Finding Ways Together To Build Resilience: The Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Methodology
Finding Ways Together To Build Resilience: The Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Methodology
Finding Ways Together To Build Resilience: The Vulnerability and Risk Assessment Methodology
DANIEL MORCHAIN
FRANCES KELSEY
Oxfam GB
Photos: Daniel Morchain / Oxfam, Oxfam in Ghana, Oxfam in Bangladesh, Oxfam in the Philippines
Reflecting on the voices of people living in difficult and unjust circumstances,
government stakeholders and development practitioners from around the globe, the
authors propose that conducting a truly participatory, multi-stakeholder and cross-scalar
contextual analysis that considers a wide range of hazards, as well as peoples
capacities and aspirations, should become standard development practice. It is this type
of participatory process that can facilitate an equitable, gender-sensitive, sustainable
and appropriate design of pathways towards risk reduction and resilience. The
Vulnerability and Risk Assessment (VRA) methodology aims to constitute such a
continually evolving process. This document presents the VRA principles, a how-to
guide, and discusses the strengths and lessons learned from implementation.
www.oxfam.org
CONTENTS
Glossary 3
Introduction 4
Part 1: Principles 6
Acknowledgements 52
The Little Sustainable Landscapes Book (Denier, L., et al., 2015) defines a
landscape as a socio-ecological system that consists of natural and/or
human-modified ecosystems, and which is influenced by distinct ecological,
historical, economic and socio-cultural processes and activities.
Risk The likelihood, or perceived likelihood, of the materialization of a hazard.
Sensitivity The actual impact of a hazard or issue on a social group (or on a livelihood
activity) over a set period of time in the past (usually ten years before the
VRA is conducted)
Social group A more or less homogeneous group of people within the landscape, such as
fisherfolk, women agricultural labourers or migrant workers. For the sake
of conducting an assessment of a usually medium-to-large landscape, the
VRA will base its analysis on these groups rather than analysing individual or
household vulnerabilities.
Vulnerability Seen as multi-dimensional and understood to be strongly influenced by
structural factors, governance systems and inequalities. However,
vulnerability is also something that even (most) marginalized and poor
individuals can act to reduce. While the VRA uses the original
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) framing of vulnerability,
which makes it a function of exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity, we
analyse each of these three factors holistically i.e. beyond a strictly
biophysical context.
The VRA was developed by Oxfam to support practitioners to gain a better understanding of the
context of landscapes and the communities and stakeholders that inhabit, depend on or use
them. It also aims to actively and systematically include women in the joint development of an
understanding of risks and ways forward highlighting womens capacities and the unfair
structures that create inequality for women. Vulnerable people are rarely able to demand the
critical support they require to manage the risks they face; this is central to the thinking behind
the design of the VRA process, combined with the recognition that many risks need to be
addressed across levels and by a range of actors.
joint analysis of vulnerability by a wide range of stakeholders and from different levels
of governance
addresses the social-ecological landscape; not limiting its focus and responses to
community level
seeks to integrate gender throughout the process and emphasizes the need to build
analysis inclusively of womens views
builds and strengthens relationships between stakeholders, enabling local issues and
the voices of marginalized groups to come to the surface;
fosters empowerment through co-creation of proposals aimed at building resilience
Timing-wise there is no single preferable moment to conduct a VRA, as it can be used for
different purposes, e.g. to help design a development programme or project; to highlight issues
facing groups of women or marginalized ethnic groups; or to raise the awareness of
governments or donors about specific needs in a landscape. It can be implemented iteratively at
different moments in time to assess the evolution of vulnerability for different social groups.
The VRA process also helps to make people more comfortable talking about climate change by
showing that climate change is not a technical issue that only researchers understand.
Discussing, for example, drought and its real impacts on peoples everyday lives and the
possible responses to it at different levels makes people aware that everyone can contribute
meaningfully to action on climate change. Breaking this confidence barrier is essential if people
are to participate in developing shared solutions to climatic and other change.
This publication is intended to be a one-stop guide to the VRA, providing practitioners and
other stakeholders, including authorities involved in the planning and implementation of
humanitarian and development programmes, with a better understanding of it.
The need for a practical guide to the methodology was highlighted during many of the
consultations Oxfam had with its teams who had experience implementing the VRA. This
document is therefore not only inspired by and embedded with practitioners direct experiences,
but also speaks directly to their feedback to strengthen the support available for this tool.
The 195 countries gathered at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) meeting in December 2015 adopted the Paris Agreement,
emphasizing the need to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce
vulnerability to climate change. The Agreement recognizes that adaptation is a global
challenge faced by all with local, subnational, national, regional and international
dimensions (Art 7.2) and that there is a need for strengthening cooperation on moving on
to action (Art. 7.7).
The VRA facilitates this type of necessary collaboration between different levels of
governance and provides a space for marginalized groups to voice their concerns and
work side by side with decision makers. The key principles of the VRA enable practitioners
to appreciate the essence and motivating forces for conducting this type of participatory
exercise. I think the VRA methodology will serve as a way to initiate many adaptation
actions needed by organizations, practitioners and indeed communities. The fact that the
authors have kept an opportunity for future learning and improvement will enable wider
application and greater acceptability of this methodology.
I wish this initiative all success and look forward to seeing it as a tool to support disaster
risk reduction and climate change adaptation efforts of the near future.
Dr. A. Atiq Rahman, Executive Director, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies
(BCAS)
For ease of use, this document is composed of three parts, which can be read together or
separately:
Part 1: Principles
Part 2: How-to guidance
Part 3: Strengths and lessons learned from implementation
We hope that you find this guide to the VRA useful and welcome any feedback you may have
both on the document and on the methodology itself.
Reflecting on the voices of practitioners in several countries, we are in no doubt as to the need
to make standard practice contextual analysis that looks at risks, vulnerabilities and opportuni-
ties. Such analysis will help design local- or landscape-level appropriate and effective pro-
grammes. In turn, these inform and are informed by programmes and policies at other govern-
ance levels, whether they are implemented as part of an emergency humanitarian response or
a longer-term development initiative.
The VRA is a response to the usually insufficient breadth of community-based participatory rural
appraisals (PRAs). These local-level assessments are highly valuable and provide excellent
information; however, they are not designed to include in their analysis the bigger picture, not
only of climate change impacts and trends, but also of socio-economic issues that can and do
impact the community and landscape but which are not fully evident at the local level. PRA re-
sults are also very often reliant on perception.
The VRA methodology draws on the strengths of the PRA by including representatives of social
groups in the group work (see below, the Knowledge Group), while addressing the PRA short-
comings by taking a landscape approach and incorporating inputs from a wider range of stake-
holders. The added value of the VRA tool is precisely that it takes a holistic, landscape-wide
understanding of vulnerability and links up relevant actors across various levels of governance
from women and men, to community, local, municipal and district, and sometimes even national
levels in order to first pinpoint and then jointly address the identified issues in an analytical,
consensus-building way, which ultimately looks towards building longer-term resilience while
addressing vulnerability.
