cannot be objectively measured larly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change are emphasised. The Paris Agreement established the The Framework Con- global goal on adaptation (Article 7), vention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aiming at enhancing adaptive capacity, (Article 4.4) already pledges industrial strengthening resilience and reducing countries to financially assist these vulnerability to climate change. Adap- particularly vulnerable developing tation is recognised as a key compo- countries, which is taken up again Climate Change Policy Brief | Can climate vulnerability and risk be measured through global indices?

in the Paris Agreement (Article 6.6). four indices were selected based on a In sum, by looking at different vul- However, neither the Paris Agreement number of criteria including multi-year nerability and risk indices it is not nor the Convention specify or propose coverage and open access of method- possible to determine which country a mechanism to assess the level of ology and data. They consider a differ- is the most vulnerable. In contrast, vulnerability and its comparability. In- ent number of countries. For instance, the results show a high variability stead, the Convention puts particular the Climate Risk Index (CRI) includes and a lack of validity across indices, emphasis on specific developing coun- 134 countries in its analysis, whereas meaning they either measure different try groups, such as least developed ND-GAIN comprises 181 countries in things, or they measure a supposedly countries, small island development total. In its methodology, CRI empha- similar concept in different ways. Ei- states or countries with low-lying sises an omission especially of small ther way, the results of table 1 illus- coastal areas (Article 4.8 and 4.9). (e.g. Small Island Developing States) trate that the country rankings of the There is no uniform definition of vul- or politically unstable countries (e.g. global indices need to be interpreted nerability in the literature, and its Somalia) due to an insufficient availa- with care. meaning even changed between the bility of data. However, many of these Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports countries are ranked high on other of the IPCC. i Still, and also due to its lists. Designing indices is explicit mentioning in the Convention methodologically challenging and the Paris Agreement, it is pivotal A comparison of the rankings shows and involves subjective for political discussions on adaptation that: judgements and for implementation on the ground. yyEvery index lists a different country To explain this divergence a closer first. look has to be taken on the method- Results of different yyNo country appears neither on all ological frameworks behind the dif- vulnerability indices vary nor on three of the four lists. ferent indices. In fact, global vulner- strongly and cannot be used yyAmong 61 countries mentioned in ability and risk indices differ in many to reliably determine the most total across the four lists, 19 ap- respects: vulnerable countries pear twice (marked in bold). How- ever, by looking at the top ten, eight 1. A variety of different concepts of Indices around measuring vulnerabil- countries appear twice, namely, vulnerability are being used, which ity are constantly evolving and being , The Central African Re- is reflected in the four global in- developed for a variety of scales and public, Chad, The Democratic Repub- dices named above. For instance, purposes. A persistent observation lic of Congo, Myanmar, Papua New the IPCC has changed its definition when comparing the results of differ- Guinea, Sudan, and Yemen. of core concepts, such as vulner- ent indices is their strong divergence. ii yyOnly The Central African Republic ability, and neighbouring concepts Table 1 shows a comparison of the 20 appears twice on the top 3 posi- like resilience, exposure, risks, most vulnerable countries across four tions. hazards, sensitivity or adaptive ca- different vulnerability and risks indi- pacity throughout their assessment ces for the year 2015 (see box 1). The reports (AR). Many conceptualis-

Box 1: Description of four common Vulnerability and Risk Indices yyThe ND-GAIN Country Index (University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index) measures vulnerability based on a country’s ex- posure, sensitivity and capacity to adapt, and its readiness to leverage investments through a set of global indicators. yyThe Global Climate Risk Index, designed by Germanwatch, analyses to what extent countries have been affected by the impacts of weather-related natural disasters (storms, floods, heat waves etc.) in a given year and on average since 1995. yyThe Index for Risk Management (INFORM) is a global, open-source risk assessment index for humanitarian crises and disasters that could overwhelm national response capacity. It aims to support decisions about prevention, preparedness and response, and to measure how the conditions that lead to humanitarian crises and disasters affect sustainable development. yyThe World Risk Index by a research group of UNU-EHS and partners indicates the risk of disasters in consequence of extreme natural events. It calculates the disaster risk by multiplying vulnerability (comprising susceptibility, coping capacity and adap- tive capacity) with exposure to natural hazards.

