Food and Agriculture Organization · Web viewThis analysis primarily supports recommendations for...

Food Security Information for Action

Vulnerability

Lesson 2

Vulnerability Assessment

Learner’s Notes

© FAO, 2008

This course is funded by the European Union and developed

by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations

Course - VulnerabilityLesson 2 - Vulnerability Assessment

Table of Contents

Learning objectives..........................................................................................1

Introduction....................................................................................................2

The vulnerability framework..............................................................................3

Levels of assessment......................................................................................4

Vulnerable groups...........................................................................................6

Uses of vulnerability assessment.......................................................................9

Risk management terms................................................................................16

Selecting the right method..............................................................................17

Summary...................................................................................................20

If you want to know more................................................................................21

Annex 1: Table comparing various tools for vulnerability assessment........1

Learners’ Notes

23


Learning objectives

At the end of this lesson you will be able to:

• define the purpose and scope of vulnerability assessment;

• understand how vulnerability assessment relates to early warning monitoring activities,

food security response planning and national policy and programme development;; and

• identify the criteria to select among the tools available for conducting vulnerability

assessments.

Learners’ Notes

23


Introduction

This lesson explains how the concept of vulnerability is applied in practice to conducting

Vulnerability Assessments and how the assessment results can be useful in decision

making.

The main areas of vulnerability assessment and analysis that have been developed from

the vulnerability framework are identified and discussed.

A central concern of this lesson is linking assessment results to action. The various ways

in which vulnerability assessment results are used to reduce food insecurity are discussed.

Finally, a typology of the major food security related vulnerability assessment approaches

and methods is presented along with criteria to select the most appropriate method in a

specific context.

.Vulnerability Assessment (VA) is an important component of food security analysis. VA is

distinguished from other aspects of food security analysis by its emphasis on the

constantly changing conditions faced by households, and of their responses to those

conditions.

Because of this dynamic perspective, the analysis can be used to support both:

efforts to address the short term constraints to food access; and

reduction of longer-term threats to food security and well-being.

Vulnerability analysis is not a single or standard measurement system. Instead,

vulnerability analysis brings together different data sets to investigate causes of food

insecurity and predict changes over time.


The vulnerability framework

Vulnerability assessment methods share a common conceptual framework.

The analysis may begin with an assessment of the chronic or current level of Food

Security (FS) and then incorporate the elements of risk and coping capacity into an

analysis that is more forward-looking and dynamic.

At its most inclusive, vulnerability analysis incorporates a number of sequential steps:

1. Situational Analysis - What is the current level of food insecurity?

2. Assessment of risks/hazards - What are the major risks, the intensity and severity?

Who is exposed to these risks?

3. Vulnerability analysis - What is the ability to manage these risks?

4. Assessment of Risk to food insecurity - Given these factors, what is the prognosis

for future food security?

5. From analysis to action - How can this information and analysis be used to reduce

future food insecurity?

There is no single way to undertake a vulnerability assessment. Indeed, the scope of the

vulnerability framework makes it extremely difficult to conduct a comprehensive

vulnerability analysis within a single assessment process.

Many different methodologies have been applied to the task, each relevant to a particular

dimension of the vulnerability problem and a particular question of strategic or operational

importance.


Levels of assessment

Vulnerability assessment can be conducted at multiple levels.

Table 1: Levels of vulnerability assessment

Level Description

Household The concept of vulnerability is most frequently used to understand the relationship of risk and coping at the household level. This is a basic unit of social organization where resources are shared. Findings of similar households can be aggregated to efficiently characterize population groups (households with similar livelihood strategies, female headed households …) and to develop recommendations for them.However, depending on the purpose of the assessment, it may be appropriate to investigate, analyse or report on vulnerability at different levels of social organization.

Individual At the lowest level vulnerability is a characteristic of an individual. There are important intra-household differences in vulnerability. For example, depending on the local social customs and norms, a shortage of food at the household level may impact the children, women and men very differently. Understanding these differences can be critical to planning and implementing interventions.

Community It may also be appropriate to assess vulnerability at the community level. Collecting vulnerability information at the community level, usually through participatory techniques, is typically cheaper than household level surveys. Furthermore, understanding the dynamics of inter-household relationships can be critical for understanding vulnerability. Community participation in the analysis links well to community level action to address shocks affecting households or individuals.

