The Normandy Index - measuring countries’ vulnerability

Across many fields and according to different criteria, international organisations, private companies, and research centres regularly use indices as tools to rank countries. Initiated by institutions such as the IMF, the UNDP, the OECD, or the IMF, or produced through research by private companies, lobbies, NGOs, or collective interest groups, indices offer a new way of reading the world depending on the factors they examine. From the most populated to the emptiest, from the richest to the poorest, from the HDI (Human Development Index) to the HPI (Human Poverty Index), one finds, depending on the index, similar global rankings. Here is one that offers an original approach, whose main variable is vulnerability. But what exactly can entire countries be vulnerable to, and what concrete data does this new index rely on?

The degree of vulnerability to climate disruption, the risk of food shortages, wars, terrorism… this is what the new index developed by the European Parliament proposes to study: the “Normandy Index.”

A new european tool

Named in reference to Normandy’s fundamental role in the Second World War, the Normandy Index was developed by the Institute for Economics and Peace and presented by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) in 2019, within the framework of the “European Union Global Strategy.” The 27 EU Member States and EU institutions agreed on around ten threats to peace in the world and to the integrity of European territory. The specificity of this index lies in a purely European vision and interpretation of the threats it identifies.

Among these 11 threats, 9 are quantifiable: vulnerability to climate change, the crime index, energy insecurity, the quality of democratic processes, terrorism, the threat of weapons of mass destruction, cybersecurity, the risk of economic crisis, state fragility, disinformation, and violent conflicts. In this sense, the Normandy Index sits somewhere between broad global indices such as the Global Peace Index, which indicates the degree of peace and security of countries worldwide, and more specialised indices such as the Reporters Without Borders index, which aims to indicate freedom of the press.

While certain countries one would obviously expect appear at the top of the ranking—Norway, Switzerland, or New Zealand—Costa Rica and Mongolia follow closely, thanks to the resilience that the criteria of these indices value. At the bottom of the ranking are South Sudan, ravaged by civil war and shortages, followed by Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, whose conflicts and climatic situation confine it to the second-to-last place.

Energy security, a new lens

As explained, this ranking reveals links between the causes of countries’ deterioration. Thus, vulnerability to climate change and energy insecurity—meaning dependence on other countries for energy supply—are two factors that regularly lead to overall instability in the countries studied by the European Parliament’s team. The war in Ukraine, for example, reduced the flow of gas and oil to Europe, leading to rising prices and thus increasing the instability factor for countries in the region.

In a ranking where only these two variables were selected, Turkey, more unexpectedly, joins Afghanistan in second-to-last place. Combining vulnerability to climate change and increasingly extreme temperatures, it is forced to import almost all of its energy from its Russian neighbour, making it increasingly dependent. Once again, in light of this new Normandy Index, one better understands President Erdoğan’s strategy on the international stage: at once a member of NATO and relatively unconcerned by Russian projects in Ukraine.

Climate and conflict, an obvious link?

A second interesting link that this new index brings to light is an interconnection between the drivers of violent conflicts and reactions to climate danger, as in Somalia, Yemen, or Chad, where conflicts in the Sahel region continue to be partly fuelled by the advance of the desert. The exact sequencing of causalities—namely, the ability to precisely disentangle the links between these different causes and consequences, and their hierarchy—remains impossible, but these links do exist. Environmental fragility makes a territory more conducive to the emergence of violent conflict.

To explain this more clearly, here is a practical case: the Syrian conflict. In 2003, after the U.S. intervention in Iraq, massive population movements toward Syria led to an increase of more than 10% in the population of major cities. Public services—access to drinking water and electricity—were overwhelmed by the new needs of citizens in Aleppo, Damascus, and Homs. In 2008, the worst drought ever recorded in Syria triggered a massive rural-to-urban influx, again with a 10% increase in the urban population.

A rural population that was almost exclusively Muslim arrived in large multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious cities. A feeling of mistreatment and rejection then gradually became associated, particularly, with newly arrived Sunnis. Although the cause of these hardships lay in the lack of public services, this sense of discrimination helped create fertile ground favourable to the development of the Islamic State. The organisation then seized and instrumentalised the consequences of the conflict in Iraq and Syria’s environmental vulnerability to facilitate its implantation and expansion in the region.

An index that is too european?

The Normandy Index sheds light on threats to the integrity of countries and to peace in many ways, but above all in a European way, and for European decision-makers; and the criteria of this index do not correspond to, and do not suit, all heads of state. Brazilian President Bolsonaro told the newspaper Estado in May 2022 of his reservations about this index, which “suits those who created it.” For the 11 threats identified by the European Union, some countries identify far fewer. China, for example, fears only four threats: terrorism, violent conflict, cyber-insecurity, and weapons of mass destruction. France, for its part, identifies around ten—similar to Australia. The United States and Brazil, meanwhile, adapt this list of threats to their worldview, establishing fewer than Europe but more than China.

Even within the European Union, differences and disputes are numerous, and the 27 do not position themselves in the same way with regard to the threats they define. Estonia and Spain view climate change differently, just as the positions of Ireland, a neutral country, and Greece can clash regarding Europe’s defence.

A tool for cooperation

These discussions at the European and global level about the types of threats and their number constitute a comparative exercise that allows global partners to identify shared areas on which to concentrate their efforts. Before the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, EU Member States and Russia had put in place a series of common objectives regarding climate change. Russia, an important actor at the Copenhagen summit of 2009, cooperated actively with EU countries, fearing the release of a large quantity of CO2 contained in its permafrost, and cooperated actively.

The limits of this index ?

Despite its advantages, the limits of this new index lie in its quantitative approach. As researcher Philippe Peroch, an associate researcher on the project, explains, the value of this tool lies in learning more about the reasons behind countries’ ranking and their evolution, through a qualitative approach. The hierarchy of countries in the proposed ranking would therefore contain a degree of subjectivity—this same subjectivity that determines threats and their hierarchy, a European subjectivity.

Moreover, for the time being it is impossible to study these phenomena by geographical region and to bring out regional dynamics. The ranking studies countries and makes it difficult to analyse geographical clusters among neighbouring countries and the phenomena of positive or negative contagion, similarities, and causal links regarding threats. In the Sahel, for example, where conflicts and climate challenges affect a geographical area spanning several countries, the index struggles to capture the transnational dimension of these issues.

A new european hope

If the index enables decision-makers and heads of state to define and adjust their objectives, in the face of growing disinformation trends, it extends beyond institutional spheres and also addresses the general public, in order to fuel debate about the state of the world and its regions.

In the long term, being able to identify and anticipate which indicator deteriorates or improves first when a country’s position changes in the table could lead to the creation of an alert system enabling humanitarian and European actors to know where, when, and how to direct their efforts and attention.