Wise Coastal Practices forum
Responses to # 485 "ADAPTING TO CHANGE: RESILIENCE IN SMALL ISLANDS"
by the Moderators, posted on 14-01-04
Received the message "ADAPTING TO CHANGE: RESILIENCE IN SMALL ISLANDS" from Dr.
Cornelia Nauen. It is interesting. Please keep me informed about the developments and events if
possible.
Ferit Bingel
bingel@ims.metu.edu.tr
A comment from Indonesia:
Only recently I examined the work of a graduate student from the University. He did research on the
coral reefs around 6-7 small islands in the strait of Sunda. From his data I realize that fringe reefs
around uninhabited islands are prone to bombing and other destructive measure by fishermen.
It seems that people tend to use bomb and sodium cyanide to catch fishes ..... it looks that the concern
of the UNESCO (MAB) is needed to help the fishermen to understand the importance of conserving
the coral reefs and also the mangrove in different parts of Indonesia.
Boedhihartono
boedhihartono@yahoo.com
I read with interest your item "ADAPTING TO CHANGE: RESILIENCE IN SMALL ISLANDS".
You and other readers may be interested in the following early applications of the resilience concept to
small island developing states in the Pacific.
The following is a brief extract from:
Hay, J.E. (1996): Regional Assessment of the Vulnerability and Resilience of Pacific Islands to the
Impacts of Global Climate Change and Accelerated Sea-level Rise. South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme (SPREP), Apia, Samoa.
"In response to the difficulties experienced in applying the (IPCC) Common Methodology to Pacific
island countries, as outlined above, members of the SPREP/Japan Integrated Coastal Zone
Management Programme for Western Samoa and Fiji built on and expanded the Common
Methodology into a broader assessment and decision-making support framework appropriate to the
South Pacific and even more widely applicable. The Stress-Response Methodology for the
Assessment of Vulnerability and Resilience to Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change is described by
Kay and Hay (1993) and elaborated by Kay et al. (1993), and Nunn et al. (1993; 1994a; 1994b) and
Yamada et al. (1995). These publications also describe the application of the methodology to case
study areas in both Fiji and Western Samoa. The methodology is currently also being applied in
vulnerability and resilience assessments in Tuvalu."
References mentioned above are:
Kay, R.C. and J.E. Hay, 1993: Possible future directions for integrated coastal zone management in
the Eastern Hemisphere: a discussion paper. In Eastern Hemisphere Workshop on the Vulnerability
Assessment of Sea Level Rise and Coastal Zone Management, N. Mimura and R. McLean (eds).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Regional Workshop, Tsukuba, Japan, 181-194.
Kay, R.C., Cole, R.G., Elisara-Laulu, F.M. and K. Yamada, 1993: Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability
and Resilience to Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change. Case Study: 'Upolu Island, Western Samoa.
Phase I: Concepts and Approach. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Environment
Agency, Government of Japan and Overseas Environmental Cooperation Center, Japan, 101pp.
Nunn, P., Kay, R.C., Ravuvu, A.D. and K. Yamada, 1993: Assessment of Coastal Vulnerability and
Resilience to Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change. Case Study: Viti Levu Island, Fiji. Phase I:
Concepts and Approach. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Environment Agency,
Government of Japan and Overseas Environmental Cooperation Center, Japan, 188pp.
Nunn, P., Aalbersberg, W., Ravuvu, A.D., Mimura, N., and K. Yamada, 1994a: Assessment of Coastal
Vulnerability and Resilience to Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change. Case Study: Yasawa Islands,
Fiji. Phase 2: Development of Methodology. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme,
Environment Agency, Government of Japan and Overseas Environmental Cooperation Center, Japan,
118pp.
Nunn, P., Balogh, E., Ravuvu, A.D., Mimura, N., and K. Yamada, 1994b: Assessment of Coastal
Vulnerability and Resilience to Sea-Level Rise and Climate Change. Case Study: Savai'i Island,
Western Samoa. Phase 2: Development of Methodology. South Pacific Regional Environment
Programme, Environment Agency, Government of Japan and Overseas Environmental Cooperation
Center, Japan, 109pp.
Yamada, K., Nunn, P.D., Mimura, N., Machida, S. and M. Yamamoto, 1995: Methodology for the
assessment of vulnerability of South Pacific island countries to sea-level rise and climate change.
Journal of Global Environmental Engineering, 1, 101-125.
Readers may also be interested in the application of reslience in a more recent synthesis of climate
change and related issues in the Pacific Islands Region, namely:
Hay, J.E., Mimura, N., Campbell, J. Fifita, S., Koshy, K., McLean, R.F., Nakalevu, T., Nunn P. and N.
de Wet, 2003: Climate Variability and Change and Sea-level Rise in the Pacific Islands Region: A
Resource Book for Policy and Decision Makers, Educators and Other Stakeholders. South Pacific
Regional Environment Programme, Apia, Samoa. 108p.
The following report also discusses applications of the resilience concept, and makes reference to
many of the publications you cite:
Hay, J.E., 2002: Thematic Report: Sea-level Rise and Water Resources Management. Dialogue on
Water and Climate, 44pp.
John E. Hay, Professor, International Global Change Institute, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New
Zealand
johnhay@ihug.co.nz
We would appreciate you releasing this in advance of the Interregional Meeting for SIDS to Review the
BPoA to be held in Nassau Bahamas 26-30 January
‘Resilience is a diversion for SIDS’ A response to a recent statement
by Ursula Kaly, Russell Howorth and Craig Pratt, South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
(SOPAC), Suva Fiji Islands
The recent article distributed via Coastal Wise Practices Net is in our view amazing, and serves to do
nothing to contribute to the fact that SIDS are attempting to be positive and look forward and change
the paradigm associated with them of being vulnerable (defensive tack) to one of trying to cope by
building resilience (proactive and forward-looking tack). The worst part is that the basic logic behind
the argument is not clear - that is, we cannot really see our colleagues’ problem. Here are some
‘simple’ flaws that make this article, if that is what it is, rather ludicrous. This is sad, because the
article is well-written and points out some of the theoretical history very well.
1) In para 2 it says: ‘Thus vulnerability and resilience are intimately linked - loss of resilience leading to
increased vulnerability, and vice-versa’ which clearly states that they are two sides of the same issue.
Then in the last para it says: ‘Should we therefore conclude that resilience is a diversionary notion for
small islands, unhelpfully distracting attention from more proven approaches such as vulnerability?’
This is patently illogical. If they are the same thing, just two aspects, how can one be a ‘diversion’ and
the other be a proven approach?
2) They have clearly NOT read anything on the Environmental Vulnerability Index EVI which would
show them two things: (i) that all countries have vulnerabilities, not just continental areas and not just
SIDS; and (ii) that measuring vulnerability/resilience and identifying the particular issues in a country
must be the first step towards addressing the problems. It is the first step at really taking stock of all
the problems that are there. There has been much work done on this by all those quoted, and by us.
3) The difference between taking a vulnerability approach and a resilience approach is supportable.
We see it as mainly a psychological thing - at a national and human scale. If we focus on
vulnerability, we are focusing mainly on identifying the issues, and then things usually stop there.
They don’t have to, it is just that they usually do. When you raise the possibility of building resilience,
you are suggesting that something can be done about the problems and are then actively looking for
solutions. One focused on ‘poor us’ and the other on ‘OK, we have problems, so how could we go
about solving them or strengthening ourselves against them?’. It begs us to take the next steps,
instead of sitting just with problem identification. Everything ever worked out about vulnerability still
applies, because remember, it is the same thing as resilience, just approached from the other side.
But if the world now focuses on building resilience, there is more of a focus on moving forward with
proactive steps and policies. It suggests that governments and people have the power to do
something. It is additional, not instead of the work done in the past on vulnerability alone.
We think resilience IS the way forward because it makes people think in terms of solving and not just
identifying with problems. That has to be a positive step.
Russell Howorth, South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), Suva Fiji Islands
Russell@sopac.org
Thank you for an intriguing and useful commentary. I have been exploring some of these ideas in
principle and practice through my Island Vulnerability website http://www.islandvulnerability.org See
especially the ‘background’ section http://www.arct.cam.ac.uk/islandvulnerability/background.html
The points made regarding resilience are important and powerful, but I have-so far-retained the
‘vulnerability’ label for the following reasons:
1.
