From: Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de>
To: "F. Ian Woodward" <F.I.Woodward@Sheffield.ac.uk>, "Nigel W. Arnell" <N.W.Arnell@soton.ac.uk>, Alberte Bondeau <Alberte.Bondeau@pik-potsdam.de>, Almut Arneth <Aarneth@bgc-jena.mpg.de>, Anabel Sanchez <a.sanchez@miramon.uab.es>, Andreas Schuck <andreas.schuck@efi.fi>, Anne de la Vega-Leinert <a.vega-leinert@mdx.ac.uk>, Ari Pussinen <ari.pussinen@efi.fi>, Bärbel Zierl <zierl@wsl.ch>, Ben Smith <ben@planteco.lu.se>, Bruce Beck <mbbeck@uga.edu>, Carlo Jaeger <carlo.jaeger@pik-potsdam.de>, Carlos Gracia <gracia@porthos.bio.ub.es>, Colin Prentice <Colin.Prentice@bgc-jena.mpg.de>, Denis Peter <Denis.Peter@cec.eu.int>, Eduard Pla <e.pla@miramon.uab.es>, Frits Mohren <frits.mohren@btbo.bosb.wau.nl>, Fritz Reusswig <Fritz.Reusswig@pik-potsdam.de>, Harald Bugmann <bugmann@fowi.ethz.ch>, Jari Liski <jari.liski@efi.fi>, Jo House <jhouse@bgc-jena.mpg.de>, Jordi Vayreda <j.vayreda@creaf.uab.es>, José Manuel Moreno <jmmoreno@amb-to.uclm.es>, Juanjo Ibañez <j.ibanez@creaf.uab.es>, Mark Rounsevell <rounsevell@geog.ucl.ac.be>, Martin Sykes <martin.sykes@planteco.lu.se>, Miguel B Araujo <mba@uevora.pt>, Mike Hulme <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk>, Pete Smith <pete.smith@abdn.ac.uk>, Pierre Friedlingstein <pierre@lsce.saclay.cea.fr>, Riccardo Valentini <rik@unitus.it>, Richard Klein <Richard.Klein@pik-potsdam.de>, Rik Leemans <Rik.Leemans@rivm.nl>, Sandra Lavorel <lavorel@cefe.cnrs-mop.fr>, Santi Sabaté <santi.sabate@uab.es>, Sergey Venevski <Sergey.Venevski@pik-potsdam.de>, Stephen Sitch <Stephen.Sitch@pik-potsdam.de>, Tim Carter <tim.carter@vyh.fi>, Timo Karjalainen <timo.karjalainen@efi.fi>, Torben Christensen <torben.christensen@planteco.lu.se>, Wolfgang Knorr <Wolfgang.Knorr@bgc-jena.mpg.de>, Wolfgang Lucht <Wolfgang.Lucht@pik-potsdam.de>
Subject: Vulnerability in ATEAM
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 22:17:24 +0100
Reply-to: Wolfgang Cramer <Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by spdmraac.compuserve.com id QAA21095

Dear everybody,

I am still busy compiling the report from the kickoff meeting (and I
also still await some input pieces from some of you...).

For those of you who could not be there, let me just say that I
enjoyed very much to see the group here, and to witness the really
lively and productive discussions. Let's keep it that way.

While U wait for the report - I would like to get you thinking about
the project again by circulating the second draft of a small piece
which is edging towards a working definition of vulnerability, mostly
written by Richard and with input from Pete, Miguel and myself. All
comments are welcome. This is not intended for publication of course,
but it could be a start of something more substantial in due course.

So please send me the elements still missing for the overall report,
and comment to the four authors about the vulnerability piece.

Best regards,

 Wolfgang

-- 
                     Wolfgang Cramer
      Department of Global Change and Natural Systems
       Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
         PO Box 60 12 03, D-14412 Potsdam, Germany
       Tel.: +49-331-288-2521, Fax: +49-331-288-2600
           mailto:Wolfgang.Cramer@pik-potsdam.de
             http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~cramer

----------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: IF YOU NEED TO SEND ATTACHMENTS TO ME, PLEASE:
1) avoid sending MS-Word *.doc files (send rtf instead)
2) if the attachments exceed 500kB, contact me before sending anything
----------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: Sticking to my promise to avoid attachments, I send the plain
ascii text here. Some time Monday you should find the pdf of it on the
web site.

       Internal ATEAM document “Towards a definition of
                 vulnerability…” – do not cite
                  Draft version 2.0 (16/3/01)

                               
             TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF VULNERABILITY
           OF ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONING TO GLOBAL CHANGE
                               
 Richard J.T. Klein, Pete Smith, Miguel B. Araújo and Wolfgang
                            Cramer

This   document   aims   to  stimulate   the   discussion   of
vulnerability to global change, which is a key feature of  the
EU   project  Advanced  Terrestrial  Ecosystem  Analysis   and
Modelling  (ATEAM).  The  goal  of  ATEAM  is  to  develop  an
operational  quantitative assessment of  vulnerability  across
European ecosystems. The rationale for this assessment and its
initial elements are also found in this document.

