WG 2 - Vulnerability Habiba Gitay (Chair) Marc Levy Joush-Tai Wang Feng Tyan Lin Susan Cutter Upasna Sharma N.D. Tuan Emma Porio Moshiuzzaman Khan Perlyn Pulhin Louis Lebel Md. Nurul Islam Orawan Sirratpiriya Mafiz Uddin Ahmed

WG2 - Vulnerability Goals Gap analysis – Compare state of vulnerability science with practice, identify gaps Recommendations on next steps

Structure of the discussion Multi-dimensional notion of vulnerability Multiple units of analysis Processes – Processes involved in identifying factors affecting vulnerability and measuring them – Causes, feedback, contexts and circumstances Communication and use of vulnerability information Challenge of integrating across scales

Common understanding about vulnerability Vulnerability can be defined as the potential harm to a particular entity, X, from a from a given threat, Y Vulnerability is an inherent property of a complex system involving biophysical and social elements

Vulnerability is multidimensional In terms of the relevant risks In terms of the affected entities In terms of the potential impacts In terms of the factors that influence vulnerability

Vulnerability manifests itself differently across different units of analysis Social unitsEcological units Organization al units Economic units Political units Individuals Households Kinship groups Ethnic groups … Organisms Watersheds Ecosystems Populations … Firms NGOs Networks … Sectors Infrastructure Supply chains Trading Villages Districts Regional management authorities National governments International For example – Different Social Network structure could be compared or ‘critical’ nodes In the network could be identified Challenges of scale

Vulnerability comes to be understood in a particular social context through complex mechanisms Framing Deliberation Political struggle Decision-making

Scientific understanding Causes and feedbacks

We aren’t doing as well as we could at putting vulnerability science into practice Science-policy interactions Communication with public / groups Engagement of relevant stakeholders appropriately Overcome language/translation challenges (“vulnerability” doesn’t always translate)

Recommendations / Next Steps Acknowledge knowledge gap  Invest in Learning Strategies Communicating vulnerability more effectively Build capacity within all stakeholders

Acknowledge knowledge gap / Invest in Learning Strategies Need new approaches to generate policy- relevant integrative science that is relevant to appropriate scales of decision-making (IHDP is not enough) Research into resilience indicators that could be used to establish baselines and in monitoring and evaluating of interventions

Communicating vulnerability more effectively Visioning / scenario / storyline exercises to help cities understand and make choices with respect to vulnerability pathways (dynamic nature) Communication for more effective integration of Development-CC outcomes into the development agenda

Build Capacity Participatory deliberations, within local development process (slum and other civil society leaders, organizations, relevant sectors, government agencies) to understand dimensions and contexts of vulnerability, as related to climate/weather and development interactions New, better institutions to promote peer-to- peer learning among most-vulnerable cities