risk, livelihoods and vulnerability programme - policy report

8/14/2019 Risk, Livelihoods and Vulnerability Programme - Policy Report

1/66

Ris, Livelihoos an Vulnerabilit Proramme - Polic Report

2008

The Challene o Movin rom Acnoleement toAction: A Revie o Vulnerabilit to Environmental

Stresses an Natural Hazars in PRSPs

Fiona Miller, Elnora de le Rosa and Maria Bohn


2/66


3/66

iii

Executive Summar v

Acnoleements

1 Introuction 11.1 Mainstreaming Vulnerability Analysis into Poverty Reduction Policy Processes 11.2 Project Outline and Rationale 11.3 Project Aims and Purpose 1

2 Approach to Vulnerabilit 3

3 Methoolo or Revie 43.1 Review of Relevant Studies 43.2 Guiding Research Questions 53.3 Review Methodology 6

4 Evolvin Approach to PRSPs 8

4.1 Outline of PRSP documents, process, purpose and objectives 84.2 Evolution of World Bank Approach to Vulnerability 8

5 Results o Revie 105.1 Interpretation of Vulnerability 105.2 Approach to Vulnerability Issues 105.3 Underlying Causes of Vulnerability 205.4 Policy and Management Responses 22

6 PRSPs in the Context o Other Vulnerabilit Assessments 256.1 In-Depth Study of Vulnerability in Relation to Vietnam PRSP 256.2 In-Depth Study of Vulnerability in Relation to Honduras PRSP 306.3 In-Depth Study of Vulnerability in Relation to Burkina Faso PRSP 33

7 Conclusion 377.1 Key Findings 377.2 Recommendations 397.3 Conclusion 41

Biblioraph 42

Appenix 1 Questions or PRSP Vulnerabilit Revie 47

Appenix 2 Bacroun Inormation on PRSP Countries 51

Appenix 3 Institutional Issues Relate to Vulnerabilit 53

Appenix 4 Unerlin causes o povert 54

Appenix 5 Ientiie Polic an Proect Actions 55

CONTENTS


4/66

iv

The Challenge of Moving from Acknowledgement to Action

LIST Of TABLES

Table 1 Denition of Vulnerability in 12 PRSP documents 10

Table 2 Institutional analysis of capacity in select PRSPs 18Table 3 Causes of poverty and vulnerability to natural hazards and

environmental stresses 21

Table 4 Hazards and coping strategies in Xuan Thuy, Nam Dinh Province 26

Table 5 Sources of livelihood risks for households in the two case study

regions during the 1990s 27

Table 6 Internal social differentiation observed and causes of vulnerability

at the local level, Xuan Thuy, Vietnam 28

Table 7 Major Vulnerable Groups and Individuals in Burkina Faso 35

Table 8 Background Data, Selected Indicators 49

Table 9 Examples of PRSPs that include discussion of existing institutional

issues related to vulnerability identied at different levels 51

Table 10 Policy and project actions to reduce vulnerability 53

LIST Of fIgURES

Figure 1 Conceptual Framework for Analysis of Vulnerability Issues in PRSPs 7

LIST Of BOXES

Box 1 Select discussion of the risks of atural hazards 14

Box 2 Select discussion of the Impacts of natural hazards 14

Box 3 Who is most exposed to the impacts of natural disasters and

environmental stresses? 15

Box 4 Economic sector and livelihoods vulnerable to natural hazards

and environmental stresses 15

Box 5 Access to assets and entitlements within and between social groups 16

Box 6 Access to assets and entitlements linked with environmental issues 16

Box 7 Institutional analysis on disaster mitigation, preparedness,

response/relief, and recovery 18

Box 8 Livelihood and income diversication 19

Box 9 Discussion of Safety Nets and Social Capital 20

Box 10 Links between environmental stresses and poverty 22

Box 11 Overall Reviewers Impression of Attention given to

Vulnerability Issues 22

Box 12 Mention of strategies to address underlying causes of vulnerability 23

Box 13 Consideration of socio-economic equity 24

Box 14 Causes of vulnerability to natural hazards and

environmental stresses (and comments) 52


5/66

v

Stockholm Environment Institute

Vulnerability as a concept and vulnerabilityanalysis as a method can deepen ourunderstanding of who is susceptible to

environmental stresses and hazards in a way

that allows changes to occur to reduce and

prevent poverty. This report presents the

results of a study that sought to demonstrate

the constructive contribution vulnerability

analysis can make to poverty reduction

strategies. An evaluation of a select number

of poverty reduction strategies papers (PRSPs)

was undertaken in order to identify more

effective policy and interventions for both

poverty and vulnerability reduction.

PRSPs play a signicant role in guiding

economic planning in developing countries,

especially in highly-indebted countries.

PRSPs are documents used by the World

Bank, the IMF and the wider donor community

to better orientate their economic policies

and development assistance programmes,

together with national governments, towards

poverty reduction. PRSPs also increasingly

play a crucial role in strategies to achieve the

Millennium Development Goals of halving

poverty by 2015. Much attention has been

focused on how successful or otherwise

PRSPs have been in addressing the root causes

of poverty.

This project is part of the second phase of

the Sida-funded Poverty and Vulnerability

Programme undertaken by the Stockholm

Environment Institute (SEI). TheSEI Poverty

and Vulnerability Programme undertakes

applied research and policy support to address

the challenge of reducing human vulnerabilityto environmental and socio-economic change

and to support the overall goals of poverty

reduction and sustainable development.

This project sought to demonstrate appropriate

vulnerability assessment methodologies,

through the development of a methodology

to assess the attention given to vulnerability

issues against a set of criteria, and to evaluate

strategies for more effective policy and

management interventions for vulnerability

reduction. Specically, the project sought to:

evaluate the effectiveness of PRSPs in

integrating vulnerability analysis into

strategies to address key development

concerns;

identify the extent to which PRSPs

consider the dynamics and interactions

of environmental stresses that can

impact upon the lives of poor people;

and

whilst focusing on environmental

stresses (including natural hazards)

draw on SEI research on the interactions

of multiple stressors in creating

vulnerability as well as on the synthesis

of lessons from other vulnerability

reduction activities.

Vulnerability is interpreted in this study as the

degree to which a system (such as a social-

ecological system) is likely to be wounded

or experience harm from a perturbation or

stress in the natural or social environment.

Vulnerability results from a combination of

processes that shape the degrees of exposure to

a hazard, sensitivity to its stress and impacts,and resilience in the face of those effects

(Turneret al, 2003).

Based on the vulnerability framework,

underlying research questions and review of

relevant literature some 71 questions (as listed

in Appendix 1) were developed as outlined in

Figure 1. Responses to the questions included a

combination of various response options (yes/

no, numerical codes, categorical codes and

short response). Twelve country PRSPs were

selected in the review from regions of EastAfrica, Southern Africa, West Africa, Latin

America, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. A

more detailed investigation of three PRSPs

was also undertaken to investigate PRSPs in

the context of a wider literature review of other

vulnerability studies to identify the extent to

which the PRSP reected or contradicted the

ndings of these studies.

The potential vulnerability analysis offers

to poverty reduction efforts lies in its focus

on identifying the underlying causes of and

processes that contribute to vulnerability

Executive Summary


6/66

vi


and in identifying social groups, livelihoods,

regions or sectors that are particularly

vulnerable to environmental stresses. When

such analysis is brought into the development

strategies to reduce poverty more rened

targeting and prioritisation of interventions,

as well as appropriate policy, can be realised

to both prevent and reduce poverty.

Key ndings from the study include:

In most of the PRSPs reviewed there is

no separate analysis of vulnerability but

rather it is considered as a dimension of

poverty or included in the denition of

poverty.

Exposure to natural hazards is

generally mentioned but rarely isthere detailed discussion provided of

natural disasters, either on their causes,

impacts, mitigation efforts or wider

connection to development.

Sensitivity to hazards and stresses

within and between social groups is

mentioned in all PRSPs but discussion

is mostly in the context of poverty.

Whilst vulnerable groups are almost

always identied they are often presented as static categories and not

linked to a discussion of particular

processes or circumstances that lead to

their status as vulnerable.

Generally there is some detailed

discussion of environmental issues but

often the link between vulnerability

and environmental issues is not well

elaborated.

