INTRODUCTION

1.1 FROM VULNERABILITY TO RESILIENCE

From Vulnerability to Resilience (V2R) is an approach and framework (see Figure 1 below) that brings together several core areas for development programming to move people permanently out of poverty, namely strengthening livelihoods, disaster preparedness, building adaptive capacity and addressing different areas of the governance environment. The goal is to address the multidimensional nature of poverty through an integrated approach that considers all of the core factors underlying vulnerability.

The context for a multidimensional approach

Three out of four poor people in developing countries live in rural areas (UNDP, 2007). Of these, most live in fragile environments such as arid or mountainous areas often at long distances from markets and other services. They have few resources at their disposal and have inadequate access to skills and technologies that could help them to make best use of those resources. Therefore their income earning options are limited and their ability to diversify or adapt when circumstances change is constrained. Poor people also often live in risk-prone areas such as on steep slopes, river embankments or floodplains because they cannot afford to live in safer areas. The impacts of drought and floods are often exacerbated by unsustainable development such as deforestation or a combination of increasing population pressure, political tensions and economic changes that lead to practices that cause environmental degradation. Conflict is fuelled by easy access to weapons and the increasing competition over scarce resources such as pasture and water.

In the event of hazards, the poor and their livelihoods tend to be the hardest hit. The livelihoods of marginal and small farmers, artisans and fishermen are affected through the loss of assets, loss of food sources (crops or stores) and loss of employment or income earning opportunities. When disaster strikes they may be forced to take desperate measures to survive such as abandoning their homes or selling vital land or tools on which their livelihoods depend because they have no savings or other alternatives. This undermines their future recovery and each shock can drive them deeper into poverty. The poor are often politically marginalized and have little voice in the policy or institutional decisions that affect them. Services, such as schooling, health, extension, transport and markets are often inadequate or unavailable to people living in more remote or challenging areas. They lack the safety nets that are taken for granted in richer countries, such as savings, insurance policies or government services to warn and protect them from disasters.

Growing uncertainty is a further characteristic of the lives of the poorest. As the world becomes more interconnected, the livelihoods of the poor can be affected by events happening in distant parts of the world. Financial markets can affect prices for staple crops in developing countries.

Policy shifts, for example towards biofuels, can contribute to rising grain prices and urban food shortages. The impact of climate change is being felt directly by increasing numbers of people as changing seasons and more extreme weather patterns affect the natural environment that people depend on and contribute to crop failures and livestock losses, thus tipping the balance between survival and destitution. Poverty, vulnerability and disasters are closely related and cannot be viewed in isolation from one another. These multiple factors: lack of resources; fragile livelihoods; exposure to hazards; climate change and other trends; and weak institutional support mechanisms must be understood in a more integrated manner in order to seek effective ways to address them.

Benefits of integration

There are strong arguments in favour of integrating these approaches under one framework for analysis and action. Disasters can significantly compromise development progress, reduce the effectiveness of aid investments and halt or slow progress towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Relevant actions to reduce disaster risk can save lives and prevent huge economic losses. Furthermore, aid resources which are diverted to humanitarian and emergency responses can reduce the aid available for development programmes elsewhere in areas not directly affected by disasters. It has been estimated that every US$1 spent on disaster reduction saves $3 in terms of the reduced impact of disasters (Benn, 2006) In Vietnam, replanting coastal mangroves at relatively low cost resulted in dramatic reductions in lives lost and crops destroyed during typhoons. There have also been knock-on benefits on livelihoods as the mangroves provide an opportunity for sustainable harvesting of sea products such as baby crab (IFRC, 2002).

1.2 LINKS WITH OTHER APPROACHES

Until relatively recently, the disasters, longer term development (for sustainable livelihoods) and climate change communities tended to operate in parallel, often working in different departments within organizations or under different government agencies and using different frameworks or approaches to shape their work. Practical Action's V2R Framework draws on these existing frameworks and approaches relating to sustainable livelihoods, disaster management and climate change adaptation, aiming to combine the key elements into one integrated model. Practitioners can refer back to these models, further details of which are provided in Section 4.1.