Within a livelihood zone

Often vulnerability is collected and analysed within livelihood or agro-ecological zones. In regions where livelihood options are limited, which includes many rural areas, it is possible to define geographical zones within which livelihood activities, risks and risk management strategies are relatively homogenous. Collecting and analysing information at this level allows relatively large areas to be efficiently characterized and recommendations developed for these zones.


Administrative zone

There is often a demand for information, analysis and recommendations at various administrative levels, such as the district or regional level. This level of analysis recognizes that many solutions to reduce vulnerability, especially related to shocks which affect many (co-variant), fall outside of the household. For example, the social services provided by government can be critical. Key decision makers are often located within these administrative units, and require analysis targeted to their jurisdiction.

National or global level

A vulnerability analysis can be undertaken at the national or even global level. This information may be useful in helping to identify areas of high vulnerability and target national or global resources to address this problem. It can also assess the implication of national or international policy level choices on vulnerability.

The methods used for data collection and analysis will be adapted according to the level of

assessment used.

There is also a considerable amount of interaction between the different methods.

Example For example, The results of several community level assessments may be aggregated

to develop a district level vulnerability assessment.

Vulnerability assessment for food security is an emerging profession.

There is still a heavy reliance on simple narrative analyses and more formal, quantitative

methods are only beginning to emerge.


Vulnerable groups

A common feature of many vulnerability assessments is the identification of vulnerable

groups.

Although the ultimate goal of food security interventions is to enhance the welfare of

individuals, analysing the complex set of information pertaining to each person would be

impossible. Therefore people are clustered into groups of individuals with shared

characteristics.

Often, such common characteristics are either of demographic nature (e.g. age, gender),

location specific (e.g. people in high altitude mountains) or occupation specific (e.g. fisher

folk or urban labourers).

Such vulnerability profiles indicate: Who and how many people are vulnerable (which is important for making resource

allocation decisions);

Where they are (which improves geographic targeting); and

Why they are vulnerable (which allows us to understand what type of interventions are

required).

The nature and extent of vulnerability varies amongst social groups, between and within

different livelihoods and between rural and urban areas.

Understanding these variations plays a key role in identifying interventions and targeting

those that are most vulnerable and excluding the less vulnerable.

Particular groups may be vulnerable for quite different reasons, and therefore the type of

support that is appropriate for them may also differ.


Examples of vulnerable groups

Some examples of groups that are routinely identified as particularly vulnerable are:

children under the age of five (vulnerable especially to undernutrition, malnutrition

and infectious diseases);

lactating mothers (vulnerable to undernutrition in the context of nursing babies);

the elderly (vulnerable due to loss of assets, or ability to use their assets

productively, or additional burdens of care for the ill and orphans due to HIV/AIDS);

female headed households, including widows and divorced women (vulnerable due

to loss of access rights to land, lack of time to cultivate land, and loss of previous

partner’s contribution to household livelihood);

people with disabilities (lack of access to production or earning opportunities; social

exclusion);

families with members with HIV/AIDS or other chronic illnesses (vulnerable due to

lack of labour, and disposal of assets to cover medical costs);

Occupational groups with low/variable income, such as fisher folk, agricultural

labourers and marginal farmers (vulnerable because of weather dependency, highly

variable income, and limited income diversification);and

remote rural populations (vulnerable due to over reliance on a single livelihood

source, lack of diversification options, high transport costs, poor information).

Factors leading to vulnerabilityThe factors leading to vulnerability differ across the different groups.

Common characteristics used to cluster vulnerable groups include:

demographic characteristics;

geographical location;

position in society; and

sources of livelihoods or main income.

Gender plays a significant part in these different vulnerabilities – women are often more

vulnerable than men.

For example in southern Africa the prevalence of the HIV infection among women is 20%

higher than for men.

Think of the possible limitations of using “vulnerable groups” as a basis for targeting

interventions....


Example It can happen that not all members of the defined vulnerable group are equally vulnerable.

(e.g. some women-headed households have far greater assets than the poorer male-

headed households...).

Furthermore, it could happen that the criteria used to determine inclusion in a programme

exclude many of the newly vulnerable (e.g. the farm workers who have lost their jobs do

not qualify for assistance).

While the use of vulnerable groups can help in targeting limited resources, the use of

standard criteria without a careful analysis of the relevance to the local context may be

counter-productive. Vulnerability can be thought of as a continuum with some people being

more vulnerable than others, even within the same group.


