Search results

The 2030 agenda for sustainable development and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) constitute an overarching global milestone for creating a better sustainable future worldwide. The risk component of the agenda under the SFDRR must be better embedded into the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and integrating disaster risk management policy with broader development objectives at national and subnational levels in many countries is still a work in progress. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the progress between the SDGs and the SFDRR in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) and its complementary features

Comprehensive and contextualized analyses of the progress of SFDRR and SDGs related to the LAC region need to be fully addressed to examine synergies and trade-offs with the two global agendas. Based on empirical evidence from United Nations global reports, a literature review of DRR and DRM, as well as development planning evidence, this paper addresses the implications of building coherence between the SDGs and the SFDRR in the region.

Interplay and connections of the two agendas are highlighted together with an analysis of coherence among indicators. Despite the richness of several indicators, the examined evidence suggests that derived from the current progress, indicators are unable to completely reflect the dynamics among disaster risk drivers for both the SFDRR and the SDGs in the region.

Data availability at UNIDSR as well as at the regional level can limit the scope of the research. When comparing and matching the agendas, results could be further improved upon new releases of data. SFDRR and SDGs have also ground for improvement and countries are doing well but still slow.

The paper offers new insights and findings for decision/policy makers in Latina America and the Caribbean.

The paper offers an overall understanding of the progress and coherence among SFDRR and SDGs global frameworks and provides insights to identify the gaps and opportunities that need to be addressed to integrate disaster risk reduction into sustainable development planning at national and regional scales in LAC.

The purpose of this paper is to identify how governance and accountability have been addressed in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) 2015-2030.

The research is mainly based on the analysis of the SFDRR; scientific literature, particularly recent publications covering the SFDRR. The paper also takes into account grey literature.

The SFDRR does address issues of governance and accountability in disasters. However, more needs to be done to translate it into practice – particularly with regard to accountability.

The paper covers a topic that has not attracted considerable academic attention, despite the fact that the need to address accountability in disaster risk management, notably in DRR, has been generally acknowledged. By addressing governance and accountability in the most recent international DRR framework the paper adds value to the literature.

This paper aims to analyze the current responses applied in Vietnam to the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and link these measures to priority actions highlighted in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR). From there, strengths, limitations and recommendations on applying the SFDRR to build the pandemic resilience in the future are discussed.

The authors synthesize literature on response measures to the COVID-19 pandemic in Vietnam from January to June 2020 and compare to four priority actions of the SFDRR including understanding risk, strengthening governance, investing in risk reduction for resilience and enhancing preparedness for effective response and resilient recovery.

Vietnam has effectively controlled the pandemic with 401 infected cases and no death so far. Well preparation, timely policies’ implementation, risk communication and comprehensive approaches are key strategies. These measures are same as the four priority actions in the SFDRR.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study in Vietnam to link the COVID-19 response and the SFDRR, which can serve as an important example for other countries in responding to the pandemic. Some measures have surpassed SFDRR’s guidance, especially preventive responses applied nationwide with strong political will and the community’s commitment accompanied by sanctions. Cultural factors such as the habit of using masks to prevent air pollution have contributed to the good observance of wearing mask regulations during the pandemic. However, some areas that need more attention include specific solutions for vulnerable groups, limiting fake news and ensuring patient privacy.

This paper aims to assess to what extent South American countries have integrated recommendations of the international agenda to address human mobility in the context of disasters and climate change in their national laws and policies.

This research sought to find the level of discussions around human mobility in disaster laws, NDCs and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) by looking for a range of search terms connected to human mobility in the context of disasters and climate change, followed by the content analysis of these terms.

Some advances with regards to human mobility are already confirmed in the domestic level of South American countries through humanitarian visas to disaster displaced persons and the inclusion of the topic in the DRR, climate change laws, NAPs and INDCs/NDCs. But they have not developed specific strategies with regards to it. Hence, their advances still require that national norms and policies are harmonized with the international guidelines. This will enable to fill the protection gap of people in context of disasters and climate change.

The results assess the level of harmonization above-mentioned between international instruments with national policies on human mobility in the context of disasters and climate change in South America.

It might seem plausible to argue that effective monitoring of disaster data loss can help achieve progress in reporting to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) and the global targets of sustainable development goals and associated indicators. Nevertheless, with the lack of climate change and disaster data losses in the Arab region, the integration of risks associated with socio-economic dimensions at the wider scale of displacement is important to shape a regional understanding of resilience terminology and provides the means of translating it. The purpose of this paper is to identify the means of redefining “Resilience” in the Arab region context of climate change, conflict and displacement in association with the theoretical principles of the “fragile city”.

In an attempt to achieve the SFDRR target (E) “substantially increase the number of countries with national and local DRR strategies by 2020,” this study investigates the use of the (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) disaster resilience scorecard as a guiding principle for city-to-city (C2C) resilience-building knowledge exchange between Amman (Jordan) and Khartoum (Sudan).

Facing similar urban challenges against disaster and violent conflict-protracted displacement, the study findings indicate that the C2C exchange program was useful in understanding the cities’ urban risk profiles, promoting dialogue among local governments and creating a culture of learning organizations for knowledge sharing on DRR governance and beyond. However, the applied resilience assessments overlooked the qualitative and socio-ecological understanding of climate change risk and human security principles among the most vulnerable groups of refugees and internally displaced persons in fragile settings. This is recommended to be integrated into building coherence for resilience across the 2015-2030 Global Agendas reporting and monitoring mechanisms, leaving “no one behind”.