Both resilience and vulnerability exist on islands and both should be recognised. I pick
vulnerability as the baseline focus because I believe that it can be appropriate to stand up and to
describe that a problem exists. Islands are too often marginalised and ignored, hence vulnerabilities
are created and perpetuated. They exist. We must first admit their existence and describe the issues.
Then, we can do something about them-such as building and sustaining resilience.
2.
Many islanders to whom I have spoken, and who have contributed to the website, suggest that
the vulnerabilities of their island are part of their island’s appeal and part of what makes them
islanders. The dangers, perils, and fragilities - that is, the vulnerabilities - are attractive alongside the
remoteness and smallness. They make the island worth living on and worth saving. I suspect that
similar views would be expressed regarding their island’s resilience, but passion and the fighting spirit
seem to be evoked more by vulnerability than resilience.
3.
Vulnerability is not necessarily inherent to the islands but is often created through no fault of
the islands or islanders. To solve these external problems, we must address the vulnerabilities as
vulnerabilities and as problems rather than sheltering them in other terms which can distance the
perpetrator from the affected.
Despite the above, I have much to learn and I am always willing to change. Other options for or
complementing aspects to Island Vulnerabilities and Island Resiliences are Island Capacities and
Island Capabilities. I look forward to more discussion, but I leave with concluding remarks from one of
my island-related reports:
In island vulnerability lies island intrigue, allure, inspiration, beauty, hope, development, and
sustainability...We must be inspired to take risks and to overcome ignorance, apathy, laziness, and all
other such sins which are the standard barriers of vulnerability reduction and sustainability.
Dr. Ilan Kelman, Deputy Director, Cambridge University Centre for Risk in the Built Environment, U.K.
ik227@cam.ac.uk
Resilience would thus appear to be attracting a fair amount of interest within a small-island
perspective, in both political and technical circles. As such, it may in part reflect a feeling among some
stakeholders and observers that the negative connotations associated with 'vulnerability' should be
tempered with the more positive 'resilience' and its associations with greater self-reliance and with the
seizing of opportunities.
This said, there remains an apparent discrepancy between theory and practice, between what is said
and what is done. Should we therefore conclude that 'resilience' is a diversionary notion for small
islands, unhelpfully distracting attention from more proven approaches such as 'vulnerability'? Or is
resilience a concept worth pursuing, as an integral part of strategies, policies and practices for the
sustainable development of small island developing states?
The above can be heard increasingly often, not only in the context of small islands but for all sorts of
natural and socio-economic systems. Together with my colleagues Robert Nicholls and Frank
Thomalla, I prepared a paper for the World Bank Disaster Management Facility, in which we conclude
that the concept of resilience has its uses, but that it is defined in so many different ways without
providing clear operational guidance as to its practical application that it has become almost
meaningless for planners and policymakers. I would think that these conclusions also hold for small
islands.
The paper can be downloaded here:
http://www.proventionconsortium.org/files/conference_papers/klein.pdf.
It can be referred to as: Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls and F. Thomalla, 2003: The resilience of coastal
megacities to weather-related hazards. In: Building Safer Cities: The Future of Disaster Risk, A.
Kreimer, M. Arnold and A. Carlin (eds.), Disaster Risk Management Series No. 3, World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA, pp. 101–120.
At the moment we are reworking the paper for publication in Environmental Hazards. I would welcome
your comments.
Dr. Richard J.T. Klein, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), P.O. Box 601203, 14412
Potsdam, Germany
richard.klein@pik-potsdam.de
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~richardk/
Vulnerability has mostly a technical connotation while resilience includes a combination of technical &
socio-economic factors. In technical terms, we carry out ‘sensitivity analysis’ by varying one parameter
and observing its effects on the final results. A more sensitive system is naturally more vulnerable.
Example: Small coral islands have highly permeable aquifers through which the recharge (or
percolations) from rainwater quickly drains to the sea. The residence time of fresh water in the aquifer
may be a couple of weeks. If a rainfall event does not take place in a couple of weeks, the aquifer gets
depleted and saline water creeps in. This is a sensitive system and hence vulnerable.
Now Resilience: (1) During the rains, the people may store rainwater falling on roofs and then use it
later on, in the event of a prolonged dry spell. (2) They may drink coconut water to conserve drinking
water supply. (3) They may excavate small tanks with plastic sheet lining to store runoff water.(4) They
may use a family scale, solar desalination plant or (5) Use a Reverse Osmosis (RO) plant for
desalination of sea water for the whole village. All the above actions from the society boost its
resilience to the event of a long dry spell.
You have therefore rightly mentioned that ‘vulnerability and resilience are intimately linked - loss of
resilience leading to increased vulnerability, and vice-versa.’ As long as this link is kept in mind, the
newly coined term ‘resilience’ should not distract technical people from their standard ’vulnerability’
analysis. When society is made aware of the ‘Vulnerability’, it would seek further technical guidance to
build its own ‘Resilience’ through appropriate actions & programs.
limaye@vsnl.com
I refer to the discussion topic: ADAPTING TO CHANGE: RESILIENCE IN SMALL ISLANDS and the
question: Are there small island case studies and examples lighting the way forward?
I agree wholeheartedly that the concept of resilience should be used in SIDS. Indeed this is already
being promoted. The Marine Science for Management (MASMA) program which is hosted by the
Western Indian Ocean Marine Science Association (WIOMSA) and funded by Sida, provides grants to
look at marine and coastal issues in mainland and island states of the region. This program, which I
chair, covers Eastern and Southern Africa and all the islands of the Western Indian Ocean and the
theme of small island ecosystem (both social and biological) is an explicit cross-cutting issue. The
MASMA Committee is made up of leading scientists, one of whom, Dr. Nils Kausky is a well known
proponent of Resilience. He has delivered presentations on Resilience in this region on several
occasions, most recently as a keynote address at the 3rd marine science symposium held in October
of last year.
As a further note for readers, I will be delivering a keynote presentation at the upcoming World Bird
Conference (which is held every 4 years), on species and habitat resilience in small islands.
Sincerely,
Nirmal Jivan Shah, Seychelles
Thanks for the materials. They are very relevant for Island dwellers like the Philippines. I am from
Palawan and as an island, we have all the benefits of beauty and concerns of a Third World Country,
specially during bad weather.
Please keep me posted.
Samuel Umandap
sru313@hotmail.com
Further to your email on Vulnerability. The Linking Science and Local Knowledge Node of the Ocean
Management Research Network held a workshop in Change Islands off the NE coast of Newfoundland
Canada. The subject was Vulnerability in Coastal Communities, Adaptation to Change and Planning
for the future. See http://www.sfu.ca/coastalstudies/linking/changeislands.htm
Maureen Woodrow, Ph.D. Executive Officer, Global Environmental Change and Human Security
Project, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Carleton University, Loeb B349
1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa K1S 5B6
mwoodrow@ccs.carleton.ca or GECHS@carleton.ca
www.carleton.ca
Wise Coastal Practices forum
Responses to # 486
"THE INTRIGUE OF VULNERABILITY AND THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RESILIENCE",
by Kaly-Kelman-Howorth-Pratt, posted on 29-01-04
It has been my intention for quite some time to contribute constructively to the debate about
vulnerability versus resilience. The short version of my argument is that both are empty terms, devoid
of intrinsic meaning or measurable substance. They are certainly psychologically relevant - and are
useful appellatives if one is professing weakness, fragility and an impossibility to develop or to
sustain oneself (with vulnerability) or strength of character, resolve and fortitude (with resilience). It is
precisely because they lend themselves so well as colourful descriptors of attitude that I would
dismiss them in any academic or scientific discussion. The terms have become such powerful
explanators that the condition they describe has become almost a given, a sine qua non in any
discussion about small economies.
We need to move away from such terms, responsibly. It's time to cut the crap. Mainly, for three
reasons.
First: What is often uncritically dismissed is that some of the very characteristics which are meant to
signify vulnerability need not necessarily be handicaps to small economies. Small island vulnerability
could equally well suggest a disposition to spectacular growth. If, say, an island is vulnerable to capital
flight from its largest single foreign employer, it could benefit handsomely from landing an equally
large single foreign investor. If a hurricane can destroy a year's harvest; an especially good year can
lead to a bumper crop. And so on. The likelihood of a trough is equal to that of a boom. No wonder
small economies register very high levels of economic decline OR economic growth.