Due to the macro and aggregatedanalysis often contained in many PRSPs

there is little reference to livelihood

groups and livelihood strategies.

There is also very limited reference

to the role of institutions and various

resource actors in terms of their

inuence on the vulnerability context.

Limited attention is given to the

underlying causes of vulnerability,

Most of the PRSPs refer to vulnerability

reduction in their proposed strategies,

but few provide detailed discussion.

Policy and actions such as diversication

are widely recognized as contributing

to poverty and vulnerability reduction,whilst less than half of the reviewed

PRSPs give importance to issues of

socio-economic equity, a principle

widely considered important to building

resilience.

This study has proven that there is real

scope and potential for poverty analysis,

and resulting poverty reduction strategies,

to benet from the concept of vulnerability

and associated vulnerability analysis. The

methodology underlying this study is both

rigorous and innovative, and is relevant to

other development and planning strategies.

The use of the Turner et al (2003) framework

demonstrates its applicability in analysing

proximate and underlying causes of

vulnerability. The results of the study show

there is still too much attention given to the

exposure dimension of vulnerability, without

enough consideration of sensitivity and

resilience dimensions.

Collection and analysis of data that is

socially and spatially differentiated, whether

on a comprehensive (national level) or

selective (case study) basis, can facilitate

improved targeting of social, economic and

environmental policy and actions for poverty

reduction. Strategies that specically aim

to target the most vulnerable people and

address the underlying causes of vulnerability

to environmental change and stresses are

likely to improve the overall well-being of

communities in the immediate and more

uncertain distant futures. More detailed

recommendations coming out of this study are

included in Section 8.3.

With so many people living below or just

above the poverty line in countries around the

world the value of vulnerability analysis in

determining measures that can break the cycle

of poverty and prevent poverty is especially

important. It is hoped that through this report

greater attention will be placed on the most


7/66

vii


The research presented in this report wasfunded by the Swedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency (Sida)

through the SEI Poverty and VulnerabilityProgramme which undertakes applied

research, capacity building and policy support

to address the challenge of reducing human

vulnerability to environmental and socio-

economic change and to support the overall

goals of poverty reduction and sustainable

development. For more information please go

to www.sei.se or www.vulnerabilitynet.org.

The authors would like to thank the two

external reviewers who provided valuable

critique and constructive feedback on an

earlier version of this report: AlexandraClemett and Neela Matin. Whilst every effort

has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the

information presented here whatever errors

may remain are the sole responsibility of the

authors.

vulnerable groups in society and related

vulnerability issues such that the importance

of analysing these in a structured way within

poverty reduction plans is realised.

In conclusion, this report joins a number

of other studies that highlight how, despitethe attention given to vulnerability issues

in PRSPs, there remains an outstanding

challenge to translate this attention into

specic vulnerability reduction measures.

Many PRSP authors seem to use vulnerability

terminology without demonstrating a good

understanding of the terms or accompanying

tools and analysis. So, whilst vulnerability

is increasingly being acknowledged, the

challenge of translating this into vulnerability

reduction actions remains. Poor analysisof vulnerability to environmental risks,

including natural hazards, means policy

makers are limited in their ability to develop

specic targeted policy and programmatic

interventions to improve peoples well-being.

The power of and usefulness of vulnerability

analysis in contributing to overall poverty

reduction is that it allows communities

themselves together with policy makers to

better identify groups, regions, livelihoods

and sectors that are vulnerable to different

stresses thus allowing better targeting and

prioritisation of poverty reduction efforts.

Such an approach needs to also incorporate

attention on successful livelihood strategies

and coping capacities that contribute to make

people resilient in the face of shocks and

surprises.

Acknowledgements


8/66

viii



9/66

1


1.1 MAINSTREAMINgVULNERABILITy ANALySIS

INTO POVERTy REdUCTIONPOLICy PROCESSES

Poverty has long been recognised as adynamic condition; people can slideinto poverty over time or a shock event can

push them (or pull them back) into poverty

(Chambers and Conway 1991). Conversely,

actions and changes in social, economic and

environmental conditions can allow peoples

well being to improve. Environmental

stresses and natural hazards, whether sudden

or slow-creeping, are a signicant causeof poverty. Vulnerability as a concept and

vulnerability analysis as a method can deepen

our understanding of who is susceptible to

environmental stresses and hazards in a way

that allows changes to occur to reduce and

prevent poverty. The use of vulnerability

analysis (or assessment) in poverty reduction

efforts, however, has so far not been well

utilised by policy makers. The main potential

vulnerability analysis offers is in its focus

on identifying the underlying causes of and processes that contribute to vulnerability

and in identifying social groups, livelihoods,

regions or sectors that are particularly

vulnerable to environmental stresses. When

such analysis is brought into the development

strategies to reduce poverty more rened

targeting and prioritisation of interventions

as well as appropriate policy can be realised

to both prevent and reduce poverty. With so

many people living below or just above the

poverty line in countries around the world the

value of vulnerability analysis in determining

measures that can break the cycle of poverty

and prevent chronic poverty is especially

important.

This report presents the results of a project

that sought to demonstrate the constructive

contribution vulnerability analysis can make

to poverty reduction strategies through its

evaluation of a select number of poverty

reduction strategies papers in order to identify

more effective policy and interventions forboth poverty and vulnerability reduction.

1.2 PROjECT OUTLINE ANdRATIONALE

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers(PRSPs) and similar national initiatives

play a signicant role in guiding national

government and donor efforts to reduce

poverty. This report presents the results of the

review of a number of PRSPs which sought to

evaluate the effectiveness of these documents

in terms of integrating vulnerability issues

into strategies to address key development

concerns. Such documents largely work from

a multidimensional denition of poverty,

yet poverty reduction plans need to betterconsider the dynamics and interactions of

environmental stresses that impact upon the

lives of poor people in order to better realise

poverty reduction objectives. The results of

the study presented here identify where salient

vulnerability issues tend to be more strongly

or weakly acknowledged in poverty reduction

strategies and where there are opportunities to

build resilience.

1.3 PROjECT AIMS ANdPURPOSE

This project is part of the second phase ofthe Sida-funded Poverty and VulnerabilityProgramme. The SEI Poverty and

Vulnerability Programme undertakes applied

research and policy support to address the

challenge of reducing human vulnerability to

environmental and socio-economic change

and to support the overall goals of poverty

reduction and sustainable development.

This project sought to demonstrate appropriate

vulnerability assessment methodologies,

through the development of a methodology

to assess the attention given to vulnerability

issues against a set of criteria, and to evaluate

strategies for more effective policy and

management interventions for vulnerability

reduction. Specically, the project sought to:

evaluate the effectiveness of PRSPs in

integrating vulnerability analysis into

strategies to address key developmentconcerns;

1 Introduction


10/66

2


identify the extent to which PRSPs

consider the dynamics and interactions

of environmental stresses that can

impact upon the lives of poor people;

and

whilst focusing on environmental

stresses (including natural hazards)

draw on SEI research on the

interactions of multiple stressors in

creating vulnerability as well as on

the synthesis of lessons from other

vulnerability reduction activities.

Through the analysis of the World Banks

interpretation of vulnerability, and comparison

with the way vulnerability to different stresses

is understood and dealt with in PRSPs,

the project evaluated the effectiveness of

integrating vulnerability reduction efforts into

poverty reduction strategies. The study aims

to generate a number of policy and practice-

relevant conclusions.

Through the review of some 12 PRSPs and

the more detailed study of three PRSPs in

the context of a wide literature sample the

study considers vulnerability to multiple

environmental stresses, including natural

hazards. The interaction of other stresses

(such as food insecurity, economic shocks,

war, conict etc.) with environmental stresses

forms a secondary consideration.


11/66

3


Vulnerability is interpreted in this study as thedegree to which a system (such as a social-ecological system) is likely to be wounded

or experience harm from a perturbation or

stress in the natural or social environment.