Common features in present definitions of vulnerability

Vulnerability is a multi-dimensional concept that has  been  a
topic  of  study  in  many  different scientific  disciplines,
ranging  from  anthropology and psychology  to  economics  and
ecology.  As  such, it has been defined and assessed  in  many
different  ways  for many different purposes.  The  scientific
literature    provides   many   examples   of    vulnerability
assessments,  each  with their own explicit  or  (more  often)
implicit  interpretations of what vulnerability means  to  the
object of study.

In  spite  of  this  diversity the various interpretations  of
vulnerability have a number of things in common:

1.    Vulnerability is always an attribute of a system, in the
 broadest  meaning of the term. Systems that may be vulnerable
 include  individual people, communities, countries,  economic
 sectors,  landscapes,  resources,  ecosystems  and   so   on.
 Importantly, in ATEAM the system of interest is not ecosystems
 per  se  but the set of functions that ecosystems perform  in
 providing goods and services to human society.

2.    Vulnerability  always refers to  some  potential  of  or
 exposure  to  harm or damage. It is therefore  meaningful  to
 specify  exactly to which forcing a system is thought  to  be
 vulnerable.  In  ATEAM multiple forcings are considered,  all
 related  in some way to global change. In response  to  needs
 expressed by the European Commission these forcings  are  the
 increasing  atmospheric concentration  of  CO2,  the  climate
 change that is the result of this increasing concentration, as
 well  as  the  effects  of changing  land  use  and  land-use
 policies.

3.    Definitions of vulnerability tend to capture some notion
 of  the  extent to which the system would be unable to avoid,
 defend  itself  against, cope with, adjust  to  or  otherwise
 prevent  or minimise potential harm or damage. This mechanism
 of damage prevention or minimisation (termed adaptation in the
 context of climate change) is important because it defines the
 difference between the potential harm or damage and the actual
 or residual impacts that will occur. It can be argued that if
 a   stress-exposed  system  has  the  ability  to  avert  the
 potentially severe impacts that could ensue from this stress,
 then it is not vulnerable (footnote 1).

The first assessments of vulnerability to climate change (such
as  the  First and Second Assessment Reports of the  IPCC  and
many  national vulnerability studies) were carried out without
considering   adaptation   as   an   important    aspect    of
vulnerability.  These assessments implicitly assumed  present-
day  behaviour  and activities to continue  unchanged  in  the
future,  irrespective of how they would be affected by climate
change.   By  ignoring  adaptation  these  studies   did   not
distinguish  between potential and residual impacts  and  thus
their   results  represented  serious  overestimates  of   the
system’s vulnerability. On the other hand, the studies  served
to  generate awareness of the potential magnitude  of  impacts
and of the need for adaptation.

A  recent discussion of vulnerability: the IPCC Working  Group
II

Each  of  the  aforementioned features  of  vulnerability  was
incorporated  in  the proposed definition of vulnerability  in
the  IPCC Working Group II Third Assessment Report, which  was
as follows:

 The  degree to which a system is sensitive to and unable  to
 cope    with   adverse   impacts   of   climatic    stimuli.
 Vulnerability is a function of a system’s exposure  and  its
 adaptive capacity.

However,  the IPCC Working Group II Plenary meeting in  Geneva
(13–16 February 2001) adopted a somewhat modified and expanded
definition  in the final, government-approved version  of  the
Summary  for  Policymakers. The adopted definition  no  longer
captures  the important notion that vulnerability  depends  on
both  potential impacts and the inability to cope  with  these
impacts,  as  was  indicated by the word “and”  in  the  first
sentence of the above definition:

 The  degree to which a system is susceptible to,  or  unable
 to  cope with, adverse effects of climatic change, including
 climate  variability  and  extremes.  Vulnerability   is   a
 function  of  the character, magnitude and rate  of  climate
 variation  to  which a system is exposed,  its  sensitivity,
 and its adaptive capacity.

Building blocks for a definition to be used in ATEAM

The  former  definition of vulnerability captures the  various
aspects  of vulnerability discussed above but it is likely  to
be  too broad to be made operational in ATEAM. ATEAM addresses
the   interaction  between  ecosystems  and  society  and   in
particular  the provision of goods and services by  ecosystems
for  human use. Of relevance to ATEAM are therefore  not  only
the  exposure and adaptive capacity of ecosystems  to  climate
change  but  also  the adaptive capacity of human  systems  in
relation  to a change in the provision of ecosystem goods  and
services.  To develop a meaningful definition of vulnerability
for  ATEAM  it could be useful to explore a number of  related
concepts: risk, sustainability and resilience.