Second: All talk about vulnerability and resilience assumes that we are talking about small islands as if
they were closed systems, obviously dependable on their own resources. This could be no further
from the truth, and especially with the encroachment of globalization. Closed systems do not exist and
least of all with respect to small islands which are, by their very insular nature, 'cross-roads' territories
open to tourists, investment, trade, expatriate visitors and other international flows and exchanges.
Thirdly and lastly, the harping on vulnerability (with a tradition that goes back various decades now)
appears to make ample diplomatic sense, if weakness and fragility are expected to lure interest,
publicity and assistance in cash or in kind. Which is unfortunately the main reason why the term has
become standard fare in international fora. True: many small island economies have not followed
orthodox development strategies; but this does mean that they are automatically vulnerable
and therefore meritous of sustained aid flows.
To conclude: what has been referred to in the small (island) state literature as vulnerability is actually
volatility, openness or elasticity. What has been referred to as resilience is perhaps nothing more than
basic human nature and the will to survive.
Thank you for making this challenging exchange of ideas possible.
Godfrey Baldacchino PhD, Canada Research Chair in Island Studies, University of Prince Edward
Island, Canada
http://www.upei.ca/~iss/crc
Soy tambien un isleño, y el tema me interesa muchisimo, en el campo ambiental, porque aca en las
islas Galapagos nosotros trabajamos partiendo del hecho de que los ecosistemas insulares son
totalmente vulnerables sobre todo por factores antropicos, separando adecuadamente los cambios
naturales propios de la dinamica de los ecosistemas para su funcionamiento, pero hemos
demostrado en varias islas de este archipielago que la recuperacion en algunos casos aunque lenta
es posible, tomando en cuenta que en ecosistemas insulares la principal amenaza viene de afuera, es
decir todo lo que es especies introducidas son el mayor riesgo, y quiza aqui hay que hacer una
diferencia, para remover estas especies se requiere de mucho dinero y tecnologia que dependiendo
de la especie aun ni siquiera existe o es muy precaria (insectos, enfermedades, virus, etc)o ratas
(muy caro), y la capacidad de recuperacion viene de poder o no remover estas especies. Como decia
anteriormente si se trata de remover animales como mamiferos no es tanto problema si se cuenta con
los recursos, y el ecosistema lentamente se ha recuperado.
La destruccion de las islas viene por el desconocimiento y la ignorancia de los habitantes que llegaron
o aun siguen llegando a las islas, sin tomar en cuenta que son territorios especiales donde se
requiere casi un modelo especial para vivir, sin embargo lo que ha pasodo en islas como Hawaii o
Galapagos es que las personas adoptaron las mismas costumbres y tradiciones que en el continente,
y la capacidad de recuperacion de las islas en general va a depender del grado de intervencion
humana y numero de habitantes en las islas, mientras las poblaciones humanas sean mas grandes
las posibilidades de conservar y recuperar los habitat isleños sera simplemente un sueño.
English translation:
I am also an islander, and the subject is of great interest to me in the environmental field, because in
the Galapagos Islands we started off with the fact that the island ecosystems are totally vulnerable
mainly due to anthropogenic factors, and separate to the natural ecosystem changes and dynamics.
But we have demonstrated in several islands of this archipelago that recovery in some cases although
slow is possible, taking into account that in island ecosystems the main threat comes from outside.
That is to say introduced species present a greater risk, and here it is necessary to distinguish
between removing these species which requires much money and technology and depends on the
species which may be very widespread (insects, diseases, virus, etc.), or very expensive (rats), and
the recovery capacity comes from the ability to remove these species. As said previously, if one is to
remove animals like mammals it is not as much problem if it is counted as part of the resources, and
the ecosystem slowly recovers.
The destruction of the islands comes from the ignorance of the inhabitants who arrived or continue
arriving at the islands, without taking into account that they are special territories where an almost
special model is required to live. Nevertheless, what happened in islands like Hawaii or Galapagos is
that the people adopted the same customs and traditions as in the continent, and the capacity of
recovery of the islands in general is going to depend on the degree of human intervention and the
number of inhabitants in the islands. The larger the human populations the more likely it is that finding
ways to conserve and recover the island habitats will just be a dream.
Eliecer Cruz, WWF
ecruz@spng.org.ec
Recent postings on the subject of the vulnerability of small island states resonates here in St Vincent &
the Grenadines. The Government has recently announced plans to contract the overall management
of a National Park, the Tobago Cays Marine Park, to a private, for-profit hotel management company
(Palm Island Resort Ltd). It is generally accepted that wherever a National Park and/or Marine
Protected Area is managed in a not-for-profit mode, a wide variety of technical assistance and funding
is available from international entities. But this assistance and funding is apparently not readily
available to a Park/protected area which is being managed for private profit. Where such assistance
and funding is not available, this would seem to further increase the vulnerability of an environmentally
fragile area in a small island state. In an area dependent on marine tourism, this would have economic
ramifications as well. Does anyone have any information on any National Parks and/or Marine
Protected Areas in other small island states, which have been run for private profit? Have they
succeeded or failed? Why?
Sally Erdle
sally@caribbeancompass.com
I am not sure if you publish book reviews, but maybe this one is of interest? It looks at development
processes in tropical islands from a political ecology perspective, e.g. which actors are involved in
environmental change, what are their interests, how do they profit, etc. Attached the jacket to give you
an idea of its content.
,
Stefan Gössling, PhD, Dept of Service Management, Lund University, Sweden
Stefan.Gossling@msm.hbg.lu.se
I note with interest the points given by Ilan Kelman on the above subject.
It is true indeed that vulnerability exists for islanders because they are often times perpetually ignored
and marginalised. Because of the situation that our friends find themselves in, there must be more
reason for them to be more resilient. Such circumstances and this is true of every person evokes the
fighting spirit.
They can turn their vulnerability into pearls that build a fighting will that makes them even more
resilient to change the way things happen around them.
What must be built within them and this more sustainably, is the positive attitude towards self
development. Attitude could be everything especially coupled with resilience. Islanders must cultivate
a difference in attitude framed along the years by education and culture. They have always been
resilient I think, strong people that have been able to fight the evils of sometimes bad weather and
economics.
Like Ilan observed, in the Islands’ vulnerability lies their intrigue, beauty, inspiration development and
sustainability. Overcoming the sins of ignorance, laziness and apathy that forms barrier to sustainable
development and reduction of vulnerability must be center focus for all people that are vulnerable
around the world. I say so because i believe this is what even my country Zambia now needs. If not all
developing countries!
I otherwise look forward to more discussion on this subject because I have a thing for islands, they
make me feel natural.
Mwiika Malindima, Zambia Institute of Mass Communication Education Trust, Lusaka, Zambia.
mwiikamalindima@yahoo.co.uk
Wise Coastal Practices forum
Responses to # 488 "SMALL ISLAND CASE STUDIES ON VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE"
by Erdle-Hay-Klein-Limaye-Shah, posted on 20-02-04
Can you please send me e-mail versions of the papers in English on Case Studies on Vulnerability?
Are they exclusively dealing with climate change & its impact? If there are papers dealing with
economic aspects, I would appreciate. Please advise me.
Dr TK Jayaraman, Associate Professor, Economics Dept, University of South Pacific, Suva, Fiji
jayaraman_tk@usp.ac.fj
I have some potentially useful information for Sally Erdle in response to here recent questions about
profit versus not-for-profit managed marine parks. I do not have an email address where i can send
this to. Could you please provide this or provide her with my email address.