While consensus building is something that the VRA methodology tries to foster, Oxfam recog-
nizes that in order to contribute to efforts to reduce inequalities and poverty, any consensus
reached needs to be underpinned by justice and inclusion. The unjust status quo which includes
gender inequalities needs to be challenged in order to pave the way for longer-term resilient
development. Therefore, paying attention to historic and evolving power dynamics is fully em-
bedded in the design of the VRA, primarily through the convening of a Knowledge Group which
also inspires and drives the analysis. As we shall see, the Knowledge Group is crucial, not only
in shaping the results of the VRA through discussions and consensus building throughout the
process, but in setting the tone for future collaboration and joint decision making based on val-
ues such as gender equality and environmental integrity.
The VRA methodology also aims to change the prevailing development narrative which per-
ceives beneficiaries as victims rather than people who are both affected by biophysical impacts
and governance inequalities, and who are themselves capable of playing a critical role in reduc-
ing their vulnerabilities to hazards.
The VRA therefore addresses a general trend across vulnerability assessments (VAs) of declin-
ing attention to broad structural and relational drivers of vulnerability and inequality, and an in-
The VRAs analytical approach looks at structural and relational drivers within a social learning
process that enables the participants to surface and discuss their divergent interests, norms,
values and constructions of reality in an environment thats conducive to meaningful interaction.
This helps to shift perceptions and open up new possibilities and ways of thinking and working
which is the real adaptive challenge (OBrien et al., 2012).
The methodology is composed of four steps and looks both to the past to assess and under-
stand the immediate and underlying causes of vulnerabilities and risks and to the future to
assess and understand the local conditions and the big picture trends that affect the landscape.
In particular, the VRA explicitly makes women and womens organizations protagonists of the
process by recognizing and highlighting the diversity of socially differentiated groups of women,
promoting womens active participation in the debate, as well as by providing opportunities for
women to be facilitators, co-facilitators and rapporteurs in the process. Likewise, it promotes the
design and implementation of risk reduction measures that benefit groups of women and
contribute to gender justice.
Introduction of exercise and of day Clarity on objectives and format; start building trust
stakeholders; agree common
Day 1
expectations
There are two key groups of players in the VRA: the Planning and Facilitation Team and the
Knowledge Group.
To run the VRA, the Planning and Facilitation Team will require:
two experienced facilitators
two note-takers (fluent in the language selected for the exercise and knowledgeable about
the context and issues being discussed);
one person fully dedicated to logistics (venue, travel, accommodation and catering for the
whole group)
optionally, development practitioners and/or researchers whose work is expected to be
informed by the VRA findings (often, the two facilitators would also fit in this group)
The facilitators
Strong facilitation skills and familiarity with the VRA methodology are essential for facilitators,
not only to successfully navigate through the somewhat elaborate steps of the methodology with
a diverse group, but also to ensure that potentially marginalized voices within the Knowledge
Group are heard and the expected transformation of power dynamics not least with respect to
gender relations can begin to catalyse, little by little. Relationships of trust will support the
ongoing implementation of the decisions made during the VRA and can contribute to longer-
term transformational change, such as the valuing of marginalized voices by decision makers
and appreciation by marginalized groups of how power is distributed across different
government levels and agencies.
Furthermore, the facilitators need to understand the importance and context of gender
dynamics, relations and inequalities in the landscape because these play an important role in
shaping vulnerability. Therefore, having an open discussion that acknowledges and explores
gender issues will ensure that social groups and risks are accurate and that the identified
responses are appropriate. Facilitators should be able to recognize when existing coping
mechanisms further entrench gender inequalities and disempower women, and pay particular
attention not to unintentionally celebrate and reinforce sexual stereotypes that may exacerbate
womens disproportionate responsibility for coping with the effects of stresses and shocks
(Morchain et al., 2015).
Ideally, facilitators will have prior experience of working with the community in question, or else
can identify opportunities to start gaining their trust and respect ahead of the exercise. Prior
experience of working with the community in addition to a review of existing secondary
Preferably both and at least one of the facilitators should be a woman, so that potential barriers
of communication within the Knowledge Group are reduced as much as possible.
A final word of advice: set and uphold clear ground rules and emphasize that all participants
are equal (Janice Ian Manlutac, Regional Change Lead Building Resilience, Oxfam in Asia).
Knowledge Group members discuss which key hazards and issues and social groups and livelihood activities will be
prioritized in the exercise, grabbing the interest of members from the nearby community in the Upper East region of
Ghana, who have gathered round. Photo: Oxfam in Ghana
The Knowledge Group is the backbone of the VRA, of its findings and its analysis. The
Knowledge Group consists of roughly 1220 people with a stake in the social-ecological
landscape in question. As described below, it should have a strong representation of
communities and of marginalized groups. The Knowledge Group will spend two full days
together and run through the four steps of the VRA in a roundtable discussion approach; as
such, the findings of the VRA are largely the result of this groups thinking.
The composition of the Knowledge Group will vary depending on the context, but, as an
illustration, the Knowledge Group of a VRA exercise run in the Irrawaddy delta in Myanmar
in 2013 consisted of representatives from:
Department of Agriculture (district)
Department of Fisheries (district)
Department of Forestry (district)
Department of General Administration (district)
Department of Relief and Resettlement (district)
meteorological office (district)
fisheries school
fisherfolk Association
village representatives
official authorities
informal/customary authorities
womens group
youth group
fishermen
farmers
local NGOs
international NGOs
A Knowledge Group that comprehensively reflects the full range and diversity of stakeholders in
the landscape in question will contribute to a more representative analysis and will, additionally,
increase the buy-in of the results by third parties (e.g. potential donors and national government
actors). The Knowledge Group should therefore be composed of stakeholders acting at the
community, local, municipal/district and landscape levels sometimes also at the national level.
It should include formal as well as informal representatives from the communities in the
landscape in question, such as community leaders, representatives of womens groups, ethnic
minorities and relevant livelihood activities, as appropriate.
In order to fully support and enhance womens capacity as agents for change within their
communities and the wider landscape, VRAs look beyond identifying women as a potentially
vulnerable group; rather, they aim to understand what makes women vulnerable, in what areas
they are particularly able to overcome challenges and reduce risks, and to proactively support
womens capacity to address vulnerability at the individual, household, community and
landscape levels. More than a technical exercise, VRAs should be viewed as an opportunity to
challenge cultural stereotypes that reinforce womens marginalization and vulnerability to
shocks and stresses (Ravon, 2014). This approach applies to all potentially marginalized
stakeholders and it is therefore vital that practitioners implementing the VRA take the
necessary steps to ensure that the more vulnerable participants in the Knowledge Group (or
those representing these groups) are 1) actively involved in the discussions; 2) feel valued and
have their input considered; and 3) are not negatively impacted by the process, such as through
retaliation for speaking out or by feeling further disempowered if gender inequalities and power
imbalances are reinforced in the Knowledge Group discussions.