The Turneret al(2003) framework offers an

integrated approach to the consideration of the

interaction of multi-scale processes on linked

human-environmental systems. Vulnerability

results from a combination of processes that

shape the degrees of exposure to a hazard,

sensitivity to its stress and impacts, and

resilience in the face of those effects (Turner

et al, 2003). Vulnerability is considered a

characteristic of all people, ecosystems, andregions confronting environmental or socio-

economic stresses and, although the level of

vulnerability varies widely, it is generally

higher among poorer people. Turner et al

conceive vulnerability of coupled human-

environmental systems as being comprised of

three dimensions:

Exposurenature and degree to which

a system experiences environmental or

socio-political stress; issues considered

include the magnitude, frequency,

duration, extent of particular hazards

and stresses;

Sensitivitydegree to which a system

is modied or affected by perturbations,

including the capacity to anticipate and

cope with stress or a perturbation;

Resilience - ability to recoverfrom the

stress and to buffer against and adapt

to future stresses and perturbations

(Turner et al, 2001; Burton, et al 1993;

Adger, 2006; Kasperson, et al2003).

The Turner framework takes vulnerability

analysis from a single focus on a social

or an ecological system, as is common in

much previous work on vulnerability (see

Burton, 1993; Blaikie et al. 1994, Wisner et

al. 2004) towards a consideration of linked

social-ecological systems. It attempts to

also distinguish between drivers of change

and their consequences. As such it is a

very comprehensive framework, yet its

complexity makes it difcult to translate into

an operational methodology. In this study, the

three dimensions broadly dened the structure

of the analysis of vulnerability in PRSPs.

2 Approach to Vulnerability


12/66

4


3.1 REVIEw Of RELEVANTSTUdIES

The methodology was developed basedon the above framework and a review of

similar studies of PRSPs (Boj and Reddy,

2002; Garrett and Zukerman, 2002; Marcus

and Wilkinson, 2002; McGee et al, 2002;

FIVIMS/FAO, 2003; Piron and Evans 2004;

Slaymaker and Newborne 2004). A review

of environmental issues was undertaken by

the World Banks Environmental Economics

Unit by Boj and Reddy (2002), which

scored how well each I/PRSP performed in

relation to environmental issues, causal linksbetween environment and poverty, responses

to environmental problems and process of

addressing environmental problems. The

methodology used in the Boj and Reddy

study, whilst useful in helping frame this

study, was problematic in how it scored

and aggregated certain categories making

it difcult to identify where efforts for

improvement needed to focus.

An FAO/FIVIMS comparative study of

the extent to which food insecurity andvulnerability problems are analysed and

incorporated into poverty reduction policies,

strategies and interventions was particularly

useful in the framing of this study, although

it drew upon a much wider sample and had

a more specic focus on vulnerability to

food insecurity (FIVIMS/FAO, 2003). The

conclusions drawn are highly pertinent to this

study, indicating that there is

a general deciency in analysis of the

extent and the underlying causality offood insecurity and vulnerability, and of

poverty of specic population groups.

Hence little analytical basis is provided

for targeted policy and programme

development. The incomplete nature

of food insecurity and vulnerability

analysis in these reports shows the

need for a wider utilization of existing

capabilities in a country through the

involvement of more parties, and for the

expansion of such existing capabilitiesthrough capacity building. It is

recommended that data collection be

improved with special attention given

to geographical, temporal and social

disaggregation. Analytical methods

need to be improved, in parallel with

the identication of a comprehensive

and congruent set of indicators

(FIVIMS/FAO 2003: iii).

A joint Save the Children Fund UK (SCF)

and Childhood Research and Policy Centre

(CRPS) review (Marcus and Wilkinson 2002)

of vulnerability and social protection also

found a lack of differentiation in the studies

among poor people. Overall the study found

that despite the signicant attention given tosocial protection in the PRSP source book,

little systematic attention is paid to social

protection issues in I/PRSPs, though they do

contain some elements of existing policies

or plans in this area. In summary, the study

found:

little differentiation among poor

people;

little distinction between chronic or

transient poverty;

the meaning of vulnerability (on

country, regional or social basis) is

rarely spelt out;

most identify vulnerable groups

(children, elderly, disabled, refugees,

those in isolated areas);

gender analysis is lacking (usually

only reference to credit, yet access to

land and other assets, employment and

governance rarely mentioned);

emphasis on growth, with little

discussion of redistribution;

liberalisation policies, privatisation and

public sector reform are promoted with

little discussion of linkages to poverty

reduction;

social equity is rarely mentioned

explicitly;

not enough detail is given to

environmental issues and sustainable

3 Methodology for Review


13/66

5


development, though there is some

attempt to promote greater access to

and control over natural resources by

poor people;

vulnerable groups are usually framed

with reference to place, rather thanstructural socio-economic or class

inequalities (Marcus and Wilkinson,

2002).

Regarding natural disasters, the report states:

Several of the I-PRSPs and PRSPs

we examined highlight vulnerability

to natural disasters. The main

preparedness and response mechanisms

discussed are: early warning,

establishment of improved mechanismsfor action, support for rebuilding

livelihoods, and measures to avert food

and health crises (37).

Other studies by research organisations and

NGOs considered for both the relevance of

their methodologies and ndings, included:

a DFID study by IDS on participation in

PRSPs (McGee et al, 2002); an ODI series

monitoring the process and politics of PRSPs

(Piron and Evans 2004); and a study of the

extent to which water and sanitation issuesare addressed in PRSPs, through a focus on

the linkages between livelihoods and multi-

level institutional processes (Slaymaker and

Newborne 2004).

The review of the above studies found that

the most meaningful studies are those based

on clearly dened research questions, terms

and conceptual (analytical) frameworks

with analysis framed around clear questions

using both quantitative and qualitative

response options. Our review also found that

integrative reports organised by theme are

more accessible, especially if they also break

down the country specic information.

3.2 gUIdINg RESEARCHQUESTIONS

The research questions underlying thisstudy of PRSPs can be divided into fourkey areas:

1 Interpretation of Vulnerability How is vulnerability interpreted in the

PRSPs?

How adequate is this interpretation in

accounting for multiple environmental

stresses and dynamic processes of

environmental change and variability?

Are poverty indicators used to analyse

vulnerability to environmental

stresses?

2 Approach to Vulnerability Issues To what extent is the exposure,

sensitivity and resilience of different

groups, regions, livelihoods and sectors

to multiple stresses identied and

assessed?

What level of disaggregation of data

and analysis occurs?

What anticipation, prevention, coping,

adaptation and recovery strategies areidentied, at the livelihood level and at

multiple institutional levels?

3 Underlying Causes of Vulnerability Are the underlying causes of

vulnerability to environmental stresses

addressed?

What analysis is provided of the links

between: vulnerability to multiple

environmental stresses and poverty?

disasters, environmental stresses andpoverty reduction goals?

4 Policy Responses How adequate are the policy and

management responses identied

in PRSPs in terms of vulnerability

reduction through reduction of exposure

and sensitivity and the increase in

resilience?

How do efforts to reduce poverty also

address the reduction of vulnerabilityto multiple stresses?


14/66

6


3.3 REVIEw METHOdOLOgy

Based on the vulnerability framework,underlying research questions and reviewof relevant literature some 71 questions

(as listed in Appendix 1) were developed

as outlined in Figure 1. Responses to thequestions included a combination of various

response options (yes/no, numerical codes,

categorical codes and short response).

A more detailed investigation of three

PRSPs was also undertaken to investigate

PRSPs in the context of a wider literature

review of other vulnerability studies of the

country in question to identify the extent to

which the PRSP reected or contradicted the

ndings of these studies. This investigation

considered what other studies of vulnerabilityhad been undertaken, what risks or hazards

and vulnerable groups were identied, and

what explanation of the underlying causes of

vulnerability and key policy and programmatic

outcomes were identied.

Early on it was found that some of the original

questions were too specically tied to the

particular chosen vulnerability framework

and not necessarily matched the aims and

frame of reference of the PRSPs. Rather

than insisting on a particular denitionand approach to vulnerability, and trying

to identify evidence that supports such a

framework, the researchers adopted a more

constructive approach that tried to capture

alternative approaches to vulnerability. This

choice was made to avoid bias and self-

referencing. So through an iterative process

of testing and adaptation of our methodology

we aimed to capture the diverse approaches

taken to vulnerability as contained within the

PRSPs whilst still maintaining the integrity ofour vulnerability analysis.