The C2C exchange program for Amman and Khartoum was an opportunity for understanding the cities’ urban risk profiles, addressing challenges and building “decentralized cooperation” beyond the cities’ institutional boundaries (UN Habitat, 2001), with recommendations for “selecting resilience indicators specific to fragile cities” to quantitatively measure disaster displaced persons’ (DDPs) vulnerabilities and current status of “income and social equality, microeconomic security, provision of basic services and social protection” while providing qualitative evidence on “social cohesion, social networks/social support and local government–community cooperation” (Patel and Nosal, 2016).

The Sendai framework for disaster risk reduction (DRR) 2015–2030 offers guidelines to reduce disaster losses and further delivers a wake-up call to be conscious of disasters. Its four priorities hinge on science, technology and innovations as critical elements necessary to support the understanding of disasters and the alternatives to countermeasures. However, the changing dynamics of current and new risks highlight the need for existing approaches to keep pace with these changes. This is further relevant as the timeline for the framework enters its mid-point since its inception. Hence, this study reflects on the aspirations of the Sendai framework for DRR through a review of activities conducted in the past years under science, technology and innovations.

Multidimensional secondary datasets are collected and reviewed to give a general insight into the DRR activities of governments and other related agencies over the past years with case examples. The results are then discussed in the context of new global risks and technological advancement.

It becomes evident that GIS and remote sensing embedded technologies are spearheading innovations for DRR across many countries. However, the severity of the Covid-19 pandemic has accelerated innovations that use artificial intelligence-based technologies in diverse ways and has thus become important to risk management. These notwithstanding, the incorporation of science, technology and innovations in DRR faces many challenges. To mitigate some of the challenges, the study proposes reforms to the scope and application of science and technology for DRR, as well as suggests a new framework for risk reduction that harnesses stakeholder collaborations and resource mobilizations.

The approach and proposals made in this study are made in reference to known workable processes and procedures with proven successes. However, contextual differences may affect the suggested approaches.

The study provides alternatives to risk reduction approaches that hinge on practically tested procedures that harness inclusivity attributes deemed significant to the Sendai framework for DRR 2015–2030.

The purpose of this paper is to better link the parallel processes yielding international agreements on climate change, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development.

This paper explores how the Paris Agreement for climate change relates to disaster risk reduction and sustainable development, demonstrating too much separation amongst the topics. A resolution is provided through placing climate change within wider disaster risk reduction and sustainable development contexts.

No reason exists for climate change to be separated from wider disaster risk reduction and sustainable development processes.

Based on the research, a conceptual approach for policy and practice is provided. Due to entrenched territory, the research approach is unlikely to be implemented.

Using a scientific basis to propose an ending for the silos separating international processes for climate change, disaster risk reduction, and sustainable development.

The purpose of this paper is to advance the dialogue between the disaster risk reduction (DRR) and adaptation community by investigating their differences, similarities and potential synergies. The paper examines how DRR and adaptation can inform development to tackle the underlying drivers of disaster risk.

Based on a risk-based approach to the management of climate variability and change, the paper draws from a critical review of the literature on DRR and adaptation. The study finds that known and emerging risk from disasters continues to increase dramatically in many parts of the world, and that climate change is a key driver behind it. The authors also find that underlying causes of social vulnerability are still not adequately addressed in policy or practice. Linking DRR and adaptation is also complicated by different purposes and perspectives, fragmented knowledge, institutions and policy and poor stakeholder coordination.

The author’s analysis suggests that future work in DRR and adaptation should put a much greater emphasis on reducing vulnerability to environmental hazards, if there is truly a desire to tackle the underlying drivers of disaster and climate risks.

This will require coherent political action on DRR and adaptation aimed at addressing faulty development processes that are the main causes of growing vulnerability. The study concludes with a first look on the new Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and how it aims to connect with adaptation and development.

Surging global natural disasters provide incentive for risk-reducing policies and strategies. In this light, the African Union (AU) engaged a multi-stakeholder policy formulation process between 2002 and 2006, to develop a continent-wide disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategy. Drawing from secondary data, this chapter assesses the process and applies qualitative analysis instruments to critically assess the AU’s disaster policy. Linkages to the 2005 international Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) are also highlighted. The analysis reveals that Africa’s policy formulation process was belated for over a decade, with respect to international expectations. The formulation process was however largely African owned and led, culminating in a strategy document that reflected African contextual reality at the time, and aligned well with HFA fundamental goals. The applied multi-stakeholder approach enhanced a spirit of participation across levels and was central to the largely successful policy formulation process. However, targeted policy outcomes were not explicit, and poorly formulated indicators marred short- and long-term policy evaluation. Based on these results, we conclude that the African-wide DRR policy formulation processes were belated but participatory, systematic and very successful. Belated policy formulation reflects an initial inertia on the African continent, justified by past negative policy experiences and the desire to succeed. A replication of this policy formulation approach in Africa is recommended, albeit exercising more caution on policy timing, the elaboration of better monitoring and evaluation instruments and criteria. Participation should further embrace modern, risk-free (anti-COVID-19-friendly) information and communication technologies.