2 Climate Change Policy Brief | Can climate vulnerability and risk be measured through global indices?

1 Table 1: Comparison of top 20 countries of four vulnerability and risk indices for 2015 ND-GAIN Global Climate INFORM - Index for World Risk Country Index iii Risk Index iv Risk Management v Index vi 1 Central African Republic Mozambique Somalia Vanuatu 2 Chad Dominica Central African Republic 3 Eritrea Malawi Afghanistan 4 Burundi South Sudan Guatemala 5 Sudan Vanuatu Sudan 6 Yemen Myanmar Yemen 7 Afghanistan Bahamas Iraq 8 DR Congo DR Congo Cambodia 9 Papua New Guinea Chad Papua New Guinea 10 Mauritania Chile Myanmar El Salvador 11 Uganda Mali Timor-Leste 12 Haiti Micronesia Syria Brunei Darussalam 13 Guinea-Bissau Philippines Mauritius 14 Niger Zimbabwe Uganda Nicaragua 15 Congo Burundi Guinea-Bissau 16 Liberia Pakistan 17 Madagascar Oman 18 Angola FYR Macedonia Haiti Viet nam 19 Zimbabwe Italy Bangladesh Gambia 20 Lesotho Niger Jamaica Total 181 134 191 171 Explanation: The final row lists the number of countries included by the respective index. Countries in bold appear twice among the top 20, countries in bold and italics appear twice even among the top 10.

ations of vulnerability are based hazards and exposure as a defining 2. Vulnerability can relate to different on the Fourth AR definition of 2007 category. 2 Both concepts are legit- problems. By looking at the four ex- that connects vulnerability to ex- imate, but obviously the different emplary indices, the first two have posure, sensitivity, and adaptive conceptualisations produce different a particular climate change focus, capacity (see ND-GAIN and World results. whereas the last two include geo- Risk Index). In contrast, the Fifth physical risks (such as earthquakes AR from 2014 puts more emphasis and tsunamis) which are unrelated on the concepts of risk and resil- to climate change. 2 xiii ience, placing vulnerability next to The Vulnerability Sourcebook (GIZ 2014/2017) initially based its approach on the AR4 conceptual- isation of vulnerability and recently received a sup- 1 xiv The latest data for all four indices was only availa- plement to also use it based on the AR5 concept. ble for 2015. Box 2: Composition of indicators of the four vulnerability and risk indices: yy ND-GAIN Country Index: 45 indicators on six sectorial main categories: Food, Water, Health, Ecosystem Services, Human Habitat and Infrastructure, each containing three subcategories (exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity). In addition, one main category on readiness with economic, governance and social subcategories. yyGlobal Climate Risk Index: Four indicators, namely (1) Number of deaths, (2) Number of deaths per 100 000 inhabitants, (3) Sum of losses in US$ in purchasing power parity, (4) Losses per unit of Gross Domestic Product. yy INFORM - Index for Risk Management: 48 indicators on three main categories: Hazard & Exposure, Vulnerability and Coping Capacity. yyWorld Risk Index: 28 indicators on four main categories: Exposure, Susceptibility, Coping Capacity, Adaptive Capacity.

3 Climate Change Policy Brief | Can climate vulnerability and risk be measured through global indices?

3. Indices can be based on different is not an easily quantifiable reflection way of measuring vulnerability, so the assessment approaches. Top-down of a specific system or natural situa- funding decision (or the choice of an approaches focus on managerial and tion. vii On this basis, one index cannot index) will ultimately remain a politi- institutional capacity by looking on per se be considered as ‘better’ or cal one. national indicators, whereas bot- ‘worse’ than another. Its suitability tom-up approaches focus on local greatly depends on the specific con- No single index can capture development and implementation text and purpose it is designed or the multiple dimensions of adaptation. performances. applied for. Full transparency of the The determinants of vulnerability 4. A trade-off exists between global methodology of calculating an index is are complex, context-specific and comparability and local context. The therefore essential. However, many in- dynamic and go far beyond a sin- Paris Agreement emphasises that dices lack a sound conceptual frame- gle measurable value, like tonnes