Uses of vulnerability assessment

An understanding of vulnerability can be helpful in analysing food security problems and

formulating advice and recommendations in a range of different contexts. Whilst three

distinct contexts are presented below, a VA often can serve several purposes.

Let’s look at the main situations where vulnerability assessment can be usefully applied:

1. Early Warning System

2. Emergency Programming

3. Risk and vulnerability reduction

1. The Early Warning System

A primary purpose of an Early Warning System (EWS) is to monitor the incidence of

shocks or hazards in order to give timely warning to decisions makers. This information

may be used to trigger appropriate response plans.

Potentially there are a large number of shocks that could negatively affect food security in

a given country. However, establishing a EWS to monitor the incidence of all of these

shocks would be expensive and probably unnecessary.

Shocks that could negatively affect food security

Potentially there are a large number of shocks and trends that could negatively affect food security in a given country. Amongst the co-variant shocks affecting many people simultaneously are : drought; floods; storms; disease and pest outbreaks; volcanoes; earthquakes; tsunamis; landslides; war; increases in food prices or inflation; and macro-economic crisis, e.g. sudden devaluations.

A risk and vulnerability assessment can provide an estimation of the most important

shocks and hazards for a location or population group.

This would include:

an analysis of the frequency and characteristics of these phenomena;


how many people are exposed to these risks; and

how susceptible people are and their ability to manage these without external assistance.

Taken together, this information will help a EWS manager to prioritize which hazards and

shocks to monitor in a specific area.

Case study: Linking vulnerability analysis to early warning – DjiboutiIn this case the baseline vulnerability analysis provided essential context information for

designing an appropriate EWS.

Food security is often closely linked with agricultural production outcomes. Hence, a

chronic or temporary production deficit against local food requirements immediately

translates into chronic or temporary food insecurity. Consequently most early warning and

food security monitoring systems draw heavily from two information sources: (1) crop

and/or livestock production data; and (2) market price information.

Prior to establishing an early warning system in Djibouti, FEWS NET, with assistance from

the Government of Djibouti, undertook a national baseline food economy study. This study

profiled the major characteristics of different food economy zones. It included elements of

vulnerability analysis; identifying the major hazards and the relative capacity of different

types of households to withstand them.

The study pointed out that:

The vast majority of the population lives in Djibouti City and depends on non-agricultural formal, or informal, employment. Casual employment in the construction sector is critical for the poorest groups.

Persistent drought, conflict and a desire to access health and education services has led to a major decline in nomadic pastoralism.

There is an increasing dependence of the rural population on the urban economy, with assistance flowing from the city to rural areas in the form of regular remittances of money and/or food.

The country produces minimal amounts of food and is almost entirely dependent on food imports.

Therefore in the case of Djibouti it was decided that monitoring domestic agricultural

production and wholesale prices was of limited relevance. Instead the key variables

included in the EWS were urban employment statistics (formal and informal), the cost of a

food basket in the urban market and factors influencing the food trade.

2. Emergency Programming


Vulnerability analysis can also be applied in helping to prepare an emergency response to

a specific shock.

Example: Emergency response to a specific shockIf a region experiences a prolonged lack of rainfall, the food consumption of the affected

population may not decline immediately.

However, if the shock is severe enough in terms of duration, intensity or coverage, then

the food security situation may well deteriorate in the period before the next harvest.

A vulnerability analysis can be conducted to analyze the short-term food security

consequences for a given shock. In this case the emphasis is on predicting the food

security outcome.

A vulnerability assessment can provide the context to predict the impact of shocks and

hazards, and forecast the probable food security impacts. It can give an indication of how

close to the edge people are before the shock and the extent of their ability to cope with

the effects. Depending on the VA method employed this may produce recommendations

that:

target assistance to the most severely affected regions and socio-economic

populations; and

calculate the actual quantity of assistance (food, cash or other transfers) required.

In the context of emergency programming, VA is closely related to strengthening ex-post

coping mechanisms.


Case study: Vulnerability Assessment in NepalFollowing a failure of the winter rains of 2005/06 in the far-west and mid-west regions of

Nepal, a preliminary assessment indicated a failure of the rain-fed winter wheat crop.