One of the limitations of this study is that the

sample size of PRSPs reviewed (12) could have

been larger in order to strengthen the weight

of the ndings. The study also is limited by

the fact it is a desk study. Consultation with

key stakeholders in each country would

have elicited important insights on their

perspectives on vulnerability and how these

relate to the process by which the PRSP was

produced. This was, however, outside thescope of this review.

The criteria for the selection of the countries

for which PRSPs were reviewed included:

development status, including least

developed, low to middle-income

countries, and transitional economies;

geographic spread including Africa,

South and Southeast Asia, and Latin

America;

mix of countries vulnerable to different

types of environmental stresses, of

varying onset and impact patterns:

including natural hazards (oods,

typhoons, drought etc.), environmental

change (deforestation, land degradation

etc.); sudden shocks and slow onset

hazards; and impacts including loss oflife, economic losses, and health and

livelihood impacts.

Basic background information (Q5-10, refer

to Appendix 2) on each of the countries the

PRSP review is based on is outlined in Table

8. The PRSPs reviewed were Bangladesh,1

Burkina Faso,2 Cambodia,3 Honduras,4

1 General Economics Division, Planning Com-

mission, Government of Peoples Republic ofBangladesh (2005) Bangladesh - Unlocking thePotential National Strategy for Accelerated PovertyReduction, Bangladesh, October 16

2 Ministry of Economy and Development (2004)Burkina Faso Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper,IMF, July.

3 Council for Social Development, Kingdomof Cambodia. (2004) National Poverty ReductionStrategy 2003-2005, Cambodia, December 20

4 Social Cabinet and Civil Society Participa-tion Commission for National Reconstruction andTransformation, Government of Honduras. (2001)Honduras Poverty Reduction Strategy, IMF, August


15/66

7


Kenya,5 Mali,6 Nicaragua,7 Senegal,8 Sri

Lanka,9 Tanzania,10 Vietnam11 and Zambia.12.

All the PRSP documents reviewed are from

the period 2000-2005, with all but two reports

5 Ministry of Planning and National Development, Republic of Kenya (2004) Investment Programme forthe Economic Recovery Strategy for Wealth and Employment Creation 2003-2007, Kenya, March 12.

6 Ministry of Economy and Finance, Government of Mali (2002) Mali Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper,Mali, May 29.

7 Technical Secretariat of the Presidency, Government of Nicaragua (2001) A Strengthened Growthand Poverty Reduction Strategy, Nicaragua, July

8 Republic of Senegal (2002) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Senegal

9 Government of Sri Lanka (2002) Regaining Sri Lanka: Vision and Strategy for Accelerated Develop-ment, Sri Lanka, December

10 Vice Presidents Office, United Republic of Tanzania (2000) Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper, Tanza-nia, October 1

11 Ministry of Planning and Investment, Socialist Republic of Vietnam (2003) The comprehensive poverty

reduction and growth strategy, Hanoi, November

12 Ministry of Finance and National Planning, Government of Zambia (2002) Zambia Poverty ReductionStrategy Paper 2002 2004, Lusaka, March

fiure 1: Conceptual frameor or Analsis o VulnerabilitIssues in PRSPs

The analysis of PRSPs is organised into five key areas covering different dimensions ofvulnerability. Stage 2 analyses PRSPs in context focusing on a small selection of PRSPs

that are examples of good practice.

Recommen

da

tionson

improve

dintegra

tiono

fv

ulnera

bilityana

lys

isintopoverty

reduc

tions

tra

teg

ies

tobu

ildresilience

tomu

ltipleenv

ironmen

tal

stresses

3.

Approach to Vulnerability Issues

different socialgroups

livelihoods

regions

sectors

Anticipation, prevention, coping, mitigation,adaptation, recovery strategies at the

livelihood and institutional level

Interpretation ofVulnerability

multiplestresses

5.

Policy andManagement

Responses

dataanalysis

targeting

financing

policy

institutions

Integration ofvulnerability

reduction intopoverty reduction

efforts

1.

Basic PRSPInformation

Exposure

Sensitivity

Resilience

4.

Underlying Causes ofVulnerability

povertyvulnerability links

environmentalstresses/stressors

Dynamics andinteractions

World BankDefinition ofVulnerability

SEI/ ClarkUniversity

VulnerabilityFramework

Vulnerabilitycontext

Understandingof vulnerability

Profile of vulnerability issues Vulnerabilityanalysis

Vulnerabilityreduction

Stage 2

Analysis of select PRSPs in Context

2.

(Vietnam and Burkina Faso) being rst

versions (Q2). In most cases the PRSPs were

conducted at the ministerial or presidential

ofce level (Q3).


16/66

8


4.1 OUTLINE Of PRSPdOCUMENTS, PROCESS,

PURPOSE ANd OBjECTIVES

According to the World Bank,Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers

are to provide the basis for assistance

from the World Bank and the IMF as

well as debt relief under the highly

indebted poor country (HIPC) initiative.

PRSPs should be country-driven,

comprehensive in scope, partnership-

oriented, and participatory (World

Bank, 2007).

PRSPs play a signicant role in guiding

economic planning in developing countries,

especially in highly-indebted countries.

PRSPs are part of an effort by the World Bank,

the IMF and the wider donor community to

better orientate their economic policies and

development assistance programmes towards

poverty reduction. PRSPs also increasingly

play a crucial role in strategies to achieve the

Millennium Development Goals of halving

poverty by 2015. Much attention has beenfocused on how successful or otherwise

PRSPs have been in addressing the root causes

of poverty.

The PRSP process emerged in response to

a recognition by major donors that previous

assistance efforts were not wholly successful

in reducing unacceptably high levels of

poverty around the world. They also emerged

as a reaction to the concern by NGOs and

others that the policies of the World Bank and

IMF, particularly earlier structural adjustmentprogrammes, were overwhelmingly concerned

with economic growth without specically

targeting poverty reduction, and in some cases

harming the poor.

PRSPs should provide a framework to address

underlying causes of poverty and ensure

economic policies and assistance programmes

are suited to the specic economic,

environmental and social context and needs

of each country, rather than being an off-the-

shelf package advocating neoliberal economicreforms. Moreover they should emerge from

a participatory consultative process involving

donors, government, civil society, other

stakeholders and the poor themselves. PRSPs

continue, however, to face criticism regarding

the extent to which gender is adequately

addressed (Zuckerman and Garrett, 2003), the

quality and meaningfulness of participation

and government ownership (McGee, Levee,

and Hughes, 2002; Lawson 2004), their

approach to environment-poverty linkages

(Pradeep and MacDonald 2004) and their

insistence on neo-liberal economic policies

that do not link specically with poverty

reduction goals.

4.2 EVOLUTION Of wORLdBANk APPROACH TO

VULNERABILITy

Recognition of the steady rise in thehumanitarian and economic consequencesof environmental stresses and natural disasters

around the world, especially in poor countries

(and poor regions within rich countries),

has seen a shift in attention amongst the

donor community, governments and other

stakeholders to give greater attention toprevention, mitigation and adaptation rather

than on reactive measures such as post-

disaster reconstruction and recovery. This

has increased attention on the vulnerability,

rather than just the hazard, context, resulting

in greater consideration of the role of

institutional, livelihood, governance and

natural resource management in poverty and

vulnerability reduction.

Previously the World Bank interpreted

vulnerability narrowly in relation tonatural disasters. Yet the 2000/01World

Development Reportexpanded the

understanding of vulnerability to include a

wider variety of stresses and shocks, thus

placing vulnerability clearly in the context of

poverty reduction.

Reducing vulnerability to economic

shocks, natural disasters, ill health,

disability, and personal violence is

an intrinsic part of enhancing well

being and encourages investment in

human capital and higher-risk, higher-

return activities. This requires effective

4 Evolving Approach to PRSPs


17/66

9


national action to manage economy-

wide shocks and effective mechanisms

to reduce risks faced by poor people.

It also requires reducing health and

weather-related risks, strengthening

the assets of the poor, diversifying

household activities, and providing

a range of insurance mechanisms to

cope with adverse shocks from public

works to food-based distribution (World

Bank, 2000).

The World Banks PRSP Sourcebook (www.

worldbank.org) considers the vulnerability

dimension of well being, as

the probability or risk today of being

in povertyor falling deeper into

povertyat some point in the future.

