Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting on Vulnerability Indices

Expert Group Meetings

The ad hoc expert group on vulnerability indices, comprised of 22 participants and 17 observers, met at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on 15-16 December 1997. Mr. Nitin Desai, Under-Secretary-General for the Department of Economic and Social Affairs, welcomed attendees and opened the meeting. Mr. Desai recalled that the concept of vulnerability dated back to the UN Conference on Environment and Development. He suggested that the main task of the expert group was to make a professional assessment of vulnerability, and on the basis of their deliberations, to make recommendations on the quantitative parameters underlying the relative vulnerability of countries.

In a keynote statement, H.E. Mr. Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Ambassador of Samoa, drew attention to the inadequacy of current indicators in determining the social and economic strength of SIDS. He highlighted the need for a full and proper understanding of vulnerability based on specific and targeted technical assessments. Accurate vulnerability assessments would assist SIDS as they seek support from the international community for sustainable development.

Following two days of discussions, the expert group agreed that vulnerability indices are meant to reflect relative economic and ecological susceptibility to exogenous shocks. The vulnerability index is designed to identify which group of countries exceeds a threshold of vulnerability, at which they are particularly susceptible to risks and warrant special attention from agencies providing assistance. At the same time, the index and its components are intended to provide a multi-dimensional approach to boosting SIDS’ resiliency. The group concurred that vulnerability indices should be based on indicators that are easy to comprehend and intuitively meaningful. Ultimately the indicators should allow for inter-country comparisons that show the relative vulnerability of SIDS and non-SIDS.

Back to top

Conclusions and Recommendations

Based on the review of a number of consultant and other reports, including the Commonwealth Secretariat Report and the Report of UNCTAD, the expert group concluded:

1. SIDS are more vulnerable than other groups of developing countries
2. SIDS’ vulnerability is structural, which means that shocks are beyond the control of national authorities
3. Indicators should reflect exposure to shocks, their magnitude and their probability
4. A large number of possible indicators of vulnerability can be conceived, but only those consistent with the above definition of vulnerability should be used; some structural handicaps cannot be considered as vulnerability
5. Not all potentially relevant indicators can be meaningfully included in a composite vulnerability index because of constraints imposed by data, the difficulty of quantifying some indicators, and the need for simplicity

The expert group examined the conceptual relevance and feasibility of a number of indicators in reflecting countries’ economic and ecological structural vulnerability. The group agreed that indices should indicate the relative susceptibility of economies to damage by natural disasters. This would show environmentally induced economic vulnerability. The relative susceptibility of the ecology to damage by anthropogenic activities or exogenous factors would reflect ecological vulnerability.

On the basis of the available data, the expert group examined the impact of natural disasters on a number of economic indicators. The group concluded that it would be useful and feasible to consider the frequency of occurrence of natural disasters weighted by the percentage of the population affected.

While the group recognized that an index of ‘Human and Economic Loss due to Natural Disasters’ had been recommended to the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (August 1996), it felt that such a broad index had not yet reached the stage of being operationally feasible. The group suggested that efforts should continue to undertake systematic assessments of the economic impact of natural disasters which could eventually be used for this purpose.

 Back to top

Exposure to trade shocks was also extensively discussed. It was agreed that openness to trade (or any indicator based on trade/GDP ratio) should not be considered per se as an indicator of vulnerability, but that it could be considered as a weighting factor for measuring the exposure to risk incurred by a country. The risk could be proxied by a concentration coefficient of exports of goods and services, and then possibly weighted or multiplied by an export/GDP ratio. The indicator could be, for instance, the ratio of the three leading exports of goods and services to GDP taken as an average for a number of years. This indicator could be complemented by an index of instability of the exports of goods and services. Remittances could be added to the value of goods and services.

It was suggested that UNCTAD, in its future work, consider the feasibility of including services in the computation of the concentration index as this would increase its relevance to SIDS and other developing countries.

The group expressed concern over the lack of data needed to compute variables relevant to economic vulnerability for many SIDS and recommended that emphasis be given to filling these data gaps.

It was not possible to construct a composite index of ecological fragility. It was proposed however, to continue building this index, taking into account a number of factors, such as biodiversity, climate change and sea-level rise, and exposure to oil spills.

It was suggested that for each country a set of data including time-series data for the separate indicators should be collected - and specifically requested when data are missing - in order to design a vulnerability profile covering both economic and ecological aspects.

The expert group noted that many SIDS faced vulnerability related to social and cultural diversity and suggested that further studies were needed. The group recommended that qualitative work in this area continue.

Finally it was considered that other groups or bodies, such as the Committee for Development Planning (CDP), drawing on a broad list of indicators such as those included in the reports prepared for the meeting, could build specific composite vulnerability indices based on two or three significant indicators; for instance, for identification of Least Developed Countries.

Back to top

Review by the CDP

At its thirty-second session (May 1998, New York), the Committee for Development Planning reviewed, among other items, the report of the Secretary-General on the development of a vulnerability index for Small Island Developing States, and considered the usefulness of such an index as a criterion for the designation of least developed countries. The Committee agreed with the recommendations of the expert group and considered that the development of a comprehensive composite index of economic vulnerability and ecological fragility was not currently feasible. The Committee recommended that further work by the Secretariat be carried out on the development of such indices. (To view the report of the Committee on its thirty-second session, please click here)

General Assembly Resolution

At its fifty-third session (1998), the General Assembly adopted resolution (A/RES/53/189A), in which the Assembly, inter alia, took note of the report of the Secretary-General on the development of a vulnerability index and urged that the progress made in the development and compilation of a vulnerability index be continued and encouraged all the relevant organizations engaged in the process of refining the vulnerability index to work collaboratively.

Back to top