Consequently the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Food and Agricultural

Organization of the United Nations (FAO) organized a vulnerability assessment in order to:

verify and validate information on current food availability, market conditions and the

extent and scale of crop damage;

identify affected villages and populations;

recommend an appropriate response strategy for addressing the impact of the

drought.

The assessment collected data on:

agricultural production;

food self-sufficiency;

crop losses;

the food gap;

food availability on markets; and

coping mechanisms.

This information was used to analyse the probable food security status of the population

later in the year.

Based on this analysis, the recommendations included the immediate provision of

emergency food assistance and an expansion of food for work programmes. In the

medium term, seed distribution and micro-irrigation projects were also recommended.

Predicting the consequences of potential shocks

A similar analysis may be conducted to predict the likely consequences of potential

shocks, rather than actual shocks.

In this case it would be termed scenario planning and in particular used to develop

contingency plans.


3. Risk and vulnerability reduction

A further application of vulnerability analysis is in guiding the design of interventions to

reduce people’s long-term vulnerability.

If we can reduce people’s exposure to risk or reduce their sensitivity to shocks and/or

strengthen their ability to manage risks, then the incidence and severity of future food

crises can be reduced.

In this context the emphasis is on analysing the causal factors underlying vulnerability to

food insecurity.

The focus here is on present livelihood characteristics, risks and interventions.

This analysis primarily supports recommendations for medium and longer-term

interventions to strengthen ex-ante risk management, in both development and emergency

programming.

VA can produce recommendations to minimize vulnerabilities by avoiding (prevention) or

limiting (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of shocks.

This analysis can be used to formulate, fine tune or review either programme or project

level activities or strategies and policies.


Case study: Vulnerability Assessment in SahelIn 2005, there was a food crisis in the Sahel that highlighted the extent of the region’s

vulnerability. This increased international attention to the region and led to large sums of

money being provided to help those people survive the immediate crisis. However, several

agencies shared a concern that too much attention had been paid to the quite specific

situation and too little to the unacceptable and growing levels of vulnerability that pre-dated

the crisis and persisted afterwards.

Consequently the Sahel Working Group (an inter-agency group) conducted a study to

analyse how vulnerability is understood and addressed by development agencies and

government departments in Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso. The areas of investigation

included a theoretical examination of the way that vulnerability is understood, an analysis

of the root causes of vulnerability in the Sahel and an analysis of the impact of past aid

programmes on vulnerability. The methods used were primarily interviews and a review of

other studies.

The conclusions and recommendations were broad and long-term, with an emphasis on

finding ways of reversing the increasing vulnerability in the region. Specifically the

assessment called for:

a commitment to significant and sustained increases in funding for long-term

development, with less short-term emergency interventions;

support to maintain the mobility of pastoralists;

measures to reduce the impact of drought and improve the ability to manage the

impact of drought as part of development plans;

greater decentralization to improve accountability and representation of local interests

in decision-making.


Risk management terms

The following are definitions of risk management terms:

Prevention: Measures designed to provide permanent protection or reduce the

likeliness or intensity of a hazardous event so it doesn’t become a disaster (e.g.

reforesting an unstable slope to prevent landslides).

Mitigation: Measures taken to respond to and manage a hazardous event. These

measures prepare people to react appropriately before, during and after the event (e.g.

temporary evacuation of people and property from threatened locations, insurance

against crop losses).

Coping: Measures taken to minimize the adverse impacts on communities or

households after a hazard has occurred (e.g. providing food assistance to assist

drought affected populations).


Selecting the right method

The contrasting examples of vulnerability analysis given illustrate the tremendous diversity

of objectives and analytical approaches which fall under the umbrella of vulnerability

assessment.

Several points should be apparent about Vulnerability Assessment (VA):

Vulnerability Assessment is not a single method. This term can be used to describe a

large variety of methods that address one or more elements of the vulnerability

framework. The common characteristic is that it is a forward looking analysis.

Vulnerability Assessment is not necessarily a distinct analytical process. Elements of

vulnerability analysis may be incorporated into many tools, such as food security

baselines or early warning systems.

There is no such thing as a standard “vulnerability assessment methodology”. A multiplicity

of purposes for VA has resulted in a multiplicity of VA methods.

The question for a manager is how the idea of vulnerability can be applied to contribute

useful information to their decision making tasks.