Vulnerability is a key dimension of

well-being, since it affects individuals

behavior (in terms of investment,

production patterns, coping strategies)

and their perception of their own

situation.

As such, poverty and vulnerability are

strongly linked within the World Banks

conceptualisation of poverty reduction efforts.

Yet despite calls to give greater attention to

vulnerability issues in PRSPs and country

assistance strategies (see Gilbert and Kraimer

1999; Burton and van Aalst 1999 in Sharma et

al 2000; Sharma et al, 2000; IEG 2006) there

remains an outstanding challenge to translate

discussion of vulnerability into specic

vulnerability measures, as afrmed by the

results of this review.


18/66

10


5.1 INTERPRETATION OfVULNERABILITy

deinin Vulnerabilit

In most reviewed PRSPs, vulnerability is

included as a dimension of poverty. For

instance, in the Nicaraguan PRSP it states:

Poverty is a multidimensional problem,

but its most common denition is

in terms of unacceptably low levels

of income and consumption. In

addition, poverty is often associated

with unsatised basic needs, high

vulnerability to exogenous events,and lack of economic opportunities

(Nicaraguan PRSP: 5).

Similarly, in the Sri Lankan PRSP it states:

In the past, poverty was viewed as a

problem of economic insufciency, but

its meaning has now been broadened

to encompass material deprivation,

human deprivation, including low

achievements in education and

health, vulnerability, voicelessness,powerlessness and exposure to risk

(Sri Lankan PRSP:113).

Vulnerability is not mentioned in one reviewed

PRSP (Mali) and in another case the PRSP

does not even include a denition of poverty

(Kenya).

Vulnerability is rarely explicitly dened (Q11).

Often it is described/exemplied rather than

dened. An exception is the Senegal PRSP,

which states

Vulnerability is a condition of

destitution that is sometimes due to

a lack of, or the inadequacy of, the

income and resources that enable an

individual to meet his needs, and which

exposes the individual to risks that are

sometimes difcult to deal with (172).

Where denitions of vulnerability are provided

(Q12-13) they are presented in Table 1.

5.2 APPROACH TOVULNERABILITy ISSUES

Vulnerabilit as a Cross-cuttinIssue

Vulnerability cuts across many aspects

of peoples lives and various economic

sectors. Consequently, in all reviewed

PRSPs vulnerability issues are mentioned or

discussed in several different sections. In onlythree cases were specic sections included

which resembled an explicit vulnerability

assessment (Nicaragua, Cambodia and

Senegal) (Q14-15).

Vulnerability is often mentioned in the

descriptions of poverty and in some cases,

Camboia

Reducing the vulnerability of the poor has to deal with several aspects. Increasing environmental

sustainability and improving natural resource management is one key dimension. Disastermanagement especially in the face of floods is critical for the rural poor (114).

Seneal

Vulnerability is a condition of destitution that is sometimes due to a lack of, or the inadequacyof, the income and resources that enable an individual to meet his needs, and which exposesthe individual to risks that are sometimes difficult to deal with. Vulnerability may be structural ortransitory. The context in which the vulnerability occurs is determined by the environment in whichpeople are living. The means of existence and the general availability of property are powerfullyaffected by critical tendencies influencing the economic and social situation of individuals and theirsurvival strategies (172).

Tanzania

As part of the non-income poverty definition: ...a major concern of the poor is their vulnerability tounpredictable events, i.e. famine resulting from either floods or drought, increasing impact of theoccurrence of HIV/AIDS. Vulnerable groups are the AIDS victims and orphans, handicapped, thevery old and refugees (9).

Zambia

As part of the concept of poverty is a deprivation of security on account of vulnerability to external

events such as bad weather, natural disasters, illness, and economic shocks (e.g. sharp decline interms of trade) (21).

Table 1 deinition o Vulnerabilit in 12 PRSP documents

5 Results of Review


19/66

11


as discussed below, analysis of vulnerability

translates into policy or programmatic

recommendations. In the Zambian PRSP,

vulnerability issues are dealt with in the

context of poverty mainly in the poverty

prole, but also to some extent in sectoral

chapters, such as those concerning agriculture,

education, health, water and sanitation and

cross-cutting issues (such as HIV/AIDS,

gender, environment). In the Nicaraguan

PRSP, vulnerability issues gure in the poverty

prole but also in the section on Strengthened

Growth and Poverty Reduction Policies, and

more specically in the sections dealing with

Better protection for vulnerable groups and

Cross-cutting themes.

Stresses - Vulnerable to hat?Vulnerability as a concept and condition

needs to be understood in relation to

something, such as a stress, threat or a

hazard. All reviewed PRSPs include mention

of stresses, including natural hazards and

environmental stresses, whether discussed in

the context of vulnerability or poverty (Q16).

There is, however, no systematic listing of

environmental risks/stresses provided in the

reviewed PRSPs.

There are a whole range of other stresses

mentioned in the PRSPs including: HIV/

AIDS, food insecurity, economic shocks, civil

and domestic violence, sexual exploitation,

and many more. The Cambodia PRSP

includes food insecurity, poverty, HIV/

AIDS, landmines and UXO (unexploded

ordinances), natural hazards, homelessness,

remoteness, conict, crop failure and

pesticides. The Kenya PRSP in its discussion

of poverty refers to the increasing incidence

of HIV/AIDS (tuberculosis and drug-resistant

malaria), widespread corruption, the slow pace

of economic reforms, low/unstable income,

intermittent shortages and high costs of

energy, poor physical and telecommunications

infrastructure, terrorism, natural calamities

and ination.

Based on a criteria of level of understanding

(poor, moderate, good), it was considered

that the PRSPs reviewed had only a poor

or moderate understanding of stresses asdynamic (Q17). An exception is found in the

Nicaraguan PRSP where it is recognised that

The frequent recurrence of natural disasters

and the mismanagement of our natural

resources have increased ecological risk

factors, and resulted in greater environmental

deterioration and vulnerability (36).

Are vulnerable roups ientiie?In all PRSPs reviewed vulnerable groups are

identied (Q18-19), although in some cases

this does not occur explicitly in the context

of a discussion of vulnerability but rather

poverty. Hence, for instance, in the Mali

PRSP vulnerable groups are synonymous

with the most disadvantaged groups and

poorest people (who are mainly children,

women, HIV/AIDS victims, female headed

households, the handicapped and the elderly

in both rural and urban areas).

Whilst vulnerable groups are quite often

identied they are often presented as static

categories and not linked to a discussion of

particular processes or circumstances that

lead to their vulnerability. Some listings of

groups - often children, women, the elderly

and the handicapped - are left unmotivated.

Vulnerability research has in recent years

departed from a focus on vulnerable groups

to rather an understanding of more dynamicvulnerable situations, i.e. how particular

groups under certain circumstances or

conditions can be vulnerable (Wisner, 2004).

There are however some examples of more

specic groups being identied as vulnerable.

In the Cambodian PRSP one vulnerable

group identied is those who live in areas

contaminated with landmines and UXOs,

another is those living in areas affected by

natural disasters such as oods and droughts

(Cambodia PRSP: 28). In the Senegal PRSPchildren from low-income neighbourhoods

of the towns and the poverty-stricken rural

areas (Senegal PRSP: 42) are mentioned.

Whilst in some cases groups vulnerable to

environmental stress or natural hazards are

mentioned, there is also mention of groups

vulnerable to other kinds of stresses (e.g.,

economic stresses, poverty). In the case of

Burkina Faso, there is quite specic analysis

presented on different groups, the rural and

urban poor are categorized as long-term poor,vulnerable non-poor, involutional transitory

poor, evolutional transitory poor (Burkina Faso


20/66

12


PRSP: 24-25). In the case of Sri Lanka, poor

women are considered especially vulnerable

to the vicious cycle of poverty, addiction,

malnutrition, poor environmental health, low

education and poor health status. The PRSP

notes that two new vulnerable groups of

women have emerged in recent years: elderly

women in low-income families and women

coping with displacement and lack of services

and livelihood in conict areas (Sri Lanka

PRSP: 121).

Whilst the gender aspects of PRSPs have

been previously well analysed (Garrett and

Zukerman, 2002) this review of PRSPs found

that whilst gender issues (Q22) are mentioned

or discussed in all PRSP documents, sometimes

in great detail, in relation to vulnerabilityto environmental risks or natural hazards

gender issues they are not analysed. There

remains a need in particular to disaggregate

data by gender to allow such an analysis and

to go beyond simply identifying women as a

vulnerable group to considering the underlying

causes of why this might be the case.