‘adaptation action should follow a work with a clear focus, a robust of CO2-equivalents in the case of country-driven, gender-sensitive and methodology, a sensibility to alterna- climate mitigation. ix Vulnerability participatory approach, guided by tive approaches and full transparency indices can only capture a small the best available science and, as of the data used. viii part the multi-dimensional scope appropriate, including knowledge of of adaptation as it is defined in the indigenous people and local knowl- Paris Agreement. The results of in- edge systems’ (Article 7.5). However, Indices are not appropriate for dices are the product of the specific most global indices rely purely on informing funding decisions value-laden choice of indicators and indicators for which data is availa- their weighting. ble at the national level. Especially Merging several different indicators for global comparisons, an integra- to produce one final value of vul- No international climate fund is basing tion of different local knowledge nerability entraps to rank countries its allocation decisions exclusively on systems proposes great methodo- accordingly. The Paris Agreement, in vulnerability indices. logical challenges. referring to the UNFCCC, stipulates No internationally accepted mecha- the assistance and coverage of costs nism has been established for allo- The design of an index involves many for developing countries that are par- cation of funds according to the lev- normative, conceptual and method- ticularly vulnerable to climate change. el of vulnerability. In fact, important ological assumptions and decisions. Within the international community, international climate funds such as Even for a similar definition of vulner- there are recurrent calls to use vul- the LDCF and SCCF under the Global ability, the selected indicators and the nerability indices for a conformable Environment Facility (GEF), the GCF data in consideration can differ vastly, allocation of funds. Although indices or the Adaptation Fund do not di- and so will the results. Therefore, are one possibility of informing fund- rectly base their allocation policy on designing an index and selecting indi- ing allocations, it is important to indicators or vulnerability indices. cators involves value judgements and keep in mind that there is no objective

yyVulnerability and Climate Risk Assessments yyLoss & Damage yyEcosystem-based Adaptation yyMonitoring & Evaluation yyPrivate Sector Adaptation Publications, tools and videos on climate change adap- tation are available. Detailed information on the training courses ‘NAP country-level training’ and ‘Adaptation mon- An online platform to support adaptation to climate change: itoring and evaluation (M&E)’ as well as a tool to analyse AdaptationCommunity.net offers insights into different the adaptation components of NDCs can also be found topics: online. AdaptationCommunity.net is continuously expand- ing its resources and offering regular webinars to provide yyMainstreaming & NAP users with the latest information, country experiences yyClimate Information & Services and adaptation tools.

4 Climate Change Policy Brief | Can climate vulnerability and risk be measured through global indices?

Indices do not reflect current political raising awareness; or monitoring and socio-environmental conditions situations. vulnerability over time. However, allows for better comparability. For Vulnerability indices do not directly indices cannot meet all purposes example, country comparisons with- account for current political con- the same way. x Before selecting an in one region are more appropriate texts such as conflicts, but these index for any kind of analysis, it is than between completely different circumstances are of critical impor- of high importance to clarify the world regions. tance for funding decisions. There- purpose of its use and to become fore, an in-depth reflection on the acquainted with appropriate meth- Use country groups instead of current political situation is vital odolgies and frameworks. individual country rankings. before taking political decisions. Following the proposal of an expert Do not exclusively base analyses on group from the Pilot Program for In their 5th AR, the IPCC concludes comparative country indices. Climate Resilience (PPCR), several that ‘both theory and practice have Often, vulnerability indices alone countries may be placed within shown indices alone are not sufficient are not appropriate as basis for country groups instead of using to guide decisions on which adaptation decision-making. No index can ever single country rankings. Groups can actions to take, […] or on resource al- represent the multi-faced dimen- follow categories such as acute, se- location’ as no single metric can cap- sions of vulnerability. Even though vere, high, moderate and low 3 with- ture the multiple dimensions of adap- vulnerability indices can be useful out ultimately ranking one country tation. i In sum, indices cannot replace and give some preliminary informa- against another xi. In addition, coun- political discussions and sophisticated tion, any assessment needs to be try groups can also be compiled qualitative analysis to decide on the complemented by targeted analysis, with regard to specific sectors or allocation of funds. taking into account the specific climate impacts. context. Overall, global vulnerability and risk Recommendations for an Make use of the underlying indicators. indices are facing several conceptual appropriate use of vulnerability Looking on the underlying indicators and methodological shortcomings. indices of one index separately can provide Whilst they can provide an overview valuable information. For instance, of the distribution of vulnerability Due to the challenges and shortcom- on a national scale, indicators on and risk, they should not be taken as ings mentioned above, indices should drought, floods & landslides, storms objective results. There is no single be used with caution. The following and wildfires can inform govern- way to measure vulnerability. Decision recommendations should be consid- ments or organisations on sectoral making should therefore carefully ered when interpreting indices and or particular national challenges. In consider the composition and content integrating them into any kind of anal- this way, critical regions or politi- of an index before applying it. Funding ysis. cal and economic sectors within a allocations in particular will remain a country can be identified. political one and should not be based Clarify the purpose of using an index. solely on any particular index. Vulnerability indices can potentially Limit your analysis to a specific be used for different purposes such spatial context.

