Assess Vulnerability and Risk: Lessons Learned

 

  • Kimberley’s objective in this process was to create a foundation for on-going climate adaptation planning in the community. Accordingly the “net” was cast widely to identify the broad suite of issues and vulnerabilities Kimberley will be facing as a consequence of climate change. In selecting issues that reflected priorities in the natural environment, built environment and socio-economic environment, underlying connections and synergies between different issues became more apparent.
  • Existing vulnerability and risk assessment templates for climate adaptation planning can be quite detailed and complex, which is not necessarily the best fit for a community adaptation process that is largely reliant on stakeholders who are volunteers. To better fit Kimberley’s process, it was necessary to simplify the templates and modify the process to better accommodate the participants. In general this approach worked well, although there is a risk of oversimplification and losing valuable nuances if terms like vulnerability, sensitivity and adaptive capacity are not well understood by the participants.
  • In Kimberley, different worksheets/templates were developed for each working group to facilitate their vulnerability assessment and identification of adaptive actions. This worked effectively.
  • In Kimberley, an important item that did not get fleshed out until near the end of the working-group process was a system to ascribe priority to proposed adaptive actions on an issue. In collaboration with the Local Steering Committee, an approach to priority setting was developed using two defined inputs: level of threat reduction and urgency of action. Combining these two inputs created the 5-level priority system.
  • The broad focus of Kimberley’s adaptation efforts meant that a lot of important information and thinking has been generated among those who participated in the working-group process, but it has also created challenges around effectively and efficiently documenting and processing the work/research that was done in a way that is easy for participants to review. Solid information management processes are necessary for this type of project.
  • In order to fit a vulnerability assessment on three planning areas into a one-day (6.5 hour) workshop in Elkford, significant preparation was required. Sensitivity and adaptive capacity charts had been filled out in advance (Tables 8.1 and 8.2 in the CIG Guidebook) with information based on their research and preliminary ratings.
  • Probabilities used in the risk assessment would ideally be based on information such as historical records, climate trends, more detailed modelling data, insurance company records (fire/flood), input from scientific and engineering experts, staff, council and community perceptions. It was beyond the scope of Elkford's project to expand beyond a qualitative assessment based on input from CBT and advisory committee experts, staff, council, and community members due to time, data availability and budget.

Tips from CBT’s technical advisory committee (2008-2009):

  • Perspectives on vulnerability and risk will depend upon who is at the table during the discussions.  It’s important to ensure a wide range of views and expertise are represented during the vulnerability and risk assessments.
  • To ensure rigour in the vulnerability and risk assessment process, it is suggested to use one assessment tool across the board.  Furthermore, it critical to allocate time and energy for both the pre-work and assessment time. 
  • The risk criteria used for ranking priorities in Kimberley and Elkford should be reviewed to ensure it doesn’t favour one type of risk or another.  For example, socio-economic risks tended to rank lower than catastrophic risks in Kimberley’s assessment. 
  • For facilitating the vulnerability and risk assessment, the facilitator needs to do homework in advance and have consulted with experts. This is particularly important if no experts are in the room for the assessment. The facilitator can then ask probing questions as needed to highlight different insights to consider. 
  • When divergence occurs, often we go with louder speakers (i.e. in prioritization process).  It is suggested the facilitator flags the controversy for further investigation rather than deciding in the moment. 
  • A technical committee can identify risk but the art of acting on the risk is a social-economic-political decision-making process.