Dr. David Vousden, GEF Project Development and Evaluation Specialist, Biodiversity and
International Waters
Davidvousden@aol.com
Wise Coastal Practices forum
Responses to # 490
“MOVING AWAY FROM THE TERMS VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE IN SMALL ISLANDS”
by Baldacchino, posted on 11-03-04
I often read the opinions filtering through this list server wishing I had more time to explore the issues
raised. Throughout Asia and the Pacific, the natural resources of coastal and marine areas are heavily
exploited, often to sustain local people's livelihoods. Coastal development in the region has led to the
systematic overexploitation of nearshore fisheries; pollution from urban settlement, tourism and
industrial development; poor estuarine water quality for ecosystem and public health; and the rapid
decline of mangrove forests and degradation of coastal ecosystems, such as seagrass beds and coral
reefs. While these threats are widespread, issues dominating policy discussion are competing uses of
fisheries resources and rapid, unplanned development of coastal zones, including those from
urbanization, aquaculture and tourism. Appropriate valuation of coastal resources and ecosystems
using innovative economic tools is needed to assess their monetary and cultural values. Marine
protected areas are required to protect endangered species and habitats. Effective education and
community participation are needed for sustainable coastal conservation and resource management
programs. There's a need to address conflicting uses of coastal resources, lack of inappropriate land
use planning, and unsustainable aquaculture practices, much of which involve destruction of coastal
vegetation. The over-riding challenge in coastal management is the difficulty of developing and
implementing effective coastal policies and regulations - environmental impacts are usually social
problems that require political solutions.
Many regional groups are getting together to show how science and community action can address
coastal zone issues. One bi-annual conference, Coastal Zone Asia Pacific, brings together regional
and international researchers, policy-makers, interest groups and communities to exchange and
discuss innovative approaches to improve the health of the coastal areas in the Asia-Pacific region.
The conference serves as a forum to facilitate regional and international collaboration, strengthen
existing networks and initiate research, training and education programs for coastal resource
management in Asia and the Pacific Rim. Topics for discussion include integrated policies for coastal
zone management, community/resource interactions, coastal ecosystem management, coastal
resource economics, sustainable coastal activities (aquaculture/fishing/tourism), coastal area planning,
knowledge sharing and linking of relevant databases. The next 2004 conference CZAP conference will
be in Brisbane, Australia, from 5-9 September. (www.coastal.crc.org.au/czap04)
A searchable, web-based database on "Coastal Zone Management in Asia-Pacific" has been prepared
as pre-conference document to allow interesting exchange of new ideas, innovative approaches and
new technology for designing research initiatives, collaborations and planning for coastal zone
management at a national, regional and global level. The conference program will include keynote and
paper presentations, poster displays, field trips, and group workshops that address themes and
solutions. The conference proceedings will be published as a CD-ROM. Selected papers will be
submitted for publication as an edited volume and published in other international journals.
More than 20 institutes and organizations from Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Fiji, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Philippines, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Thailand, USA, and
Vietnam have agreed to support the conference and will be working closely with the conference cohosts and organizers to make the event a great success. Partners play various roles at the conference
including providing financial support for delegate attendance, serving in the conference committees,
distributing conference announcement through their networks and contributing to the database.
Don Alcock, Communication Manager, Coastal CRC
don.alcock@nrm.qld.gov.au
What absolute nonsense
Al Binger
yengar@hotmail.com
Upon reading Godfrey Baldacchino’s contribution concerning Vulnerability and Resilience, it seems to
me that I am looking back at the times when, within a certain educational milieu, it was necessary,
albeit compulsory, to receive training in ‘apologetics’. It was a way of reasoning to the limits of the
absurd, to prove the categorical veracity of dogma. Words, lexicon, semantics were extremely
important, and the context and meaning of key words were apodictically determined, so that any
deviation from such interpretation could be considered wrong, erroneous and worth moving away from
or just eschewing. In fact, such expressions as “All that talk about Vulnerability and Resilience” and
“harping on vulnerability”, establish a rather contemptuous way of arguing from above, let alone
argumentative arrogance.
Even if G. Baldacchino´s categorical arguments do not refer to religious beliefs, but rather to
economics, they have the apodictic, categorical touch of “apologetica”, perhaps with an added touch
of ethnocentricity and cultural relativism. The concept of “small economies” is indicative of a kind of
condescendence. One may detect the contradictions of a “developed” country looking at the scandal
of continuing flow of economic aids towards small developing states not able to get out of a certain
lethargy, weakness, fragility and impossibility to develop or sustain themselves (the ‘unmentionable’
vulnerability), eliciting the commiseration of others, and as such, becoming ‘standard fare in
international fora, and all of this translated into a never-ending cash and in-kind support and
assistance to palliate such weakness and fragility’. Of course, it seems that such small states seem to
lack the essence of the (unmentionable) ‘resilience’ which is interpreted as character, resolve and
fortitude. Shame on the SIDS!
A revealing statement by G. Baldacchino concerning small island developing states economies, is that
they “have not followed orthodox development strategies” and which apparently seems to be an
important fault (or sin?) resulting in a dependency upon sustained aids and flows. What are such
“orthodox development strategies”? A large single foreign employer (until such employer decides to fly
away with his capital), as per the examples given in his discussion? A posh tourist settlement offering
paradisiacal settings with disproportioned individual requirements, with docile natives offering their
services for a pittance? The establishment of a tax haven (or fiscal paradise) with little if any relevance
to the local common good? Extractive industries paying little if any attention to resource depletion and
availability and the impacts therein? The establishment of intensive large-scale horticultural or
agricultural practices threatening historical landscapes and identities as well as a unique biological
diversity, besides subjecting both environment and people to an increased (and unmentionable!)
‘vulnerability’ vis à vis natural and not-so-natural risks and catastrophes? One may ask “Are all of
these ‘achievements’ the result of exogenous resolve, initiative, determination and character, proper of
(the unmentionable) ‘resilience’ of the ‘developed’?”. The actors behind such actions may proudly say
“Yes, of course!” And this with the spiritual support of fundamentalist ‘people of the cloth’ or
‘ideological missionaries’. that historically have found fertile grounds in small islands.
The only mention made by G. Baldacchino of anything sustainable, is that of ‘sustained aids and
flows’. Maybe it has been deemed convenient to skirt the issue of sustainable development,
particularly since we now know that upon applying the concept and practice of sustainability, apart from the notion of human and natural capital, we should add equity and justice. However, we risk
falling into the vice of sentimentalisms proper of pointy-headed intellectuals in international fora!
John Celecia
j.celecia@noos.fr
This is in response to the very thoughtful contribution from Professor Godfrey Baldacchino.
The Caribbean political and intellectual leaders generally favour the need for 'special and differential
treatment' for the nations of the Caribbean. This is largely based on the argument that we are small
nations, and that our smallness makes us inherently more vulnerable.
However, there are several problems with this idea. First, there is an issue as to how you define small
-in terms of geography, population or GDP- which leaves scope for politicians to define it in a way that
suits the current purpose.
If physical smallness is equated to vulnerability, of course, then there is no possibility of ever
graduating from the group of nations that need special and differential treatment. You can reform your
governance, restructure your economy, but you can't do much about your geography unless you try
and annex your neighbour, which is difficult for an island state.
It is also difficult to reconcile the physically small=vulnerable argument with the fact that small
countries actually tend to be richer than large countries. This is, of course, to some extent an artifact,
as it reflects the fact that several large countries (such as China and India) still have hinterlands of
rural poverty, while some small countries (Monaco, Lichtenstein) have a high density of tax-exile
billionaires. Still, it is clear that small cannot simply be equated with poor or vulnerable, and there is a
particular difficulty in reconciling the small=vulnerable argument with the existence of rich microstates/city-states, such as Singapore and Hong Kong.
A variant of the vulnerability argument emphasises that small states don't have large natural
resources, and are therefore at a disadvantage. This argument is partly undermined by the rise of the
city-states, which have virtually no natural resources. It is also undermined by the 'commodity curse'
experience of a number of states in Africa, which suggests that having natural resources (such as oil)
can be a serious handicap. This is partly because other sectors of the economy often remain underdeveloped (because they cannot generate the same returns), and partly because the infusion of large
sums of money into countries without sufficiently robust institutions can promote corruption,
unproductive government spending on prestige projects, and civil wars. It is also notable that, even
within the Caribbean, Barbados (with few natural resources) has prospered, whereas Jamaica
(relatively rich in natural resources) has stagnated.
Natural hazards can be a real problem for small island nations. The population of Montserrat, for
example, fell from 10,000 to 4,000 when the volcano made much of the land area uninhabitable.