Are the voices of the following social groups represented in your Knowledge Group, either
directly or indirectly (through a Knowledge Group member who speaks on their behalf)?
women of different backgrounds
economically marginalized groups
politically marginalized groups
people with disabilities
people with chronic illnesses (including HIV/AIDS)
adolescents
Children and elderly people
indigenous groups and other ethnic minorities
survivors of disasters
In addition, are the following stakeholders in your Knowledge Group?
authorities of different levels of governance (local, municipal, district)
government agencies (e.g. meteorological agency, disaster risk management, social
affairs)
relevant private sector players in the landscape
research and academic organizations
local and international NGOs
civil society organizations (likely representing a number of the groups described in the
previous list)
The Knowledge Group should also include representatives from external stakeholders, such as
local and municipal authorities and planners, agronomists, meteorologists, emergency service
Beyond the fundamental contribution of the Knowledge Group to the VRA results, a carefully
selected group will also serve to initiate or strengthen stakeholder relationships across sectors
and levels of governance, as well as to generate ownership of findings and create accountability
of stakeholders with respect to communities and marginalized groups.
Preparatory meeting for a VRA exercise in Korgayee Balah, Badakhshan province, Afghanistan. Depending on the
context and circumstances of the country or landscape where the analysis is conducted, special arrangements may
have to be made to ensure that women engage in the VRA process, such as by running separate male and female
discussion groups. Photo: Hamid Big / Oxfam in Afghanistan
The following activities should be undertaken by the Planning and Facilitation Team in
preparation for the two-day VRA exercise.
These men and women are the most important resource and knowledge [with] the history
of the natural resources inventory and trend of the changes and given life examples in the
area. [This] information is less documented and [more] difficult to find.
As necessary, consider holding separate conversations with women and/or with ethnic or other minority groups to
consolidate arguments ahead of the Knowledge Group analysis. Photo: Oxfam in Ghana
You will also need to decide on appropriate participatory techniques to ensure active
participation of all members of the Knowledge Group. As Janice Ian Manlutac, Oxfam Asias
4
Regional Change Lead Building Resilience explains, a representative of an indigenous
community, for example, may be more comfortable and confident with oral tradition than
written manuscript, whereas a child may find it easier to participate if visual aids are used. As
long as the input collected is inclusive, the facilitator should feel free to use a range of
facilitation techniques.
Identify key hazards and issues and social groups and livelihood activities.
Based on the Planning and Facilitation Teams knowledge, the results of the stakeholder
mapping and analysis, and the initial discussion with the Knowledge Group members, the
Planning and Facilitation Team needs to prepare, ahead of the VRA exercise, a list of key
hazards and issues and social groups and livelihood activities, together with a justification
for each of the points identified.
This is an important activity because it will form the basis for what is analysed (and what
isnt) during the VRA. Therefore, at least half a day should be allocated to this activity by the
Planning and Facilitation Team, in collaboration with others. The lists will then be reviewed,
modified and agreed by the Knowledge Group during the first day of the VRA (see step 1
below).
The lists should reflect the realities of the landscape and therefore include hazards/issues
that are sufficiently prevalent in the area, as well as groups/activities that are either widely
impacted by these or are important for the communitys well-being. By justifying each
hazard/issue and social group/livelihood, the team is pushed to consider whether or not one
issue is relevant enough (compared to others) to be included and whether two or more
issues can be merged because they are sufficiently similar (see the Myanmar example in
Figures 3 and 4). Each list should have about eight to ten items; any more will make the
analysis overrun the time allocated for the exercise, while a list that is too short runs the risk
of being insufficient for a holistic analysis of the local context.
Facilitators and members of the Knowledge Group in Marihatag, Mindanao, the Philippines, fill out the vulnerability
matrix with the agreed hazards and issues and social groups and livelihood activities. The Knowledge Group will,
immediately afterwards, analyse the exposure and sensitivity of each hazard or issue with respect to each social group
or livelihood activity. Photo: Oxfam in the Philippines
What to include in your hazards and issues list What to include in your social groups and livelihood
activities list
structural conditions that create inequalities (e.g. differentiated social groups shaped by gender, age,
corruption, conflict/ war, sanitation crisis) race, ethnicity, social status, livelihood, trade that
gender- and ethnic minority- related inequalities and are marginalized, lack power or agency, or are
injustices otherwise relevant for the communitys development
weather/climate change and geological impacts livelihood activities relevant for social groups in the
landscape
dysfunctional or non-existent physical systems
other actors which positively or negatively impact the
inappropriate access to resources, including health landscape (e.g. through employment generation
services, education, land and natural resources, and and/or depleting the natural resource base). These
markets would often be powerful actors.
impacts stemming from a degraded natural environment;
natural resource management and governance issues
industrial or economic activity having an economic and/or
environmental impact on the landscape and the people
who inhabit it
These points relate to aspects of gender justice and inclusivity during the VRA workshop:
It is the role of the facilitator to create an enabling environment for all participants to become
comfortable with the process, and be able to speak up suggests Ana Caspe of Oxfam in the
Philippines.
The facilitator may need to prompt the Knowledge Group to include intra-household dynamics in
their considerations of hazards and issues. Gender-blind VAs tend to ignore many intra-
household dynamics that put women at risk (e.g. violence against women, lack of
contraceptives, implications of polygamy, unequal division of unpaid care, etc.) and as a result,
these issues do not get factored into resilience-building and risk reduction projects.
After discussing the content of the lists in plenary, the facilitator may want to propose a vote to
choose the roughly ten hazards and issues and the roughly ten social groups and livelihood
activities to be analysed. One way to do this is to give each Knowledge Group member five or
six votes for each of the two lists, and then choose the twenty categories most voted. A word of
caution: if an issue or social group identified as particularly relevant during the discussion
(especially by vulnerable groups) doesnt get prioritized in the voting, the facilitator should bring
it up again and may decide to include it on the basis of its importance to address key
developmental issues in the exercise.
Step 1 is by far the longest of the 4 steps because it includes two key and lengthy processes:
agreeing on the lists of hazards and issues and of social groups and livelihood activities and
analysing the exposure and sensitivity of each one with respect to the other. The Planning and
Facilitation Team should aim to complete it by the end of Day 1. Ideally the vulnerability matrix
is completed in plenary, but if, say, two hours into the process the facilitator feels that the matrix
Knowledge Group members discussing their Initial Vulnerability Assessment matrix during a VRA exercise in
Kusolnogor village, Bangladesh. Photo: Oxfam in Bangladesh
The Knowledge Group debates, justifies and makes the final selection of hazards and issues
and social groups and livelihood activities. Below are examples from exercises conducted in
the Irrawaddy delta, Myanmar, in 2013 and in the Bobirwa Sub-District in Botswana in 2015.
