Environmental Vulnerability Index (EVI) to summarise national environmental vulnerability profiles

Abstract

This report describes the development of a vulnerability index for the environment which could be calculated on the scale of entire states for the purpose of ranking them and providing a single-figure expression of their relative environmental vulnerabilities. This work was done in response to a call made in the Barbados Plan of Action, the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) and an increasing awareness that small island developing states face disadvantages to their development associated with their remoteness, small size, dispersion, economic conditions and limited natural resources. In the past vulnerability indices have been developed which describe the risks associated with economic and social conditions, climate change, sealevel rise, natural disasters and anthropogenic impacts. Most of these indices describe the vulnerability of human systems; there have been very limited attempts to describe effects on the environment. Human systems and the environment are dependent on one another so that risks to the environment of a state will eventually translate into risks to humans. This is the first attempt to construct an index that focuses on the vulnerability of the environment. An Environmental Vulnerability Index (the EVI) was constructed, based on a theoretical framework that identified three aspects of vulnerability: risks to the environment (natural and anthropogenic), the innate ability of the environment to cope with the risks (resilience) and ecosystem integrity (the health or condition of the environment as a result of past impacts). These three aspects correspond to three sub-indices, the REI, IRI and

EDI, which are the Risk Exposure sub-Index, Intrinsic Resilience sub-Index and Environmental Degradation sub- Index respectively. The EVI was calculated as a weighted average of scores allocated in the range of 0-7

derived from a total of 57 indicators. A preliminary EVI was calculated for three countries, Australia, Fiji and Tuvalu. The preliminary EVI value for Tuvalu was the highest of the three countries indicating that its environment is the most vulnerable. The score obtained for Fiji was intermediate in value, and that for Australia was the lowest, though the difference between Fiji and Australia was relatively smaller than that between Fiji and Tuvalu. There were similar levels of risk in each of the countries, the most degradation in Australia and the least intrinsic resilience in Tuvalu. These results, though promising are only preliminary because the EVI requires refinement and there was insufficient time to collect all of the required data from all of the countries and because there were some inconsistencies in the quality of the data. We expect that each of these problems can be overcome. The EVI developed here will require further refinement before it becomes fully operational. The results show that it is possible to obtain a single figure measure of vulnerability and that data which were previously thought to be difficult to obtain can be obtained. The methodology selected in the computation of the index can produce results which could have operational usefulness for ranking countries according to their environmental vulnerabilities. It is envisaged that the EVI would be recalculated every 5 years to provide updates on the vulnerability status of countries. This index highlights the need for governments to upgrade their collection and collation of environmental statistics. In addition, the breakdown of results into meteorological, geological, anthropogenic, and other categories of risk highlights areas of concern for environmental action.