See the Annex 1: Table comparing various tools for vulnerability assessment

In conducting a vulnerability assessment, the starting point should be clarity on the

purpose or objective, of the analysis.

From this it is possible to identify a typology of approaches to vulnerability assessment and

the methods that can be used.


Table 2: Vulnerability Assessment Methods

Objective Uses VA Approach VA Methods

Early Warning System

To derive a qualitative understanding of the proper socioeconomic context for early warning indicator selection and use in the short term, typically within an agricultural season.

A historical analysis of patterns in food access and consumption, as well as the causal patterns of relationships between those outcomes and household risk exposure and risk management capacity.

Can be accomplished through a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods, including a simple narrative analysis or the use of statistical methods to derive explicit relationships between key variables.

Emergency Programming

To calculate the severity of acute short-term changes in food security outcomes across regions and socio-economic groups.

A comparison of historical patterns of food access and consumption to current levels, with less explicit emphasis on causal relationships.

Many use a combination of secondary quantitative indicators to construct current vulnerability indexes and field assessment methods, either formal, survey-based assessments, or rapid assessment methods that combine quantitative and qualitative information.

Risk and Vulnerability Reduction

To obtain an understanding of the causal structure of vulnerability, highlighting sources of risk and determinants of coping capacity in order to identify appropriate areas of short and medium term interventions to support sustainable reduction in transitory or chronic food insecurity.

An historical analysis of patterns in food access and consumption, as well as the causal patterns of relationships between those outcomes and household risk exposure and coping capacity.

Can be accomplished through a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods, including a simple narrative analysis or the use of statistical methods to derive explicit relationships between key variables.


Ultimately the choice of vulnerability assessment method will depend on a variety of

institutional and technical considerations. These include:

1. Institutional issues Which institutions are participating in and responsible for the assessment?

What is their organizational mandate and response capacity?

What decisions need to be taken as a consequence of this assessment? – and when?

2. Technical issues What data and information is already available?

What financial resources are available (for secondary or primary data collection and

analysis)?

What skills do the analysts possess (for qualitative and quantitative methods of

enquiry)?

Existing VA methods have been developed to meet the specific information needs of the

various institutions involved.

Case study: How methods are adapted to institutional needsWithin the USAID Famine Early Warning Systems (FEWS) Project, VA was initially used to

help place its famine early warning indicators in their proper socioeconomic context, as a

means to improve the interpretation of those indicators.

However, the purpose of VA has evolved from:

developing a more informed basis for predicting severe episodes of food insecurity; to

targeting the most food insecure and vulnerable populations and monitoring their

situation over time.

Methods were explicitly chosen/developed to answer these questions.

Where national governments have different institutional structures and capacities, and

different information needs, the optimal approach to VA for national planning purposes

might be different, or encompass various aspects of the various methods developed to

date.


SummaryVulnerability Assessment can be used to describe an analysis of different parts of the overall problem of why people may become food insecure in the future.

Vulnerability analysis starts by assessing the current level of food security, and then incorporates the elements of risk and risk management into an analysis that is more forward-looking and dynamic.

The main applications of vulnerability analysis are to: provide a context for early warning; improve emergency response planning; and lead to long-term reductions vulnerability and food insecurity through

development interventions.

There is no one analysis approach or method, and the selection of an appropriate technique will depend on a mix of institutional and technical considerations.


If you want to know more

Online resources

Cannon, T, John Twigg and Jennifer Rowell. Social Vulnerability, Sustainable Livelihoods

and Disasters. Report to DFID Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Department (CHAD)

and Sustainable Livelihoods Support Office.

(http://www.livelihoods.org/info/docs/vulnerability.doc)

World Food Programme (WFP). Vulnerability Analysis: Concepts and case studies in

emergency, recovery and development settings. 2004.

(http://www.foodsec.org/DL/course/shortcourseFV/en/pdf/Vulnerability_Analysis-

Some_Examples-Final.pdf)

Riely, F. 2000. FIVIMS synthesis document: a comparison of vulnerability analysis

methods and rationale for their use in different contexts.