Table 6: Social groups and livelihood activities, Irrawaddy delta, Myanmar, 2013
Vulnerability matrix
With the lists of hazards and issues and of social groups and livelihood activities agreed by
the Knowledge Group, the process moves on to analyse and agree on the respective exposures
and sensitivities, using the vulnerability matrix, as follows:
In the X-axis of the vulnerability matrix (top, horizontal row; see Figure 2 for an example of an
IVA matrix completed in Armenia), all hazards and issues are listed, while the social groups
and livelihood activities are reflected in the Y-axis.
There are three separate matrices: the exposure matrix reflects exposure values as inputted by
the Knowledge Group; the sensitivity matrix reflects sensitivity values as inputted by the
Knowledge Group; and the vulnerability matrix automatically calculates vulnerability values
based on the exposure and sensitivity values assigned by the Knowledge Group. This first step
of the VRA is called the Initial Vulnerability Assessment because the full picture of vulnerability,
including an assessment of adaptive capacity, will only be drawn after the two following steps of
the VRA the impact chain exercise (Step 2) and adaptive capacity analysis (Step 3) have
been completed.
To assess exposure, the facilitator requests input from the Knowledge Group, asking What is
the extent to which a social group (or a livelihood activity) could potentially i.e.
theoretically be affected/damaged by the occurrence of a hazard or an issue? This
question can be rephrased and made less technical to make it crystal clear to everyone. What is
most important is that everyone in the Knowledge Group understands what is being asked. The
Knowledge Group will engage in discussion and try to build consensus around a value from 0 to
3 (0 meaning the highest extent and 3 the lowest extent). The Knowledge Group should
To assess sensitivity, the facilitator requests input from the Knowledge Group, asking What
was the actual impact of a hazard or issue on a social group (or on a livelihood activity)
over a set period of time in the past (usually ten years before the VRA is conducted)? As
with exposure, the facilitator can rephrase the question for the sake of clarity. Again, the
Knowledge Group will engage in discussion and try to build consensus around a value from 0 to
3 (again, with 0 representing the highest impact and 3 the lowest). Sensitivity should reflect the
actual impact within the agreed period of time. This period of time (say, ten years) should
remain the same for each of the hazards/issues being analysed. On a case-by-case basis the
facilitator will need to guide the Knowledge Group in deciding how to assess impact; for
example by loss of production, incidence of disease, percentage of population without prompt
access to health services, income levels, etc., and in all cases it should be informed by
anecdotal evidence from Knowledge Group members.
The values 0 to 3 for exposure and sensitivity will be put into the vulnerability matrix (an Excel
file). However, these values are not always the easiest way for Knowledge Group members to
think about exposure and sensitivity, especially as 0 represents the highest exposure/sensitivity
and 3 the lowest, which is counter-intuitive. The facilitator, and beforehand the Planning and
Facilitation Team, may decide to not refer to values 0 to 3, but instead use either numbers, e.g.
1 (lowest) to 4 (highest), or words, for example very little or almost nothing, somewhat,
considerable and very high. What matters is that exposure and sensitivity are ranked based
on an increasing scale of four options, and that they are inputted in the Excel sheet in the form
of 0, 1, 2 or 3.
A VRA conducted in the village of Aknaghbyur and its surroundings in April 2013, in the
Tavush province of Armenia, focused on analysing the exposure and sensitivity of hazards
and issues related to agricultural production. The Knowledge Group decided that for
outdoor-growing vegetables with respect to strong winds some low-significance
exposure was expected (E3). This value for exposure was agreed based on the fact that
only a small proportion of these vegetables (i.e. peas climbers) are exposed to strong
winds. The Knowledge Group agreed that sensitivity is also very low (S3) as farmers have
established measures to minimize the potential damage to exposed vegetables (e.g.
attaching growing peas to sticks to minimize damage to the plant from strong winds).
For persimmon yields with respect to difficult access to markets, medium-level
exposure (E2) was agreed; although markets normally have a high capacity to absorb
persimmon, this is threatened by an increasing supply of the fruit from Georgia, which
could flood the local Armenian market and lower the market price. As for sensitivity, the
least sensitive scale was selected (S3), as the Knowledge Group considered the existing
storage capacity to have outweighed the supply threat, since farmers were able to store
and sell the produce out of season at higher prices.
In one last example, for any livelihood activity with respect to the ongoing border
conflict with Azerbaijan exposure was considered to be the lowest level (E3), as the
ongoing conflict had not had any direct negative impact in the previous five years (the
period evaluated); however, the Knowledge Group considered that activities would be
affected to a large extent (S1) if the conflict were to escalate and directly impact the
livelihood activities of locals, such as by limiting road transport between cities and the
countryside.
Table 8: How Exposure and Sensitivity values are combined to show the Initial
Vulnerability value. Initial Vulnerability values go from lowest levels (green), increasing
through yellow and orange to the highest levels of vulnerability (red).
S3 S2 S1 S0
E3 3 3 2 2
E2 3 2 1 1
E1 2 2 1 0
E0 2 1 0 0
of meteorological data
Lack of alternatives to
High temperatures
(FMD) outbreaks
ponds drying up
climate change
nologies
hoods
Returning to the matrix, the values of sensitivity and exposure for specific hazards and
livelihoods are then combined in a pre-vulnerability matrix (see Table 8), where green shows
lowest vulnerability, moving up in the scale through yellow, orange and red being the most
vulnerable combination of hazard (or issue) with respect to social group (or livelihood activity).
It is important to note that while choosing a value from 0 to 3 for exposure and sensitivity can be
data-driven when data is available, it should be recognized that data has limitations and
potential bias, and as such it should be just one element in determining exposure and sensitivity
values. A combination of input from Knowledge Group members based on their own experience
and views, their roles and the data they have access to should determine the values.
Robustness is an important aspect of the VRA, but the process to reach an
acceptable level of robustness is not a fixed one; it depends as much on
The IVA matrix helps planners to
the formation of the Knowledge Group and its dynamics, which needs to be easily identify and prioritize hazards
fostered by good facilitation. Facilitation must also encourage the broadest that are affecting their entire locality
possible participation from Knowledge Group members. Regardless of the and plan for effective solutions. The
approach taken during the IVA, the exercise is a cornerstone of the process VRA is an effective way of improving
because a multi-stakeholder consensus is reached, and it will form the the planning process and enhances
the planning capability in regards to
basis for the following discussions around risk reduction, adaptation and the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
resilience-building measures and strategies. and Annual Investment Plan.