However, this is an exceptional case. Most of the Caribbean is in the hurricane belt, but the damage
caused by a hurricane has a strong inverse relationship with the extent of advance preparation. Cuba,
for example, which has a high level of planning and state-led provision for hurricanes, rarely suffers
more than a handful of casualties. Thus the extent of exposure to natural hazards cannot be simply
equated with vulnerability.
Economies of scale are important, of course, but not equally so in every sector. Economies of scale
are very important in commodities (such as sugar and bauxite, where countries like Jamaica are
becoming increasingly uncompetitive), but much less so in specialist niche markets, a number of
which are clearly open to the nations of the Caribbean.
Perhaps the most sensible way to define 'vulnerable', therefore, is in terms of the narrowness of the
economic base. For some of the small island nations, therefore, diversification (given the current
uncertainties) would be a way to reduce their total exposure to risk. A country with a range of primary,
secondary and tertiary sector industries, a reasonable export performance, a healthy financial services
sector and a tourism industry can probably ride out a recession in any one of these areas (especially if
the country also has a skilled and flexible workforce, who can switch into other activities), because
they are unlikely to follow the same market logic or have the same business cycle. A country that
depends on any one sector for the bulk of its foreign revenue (tourism has this role in several
Caribbean nations) is one that is intrinsically vulnerable.
It would be sensible, therefore, to use the income from that one sector, when times are good, for
investment; to build up other sectors of the economy and thus reduce the country's vulnerability. What
frequently happens, however, is that people respond to rising levels of income by raising their levels of
consumption, rather than by saving and investing - and they may be reluctant to reduce their levels of
consumption again when profits start falling, which can lead to long-term balance of payments
problems. In Jamaica, for example, demand for imported foreign goods continues to be high, even
though the economy is has only just recovered from five years of negative or close-to-zero growth and
many sectors are no longer generating the surpluses needed to pay for these imported foreign goods.
The result is a net outflow of capital, which makes it even harder to raise the internal capital required
for investment.
Professor Anthony Clayton
anthony.clayton@uwimona.edu.jm
The terms vulnerability and resilience are concrete economic phenomena which are solidly proven
conceptually within the context of mainstream economic growth models and empirically through the
various attempts at their measurement. Conceptual and empirical analyses associate these concepts
more strongly with smallness and insularity.
Vulnerability is exposure to exogenous shocks, over which the affected party generally has no control.
This concept can be equally applied on an individual, corporate and economy-wide level. On the latter
plane, this could take the form of exposure to external trade with volatile patterns of demand or prices.
It could refer to events which alter the productivity of resources. Economic literature on risk amply
demonstrates that exposure to shocks has an impact on welfare.
Resilience is the ability to withstand shocks, which will influence the extent to which the presence of
shocks impacts welfare. This is typically an induced phenomenon, reflecting the adoption of policies
which protect an agent against the effects of shocks. On an individual level, this could be thought of as
the purchasing of insurance. On an economy-wide level, this could take the form of economic
diversification, prudent monetary and fiscal policies and regional economic integration.
There is typically weak correlation between vulnerability and per capita GDP, often referred to as the
Singapore paradox (which states that countries exposed to shocks can still enjoy high per capita
GDP). This can be explained in terms of the base productivity of resources of the country, as well as
its resilience to the shocks. In a forthcoming paper, I am using a neoclassical growth model approach
to prove that: Per capita GDP = base per capita GDP-(exposure to shocks*lack of resilience)
It thus follows that countries should pursue policies which increase their base per capita GDP, as
influenced by the productivity of their resources, and to improve the resilience, as described above.
International cooperation efforts directed towards these goals are certainly warranted.
Gordon Cordina, Department of Economics, University of Malta
gordon.cordina@um.edu.mt
An interesting and provocative opening salvo! You raise a number of issues that I have also been
questioning, as outlined in a paper that I wrote for the recent small states conference in Malta
(specifically on vulnerability and resilience). However, I find myself disagreeing with much of your
interpretation of the vulnerability versus resilience debate. Which is just as well, since it would make
for a boring response otherwise!
I agree that the terms ‘vulnerability’ and ‘resilience’ are emotive. However, they are good descriptors of
the situation facing many small (island) states. They are also common currency in other disciplines,
such as in the study of natural hazards, climate change and international capital flows. Moreover,
alternative terms are not easily come by. I certainly do not concur with your suggestion that
vulnerability is the same as volatility, openness or elasticity. Volatility is a consequence of shocks,
while openness is one factor that can increase exposure to potential shocks. Elasticity could refer to
the overall response of an economy (e.g. economic growth) to a shock, although this implies a very
simple relationship.
The fact that characteristics of vulnerability might not be handicaps to growth is not a good reason for
jettisoning the term ‘vulnerability’. This is to misunderstand the concept of vulnerability, which is the
potential to suffer from future shocks. A handicap to growth could equally increase or decrease
vulnerability. For instance, high transport costs could increase the cost of imports and reduce
competitiveness of exports. This may well hinder growth, but reduced trade with the outside world will
reduce vulnerability to trade shocks. On the other hand, farming of fertile soils that are at risk of
volcanic activity, flooding or other natural hazards could boost economic growth, but with increased
vulnerability to shocks.
The classic argument on vulnerability versus constraints to growth relates to trade openness. It is
generally accepted that vibrant trade with the outside world can boost economic growth (take
Singapore as an example). Many small states are comparatively open to trade, partly borne our of
necessity from having a small domestic market. This trade openness has helped them to achieve
comparatively strong economic growth. Clearly, openness has not been an economic handicap.
However, trade openness does increase vulnerability to external shocks. In the extreme, an autarkic
economy with no external trade will be insulated from trade shocks, and so a country with a high
degree of trade must be more vulnerable to such shocks. So characteristics of small states can induce
both economic growth and vulnerability simultaneously. Of course, the issue can be complicated,
when considering the effect of increased incomes on vulnerability (for instance allowing greater
spending on mitigation and accumulation of emergency reserves), or the effect of vulnerability on
economic performance (volatility depressing long-run growth). But in its simplest form, there is no
reason why an economy cannot be both high-growth and highly vulnerable. It is a matter of risk of
future shocks – and hence partly the luck of the draw. Montserrat was unlucky. Others have been
luckier, such as some of the richest islands which are heavily dependent on one or two exports, such
as tourism and financial services. These industries have fuelled considerable growth, but remain
vulnerable to shocks.
On the topic of risk, I disagree with your statement that the likelihood of a trough is equal to that of a
boom. These are not equal and opposite effects. For instance, the exposure to a natural disaster
bears no relationship to the probability of a bumper crop. Many African countries are prone to famine.
This does not mean that these largely subsistence economies are otherwise highly productive and
regularly producing bumper crops. A number of North Atlantic communities are or were reliant on cod
fisheries. The collapse of this industry does not have an obvious equivalent gain. And the fact that a
small economy relies heavily on a single foreign investor does not necessarily mean that this is
making them rich, and it does not follow that there must be major potential for seeking another such
investor. Small economies can register sharp economic decline because they are vulnerable. They do
not automatically register high levels of economic growth simply as the inverse of this vulnerability.
You suggest that talk about vulnerability and resilience implies that small islands are closed systems.
This fails to acknowledge that virtually all of the literature and discussion around vulnerability has been
explicitly in relation to susceptibility to exogenous shocks. It is the very fact that these small economies
are highly exposed to external shocks that makes them more vulnerable. I therefore fail to see how
this topic suggests any sense of a closed system, unless it is completely out of context.
I would tend to agree that reference to the vulnerability of small states is diplomatically driven. And the
message that small states are generally more vulnerable has been widely accepted. My suggestion is
that we now break down the single measures of vulnerability, and assess the underlying causes and
identify appropriate policy responses. The concept of ‘resilience’ is a different matter. The fact that
small developing states, on average, are more vulnerable but have achieved higher rates of growth,
suggests that they are more resilient to shocks. This will not support arguments for special treatment
from the international community. But it can, once again, serve to highlight key areas for policy, to
increase resilience to shocks (including international initiatives such as catastrophe and commodity
price insurance).
Thank you for raising some very pertinent points. I look forward to any response.
Tom Crowards, Economic Adviser, Department for International Development, U.K.
T-Crowards@dfid.gov.uk
Gracias por este artículo tan interesante. Estoy de acuerdo con el autor, pues ciertamente en este
mundo globalizado es dificil pensar en sistemas humanos cerrados.