Sustainable livelihoods

The sustainable livelihoods approach is a holistic, people-centred approach to understanding and addressing the multiple factors that influence poverty and well-being. This approach has been used by a number of agencies, most notably the UK Department for International Development (DFID) which produced a detailed framework and guidance materials (see Section 4.1.1).

The V2R draws heavily on sustainable livelihoods thinking in recognizing the importance of having access to a diverse range of assets or resources, including social influence and voice, and sustainable technologies, in order to provide vulnerable people with safer livelihood options and coping strategies in times of need. However, the V2R gives stronger emphasis to the relevance of shocks, trends and seasonality (known as the 'vulnerability context' in the Sustainable livelihoods framework), drawing on experience from disaster management and climate change work, to bring in a more detailed analysis of hazard exposure and the infrastructure, organization and governance context required to reduce such risks.

Disaster management

Approaches to disaster management – typically the domain of humanitarian agencies or humanitarian divisions of larger governmental or non-governmental agencies – have tended to focus on four areas: prevention, preparedness, response and recovery/reconstruction. These areas of activity are all directly related to hazard exposure – potential or actual – that can result in disaster. Other models, particularly the Pressure and Release (PAR) model (see Section 4.1.2) developed by Wisner et al. (1994), give greater recognition to the underlying causes of vulnerability to disaster, rooted in social and economic factors, rather than purely physical exposure.

The V2R approach highlights the importance of disaster prevention and preparedness in reducing disaster risk, thus reducing the need for response and recovery as disasters are reduced. It emphasizes that prevention and preparedness should be integrated within all livelihoods work, as the poor are most likely to live in hazard-prone environments. Disaster recovery and reconstruction must also aim to move beyond the immediate rebuilding of infrastructure and services in order to rebuild livelihoods in such a way that they will be less vulnerable in the future. A failure to make this link can leave people more vulnerable after a disaster than they were beforehand. Finally, the V2R approach builds upon the PAR model in seeking to address the underlying institutional, structural and ideological factors that contribute to vulnerability.

Climate change

Early work on climate change focused on understanding the possible changes that would take place in climate and weather, and the impacts that these would have on the physical environment. Much of the attention in terms of action was directed towards climate change mitigation – preventing further global warming by reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. However, in the past few years there has been a shift towards understanding the impacts of climate change on the poor better as well as the actions they need to take to adapt to those changes (Ensor and Berger, 2009; Strengthening Climate Resilience Project).

Climate change is leading to an increase in the frequency and severity of hazards and stresses, with detrimental effects on livelihoods, and an increasing frequency of disasters. In addition climate change impacts bring gradual changes to seasonal patterns and stresses such as pests and diseases that directly affect livelihoods, especially farming, and which are perhaps too complex for those who are most vulnerable to understand. Facing this uncertainty about what the future might bring, people struggle to adapt to the changes in their environment. The relevance of livelihoods and disaster management approaches to understanding and addressing the impacts of climate change is therefore becoming increasingly clear.

The V2R approach highlights the vital importance of understanding and addressing the ways in which climate change, and other long term trends (economic, socio-political or environmental for example), impact on poor people's vulnerability over time by undermining their livelihoods and increasing their exposure to hazards or stresses. It prioritises building the adaptive capacity of vulnerable people so that they have the assets, resources and capacities to respond not only to present threats, but also to potential, as yet unknown challenges, in the future.

Advancing practice

The V2R recognizes and draws on the experiences of different sectors as well as on the lessons from each of the above approaches. It also recognizes the work that has already been done to advance the integration of approaches. Integration of disasters and livelihoods thinking has taken great strides in recent years, as illustrated by Disaster Resistant Sustainable Livelihoods (ITDG, 2005), see Section 4.1.3, and Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient Community (Twigg, 2007) to name two examples. Within the last year, several useful models and frameworks to integrate climate change into both disaster and livelihoods work have been developed, particularly by non-government organizations (Pasteur, 2010). The V2R has been field-tested in a range of contexts and reviewed by international staff, leading to the inclusion of many examples from our own field-based practice.