It should be stressed that the discussions that lead to a value for exposure Abdulkhabar Pasandalan,
and sensitivity are as relevant for the Knowledge Groups understanding of Municipal Planning and
vulnerabilities and risk as the value that is eventually assigned. Notes Development Coordinator of Datu
Abdullah Sangki, Maguindanao, the
should be taken of the points raised and of the thread of the discussion, as
Philippines.
these will (and should) inform the following steps of the process.
Members of the Knowledge Group working on Step 2 the Impact Chain Exercise, Bobirwa Sub-district, Botswana.
Photo: Gina Ziervogel.
The second step of the VRA is the development of impact chains for the three or four hazards
and issues that are considered most relevant by the Knowledge Group, as a result of the IVA
step. Relevance is normally understood in relation to high levels of vulnerability across many
social groups, and/or to high levels of vulnerability for one or a few social groups, especially if
they include the most marginalized ones. The chosen hazards and issues, in any case tend to
be crucial for the viability of livelihoods across the landscape, whether this relation is
immediately obvious or not e.g. the impacts of drought/floods and gender injustices,
respectively.
While Step 1, the IVA, normally reflects on approximately previous 10 years, the ICE
contemplates the extent of impacts over the next one, two, or even three decades as a basis for
forming/strengthening the development strategies of communities, municipalities and districts.
Impact chain development should start with the joint development of a future scenario, based
on the input of the Knowledge Group members. The future scenario should ideally reflect
local/indigenous knowledge, as well as climate impact models and trends, and socio-economic
In addition to visually mapping the impact of a hazard throughout the system, the ICE will
encourage the Knowledge Group to identify potential measures that will reduce the vulnerability
of communities and enhance their resilience. The identified measures will be written as simple
headlines wherever appropriate in the impact chains (see yellow boxes in Figure 3 and red
boxes in Figure 4), ready to be further explored and strengthened during the third step of the
VRA, the adaptive capacity analysis (ACA).
When developing an impact chain, it may help to include not just impacts, but also causes
of the hazard or issue being explored. As shown in this impact chain from a VRA in
Botswana, the main causes of the hazard have been listed to the left of it. This contributed
to a more insightful discussion about the impacts and later to designing responses.
The ICE helps not only to identify the full breadth of impacts of the respective hazards and
issues, but also to:
develop the capacity of members of the Knowledge Group
raise awareness and flag problems among social group representatives and, importantly,
among other members of the Knowledge Group which would likely include government
authorities
reach a common understanding and prioritization of problems
foster a collective, holistic approach to solutions
Table 10: The three hazards and issues chosen for further analysis and the headlines
further developed into full proposal titles; from VRA in Bobirwa Sub-District,
Botswana, November 2015
The Knowledge Group explores a number of headlines in further depth by turning them from
the ICE step into more fully-fledged measures through the adaptive capacity thinking
5
developed by the Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (ACCRA). The ACCRA framework
recognizes five characteristics of adaptive capacity: 1) asset base; 2) institutions and
entitlements; 3) knowledge and information; 4) innovation; and 5) flexible, forward-looking
decision making and governance.
The Knowledge Group uses a list of questions (see Table 6 for examples) intended to guide the
design, rethinking and fine-tuning of the possible measures identified during the ICE, in order to
ensure a more appropriate, inclusive, sustainable and adaptive design of the selected
measures. When answering these questions, the specific characteristics of the community and
their implications for and contributions to gender equality issues should be addressed.
There is a close relationship between sensitivity and adaptive capacity. Wherever existing
adaptation measures are in place, the sensitivity value agreed by the Knowledge Group in
the IVA should reflect this (in such cases, a note is included to explain how the sensitivity
value has been adjusted). For example, if over a five-year period the movement of cattle
had been restricted to the fields furthest away from the river, in order to minimize the risk of
harm to them by flooding as well as to reduce erosion of the riverbed, the reduced risk
should be reflected in the value allocated to the sensitivity. The reason for allowing this is
to create a more realistic picture and to avoid conducting a strictly theoretical exercise,
which would prove less useful. In other words, it is crucial to identify ways in which
communities and stakeholders are already coping with change in the landscape, and,
through the ACA process, identify how best the VRA process can support and strengthen
the existing state of affairs, with the continued ownership of communities and stakeholders.
As the headlines turn to potential measures, they become more tangible and their potential
impact and cost is made clearer. This will guide their prioritization with regards to their inclusion
in development plans (at all levels).
Rather than a predetermined outcome, such as a VRA action plan, this step seeks to align
measures resulting from Step 3 with existing opportunities. These opportunities could take a
number of forms. A first example is the opportunity to inform ongoing development plans at
local, municipal or district level on themes of land use, DRR, climate change adaptation, or
development in general. In this case the VRA can provide a vehicle for the Knowledge Group to
ensure the inclusion of these measures into plans at different levels of governance.
Second, the designed measures (from Step 3) can also be aligned with existing or upcoming
funding opportunities at national or global levels, and as such provide evidence and justification
for accessing funds.
Third, VRA findings have been used to inform programme design of development organizations
(of Oxfam and International Rescue Committee and their partners in country) as well as
research institutions in Ghana, Bangladesh, the Philippines, Armenia, Botswana and the Sahel,
among others. Findings have also been used in developing a stakeholder-informed
understanding of vulnerability that specifically addresses gender inequalities and womens roles
and capacities. Similarly, VRA findings are being used to contribute to research and identify
potential areas of future work in the context of the project Adaptation at Scale in Semi-Arid
6
Regions (ASSAR) in Botswana and Namibia.
Fourth, the VRA generates a number of soft outcomes in the shape of strengthened
stakeholder interaction and increased ownership of landscape-wide issues by stakeholders, as
well as enhanced technical knowledge and, in some cases, capacity building of the participants
in process-related skills (e.g. negotiation skills, facilitation).
Last but certainly not least, the VRA is an influencing tool. By raising awareness of local and
landscape-wide issues among the Knowledge Group, many of whom may be duty-bearers, the
VRA highlights and builds accountability of stakeholders and provides a base for stakeholders
engaged in advocacy (e.g. NGOs, CSOs civil society organizations) to launch or build an
influencing position. It can also help to drive forward an organizations agenda. For instance, the
implementation of the VRA in Armenia helped Oxfam collaborate with the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) and the Ministry of Emergency Situations in designing a
common approach to local-level risk management that was later implemented nationwide.
Step 4 will not be completed during the two days of the VRA exercise. It is likely to be started
then and continued later at different times, and include for each level (e.g. local, municipal,
district) only a number of the stakeholders of the Knowledge Group. This is because more time
is needed to identify and develop opportunities, and some may arise after the VRA is
conducted. During the two-day exercise of the VRA, however, it is important for the Knowledge
Group to spend some time brainstorming initial ideas, in as much detail as the circumstances
allow.