Josefina Espaillat/RD
ljosefina2000@yahoo.com
Allow me to begin with a recent incidence on the island of Santorini. As everyone knows this
magnificent island is located there, where even the Greek poet Elytis believes Atlantis existed. When
approaching the island by boat, an amazing sight evokes this image since the surrounding islands
show traces as if something broke away and disappeared into the depth. Santorini can be reached in
two ways when coming by boat: where the lift takes up tourists (and where once donkeys did that) or
else by car from the nearby harbor. Then, during one night, the mayor decided he wanted to have a
connected road between the port and the lift. He had an ecological landscape blasted away, a
landscape that had been sculptured by wind, water and time. The world responded with outrage when
the Talibans destroyed the two Buddha statues, but this "illegal act" by a mayor - he had not legal
permission to do so - is just as much a destruction of more than 2000 years of nature.
Why this example? Ancient Greece is a good departure point for any epistemological reflection as to
the difference between resilience and vulnerability. Nature has so much resilience as long as people
accept to go around the tree, that is they work with the resistance like the river finding its way. It is not
a straight line. But then the car and any high speed transport requires less and less resistance and a
much safer pathway, that is a greater abstraction from reality. That is why we often wonder what
resilience is still left if everything can be blasted into the air in order to make way for a straight road.
Yet vulnerability is connected with resilience and it is a quality to be vulnerable just as no human being
could be defined as being invulnerable. Like the skin, it has resilience but it is also highly vulnerable.
Thus I would propose whether for human beings or for islands both terms complement each other and
describe one and the same quality of existence.
Two further remarks: when the United States was attacked on 11th of September, it responded with all
forces of retaliation out of fear of having become "vulnerable". There was no resilience, no sign of
caution on how to respond to such terrible blow. Thus we need to avoid a universal use of the term
"vulnerability" or else we land in some myth.
The second observation is that once islands have imposed upon them the same transport system as
we have throughout the world and starts to depend upon the car, then these islands have no longer
any resilience against these changes but it means also their charm of being vulnerable is lost.
In a way we can see how China is now being swamped by the car industry in the hope to make a few
more sales in order to keep the stock market happy. In the past, China's streets were claimed by its
residents. The love to cook up front (and not at the back), and they claimed even a part of the street.
This meant for bicycles no problem, but for cars. It just shows: once resilience is lost, then also the
vulnerability is gone.
Hatto Fischer, Athens, Greece
annhatto@hol.gr
Well argued!
Malama Meleisea
m.meleisea@unescobkk.org
Perhaps the attached paper will be of interest to you in light of this discussion?
Dr. Ir. Jos S. Pet, The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Asia Center for Marine Protected Areas
Jl. Pengembak No. 2, Sanur 80228, Bali, Indonesia
jpet@tnc.org http://www.komodonationalpark.org
http://nature.org
Respecto de lo planteado sobre los términos de vulnerabilidad y de capacidad de recuperación tengo
una apreciación algo diferente a lo expuesto. Por una parte, la vulnerabilidad de un territorio está
referida a su capacidad de adaptación frente a distintos impactos, sean éstos de inversiones públicas
o privadas, intervenciones por eventos contaminantes o naturales. Eso es lo que se analiza sobre
todo cuando se elaboran instrumentos de planificación territorial o cuando se realiza un análisis de
ordenamiento territorial.
Por otra parte, la vulnerabilidad también está asociada a las condiciones humanas, ya sea por
capacidades instaladas en las personas, qué tipo de capital humano se tiene en el territorio y sumado
a eso, las capacidades de organizarse frente a algún evento o en torno a algún tema específico.
Considero que desde este punto de vista, es un término que no está directamente relacionado con
una ciencia específica, no tiene que ver con análisis disciplinarios separados. Considero, que para
efectuar un análisis de una isla, o de un territorio, éste debiese hacerse de diferentes puntos
de vista para construir una mirada integral y así poder orientar y apoyar los procesos de toma de
decisiones de quienes son las autoridades locales o los actores relevantes de los procesos internos.
Es probable que el término no esté vinculado a una disciplina específica, peor sí entrega mayores
claridades respecto de las problemáticas y dinámicas de desarrollo territorial de una isla en particular.
Por otra parte, desde el punto de vista físico, creo que es correcto pensar en que no son sistemas
cerrados, ya que sus territorios son influenciados no sólo por los posibles flujos de inversiones o de
actividades turísticas, sino que también de las condiciones climáticas, de las corrientes marinas
por ejemplo.
Siempre consideré que eran sistemas cerrados, pero en realidad son puntos en un océanos que
pueden ser muy sustentables y atractivos para estos flujos.
Engish Translation
Concerning the comments on the terms 'vulnerability and resilience', I have a somewhat different view
from what was presented.
On the one hand, the vulnerability of a territory refers to its capacity to adapt to different impacts,
whether they are public or private investments, or the effect of polluting or natural events. This is
analysed mostly by elaborating the tools of land use planning or when carrying out an analysis
of land use management.
On the other hand, vulnerability is also associated with human conditions, be it on the basis of
personal capacities, on what type of human capital exists in the territory and, added to that, the
capacity to become organized upon some type of event or concerning some specific topic.
I consider that from this viewpoint, vulnerability is a term which is not related directly to a specific
science, and is not relevant to the analysis of separate disciplines. I consider that in order to carry out
the analysis of an island, or of a territory, this should be done from different perspectives to put
together an integrated picture and thus be able to orient and support decision making processes of
local authorities or of pertinent actors in internal processes.
It is probable that this term is not linked with a specific discipline, but that it offers a clearer view
concerning the problems and dynamics of regional development in a given island.
Moreover, from a physical point of view, I believe it is right to think that these are not closed systems,
since their territories are not only influenced by possible investment flows or tourist activities, but also
by climatic conditions, as for example ocean currents.
I have always considered that they are closed systems, but in reality they are spots in the ocean which
could be very sustainable and attractive to such flows.
Fabiola Zamora Calderón, Geographer, SEREMI the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development
Valpariso
fzamora@minvu.cl
www.minvu.cl
Wise Coastal Practices forum
Responses to # 491 “IDENTIFYING POLICY RESPONSES TO VULNERABILTY” by Crowards,
posted on 22-03-04
Perhaps I can add a few words to Tom Crowards response to Dr Baldacchino on the matter of
vulnerability and resilience. The test for the use of such terms cannot be whether they are emotive or
whether their ordinary dictionary meaning creates room for ambiguity. If this were the case, it would be
difficult to conduct any scholarly discourse at all. We use terms like rationality, good governance,
democracy, free markets, and so in academic discourse despite their ambiguity and emotiveness.
Perhaps the only test we can use is whether a term has been established in the academic literature
and whether it has been used consistently. As Tom Crowards points out, vulnerability and resilience
have been used in the risk literature quite consistently for quite some time, and the academic
community that has been built around them is reasonably clear on their implications.
I am also a little unclear why it is a problem if something has different consequences under different
circumstances. This is true of many different characteristics.
The only point where I would disagree with Crowards is over trade openness. In fact, the fundamental
issue here is not openness itself but the type of openness. Like portfolio diversification, trade
openness can actually lead to greater (not lesser) resilience and lesser (not greater vulnerability). The
only situation in which trade openness creates greater vulnerability is where a country is reliant on only
one export commodity. Similarly, financial openness can create greater vulnerability, as Asian
countries realized during the Asian financial crisis. Even then, having a diverse portfolio of exports was
a protection against the depth of the shock. We need to bring such nuance into the discussion of the
vulnerability of small island states as well.
Tariq Banuri, Stockholm Environment Institute - Asia Centre
tariq.banuri@sei.se
Gordon Cordina has responded to Godfrey Baldacchino's write-up as per attached. I hope you will
post it in your website.
I wish to state that I consider Godfrey's piece as very one-sided and does not give due regard to large
body of literature on economic vulnerability. Many papers have been written to explain the inherent
economic vulnerability of small island developing states. In many of my papers Io showed that SIDS
can perform relatively well economically in spite of their inherent vulnerability, possibly as a result of
policies aimed at coping with or withstanding such vulnerability. I called this reality "the Singapore
Paradox". The country where I was born, namely, Malta, and a neighbouring country, namely Cyprus,
Mauritius in the Indian Ocean and Barbados in the Caribbean are other examples. These SIDS took
advantage of their location or their attractive climate/beaches or something else (some have created
their own comparative advantage in areas like financial services). Not all SIDS, of course, managed to
do this, and some have a very bad governance record.