Ho are vulnerable roupsientiie?

Following on from any denition ofvulnerability, a clear criteria or methodology is

required in order to rigorously identify people

who are vulnerable. In none of the reviewed

PRSPs (Q20), however, is there a criteria

or methodology suggested for identifying

vulnerable groups.

There is, however, such criteria in the context

of poverty provided in many PRSPs. As an

example of an extensive list of such criteria,

in the Kenya PRSP criteria for poverty

include: geographical location (rural/urban),household size, level of education of head of

household, gender (male versus female headed

households), income level, agricultural output

(cash crop farmers or subsistence farmers),

access to land, ownership of livestock and

farm tools; low agricultural productivity,

poor access to markets, being unemployed

or earning low wages, living in areas with

poor infrastructure (especially roads), and

with limited availability of affordable basic

services, living with HIV/AIDS or with adisability, being a member of a minority or

other group that is discriminated against, and

living in an area with a poor and degrading

environment, living in areas prone to natural

calamities, cultural beliefs and traditions that

deny access to productive assets (especially

women) (Kenya PRSP: 10).

Are roups vulnerable toenvironmental chane inclue inthe iscussion o environmentalissues?

This question attempted to identify whether

consideration is given to how processes

of environmental change have different

consequences for different groups (Q21),

with some people being more vulnerable than

others. Generally speaking the discussion of

environmental issues in most of the reviewedPRSPs does not specically include reference

to vulnerable groups. However, this may to

some extent be due to the fact that the question

was applied in a narrow sense. There is a

recognition though in many PRSPs that the

poor and those directly dependent on natural

resources, such as pastoralists, farmers and

forest communities, are more vulnerable to

environmental change as was identied in the

Mali and Tanzanian PRSPs. In some PRSPs

the discussion of environmental issues does

at least single out specic groups. In the

Bangladesh PRSP it states in the section on

Natural Disasters and Poverty that: Often it

is the poor and the inrm who fall easy prey to

disasters and it is also they who may take the

longest to recover from the adverse effects.

(Bangladesh PRSP: 21). The Bangladeshi

PRSP identies the poor as vulnerable to

climate change and poor people in general

are identied as vulnerable to noise pollution

and water pollution, and people with low

nutrition are identied as vulnerable to arsenicpollution. In the Zambia PRSP it states that

the top ve environmental problems which

affect the Zambian people are: water pollution

and inadequate sanitation, soil degradation,

air pollution, wildlife depletion (sh and

game), and deforestation. Moreover, the

greatest costs (both social and environmental)

of these problems are borne by the poor who

have less capacity to adapt to environmental

changes. For example, the urban poor are

mostly affected by inadequate or pollutedwater and air pollution, and women and

youths are mostly affected by environmental


21/66

13


degradation as they have limited access to

land and other productive resources (Zambia

PRSP: 117).

where are vulnerable reionslocate?

To effectively target efforts at vulnerability

reduction it is necessary to know not only

who is vulnerable and to what, but also where

vulnerable people are located and where

stresses and hazards occur. Vulnerable or

poor/deprived regions are identied to some

extent in the PRSP documents reviewed

(Q23). Sometimes specic departments

are identied, quite specic areas like

fringes of large cities or remote and isolated

areas are highlighted and sometimes areas

are identied in terms of environmental

stresses (e.g. areas with fragile ecological

characteristics or areas affected by river

erosion, arsenic, salinity, ooded areas).

Increasingly poverty maps are being used by

planners and others to identify critical areas.

However, vulnerability mapping is not so

common in the PRSPs reviewed (Q25), and

in the PRSPs reviewed vulnerable regions

are never shown in a visual form. One PRSP

(Burkina Faso) does however have a map onthe incidence of poverty by agro-climatic

region, and one (Nicaragua) has a map of

critical environmental areas.

disareation o data

Vulnerability as a concept requires some

understanding of the differentiation

between individuals, households, groups,

communities and regions in terms of their

exposure, sensitivity and ability to cope

and adapt to stress. The level at which datais available greatly determines the extent

to which differences can be identied,

as highly aggregated data does allow for

vulnerabilities to be well understood. The

review investigated what is the lowest level

(socio-economic unit) data is collected and

presented at (household, district, region,

or national) (Q26). Generally speaking

regional or provincial data is presented for

some major issues, but it is rare to nd more

disaggregated data being presented and

certainly not across a wide range of issues.

This limits the extent to which targeting of

poverty and reduction programs can occur.

Whilst it is acknowledged that having widely

available and disaggregated socio-economic

and environmental data is a challenge in

many countries, well researched micro-

case studies can serve to be illustrative of

important issues. Such micro-case studies

of poverty or vulnerability are presented

in some PRSPs (Cambodia, Sri Lanka,

Bangladesh, and also in Tanzania, Zambia,

and Burkina Faso) (Q27). Micro-case studies

of vulnerability to natural hazards are rare,

the discussion of Hurricane Mitch in the

Honduras PRSP is an exception (Honduras

PRSP: 18).

Basic measures on health, water and

education, if disaggregated according

to geographic regions, can allow theidentication of successful areas or those

requiring targeting. Based on pre-dened

criteria it was found that the disaggregation of

data is in most cases basic (data is presented

according to basic groupings - region, rural-

urban, province - for key variables related

to health, water and education) or moderate

(data is presented according to several

groupings -region, rural-urban, province,

age, gender - for key variables related to

health, water and education) (Q28). Only in

the case of Sri Lanka was advanced analysis

used. In some cases, however, data is not

presented for all three variables (Tanzania,

Mali, and Kenya PRSPs have no data on

water but basic or moderate disaggregation

of data for the other variables). Data would

need to be further disaggregated to enable a

vulnerability analysis and targeted measures

to reduce vulnerability.

Use o Vulnerabilit Inicators

Vulnerability indicators can be employed

to generate maps that can be used for

targeting purposes and at a more local

level they can be used to identify the most

vulnerable localities. The PRSP documents

have or propose the use of many indicators

to measure poverty. Many of these can be

relevant for vulnerability to natural hazards

or environmental risks (Q29-30). Sometimes

indicators are presented which actually

indicate exactly just this, eg. deforestation

rate (Nicaragua PRSP -but with very littledata available), planted seedling areas

damaged by oods (Cambodia PRSP), and


22/66

14


access to safe water (Vietnam PRSP). But

apart from some PRSPs (perhaps Cambodia,

Honduras, Bangladesh) such specic

vulnerability indicators are rare.

Exposure to Stresses an Hazars

Exposure, as outlined above, is one obvious

dimension of vulnerability. This section

discusses the risk (potential incidence) and

impact of stresses and hazards. The review

investigated the level of analysis of the

risks provided in the PRSP (Q30), whether:

no mention; mentioned but not elaborated;

elaborated (discussion of risk with reference

to frequency, magnitude and timing); or

detailed elaboration (detailed discussion of

risk with reference to frequency, magnitude

and timing). In all 12 PRSPs, the risks of

natural hazards are mentioned but no further

discussion is provided. Often there is limited

mention of natural hazards but rather natural

disasters or calamities are discussed. This

could mean that there is little conceptual

distinction between a hazard (the potential for

a disaster) and a disaster (when a hazard occurs

in the presence of vulnerability). The absence

of such a detailed discussion of stresses or

hazards is surprising considering some of the

most disaster prone countries in the world(Bangladesh, Vietnam, Honduras and Burkina

Faso) were included in the sample.

In regards to the impacts of natural disasters

(Q32), PRSPs were classied according to

the following criteria: no mention of the

economic and social impacts of hazards;

mentioned but not discussed; some mention

of the economic and social impacts of hazards

(e.g. economic costs, number people affected,

number of people killed); discussed in detail

the economic and social impacts of hazards

(e.g. economic costs, number people affected,

number of people killed); very detailed

discussion of the economic and social impacts

of hazards (e.g. economic costs, number

people affected, number of people killed),

including discussion of change over time and

underlying causes of this change. The impacts

(human, social and economic) of natural

hazards are mentioned but most PRSPs do not provide detailed discussion. Surprisingly the

countries of Vietnam and Bangladesh, both

frequently affected by severe disasters, whilst

providing some detailed discussion of natural

disasters do not provide very detailed analysis

of the impacts.

