Reflections from the UN Global Platform on Disaster Risk Reduction

From the very beginning of the Improving Household Preparedness in Multi-Hazard Contexts project, impact has been the central goal, not only in academic terms but also in shaping policy, practice, and debate around disaster risk reduction (DRR). A key opportunity to do this came in June this year, when members of our project team participated in the UN Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (GPDRR) in Geneva, Switzerland.

Held approximately every three years, the GPDRR brings together governments, civil society, the private sector, and international organisations to take stock of progress toward the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030). 

1. Multi-hazard approaches: richer discussion but more clarity needed

It was heartening to see how often the concept of ‘multi-hazards’ was raised across sessions and to see promising examples of integrated thinking from practitioners, researchers, and policy actors. For example, Leon Lundy, minister for disaster risk management in the Bahamas, addressed a session on ‘harnessing risk understanding’ and noted the significance of compounding shocks and cascading crises in their small-island setting. The minister went on to advocate for multi-hazard mapping to identify spatial overlap of risks and understand their connectedness. The UN Office for DRR and the International Science Council also used GPDRR to launch a new version of their Hazard Information Profiles capturing key multi-hazard contexts.

Overall, the dialogue around the multi-hazard concept was richer than at previous events. However, there is still work to do. We observed some fuzziness in how the multi-hazard term was being used. Some of what was described as ‘multi-hazard’ work was, in fact, what we would describe as multi-layered single hazard approaches. For example, compiling databases that include multiple types of hazard events without exploring how those hazards might interact or cascade. While this is a welcome move away from siloed thinking, it falls short of the full potential of multi-hazard risk frameworks, which aim to understand the interconnectedness and compounding effects of different risks. In our project, a key theme we are uncovering is that the ‘hazard agnostic’ approach to preparedness sometimes misses asynergies between preparedness actions such as storing supplies in basements to avoid tornado damage, possibly then exposing those supplies to flood water ingress.

2. Bridging quantitative and qualitative evidence

Another key theme that resonated with our own work was the growing recognition of the need to combine quantitative and qualitative evidence in DRR. From risk modelling to lived experience, participants emphasised the importance of drawing on multiple forms of knowledge to inform planning and preparedness. Project team member Faith Taylor had the opportunity to feed this back in the multi-stakeholder plenary on Sendai Framework priority 2: leave no one behind, where she presented four simple ways that qualitative data could be embedded into existing platforms, such as the use of qualitative GIS and low-cost smartphones. This has been an important strand in our work to be able to think about preparedness in categorial, networked ways, but also the lived experiences of why people do or do not prepare for hazard events. 

3. Localisation: how do we do it? 

Localisation was a recurring theme across many sessions, reflecting a positive shift in global disaster risk discourse from one-size-fits-all approaches toward greater recognition of local voices, knowledge, and regional policy contexts. This represents a welcome maturation in thinking. However, much of the discussion simply reaffirmed the importance of localisation, without considering the complexities of how to operationalise it (e.g. this blog reflects on the need for localised data to deliver localised early warning), or how to ensure that local and international efforts are mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting.

For example, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs rightly highlights the need for international coordination to reduce duplication and ensure predictable aid delivery, while the International Council of Voluntary Agencies notes the delicate balance that must be struck: many local organisations remain underprepared or under-resourced to respond to evolving and multi-layered crises.

We need greater nuance and practical strategies both to equip local actors with the skills, data, and institutional capacity to lead, and to support international agencies in becoming more agile, flexible, and collaborative in how they engage with local systems. On a project scale, we are trying to do this by both working locally in Nakuru, Kenya with local partners, and engaging national and international actors to think about the scalability of our work into a toolkit.

Our participation in the global platform has confirmed to us the relevance of our project in combining local and international scales of analysis; using qualitative and quantitative data; and thinking holistically about hazards.