Professor Lino Briguglio
lino.briguglio@um.edu.mt
I have a simple question. I am reading a report on Tanzania entitled Vulnerability and Resilience to
Poverty in Tanzania (it is a Participatory Poverty Assessment). Where did the recent interest in the
concepts 'vulnerability' and 'resilience' originate? Perhaps Tom Crowards might know.
Brian Cooksey, Tanzania Development Research Group
tadreg@raha.com
I am responding to the postings from Dr. Baldachino and Tom Crowards on the subject of vulnerability
and resilience. I agree that the terms are emotive, and normally ill-defined. Yet the reality of risk and
the perception by residents of risks to the assets and values most important to them are often real.
The challenge is one of definition and clarity.
For nearly a decade, an international task force of the World Tourism Organization has been working
on a program of indicators which may provide some solutions. Working with tourism destinations,
many of which are small islands, the working group has tried to clarify the risks to these countries and
communities, and to provide means to measure the level of risk and response. To what is a
destination vulnerable? What are the key risks (economic, social, environmental, political, etc) and
how can we best define them?
Using a participatory approach, destination specific workshops have been the means to define the key
areas of concern and to develop indicators which can measure changes in them (e.g. foreign
exchange leakage, changes in market perception, changes in the attitude of the residents towards
tourism or towards social changes, changes in the natural environment which place tourism and
communities at risk). The resulting indicators for each community or nation can help define what is
meant by vulnerability, what are we vulnerable to, relative to goals of the key stakeholders? Regional
workshops bringing experts from the region and local stakeholders together, including ones in
Cozumel Mexico, Ugljan Island Croatia, Beruwala Sri Lanka, and related case indicators applications
in e.g. Samoa, Cape Breton Island Canada , and Kangaroo Island Australia have helped to refine the
procedure and lead to a new Guidebook "Signposts for Sustainable Tourism" now in preparation for
publication.
In a similar vein, the use of indicators as performance measures relative to the key goals and
objectives of the community or nation can become a measure of response or resilience. While
benchmarking is often difficult because different destinations often use different sets of
indicators, many are now beginning to share sets of baseline indicators.
Parallel initiatives for Mediterranean countries and by the Association of Caribbean States are also
providing some coherence to the indicators in use by many communities and nations (many of which
are islands) which can help with concepts such as comparative vulnerability or resilience - relative to
selected indicators. We have purposefully avoided trying to measure overall indices (e.g. vulnerability,
carrying capacity, stress, etc) because of the unique mix of risks and issues, their differing importance
in each place, and the unique nature of the resource base of each destination. but the data can feed
constructive debate on such concepts... perhaps leading to agreed definitions, clarification of the
concept, or dismissal of the terms as not really helpful. The concepts of risks to key assets and
values of an island, and ability to respond to unacceptable changes will not go away, we need the
tools to deal with them effectively.
Dr. Edward W, (Ted) Manning, President Tourisk Inc. and Lead Consultant, WTO Indicators Program
1980 Saunderson Drive, Ottawa Ontario Canada K1G2E2
tourisk@rogers.com
www.tourisk.org
Wise Coastal Practices forum
Responses to # 493 "USING ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION TO DEFINE VULNERABILITY"
by Clayton, posted on 16-04-04
I was on the verge of responding vigorously to the Baldacchio contribution, but Crowards covered
many of the points I considered important, and I have been watching the discussion with interest. The
trends in the discussion lead me to think it is time to make some suggestions. By way of selfintroduction, let me note that from 1996-2002 I was heavily involved in the LOICZ project of IGBP, and
particularly in the efforts to develop coastal zone typologies (classification systems) that could
potentially be used to understand and predict biogeochemical functions and their changes, and their
interactions with the human dimension variables of the coastal systems.
I offer the following for consideration:
1. There is no single definition of 'vulnerability' or 'resilience' (or anything else) that will work for all
purposes and situations, nor, I suggest, is there any single classification system (typology) that will
meet all needs. Most of the discussion seems to be trying to come up with a primarily economic set of
definitions that somehow subsume physical and biological environmental issues as well as political
and social ones. It might be possible to come up with a composite index or matrix of component
values that describes all systems at some level of common acceptability, but achieving that -- or even
finding out whether or not it is possible -- will require a level of objective analysis and rigor that I have
not yet seen in the discussions. If a single definition is the goal, then a companion goal needs to be
the definition of the (necessarily fairly narrow) conditions, circumstances, or locations to which it can
be applied.
Example: I can readily envision a (hypothetical but not unrealistic) small island country that is at a
relatively low level of economic development and (physically) quite vulnerable to natural disasters -earthquakes/volcanoes/storms, and the longer term possible effects of climate change (flood, drought,
changes in ocean currents, etc.). Such a country might have a stable social structure and functional (if
rudimentary) government, or it might be divided by ethnic, class, or tribal loyalties. It might have a
reasonable base of subsistence production, or be entirely dependent on 'trade.' It might have a
diversified source of 'trade' partners, or it might be heavily dependent on (or potentially vulnerable to) a
dominant neighbor that has agendas and potential vulnerabilities of its own. Whether we discuss
vulnerability or resilience or both, it seems clear to me that there is no single pair of axes on which we
can plot all of the potentially relevant variables so that some sort of monotonic curve results.
2. Many of the issues being discussed are extremely scale-dependent, in both time and space.
Cyclones/hurricanes are a good example -- the dimensions of the eye of even a big storm are smaller
than all but the smallest entire countries (the spatial scale), so that the frequency of hits (the temporal
scale) can become much more important to overall vulnerability than the response to a single event.
This is one of the challenges in assessing climate change impacts, which include both frequencyintensity issues and the potential effects of long-term, widely distributed changes. Although it is not
my specialty, it seems obvious to me that there must be economic analogs -- the vulnerability to an
(external) economic downturn will depend on its duration, and whether it effects all (or the dominant)
'trade' partners or only part of the external economic base of a country.
3. A suggestion: how about carving out some linked subsets of discussions with a goal of coming up
with some generalizable approaches rather than a long series of arguments about THE best
definition? As an example and an offer, I would be happy to try to contribute to considerations of
classifications involving both natural hazards in the strict sense and "anthropogenically amplifed"
environmental problems -- the things that people do to their environments that create or intensify
hazards (or, in principle, reduce them -- although that is not the most common outcome). I have had
considerable experience (some of which has shown hints of success) at trying to construct some sort
of Rosetta Stone to get natural scientists, social scientists, and economists into the same volume, if
not onto the same page.
I would be particularly interested in learning whether or not other followers of the discussion thread(s)
see merit in, or a need for, building up a classification system by manageable parts that can eventually
be interrelated, or whether this community is wedded to the idea that we have to have a one-size-fitsall set of terms and concepts.
I don't know if the ground rules prohibit or encourage off-line communications, but in case it is more
convenient to just send me your 'vote' or brief response, my contact information is:
Robert W. Buddemeier, Ph.D. Kansas Geological Survey, 1930 Constant Avenue, Lawrence, KS
66047 USA
buddrw@ku.edu
I think these points made below by Anthony Clayton are quite valid. We have got so used to pleading
for special and differential treatment in global political processes that it has become part of our
development mythology.
The last point about vulnerability because of disproportionate dependence on a single sector, which
itself may be very vulnerable to exogenous decisions/events, has some potential for developing,
however.
The Association of Caribbean States has been leading an effort within the United Nations system to
invoke a resolution to declare the Caribbean Sea area as 'a special zone in the context of sustainable
development'. A preliminary Resolution (57/261) on 'promoting an integrated management approach
to the Caribbean Sea area...' has already been achieved.
In the work in which I and many other colleagues are involved relating to the Caribbean Sea
Assessment, we hope to be able to support this general effort of the ACS. However, we need to
explore and advise what criteria/considerations might support a claim to be regarded as 'a special
zone in the context of SD'.
Would subscribers to this list server be interested in contributing their ideas to this??