Earlier in the review it was investigated as

to whether different vulnerable groups are

identied, yet in this question (Q33) this is

taken further to evaluate the relationships

between impacts of hazards and stresses

and particular groups. Generally, the poor

especially in rural areas are referred to as themost exposed to the impacts of natural hazards

and environmental stresses. In some PRSPs,

Box 1: Select iscussion o the riss onatural hazars

Burina faso: the main problem with waterresources in Burkina Faso is that rainfall is both

low and unreliable. Rainfall has diminished steadily

over the last forty years, with some periods of more

severe drought. (Burkina Faso PRSP, p. 89).

kena: the poor also attribute their poverty tonatural calamities, and traditions and cultural

beliefs that deny women access to productive

assets. (Kenya PRSP, p. 10).

Vietnam: Analysis of the Household LivingStandards Measurement Surveys in 1992/93 and

1997/98 indicates that households that suffer from

subsequent natural disasters are likely to fall into

deep poverty.(p. 18) Sudden weather changes

such as typhoons, oods and drought make

conditions of the poor for living and producing even

more difcult. (14) The fact that Vietnam is situated

in a natural disaster prone area and that 80% of

the poor work in the agricultural sector increasesthe risk that people will fall back into poverty.

Box 2: Select iscussion o the impactso natural hazars

Mali: the socio-economic context is characterizedby e.g. climatic hazards, whose effects on the rural

sector are felt throughout the rest of the economy.

(Mali PRSP, p. 33).

Vietnam: one of the causes of poverty or majorfactors contributing to poverty is the risk of high

vulnerability to natural disasters and other risks

(18); natural disasters can jeopardize the ow of

services from infrastructure works, such as social

services facilities. (Vietnam PRSP, p. 24).

Zambia: one of the causes for the cripplingination level is occasional shocks such as the

effects of drought. Also in some years, drought

caused occasional maize imports and unfavourableweather condition (ooding and dry spells) is one

of the contributing factors to slow progress of

the agricultural sector. (19 and 57, respectively,

Zambia PRSP).


23/66

15


more specic groups are identied as shown

in the examples in Box 3.

Certain economic sectors may be more vulnerable

to natural hazards and environmental stresses

than others, for example nature based tourism,

sheries, agriculture and forestry. Economicsectors and livelihoods vulnerable to natural

hazards and environmental stresses (Q34) are

both partly identied in all PRSPs, mostly

referring to the farming and sheries sectors.

Notable examples are shown in Box 4.

Another aspect of exposure to stresses that was

investigated is that of the interaction between

environmental and other stresses (Q35) as

this can severely exacerbate vulnerability.

It was found that most of the PRSPs discuss

the interaction between natural hazards andother stresses. Notably the interaction with

health risks (HIV/AIDS) and market/price

uctuations or shocks, especially international

markets. The Bangladesh PRSP mentions

natural uncertainties and price uctuations

for farmers. In the Burkina Faso PRSP it is

recognised that In severely degraded areas,

soil depletion, poverty, and food insecurity

have created a vicious cycle. Food insecurity

and poverty lead to depletion not only of

the soil, but of other natural resources(exacerbating the conicts over the use of these

resources).(88) The presence of HIV/AIDS

further exacerbates the social consequences

of such stresses. The situation in Cambodia

is described as one where repeated exposure

to natural hazards is seen as contributing to

increased food insecurity, domestic violence

due to stress, debt, poverty and vulnerability.

Also, decline in access to land and forest

also increases poverty and vulnerability.

In addition, a growing number of familiesface increasing food insecurity as a result

of reduced access to shery and forestry

resources.(151-121)

Sensitivit

Sensitivity is another important dimension of

vulnerability referring to the degree to which

a system is modied or perturbed, including

the capacity to anticipate and cope with

stresses. Satisfaction of entitlements to basic

social services (such as water, sanitation,education, and health care) is recognised as

key to reducing vulnerability, as sensitivity

to stresses is greatly inuenced by access

to assets and entitlements. Access to assets

and entitlements within and between social

groups is mentioned in all the PRSPs (Q36)

but discussion is limited mostly to the context

of poverty - rarely is the link made between

entitlements and vulnerability reduction. In

many of the PRSPs reviewed the importance

of secure land rights by the poor is recognisedas important to poverty reduction. The

Cambodian PRSP does, however, recognise

Box 3: who is most expose to the impacts o natural isastersan environmental stresses?

kena: on environmental stresses - children (especially the female children)mainly working in hazardous situations of commercial agriculture, shing and

domestic services could have negative impact to their health. Another example,

the slum dwellers in urban areas who lack access to basic water and sanitation.

(Kenya PRSP)

Mali: rural and urban areas are subject to various kinds of pollution that affectthe populations health and the quality of life, particularly of the poorest people,

women and children who are the most vulnerable group. Also, the farmers

and herders could be considered most vulnerable to natural hazards and

environmental stresses. (Mali PRSP: 56).

Zambia: on environmental stresses - the urban poor are especially affectedby poor environmental services, such as sub-standard housing, inadequate or

polluted water, lack of sanitation and solid waste systems, outdoor air pollution,

and indoor pollution from low quality cooking fuels. In rural areas, the poor are

heavily dependent upon natural resources (forests, land water, animals, etc.).

The most affected by poverty and environmental degradation are women and

youths as they have limited access to land, other productive resources, as wellas limited employment in the formal sector. (Zambia PRSP, p. 117).

Box 4: Economic sector an livelihoos vulnerable to naturalhazars an environmental stresses

Burina faso: a change in vegetation can have severe implications for livestock,such that: the main problem with intensive livestock farming is feeding the

animals. At present, nearly 87% of animal feed is provided by natural fodder

which is becoming increasingly rare in the north as the quillwort plants tend to

spread southward. Consequently, livestock farming is moving toward Boucle du

Mouhoun, the east, and the south, and causing severe environmental damage.

(Burkina Faso, p. 91).

Mali: on environmental stresses: the livelihoods mostly affected are farmingand livestock herding. The deterioration of Malis natural resources includes, a)

decline fertility of croplands, b) severe pressure on forests being cleared for

agricultural purposes, c) over-grazing, d)extensive cutting down of trees as the

core source of domestic energy. Unsuitable farming practices as one of the key

causes of desertication. And its the rural/agricultural sector which has higher

exposure to climatic risks. (Mali PRSP, p. 32).

Tanzania: its stated generally that the poor are vulnerable to unpredictableevents, especially the AIDS victims and orphans, the handicapped, the very

old, and refugees. In addition, it is mentioned that the poor are concentrated

in subsistence agriculture, urban poor is concentrated in the informal sector,

women are generally perceived to be poorer than men (Tanzania PRSP, pp.

6-9).


24/66

16


the role land inequality plays in contributing

to poverty and vulnerability. The following

text box shows examples extracted from the

PRSPs.

Access to assets and entitlements (Q37) as

linked with environmental issues is likewise

mentioned in most of the PRSPs but notelaborated on (see examples below). In the

Honduras PRSP, legality of land tenure and

deforestation is discussed (Honduras PRSP:

34). While in the Mali PRSP, it is mentioned

that severe pressure on forests being cleared

for agricultural purposes and extensive cutting

of trees as the core source of domestic energy

aggravates the problem on deforestation (see

Box 6).

Resilience, Institutions angovernance

Resilience is the third key dimension of

vulnerability and refers to the ability to recover

from a stress and to bufferagainst and adapt

to future stresses and perturbations. This

was explored in the review (Q38-40) with

particular reference to institutions. The Table

in Appendix 3 shows the results of the review

as to the extent to which existing institutional

issues related to vulnerability are identied

and discussed at national, regional and local

levels, with the issues mostly addressed in the

context of poverty. Sri Lankas PRSP focuses

mostly on environmental stresses and natural

hazards, and livelihood questions.

