Climate Vulnerability

A proposal to use Environment Vulnerability Index (EVI) as a yardstick, as has been suggested in some circles, to distribute adaptation funds is only a good idea at face value. Its appeal stems from the notion that it confers "objectivity" in the management of finance for adaptation expected to be disbursed through the Global Environment Facility (GEF). That might very well be true, but only up to a point. The fact of the matter is the shoe wearer knows where it pinches most.

Local communities have a very sophisticated measure of their vulnerability to climate. Take, for instance, the thousands of pastoralists currently on the move (migrating) in the Sahelian countries in search of food and pasture. Recurrent drought due to failed long and short rains has resulted in mass starvation and loss of valuable livelihood assets, particuarly livestock. These folks know what their Climate Vulnerability Index (CVI) is! The fisher folks off the coast of Mombasa who used to harvest as much as 30 kilograms of shrimp per day but now have to settle for a tenth the amount because the mangrove estuaries and coastal habitats, home to shrimps and other crustaceans, are under threat! They too know their CVI.

What is my point? Creating another tier in the decision-making process for adaptation financing does very little to deliver urgently needed resources to those in greatest need and who are already experiencing climate change impacts. At the very minimum it delays what is by all estimation overdue. Such actions do not bode well with the on-going negotiations for a post-2012 climate agreement. Instead of "throwing more spanners in the works", the global community ought to be looking at simplifying (without necessarily compromising frugality) processes within existing funding mechanisms. Why not simply ask the victims!