The analysis and findings of the VRA can be a useful tool for influencing, for promoting greater
accountability of both governmental and non-governmental decision makers, and for providing
an in-depth, landscape-wide contextual understanding that facilitates addressing cross-cutting
themes such as gender or biophysical issues.
Projecting future changes in a landscape (e.g. based on historical data and climatic data
analysis) is key to understanding and responding to future vulnerabilities. That said, while
historical weather data is generally obtainable by partnering up with national
meteorological agencies, climate impact models and analysis of climatic information is
often not available, not easy to relate to, or may not be overly contextually relevant. When
such information is available, however, we recommend that it is considered in the
Knowledge Group discussion.
Participatory tools that facilitate the analysis of historical weather data (such as the
Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture PICSA from the University of
Readings Walker Institute) can help bridge the gap of insufficient relevant weather/climate
information. Adding this type of external knowledge to the VRA process can help reduce
uncertainty and foster more informed planning
For the final activity of the two-day workshop concluding, summarizing and reflecting on
the exercise an informal discussion involving Knowledge Group members and the Planning
and Facilitation Team helps review the issues discussed, the process and the next steps for
continued engagement and for further developing vulnerability reduction and resilience-building
measures.
In the Botswana VRA in November 2015 in the Bobirwa Sub-District, for example, this final
discussion helped bring the process to an even more personal level and brought to the surface
a few important issues that had not been raised before. Some of the reflections of the group
from the closing session are paraphrased below:
We now have a better sense of what areas the government is addressing here, and the
gaps. Ive learned about the priorities that the government has in this sub-district.
It was like a dream having the opportunity to sit around this group of so varied people. When
they contacted me on the phone to invite me to this exercise I thought this wouldnt take us
anywhere, but now I believe it will.
I used to think my ideas werent worthwhile. Now I think I can make changes in my life and I
know it is possible. (From an elderly woman who makes baskets from palm tree leaves.)
At the beginning of Day 1, I didnt understand why Phane worm harvesters were sitting
around this table; now it is clear.
Now I see that even our field assistants have something to contribute, so we have to listen
to them.
People like to dwell on problems rather than focus on solutions. Thats not what we did here.
Thats why I liked this workshop.
Ive been thinking ... the next time we should invite ourselves to each others meetings
rather than wait for people to come from far to do it.
Practitioners very much value that the VRA takes a holistic approach to
vulnerability, combining biophysical and socio-cultural aspects as well as trends and future
impacts. Rather than simply listing the physical hazards and risks existing in a particular area,
the VRA identifies specific social groups and livelihoods, and examines the biophysical, political,
economic and social risks and hazards that impact them and make them vulnerable, as well as
the capacities of those groups to respond and adapt to hazards. The VRA considers
vulnerability at different spatial and temporal scales within social groups and at community,
regional, or global levels, depending on what best suits the specific context and helps to map
future as well as present vulnerability.
Within this holistic approach the VRA pays special attention to gender by analysing the
differentiated vulnerability of various social groups, which may include for example adolescent
girls, pregnant women or widows. For example, while an entire community may be
indiscriminately vulnerable to rising sea levels, existing social and political inequalities result in
individuals or specific groups within that community facing distinct vulnerabilities.
The VRA methodology is adaptable and can be complemented by and feed into other
vulnerability and structural analyses, such as gender analysis, power analysis and community-
level PRAs. The VRA can be blended with other methodologies to produce a tailor-made hybrid.
For example, in Tajikistan the VRA was blended with a PCVA process to support a broader
contextual analysis. In such a situation it is better to conduct the local-level PRA first before
other sector-specific assessments that will dig deeper in particular areas.
Oxfams Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis (PCVA) methodology has often
served as a prior step to the VRA. Through existing or recently implemented PCVAs, the
facilitation team of the VRA acquires detailed knowledge from several communities living in
a landscape that subsequently inform the identification of hazards, issues, social groups
and livelihood activities that form the basis of the analysis conducted during the VRA.
VRA is an important tool in understanding the landscape-wide risks and issues. This was
particularly evident when I was listening to the PCVA results presented by local
government representatives. PCVA, because of the nature of the questions being asked as
well as the sources of the primary data, is severely restricted if we are to appreciate the
plethora of issues that a landscape approach seeks to address.
Dante Dalabajan, Economic Justice Programme Manager, Oxfam in the Philippines
2. The VRA reveals the root causes of vulnerability and leads to improved contextual
and systemic understanding.
For Oxfam staff and partners, conducting the VRA has improved their understanding of the
context in which they work and implement programmes. Not only does the VRA clarify how
members of a community are vulnerable, but it also seeks to understand why. The ICE (Step 3),
for example, provides an opportunity for a joint exercise to
actually visualize vulnerability and the relationships between One of the strengths of the VRA workshop in
impacts at different levels. This step is valued for explicitly Botswana was how it enabled people to see the links
showing how the lives and livelihoods of a community at the between their activities and climate risk and
responses. This understanding was built across levels
local level are linked to and impacted differentially by issues
from the local level of farmers, traders and phane
at the regional and global levels. This explicitly brings to the worm harvesters to the village level of village
surface the root causes of local issues and vulnerabilities development committee member, farmers committee,
and reveals power dynamics, identifying imbalances in womens groups to the district level of planners,
power and encouraging stakeholders to consider how the economic planner and district social worker. When the
Assistant Council Secretary for Bobirwa Sub-District
power-holders in a given context could support, or act as a
closed the meeting she said: I believe you will all go
barrier to, a community increasing its resilience. out from here as change agents and share with those
who werent able to spend time here. We all know this
When vulnerability is understood as a systemic issue, area is prone to disaster and diseases, but usually
programmes and projects can be designed and resources when we do our planning we consider issues like HIV
allocated to build transformative capacity, i.e. the capacity to and AIDS but rarely take into account issues of climate
address the systemic causes of vulnerability and risks, and change. But this is the right time for us as we have just
started our Chapter 8 District Development Plan and
build a more resilient future.
so we'll accommodate the issues that have been
raised here. So we'll come up with a plan that is
In order to uncover where existing structures perpetuate suitable to the district.
inequalities, the VRA process (and its facilitators) need to
regularly question the status quo and explore through the Report on VRA conducted in Bobirwa Sub-district,
Knowledge Group how this is shaping vulnerability of Botswana, in November 2015 7
different social groups. Fidi Alpers, a community-based
practitioner based in Namibia, suggests that throughout the VRA and then again at the end of it,
the Knowledge Group reflects on the implications of the status quo and ensures capacity is
developed at the local level to successfully challenge it.
3. The VRA is a creative, participatory and analytical approach that promotes dialogue,
strengthens gender and stakeholder relations, and builds capacity.