(http://www.foodsec.org/DL/course/shortcourseFV/en/pdf/IAWG5-

12_Vulnerability_Analysis_Methods.pdf)

Christian Romer Lovendal and Macro Knowles, 2006. Tomorrow’s Hunger: A Framework for Analysing Vulnerability to Food Security.ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/af140e/af140e00.pdf

John Hoddinott and Agnes Quisumbing, 2003. Methods for Microeconometric Risk and Vulnerability Assessments.http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/otherpubs/spdp0324.htm

Additional reading

WFP. 2006. Emergency Food Security Assessment (EFSA) Far-west and Mid-west

drought – Nepal. Draft Report. May 2006.

FEWS NET. 2004. Djibouti Livelihood Profiles. October 2004

http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/otherpubs/spdp0324.htm

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/af140e/af140e00.pdf

http://www.foodsec.org/DL/course/shortcourseFV/en/pdf/IAWG5-12_Vulnerability_Analysis_Methods.pdf

http://www.foodsec.org/DL/course/shortcourseFV/en/pdf/IAWG5-12_Vulnerability_Analysis_Methods.pdf

http://www.foodsec.org/DL/course/shortcourseFV/en/pdf/Vulnerability_Analysis-Some_Examples-Final.pdf

http://www.foodsec.org/DL/course/shortcourseFV/en/pdf/Vulnerability_Analysis-Some_Examples-Final.pdf

http://www.livelihoods.org/info/docs/vulnerability.doc


Annex 1: Table comparing various tools for vulnerability assessmentTool Advantages Disadvantages Time

requiredResource requirements

Level of technical skill required

Degree of standardization with other measures

Best application in vulnerability analysis

Rapid assessments using participatory tools

Quick Many possible tools available according to the contextParticipatoryInclusive

Difficult to convert to quantitative data and so not easily integrated into quantitative data bases and not easily mapped

Low Low Relatively high in terms of participatory and facilitatory skills

None Livelihood baseline assessment

Key informant interviews

Quick Draws on local knowledge

Reliability depends on participants Only people with position in society included, excludes marginalized groupsAggregation difficulties


None Baseline assessment for vulnerability and identification of vulnerable groups

Expert panels Quick May not be community people with real knowledge of the situation in the community or households



Livelihoods analysis Quick ParticipatoryInclusive of community membersLocal knowledge

Difficult to convert to quantitative data and so not easily integrated into quantitative data bases Aggregation difficulties

Med Low Relatively high in terms of participatory, facilitatory and participatory methodologies

None but widely accepted

Baseline assessment for vulnerability and identification of vulnerable groups

Focus group discussions

Quick Many possible tools to select specific to the contextParticipatoryInclusive

Not converted to quantitative data Low Low Relatively high in terms of participatory, facilitatory and participatory methodologies


Household surveys Detailed informationRepresentative sampleQuantitative data for comparisons and statistical analysisMany variables can be included

Often too many variables included and there is difficulty in determining the best indicators for inclusion and analysis.Questions can miss critical issues.Can miss causal relations

High High High in terms of field work and analysis and management of large data bases.

High Baseline where no national statistics are available and continual assessment to create time-series data for comparisons.

Brainstorming sessions Quick Clarification of key vulnerability groups

Quality of data depends on who participates and on good facilitation.Not able to be included in

Low Low Relatively high in terms of participatory, and facilitatory skills

None but good as a base for triangulation

Triangulation with other methods

Learners’ Notes 23


Tool Advantages Disadvantages Time required

Resource requirements

Level of technical skill required

Degree of standardization with other measures

Best application in vulnerability analysis

quantitative dataNational surveys such as agricultural production, health, welfare etc.

If available, usually representative and large scale.Wide range of variables.Quantitative data for statistical analysis

Not specifically collected for vulnerability analysis and so can have missing indicators.Sometimes not able to be disaggregated at district levels.

High but low if already existing

Very high but if existing data used this is inexpensive.

Relatively high in terms of analysis.

Good Useful for secondary data sources for baselines

Census data If available, usually representative and large scale.May be available in time series.Wide range of variables.Quantitative data for statistical analysis

Not specifically collected for vulnerability analysis and so can have missing indicators.Sometimes not able to be disaggregated at district levels.Data sensitivity means sometime unwillingness to share.

High but low if already existing

Very high but if existing data used this is inexpensive.

Relatively high in terms of analysis

Good Useful for secondary data sources for baselines

Food and Agriculture Organization · Web viewThis analysis primarily supports recommendations for...

Documents

Transcript of Food and Agriculture Organization · Web viewThis analysis primarily supports recommendations for...