as identification of vulnerable pop- Limiting the analysis to a specific 3 Example taken from ‘The Climate Vulnerability ulations, communities, regions, etc.; spatial context with similar political Monitor’ of the Climate Vulnerable Forum.

5 Endnotes i. IPCC (2014). Climate Change 2014 Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: ix. Leiter, T. & Pringle, P. (2017). The pitfalls and potentials of measuring climate Global and Sectoral Aspects. change adaptation through adaptation metrics. Adaptation Perspective Series. UNEP ii. Eriksen, S. H. & P. M. Kelly (2007): ‘Developing Credible Vulnerability Indicators for DTU. Climate Adaptation Policy Assessment’. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for x. Hinkel, J. (2011): ‘Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity’: Towards a clar- Global Change, 12 (4), 495-524. ification of the science–policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 21, iii. ND-GAIN (2015): University of Notre Dame Global Adaptation Index. Country Index 198-208. Technical Report. xi. Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., & Kelly, P.M. (2005). The determinants of vulnerability and iv. Germanwatch (2017): Global climate risk index 2017. Who Suffers Most From adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Extreme Weather Events? Weather-related Loss Events in 2015 and 1996 to Environmental Change, 15, 151-163. 2015. xii. GIZ (2016). Adaptation M&E Toolbox. Available at www.AdaptationCommunity.net v. Joint Research Centre (JRC) (2015): Index for Risk Management – INFORM. under Monitoring & Evaluation. Version 2015. xiii. GIZ (2014). The Vulnerability Sourcebook. Concept and guidelines for standard- vi. United Nations University (UNU-EHS): World Risk Report 2015. ised vulnerability assessments. vii. Klein, R.J.T. (2009). Identifying countries that are particularly vulnerable to the xiv. GIZ & EURAC (2017). Risk Supplement to the Vulnerability Sourcebook. Guidance adverse effects of climate change: an academic or political challenge? Carbon on how to apply the Vulnerability Sourcebook’s approach with the new IPCC AR5 Climate Law Review, 3, 284–291. concept of climate risk. viii. Füssel, H.M. (2009). Review and Quantitative Analysis of Indices of Climate Change Exposure, Adaptive Capacity, Sensitivity, and Impacts. Background note of the 2010 World Development Report, World Bank.

About the GIZ Project ‘Effective Adaptation Finance – M&E Adapt’

The GIZ project ‘Effective Adaptation Finance – M&E Adapt’ has developed the Adaptation M&E Toolbox which includes innova- tive methods and approaches for the assessment of adaptation actions at national and local level. xii On behalf of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), the project supports developing countries in the design and op- erationalization of national adaptation M&E systems. It also facilitates learning through international exchange and capacity building.

Published by: Author/Contact: URL links: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Timo Leiter Responsibility for the content of external websites linked Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH E [email protected] in this publication always lies with their respective T +49 160-1774582 publishers. GIZ expressly dissociates itself from such Registered offices content. Bonn and Eschborn, Julia Olivier E [email protected] On behalf of: Dag-Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5 T +49 6196 79 - 4027 German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and 65760 Eschborn, Germany Development (BMZ) T +49 61 96 79-0 Robert Kranefeld Division 313, Climate policy F +49 61 96 79-11 15 Joana Helms Michael Brossmann GIZ is responsible for the content of this publication. E [email protected] I www.giz.de/climate Design/layout: Ira Olaleye, Eschborn Project ‘Effective Adaptation Finance (M&E Adapt)’ Photo credits: Title page: © Flickr/ dronepicr, Maledives atoll (www.flickr.com/photos/132646954@N02/28755700711 licensed under CC by 2.0); Pg. 6: © Timo Leiter

Eschborn, September 2017