A relatively widely accepted interpretation of risk is that it
is  a  function of the probability of occurrence of  an  event
combined with an estimate of the magnitude of its impact.  For
example,  in the context of species conservation risk  can  be
seen  as  a  measure of the probability that a negative  event
(i.e.,   a  threat)  combined  with  the  individual  species’
response  to  these  events (i.e., an  indicator  of  species’
vulnerability) would lead a species to extinction (Araújo  and
Williams, 2000).

Amongst  the many definitions of sustainability, a useful  one
is based on the conservation and substitutability of different
types  of capital: human-made capital, natural capital,  human
capital  and  social  capital (Serageldin  and  Steer,  1994).
Sustainable  development,  of  which  the  most  widely   used
definition is “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their own needs” (WCED, 1987), prescribes that the total stock
of  capital  does  not  decrease over  time.  Whether  or  not
substitution  and compensation of different types  of  capital
are  allowed  depends on the preferred level of sustainability
(cf. weak versus strong sustainability).

The   relationship   between  sustainability   and   ecosystem
vulnerability  is  based  on  the  extent  to  which  external
forcings lead to a decrease in natural capital and thus in the
potential  of  ecosystems to provide goods  and  services  for
human   use.   A  possible  (anthropocentric)  definition   of
sustainability in the context of ATEAM could therefore be:

 The  ability  of an ecosystem to provide humans  with  goods
 and  services  in  the  present,  without  compromising  the
 ability   of  future  human  generations  to  obtain   these
 ecosystem goods and services in the future.

The  concept of resilience is well known in ecology,  although
two distinct interpretations of the term exist. As defined  by
Holling  (1973),  resilience  determines  the  persistence  of
relationships within a system and is a measure of the  ability
of   these  systems  to  absorb  changes  and  still  persist.
According  to  Pimm (1984), however, resilience describes  the
speed  with  which  a  system returns to  its  original  state
following  a perturbation. Holling (1973), on the other  hand,
considered  this to be the stability of a system, whilst  Pimm
(1984) referred to stability as the combination of resilience,
resistance, persistence and variability.

In  an  attempt to define the resilience of the  Dutch  coast,
Klein et al. (1998) distinguished between a morphological,  an
ecological   and   a  socio-economic  component   of   coastal
resilience,  each of which represents another  aspect  of  the
coastal  system’s  capacity to cope with  perturbations.  They
described  coastal resilience as a measure of  the  extent  to
which a coast is able to respond to external pressures without
losing actual or potential functions:

 The  resilience of the coast is its self-organising capacity
 to  preserve  actual  and  potential  functions  of  coastal
 systems  under  the  influence  of  changing  hydraulic  and
 morphological  conditions. This capacity  is  based  on  the
 (potential) dynamics of morphological, ecological and socio-
 economic processes in relation to the demands that are  made
 by the functions to be preserved.

Given the focus of ATEAM on ecosystem services, we might  want
to work towards a similar type of definition of vulnerability,
whereby  vulnerability  could be described  in  terms  of  the
likelihood that an ecosystem loses a significant amount of its
capacity  to provide goods and services that are important  to
society. A definition that includes the temporal dimension  of
global  change and sustainability could describe vulnerability
in  terms  of  the  risk  of  ecosystem  sustainability  being
compromised. Before suggesting a “final” definition,  however,
we  would like to invite views and suggestions from the entire
ATEAM consortium.

References
Araújo,  M.B.  and Williams, P.H., 2000: Selecting  areas  for
   species   persistence  using  occurrence  data.  Biological
   Conservation, 96(3), 331–345.
Holling,  C.S.,  1973: Resilience and stability of  ecological
   systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–24.
Klein, R.J.T., M.J. Smit, H. Goosen and C.H. Hulsbergen, 1998:
   Resilience  and  vulnerability: coastal dynamics  or  Dutch
   dikes? The Geographical Journal, 164(3), 259–268.
Pimm,  S.L., 1984: The complexity and stability of ecosystems.
   Nature, 307, 321–326.
Serageldin,  I.  and A. Steer (eds.), 1994: Making Development
   Sustainable:   From  Concepts  to  Action.  Environmentally
   Sustainable  Development Occasional  Paper  Series  No.  2,
   World Bank, Washington DC, iii+40 pp.
(WCED)  World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987:
   Our  Common  Future, Oxford University Press,  Oxford,  UK,
   xv+383 pp.
_______________________________
1  In  this  document  we  do not elaborate  on  the  possible
different  interpretations of adaptation. Adaptation  will  be
the  subject  of  more detailed discussion at a  later  stage,
aimed     at     an     appropriate    (semi-)    quantitative
operationalisation.
Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\vCard.vcf"