Angela Cropper, The Cropper Foundation
acropper@thecropperfoundation.org
Anthony Clayton makes a useful contribution to the discussion on vulnerability (USING ECONOMIC
DIVERSIFICATION TO DEFINE VULNERABILITY). He suggests that the narrowness of the economic
base be used as a definition of economic vulnerability. Lack of economic diversification can certainly
contribute to economic vulnerability, and concentration of exports on a few goods or services has
been a key component of previous attempts to measure vulnerability.
However, it is too simplistic to suggest that vulnerability can be defined or measured using a single
characteristic. For instance, the degree of openness of an economy will affect the extent to which it is
susceptible to external shocks. So, for two economies with the same degree of economic
diversification, the one that is less open to external trade will - all else being equal - be less vulnerable
to external shocks. Vulnerability is a complex concept. Previous vulnerability indexes have struggled
to pin it down to a manageable number of parameters, but are still criticised for not adequately
capturing the full complexity. Tying it to a single parameter will not overcome this. One possible
exception to this is using volatility (of economic output) as an outcome measure of vulnerability. But
this is needs to be used with care since it reflects all influences on the economy, working against each
other and in unison, over different time-frames.
But linking a narrow economic base to vulnerability and hence the need to invest the income from a
single booming sector elsewhere in the economy is useful. This moves the argument on to the
question of resilience, and appropriate policies to reduce the impact on the economy of external
shocks when they occur.
Professor Clayton is against the argument that small nations are inherently vulnerable, largely
because (1) defining 'small' is open to political interpretation, (2) small size (and hence inherent
vulnerability) cannot be altered, and (3) small states have historically performed comparatively well.
I would suggest that the first two are not good reasons to deny that the situation exists, simply
because this fact can be manipulated or because it cannot be altered by policy. Moreover, on point
(2), the argument is that small states appear to be "inherently" more vulnerable to external shocks, but
this CAN be overcome by policies to reduce the impact of shocks when they occur (e.g. building
codes to improve resistance of infrastructure to natural disasters) or policies to increase resilience and
the ability to 'bounce back' following a shock (e.g. fiscal savings or good disaster planning).
Finally, I think it is important to distinguish between vulnerability to external shocks, and economic
disadvantage. Vulnerability is not the same thing as economic disadvantage. The fact that some small
states have prospered does not mean that they are not vulnerable. Small economies are
often concentrated on one or two, export-oriented, industries. This is partly the result of their limited
domestic market and the need to achieve some economies of scale. This export orientation can be
very successful - witness the tourism industry in the Caribbean - particularly when supported by
external subsidies (e.g. banana and sugar exports to the EU). Thus these states can achieve strong
economic growth based on these industries. But they ARE vulnerable. Relying heavily on tourism
risks a change in circumstances or tastes in major markets. Relying on international commodity trade,
and on external support, is risky - as witnessed by the Windward Islands and their collapsed banana
industy. However, I am not convinced that diversification is necessarily the
answer. Diversification could dampen economic performance by reducing concentration on successful
export industries. Whether this trade-off for reduced vulnerability is worth it is a policy decision, to be
considered alongside other measures that might be taken to reduce the impact of, and increase
resilience to, shocks when (and if) they occur.
In conclusion, therefore, I agree with Professor Clayton's emphasis on policies to tackle vulnerability.
However, I don't think that this requires a re-definition of vulnerability (although I do think that
terminology in this area remains very woolly). It does seem that small states are particularly
vulnerable to external shocks. The challenge, then, is to derive policies that can counter this
vulnerability without unduly impinging on economic growth and other aspects of development.
Tom Crowards, Economic Adviser, Department for International Development, U.K.
T-Crowards@dfid.gov.uk
A small contribution:
Paul Freeman and colleagues argue that a measure of macro-economic vulnerability should be the
ratio of hazard losses to national savings. Where this is high, small economies may not be able to
rebuild their infrastructure without outside assistance--which conforms to the classic definition of
vulnerability as beyond one's internal means of coping. Otherwise, I agree that the small=vulnerable
is too great a generalisation to be credible.
Thomas E. Downing, SEI Oxford Office, 10b Littlegate Street, Oxford OX1 1QT
tom.downing@sei.se
www.sei.se/oxford
www.vulnerabilitynet.org
Estoy plenamente de acuerdo con lo expresado a Tony.
Josefina Espaillat
ljosefina2000@yahoo.com
Excellente réflexion qui nous sort de l'enfermement naturaliste simpliste.
Remarque : une monoactivité peut procurer un enrichissement durable, par exemple le rôle de paradis
fiscal joué par les îles anglo-normande de Jersey et de Guernesey.
D'une façon générale, je trouve cette prise de position très intéressante et juste
English Translation
Excellent discussion which gets us out of the simplistic notion of natural enclosure.
Remark: a mono-activity can provide sustainable enrichment, for instance the role of fiscal paradise
played by the Jersey and Guernsey anglo-normande islands.
Generally, I found this point of view very interesting and fair.
Françoise Péron
francoise.peron@univ-brest.fr
Most of us who support special treatment for small island vulnerability do so because we are living and
working on SMALL ISLANDS --- It is pretty clearly proven (including work by both Crowards and
Briguglio) that large islands or continental small (or even tiny) countries do NOT have the same
vulnerability as small islands.
And small islands are islands smaller than Jamaica. To claim that the eruption on Montserrat is an
exception is interesting --- by exactly the same rationale, I can claim that the eruption of Soufriere in
Martinique, the tsunami of 1867 in the NE Caribbean, Hurricanes Gilbert, Hugo, Marilyn, David and
Georges, and the Port Royal earthquake were all additional exceptions, which makes the Caribbean
one of the safest areas in the world.
Bruce Potter, Island Resources Foundation
bpotter@irf.org
Anthony Clayton contributed a very well thought out response to the debate on vulnerability and
resilience of small island states. What he has described is essentially what many natural scientists
understand as biological diversity - the more diverse the ecosystem the more resilient it is to natural
threats and stresses.
In the Caribbean, there are examples of small states that are relatively well managed (e.g. Anguilla,
Cayman Islands) and provide a decent standard of living for their citizens, relatively speaking. This is
also because of the social commitment made by their governments and civil society to ensure
reasonable living standards. This does not preclude the existence of problems but not to the chronic
extent as in other islands, specifically many of the former British colonies.
I have no doubt that Caribbean island states can raise their living standards when all sectors of civil
society are engaged in their social development and working in harmony if not in partnership, with their
governments. This is good governance isn't it? The time for Caribbean nations to improve their
standards of living and their productive sectors is here. It is achievable and the time to do so.
Deirdre Shurland, Caribbean Alliance for Sustainable Tourism (CAST)
dpshurl@yahoo.com
Wise Coastal Practices forum
Responses to # 494
"RESPONDING TO RISKS IN SMALL ISLANDS: EXAMPLES IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY”
by Manning, posted on 04-05-04
Concerning the example of tourism in small islands, I agree with the need to develop indicators for the
management of attractions and natural values in the coastal zones to ensure a sustainable
exploitation for tourism. No doubt that the participation of local communities in the development plans
or programmes, as well as in their exploitation and management, becomes decisive for the success of
any enterprise of this kind. Anyhow, I also consider that other factors of institutional kind are of vital
importance; on the one hand the environmental education of the public, whether visitors or residents,
and on the other, the political will of the countries or administrators (managers) of the coastal zone. In
this case, a well designed and applicable legislation for the management of the coastal zones, starting
with the elaboration of a physical and environmental assessment of such territories, could become
most useful in the process of the exploitation and management of tourism in coastal zones.
One should also think about what kind of tourism is suitable for such fragile ecological systems,
whether the already known mass tourism that sweeps away with great means, and the consequences
that the demand for water, energy, drainage and waste management may impose, just to mention
some of the complexities, or on the other hand, Nature tourism, more adequate, in my opinion, to the
concrete development needs of each island State.
Engineer Aldo Luis Ramos Hernandez,Specialist in Environmental Management, Ministry of Science,
Technology and Environment Pinar del Rio, Cuba
Parfait....
Dr. Don Thomas, Professeur en écophysiologie animale, Département de Biologie, Université de
Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Qc, Canada J1K 2R1
Donald.Thomas@USherbrooke.ca