We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

If vulnerability analyses are to be truly useful in assessing the impacts of climate change and supporting decisions on adaptation, methods must become standardised, replicable and founded on concepts that can be adapted to different contexts, argues Marcus Moench, president of the Institute of Social and Environmental Transition.

Existing vulnerability analyses are of little use, says Moench. "At best, they reiterate what we already know; at worst, they are used to justify entrenched agendas".

The impacts of climate change can be unexpected, he points out. Droughts in Afghanistan for example, led to malnutrition levels that were highest — not amongst the children of farmers — but among children of shopkeepers and moneylenders who lost income when farmers could not repay loans, and who were not eligible for aid.  

Analytical frameworks need to highlight how growing global interactions generate vulnerability. Nepalese villagers may depend on money sent from family living in cities abroad; city dwellers in Manila depend on rice from Vietnam and Thailand; and the rise of urban food prices may have contributed to the unrest in the Middle East in 2011.

Understanding vulnerability is both simpler, and more complex than is widely believed, says Moench. One the one hand analyses often state the obvious; on the other, the concepts and methods used in vulnerability assessment are often unclear, vary depending on the analyst, and do not provide the baselines needed to measure progress.

"Researchers and policymakers need to agree on standard concepts and methods that can capture complex dynamics across scales, systems and social divisions," he writes. These should provide clear information about the factors that contribute to vulnerability and resilience, shifting focus from identifying problems towards identifying solutions.

Taking steps in this direction will be necessary for vulnerability analysis to inform high-level debates on the impacts of climate change and how to adapt to them, he concludes.

Link to full article in IIED  [151kB]