1.3 A MULTI-LEVEL APPROACH

The V2R framework sets out key areas for analysis and action to address the diverse factors that contribute to vulnerability. Whilst communities should play a lead in the process of analysis, issues and stakeholders beyond the local level should be included. Furthermore, action to address vulnerability and to strengthen resilience must bridge the gaps between the local (micro), district or provincial (meso) and national or international (macro) levels.

Working with communities

The V2R provides a framework for a community-centred approach to reducing vulnerability. It recognizes the need to build the capacity of community members and institutions to analyse their situation and to plan and implement relevant activities to strengthen resilience. It is important for external stakeholders to build local capacity at all stages so that processes of analysis, planning and implementation can be community led and can be sustained and repeated without external support in the future. Communities are highly knowledgeable about their own environment and may have already developed local strategies for prediction, early warning, preparedness and coping which have evolved over long periods of time. They are also likely to be aware of the local resources and capacity available for taking action. A community driven process will lead to more effective and realistic analysis, plans and action than those developed by outsiders.

Inclusion of marginalized groups

Within any community there are likely to be groups who are marginalized or disadvantaged in some way and who may require particular attention to ensure that they are included. Groups are often excluded from participating on the basis of age, race, caste, gender, religion or other ethnic grounds. Sometimes people are unable to participate such as the disabled, the aged, the young or the very poor who may have other priorities and cannot prioritise participating in meetings over their immediate needs. These groups must be considered and specific actions taken to ensure that their views are incorporated in any analysis activities which take place in the community. These groups are often particularly vulnerable as a direct result of their limited voice in decision-making which could affect them. The young, old and disabled are also likely to face particular challenges in responding when hazards occur, they may not be able to move fast or a deaf person may not hear when an alarm is being raised.

Working with other stakeholders to achieve impact at scale

A community-based approach does not mean that action should only be focused at the community level. Whilst important analysis and action may take place at the community level, changes in organizational policy and practice are also needed to bring about long lasting and widespread change. Community perspectives on disaster risk reduction should be fed up into all other levels of decision-making – local, national and global. Communities can be empowered to access and influence relevant bodies to make their needs and priorities known, through a variety of channels, as will be discussed in Section 2.6. Practical Action's working model for achieving impact at scale (see Section 4.1.4) provides a framework for ensuring that projects and programmes achieve maximum impact by working at various levels to achieve change, including changing policies and practices.

UNDERSTANDING THE V2R FRAMEWORK

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Disasters do not result from hazards alone, but from the impact of hazards on vulnerable communities, people with fragile livelihoods, for example, and who are inadequately prepared. Therefore, disasters are not inevitable and communities do not have to be helpless. Action can be taken to build resilience to hazards and strengthen capacity to adapt to longer term changes. But what exactly do we mean by the terms 'vulnerability', 'disaster' and 'resilience'? This section provides an introduction to the V2R framework, and explains some of the key terms.

What makes people vulnerable?

Vulnerability is the degree to which a population or system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, hazards and stresses, including the effects of climate change. The causes of vulnerability are multi-dimensional. Vulnerability can be understood in terms of physical exposure to specific hazards: people are vulnerable to flooding when they live in low lying areas or on river banks; they are vulnerable to earthquakes when they live in areas with unstable plate tectonics. Vulnerability is also understood as being connected with social and economic conditions relating to people's livelihoods – few or fragile resources, low caste or class, poor education, lack of savings and so on. Livelihoods conditions often underlie physical exposure to threats as poor people are forced to live and work in unsafe locations because their options are limited. These conditions also make them more susceptible to the impacts of hazards meaning that fragile resources are more easily damaged and with few savings to draw on it is harder to respond effectively and recover promptly.

Vulnerability is increased by the wider context of uncertainty created by climate change and other long terms trends which are often not well understood by poor people. Furthermore, if people have weak access to, and influence over, the institutions and policies that govern their access to resources and decision making, they can do little to address the underlying causes of their vulnerability. These key elements that contribute to vulnerability are illustrated in Figure 2.