Recognising that the quality and effectivenessof institutions, programmes and policies can

greatly inuence vulnerability (Q41) this issue

Box 6: Access to assets anentitlements line ith environmentalissues

Banlaesh: in most cases the poor have beenexcluded from access to the common property

resources. They have access to at most low

quality public commons. Thus the resource base

for poverty reduction of the poor are [sic] either

shrinking or degrading (Bangladesh PRSP; 179).

Camboia: there is considerable discussion ofland administration, management, and access/

tenure issues. Security of access to forest

resources for the poor is discussed with reference

to threats to this posed by military and illegal

logging operations. Redistribution of land to the

poor and victims of natural disasters mentioned.

(Cambodia PRSP)

Sri Lana: insecure land and usufruct rights anduncontrolled access to natural resources are two of

the major causes of resource degradation. Socially

disadvantaged groups tend to move to areaswhere they can access land or marine resources,

adding pressure to a fragile resource base. (30).

There is also policy action to provide more poor

families with secure title to land (62) but not linked

to environmental issues. (Sri Lanka PRSP).

Zambia: one of the causes of the worseningpoverty in Zambia is the poor peoples access to

real assets due to unfavourable land ownership

and laws and unsupportive land tenure systems

that have worsened labour and land productivity

(12). Also, in rural areas, the poor are heavily

dependent upon natural resources (forests,

land, water, animals, etc.) Rising unemployment

forced many people to increasingly exploit natural

resources as a means of survival. (Zambia PRSP:

117).

Box 5: Access to assets an entitlementsithin an beteen social roups

Burina faso: a) socio-economic conditions andsociological and cultural constraints often dictate

womens limited participation in economic and

public life, particularly as a result of difculties

of access to nancial assets such as credit and

productive assets such as land and equipment (22),

b) the precarious situation of food crop farmers

is the result of several factors including limited

access to existing inputs to boost productivity, and

scarcity and poverty of land suitable for cultivation

(23), c) some of the factors that limit productivity

of women, youth and migrants are difcult

access to land most particularly the issue of land

tenure security, difcult access to the means and

techniques of production and difcult access to

extension services (26). In general, the poor (esp.

the poor rural households) have difcult access

to land, productive capital and nancial services

(32-34). (Burkina Faso PRSP)

Vietnam: poor households have limited accessto land which prevent them from diversifying

agricultural production and shifting to higher

value crops. Most of the poor do not have many

opportunities to access production enhancing

services and production inputs. Also poor people

have limited access to credit because of lack of

collateral or difculty in repayment of loans madeaccess to future loans difcult. (16-17) On p. 14,

the working time of poor women is longer but their

income lower; they have lesser voice in making

decisions in either homes and communities; as

a result they have less opportunity to access

resources and benets made available through

government policies. (Vietnam PRSP).


25/66

17


was investigated in the review. For example a

high degree of trust between civil society and

public institutions is required for early warning

systems to operate effectively. Moreover,

corruption can divert essential resources away

from the provision of basic social services,

and fair and accountable public institutions are

necessary to mediate and regulate powerful

interests in society. Governance issues are

identied in most of the PRSPs but more in the

context of poverty, with issues of corruption,

participation, transparency, decentralisation

and accountability highlighted with reference

to the poor. The Cambodian PRSP is one of

the only PRSPs that makes a link between

the need for good governance and positive

environmental outcomes and vulnerability

reduction. There is some discussion of howa lack of environmental regulations (e.g.

prevention of illegal logging and shing) has

made certain groups vulnerable to changes,

and there is some discussion of local structures

of government and their relationship to

communities yet the discussion is not translated

into clear strategies for action. Decentralisation

is largely discussed in functionalist terms but

also in terms of empowerment:

Local development programs should

increase local ownership and

participation of the people in the

national development efforts and

strengthened the bonds between

the State and civil society. For

decentralization to become meaningful,

it is essential to strengthen the capacity

of government ofcials and the people

at the grassroots level in order to allow

them to make an informed decision-

making. Where the local authorities

are strong the Royal Governmentwould devolve power to the people to

allow them to take an active part in

the development process. However,

where the local authorities are not

strong the government will assist them

to strengthen their capacity through

training and secondment of ofcials

from the central government to help

them exercise effectively their rights.

(108) (Cambodia PRSP).

It should also be mentioned that the Honduras

PRSP mentions governance issues as important

as well as measures to encourage participation

in disaster prevention, mitigation, and

awareness, and in environmental protection.

About half of the PRSPs reviewed do not

mention key institutions and actors inuencing

vulnerability (Q42). If we broaden the

understanding of institutions to also considerinformal institutions, the Cambodia PRSP

provides a further good example of the

importance of community ownership and local

capacity. There is some detailed discussion of

the need to upgrade the early warning system,

emergency relief and damage reduction,

including the role of a central authority.

Long-term ood management and mitigation

is identied as a priority, and discussion is

also provided of forecasting, risk assessment,

infrastructural options and insurance,although no discussion of other dimensions

of vulnerability to oods and droughts is

given. The information sharing role of local

communes is identied as a priority. The

discussion of natural resources management

highlights four key principles: recognition of

the link between poverty and the environment;

important role played by communities in

decision making and management; need

for institutional capacity building and

importance of an integrated approach. There

is limited discussion of relations between the

different levels of government and how such

relations can be strengthened in the context

of disaster prevention, response or natural

resources management. The analysis and

recommendations on local capacity do not

however translate into strategies for action.

To reiterate the point made earlier, that

vulnerability cuts across many sectors,

programs and policies, it is likely that efforts

to directly address vulnerability are unlikelyto have a clear or singular institutional

home. Thus the institutions and actors

who can inuence vulnerability or have a

responsibility to reduce vulnerability may

come from a number of different sectors, areas

of government and society as vulnerability

to natural hazards is not only an issue to be

addressed in one department. In the PRSP

review, it was identied that there are a diverse

set of organisations/institutions who inuence

vulnerability in terms of future strategies.

On the matter of institutional capacity

(Q43-47), the review revealed that the


26/66

18


Table 2 Institutional Analsis o Capacit in Select PRSPs

Burinafaso

Camboia kena Mali Seneal Tanzania Vietnam Zambia

Environmentalmanaement

SD SD SD SD NM SD SD SD

disaster mitiation NM SD NM NM NM NM SD NM

disasterprepareness

NM SD NM NM NM SD NM NM

disaster response &relie

SD SD SD NM NM SD SD NM

disaster recover NM SD NM NM NM NM SD NM

SD Some Discussion. NM No Mention.

Box 7: Institutional analsis on isaster mitiation, prepareness, response/relie,an recover

Disaster mitigation

Vietnam: one of the policy actions of poverty reduction is to develop a disaster prevention strategy to minimize

losses and stabilize livelihoods and production in disaster-prone areas. (68-69, Appendix 1, Vietnam PRSP).

Disaster preparedness

Tanzania: on p. 21, the government already has in place an early warning system to predict weather-related

variations especially in relation to crop yields. (Tanzania PRSP).

Disaster response and relief

Kenya: as indicated in the logical framework: strengthens food distribution and targeting mechanism, develop

and implement a disaster management policy and establish community based drought early warning systems.(1.32, Kenya PRSP).

Tanzania: the government will reduce dependence on rain-fed agriculture by supporting irrigation schemes

in the arid areas and also the development of drought resistant crops and re-afforestation. (21, Tanzania

PRSP).

Vietnam: Under the strategy of development of social safety nets for the poor is an objective to develop

an effective system of emergency relief solutions for poor and vulnerable people who are hurt by natural

disasters, accidents, and other negative social shocks. (84, Vietnam PRSP).

Disaster recovery

Vietnam: An action point under the strategy of development of social safety net is to organize assistance

to help the poor recover from natural disasters so they can quickly resume normal life and production. (85,Vietnam PRSP).

institutional analysis provided in terms of

capacity was generally limited, and mainly

focused on environmental management and

disaster response and relief, but is not so

focused on disaster mitigation, preparedness

and recovery. Much of this discussion actually

occurs in the proposed actions in the latter

parts of the PRSP documents. See results in

Table 2 and examples in Box 7.

Whilst there is limited institutional analysis

on disaster management in the Cambodian

PRSP, it does state that disaster risks will

be reduced by adoption of better disaster

management techniques, and preparation of a

disaster management plan and relief. (81).


27/66

19

Stockholm

risk, livelihoods and vulnerability programme - policy report

Documents