Ministerial Conference on

Environment and Development

in Asia and the Pacific 2000

Kitakyushu, Japan 31 August - 5 September 2000

Main page

Outcomes

Associated Events

Documents      

Messages

Pacific Islands

Contact Info.

Links 

Environment Section Homepage

 

The Commonwealth Vulnerability Index

 Report on the Meeting on Vulnerability of Small States
(26 March 1999, ACP Secretariat, Brussels)

Dr Chris Easter, Commonwealth Secretariat, presented the main conclusions of the Commonwealth Vulnerability Index (CVI). He said that the index has been developed after three years of intensive research carried out at the request of Commonwealth governments. The index was based on two principles: first, the impact of external shocks over which the country affected has little or no control; and second the resilience of a country to withstand and recover from such shocks.

In terms of the first component, impact, income growth volatility is seen as a direct consequence of vulnerability. About fifty variables, representing the economic, environmental and spatial dimensions of the characteristics of developing countries, were tested in an econometric modeling exercise in order to identify a limited number of highly significant indicators influencing volatility of income (GDP). The three most significant indicators found were the lack of diversification, export dependence (the proportion of exports in GDP) and the impact of natural disasters (as reflected by the proportion of the population affected). These elements were combined to form a composite index of the impact of vulnerability on developing countries. The resulting index was then weighted by GDP as a proxy for resilience, the second component of the CVI.

The analysis used a sample of 111 developing countries - 37 small and 74 large - for which relevant data were available. The impact results showed that small states were more vulnerable than larger countries, irrespective of income. When impact was combined with resilience to form the CVI, some country rankings changed dramatically, accurately reflecting an intuitive notion that they should be able to manage their vulnerability through use of their own resources. However, small states still dominated the category of most vulnerable developing countries:

of the most vulnerable 25 countries, 24 were small states (12 were also Least Developed (LDCs) and 17 were small islands);
of the 50m most vulnerable countries, 33 were small states (with 27 LDCs and 23 islands);
all the least vulnerable 25 states were large (2 were LDCs); and
in the least vulnerable 50, only two were small states.
More vulnerable small states have different problems from LDCs but they are no less significant. High levels of vulnerability create constraints on these countries achieving and sustaining levels of development and income which would allow them to weather the impacts of globalisation and increased competition in global markets, without outside support.

The most vulnerable developing country in the world, according to the study, is Vanuatu.

Environmental Vulnerability Index and the Pacific Islands Forum

EXTRACT FROM 1998 COMMUNIQUÉ. 1999 Forum Communiqué Thirtieth South Pacific Forum Koror, Republic of Palau 3 - 5 October 1999 http://chacmool.sdnp.undp.org/pacific/forumsec/docs/fc99.htm

35. The Forum welcomed progress in developing a vulnerability index and reiterated its call for a comprehensive vulnerability index, encompassing such factors as environmental and capacity considerations that could be broadly applied and included in the criteria for determining Least Developed Country (LDC) status and for deciding on concessional aid and trade treatment. In this regard, it commended the positive developments in the United Nations and within the Commonwealth, as well as in the region, towards the development of a comprehensive vulnerability index.

36. Leaders commended recent work done by the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) on developing an Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) and encouraged development partners to support SOPAC’s ongoing work in this area.

37. The Forum agreed to pursue further in the United Nations, with its development partners as well as in other fora, a deferral of any decision on graduation from LDC status until work is completed on developing an internationally accepted vulnerability index that includes economic and social as well as environmental factors.

 



Last updated: May 18, 2000.