One of the main strengths of the VRA methodology identified by practitioners is that it combines
a participatory and analytical approach with creative elements in a way which inspires
participants, builds a sense of agency and increases buy-in, as noted by Gina Ziervogel, Salma
Hegga and Kulthoum Omari of the University of Cape Town, in comparison for instance with key
informant interviews.
4. The VRA enables knowledge from different sources to be shared, valued and
integrated and to shape decision making.
The VRA uses information from a variety of sources: academics share empirical findings or
apply climate impact models relevant to the landscape; representatives from womens rights
organizations and from, for example, fisherfolk groups share their perspectives on the impact of
hazards on the groups they represent; local and district government officials may share their
emergency response plans, budget streams and allocation of resources to risk reduction and
climate change adaptation initiatives. Qualitative and quantitative data and scientific, indigenous
and local knowledge is therefore integrated. By identifying and incorporating existing local
knowledge and coping mechanisms into development strategies, the VRA contributes to
community empowerment and ultimately to more equitable and resilient planning.
The VRA can and has been used as a womens empowerment tool. For This exercise will influence and
example, in the Philippines, the VRA helped build the capacity of women contribute to draft our district
affiliated with local NGOs and authorities through their active role in facilitation, development plan, particularly the
note-taking, reporting and planning processes. In a focus group discussion in activities related to climate change.
Because of the useful outcomes the
Kidapawan, the Philippines women mentioned that being exposed to
VRA generated, we will fund
facilitation roles builds their confidence for speaking in public and for engaging workshops like this in other parts of
as equals in discussions with men. Furthermore, their participation in these the district.
types of discussion has allowed them to introduce specific actions targeted at
reducing womens vulnerability, which had previously been disregarded in Pelaelo Master Tsayang, Principal
groups led by men (ref. Focus Group Discussion May 2014, Morchain, Economist and District Planning
8 Officer, Bobirwa Sub-District,
Kidapawan City, Mindanao, The Philippines ).
Botswana
5. The VRA informs inclusive programme design and decision making while building
accountability.
By fostering a systemic understanding of the causes of vulnerabilities, the VRA facilitates the
identification of power structures that need to change and stakeholders responsible for the
required changes, such as identifying which governmental and private sector stakeholders
should be targeted by the community youth group to act on a specific measure identified in the
process. This leads to more inclusive, accountable decision making, whether it be to inform
development plans led by local authorities, district-level planning, or investment plans of private
sector companies operating in the landscape, or humanitarian sector programme/project
design.
So, in summary, whats so good about the VRA? Figure 7 plots the journey taken by VRA
participants. The journey is underpinned by an acknowledgment of the rights and value of every
person in the landscape, as well as the value of ecosystems. Reducing vulnerability and
building resilience, then, requires carefully addressing the impacts faced by vulnerable groups.
The participatory aspect of this process opens a space to discuss issues
affecting vulnerable groups, thus creating awareness about them. The process
The VRA is not one person
also encourages a debate about what elements are needed for vulnerable sitting at a desk and thinking
groups to become increasingly independent and develop their capacities and about a community far away it
potential, while on the other hand it contributes to enhancing the accountability involves a lot of experts,
of stakeholders and as such promotes a long-term view of development. including community people,
putting their heads together to
With this framing as a starting point, the VRA sketches out vulnerability as a think about the core vulnerability
problem.
narrative that not only reflects todays reality, but also explores what has
shaped vulnerability to its present form and the implications for people in the Abdul Latif Walizada, Poverty
landscape. This narrative necessarily explores gender relations and structural Reduction Programme Manager,
conditions that often exclude minorities and other vulnerable groups. By building Oxfam in Afghanistan
consensus based on a holistic, critical understanding of vulnerability, and
likewise by challenging the status quo in a multi-stakeholder arena when necessary, the VRA
guides the Knowledge Group through a process that builds peoples agency, while promoting
informed, inclusive and accountable decision making and programme design.
Effective and impactful implementation of the VRA relies as much upon the
composition of the Knowledge Group as on how masterfully the facilitator(s) can bring out the
Knowledge Group members experience, knowledge, ideas and expertise in an inclusive and
constructive way. These facilitation skills are particularly important to ensure that marginalized
groups and Knowledge Group members who are unfamiliar with public speaking and official
events feel that they can safely share their ideas.
In addition to these skills and to being knowledgeable about the VRA, the facilitator should be
able to communicate the meaning of rather complex concepts simply and clearly to a diverse
audience, such as the concepts of vulnerability, exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity.
This, Moslemin Abas of the Community Organizers Multiversity in the Philippines admits, is not
always an easy or straightforward task.
2. Outcomes of the VRA will depend on the composition of the Knowledge Group and
its dynamics.
The findings and outcomes of the VRA which include the set of measures identified to build
resilience in the landscape, the new and strengthened relations between stakeholders across
governance levels, and the empowerment of women through their participation in the analysis of
vulnerability and the design of responses will depend to a large extent upon the composition
of the Knowledge Group. Selection of the Knowledge Group members is therefore crucial. While
several implementers of the VRA highlighted the participatory nature of the methodology as a
strength of the tool, Mohammed-Anwar Sadat Adam of Oxfam in Ghana rightfully suggests that
if not balanced carefully, the process and subsequent outcomes have the potential to be
skewed towards bringing expert knowledge into the landscape setting, with less attention paid
to indigenous and local knowledge and adaptive practices.
It is, therefore, essential to recognize the importance of striking a delicate balance in combining
inputs provided by vulnerable and marginalized groups (mostly internal to the landscape) and
external knowledge and perspectives that provide a wider view of the issues affecting social
groups in the landscape. Understanding, assessing, sometimes reviewing and sharing local
Combative and domineering Knowledge Group members can seriously damage the group
dynamics. The facilitating team should try to intervene respectfully but firmly to prevent the
exercise from deteriorating into business as usual, top-down, one-directional discussions that
further alienate the most vulnerable and marginalized groups.
As emphasized throughout this guide, facilitation needs to ensure the process encourages and
is genuinely open to the views of social group representatives. In addition, it is important to
understand the VRA as a first step in the process of an increasingly integrated development of
the landscape (people, environment, livelihoods), and as such the VRA workshop is the
beginning of a long-term process with some of its outcomes materializing over time. In other
words, patience and persistence will be important virtues, which must be accompanied by
nurturing the relations formed during the work of the Knowledge Group. There is no ideal recipe
for how this should be done, but it would normally be a mix of bi/multilateral collaborations and
sometimes by maintaining regular meetings with participation from everyone in the Knowledge
Group to keep the issues alive and those voicing them heard, especially those with least access
to such channels. In Honduras, for example, a local NGO (AESMO Asociacin Ecolgica de
San Marcos de Ocotepeque) is the unifying thread of a multi-stakeholder group that has been
regularly meeting over the last 14 years to openly discuss and act on landscape-wide issues
affecting the Hondo River Basin.
When the VRA was first developed, the focus of the analysis as in The VRA brings further insights on the
Armenia in April 2013 was mostly on the vulnerability of particular likely impact of vulnerabilities and risks
crops and livelihoods to various hazards. However, as the tool has associated with climate change on the lives
and livelihoods of the community in question.
evolved and been applied in a variety of contexts and shaped by the
We are then better informed when making
Knowledge Group in each instance social aspects of the landscape decisions relating to the support we provide
have been increasingly incorporated into the analysis, starting from the to communities the VRA helps ensure our
careful identification of social groups and livelihood activities, and the support aiming for more transformative
initial step of assessing vulnerability (IVA), and then particularly livelihoods is better placed.
through the ICE step. It is the experience of implementers of the VRA
Mohammed-Anwar Sadat Adam,
that by examining the impact of hazards on social groups, alongside
Economic Justice Programme and
livelihoods, the root causes of vulnerability and how it is experienced Campaigns Manager, Oxfam in Ghana
by different people is understood more comprehensively than if
peoples vulnerability is merely a reflection of that of livelihood activities and crops. Moreover,
paying attention to the people and governance aspects of a landscape ensures that the existing
capacities of different social groups are identified and strengthened. This approach reflects a
more holistic, locally driven and locally appropriate way of reducing vulnerability that is key to
doing development right.
4. To be truly inclusive, the VRA requires working hard at the preparation stage.
A VRA can be implemented in a very short space of time. However, on reflection, some
practitioners regret not dedicating enough time to the preparation stage to ensure their VRA
processes were sufficiently inclusive. Incorporating an understanding of vulnerability adjusted
to the reality of the community and the different actors in the landscape requires time in
advance of the workshop to ensure the active and effective participation of Knowledge Group
members representing particularly marginalized and vulnerable groups. This means three
things: ensuring that these groups are represented in the Knowledge Group; that any barriers to
these Knowledge Group members are removed as far as possible; and that ahead of the VRA
opportunities are created for the voices of these vulnerable groups to be heard by their
respective Knowledge Group member.
Some barriers are deeply entrenched and others are slightly more straightforward to address.
For example, on the latter, as Janice Ian Manlutac recalls, I remember once I had a participant
from a rural area attending a big workshop in the city and she was so overwhelmed by the
elevators, high tech toilets and newness of the urban setting that it affected her confidence level
in the actual workshop.
In some cases, representatives of vulnerable social groups may already have some experience
of workshops in their previous work with local NGOs, but where that is not the case, think about
if and to what extent they will feel comfortable with the VRA methodology and, in particular,
speaking about their issues in front of other members of the Knowledge Group. Spending time
preparing those representatives ahead of the VRA (e.g. holding mock VRA exercises) will help
to mitigate anxieties and ensure all voices are heard. Remember, for the VRA to inspire
transformational outcomes, power imbalances need to be actively addressed, even if initially
just temporarily during the two-day workshop, so that the disempowered are empowered and
can effect change.
The Planning and Facilitation team may consider adding new elements to the VRA
methodology to further strengthen the outcomes whether this is done immediately
before, during or after the VRA itself. Examples include:
Net-Map as a way to identify key stakeholders and understand the ways in which they
are and are not interacting, and build strategies for influencing
PCVA for a better understanding of community-level context and a smooth transition to
the landscape-level analysis
Rapid Care Analysis to enhance the Knowledge Groups understanding of care-related
activities and impacts on women
The ACCRA climate resilience game to enhance understanding about the principle of
flexible and forward-looking decision making
PICSA (Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture) to better inform the
assessment of vulnerability and the design of responses
Ravon L. (2014). Resilience in Times of Food Insecurity: Reflecting the experiences of womens
organizations. Oxfam Canada, available at: http://go.oxfam.ca/docs/resilience-women-
organizations-2014-09-en.pdf
P. Tschakert, et al. (2013). Inequality and Transformation Analyses: A Complementary Lens for
Addressing Vulnerability to Climate Change. Climate and Development, Vol. 5, No. 4, 340350
The report was peer reviewed by the following members of the ASSAR project:
Dr Laura Camfield, Senior Lecturer, School of International Development, University of East
Anglia, UK
Margaret Angula, Lecturer, Geography, History and Environmental Studies, University of
Namibia
Sumetee Pahwa Gajjar, Lead Practice, Indian Institute for Human Settlements (IIHS)
Gina Ziervogel, Associate Professor, Department of Environmental & Geographical Science
and African Climate and Development Institute (ACDI); University of Cape Town
The report was also peer reviewed by:
Dr Gina E. Castillo, Oxfam America, Agriculture Program Manager
Fidi Alpers, community-based practitioner, Namibia
Giorgia Prati, Postgraduate Researcher, Department of Geography and Environment,
University of Southampton, UK
Janice Ian Manlutac, Regional Change Lead Building Resilience, Oxfam in Asia
Helen Jeans, Oxfam GB, Head of Agriculture and Natural Resource Unit
The following Oxfam staff shared their experience in implementing the VRA in their countries:
Ana Caspe, Oxfam in the Philippines
Md. Badi Akhter and colleagues, Oxfam in Bangladesh
Mohammed-Anwar Sadat Adam, Oxfam in Ghana
Asim Saqlain and Muhammad Zeeshan, Oxfam in Pakistan
Khun Thein Soe, previously Oxfam in Myanmar
Vadim Uzunyan and Alexey Petrosyan, Oxfam in Armenia
Abdul Latif Walizada, Oxfam in Afghanistan
Neha Mittal, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK, also contributed to the
content of this report.
The authors would like to thank everyone for their invaluable contribution to shaping,
strengthening and making this report possible.
This publication is copyright but the text may be used free of charge for the purposes of advocacy,
campaigning, education, and research, provided that the source is acknowledged in full. The copyright
holder requests that all such use be registered with them for impact assessment purposes. For copying in
any other circumstances, or for re-use in other publications, or for translation or adaptation, permission
must be secured and a fee may be charged. Email policyandpractice@oxfam.org.uk
Members of ASSAR generously gave their time to peer review this report. The VRA in the Bobirwa Sub-
district, Botswana, was conducted in collaboration with ASSAR partners University of Botswana, University
of Cape Town and University of Namibia. ASSAR is one of five research programmes funded under the
Collaborative Adaptation Research Initiative in Africa and Asia (CARIAA), with financial support from the
UK Governments Department for International Development (DfID) and the International Development
Research Centre (IDRC), Canada. Oxfam is one of the consortium leads of ASSAR. The views expressed
in this report are solely those of the authors. ASSAR is not responsible for its content.
OXFAM
Oxfam is an international confederation of 18 organizations networked together in more than 90 countries,
as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty:
Please write to any of the agencies for further information, or visit www.oxfam.org
www.oxfam.org