Term color class
white-on-orange

Global Indigenous Knowledge Research Infrastructure: A Tool for the Sendai Framework implementation

The wealth of Indigenous Knowledge has not been well-recognized by DRR practitioners and policymakers (A/HRC/27/66). This online side event will identify, develop, and implement culturally relevant, emergent innovative approaches, tools, and methodologies for reducing risk and building resilience strategies which are scalable and replicable, and aimed to empower Indigenous communities. 

The Indigenous Knowledge Research Infrastructure (IKRI), launched as a global partnership during UN 2021 Food Systems Summit, offers new opportunities to make use of geospatial information and AI to contribute to the measurement of indicators established to track advances in the implementation of the Sendai Framework and turning the global Covid-19 crises into an opportunity for the much-needed radical transformation.

IKRI expects to stimulate collaborations between disaster management authorities, developers and providers, and Indigenous communities for promoting nature-based solutions in DRR. IKRI is highlighted in the 2022 UN ECOSOC Partnership Forum and aims to contribute to HLPF2022. 

Session objectives

  1. Introduce the IKRI Global Research Initiative and Knowledge Repository concept to DRR community 
  2. Understand interests and the requirement of DRR stakeholders  
  3. Stimulate collaborations between disaster management authorities, and the Indigenous communities for promoting nature-based solutions in DRR 
  4. Examine policy and regulatory aspects of IKRI focusing on intellectual property rights related to indigenous knowledge  
  5. Build global support network for design, development, and implementation of IKRI
Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
Off
Contact
Milind Pimprikar milind.pimprikar@caneus.org Amparo Morales amparo.morales@filac.org Shirish Ravan Shirish.ravan@un.org
Format
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Primary floor language
Room/Location
Mengwi 6, 7, 8
BNDCC 2-Ground Floor
Conference event type
Speakers

Moderator 

  1. Dr Milind Pimprikar, Chairman CANEUS

Speakers

  1. Drs. Mirna Cunningham, Spokesperson for UN SDG 10, Reducing Inequalities, VP of FILAC
  2. Mr. Gabriel Muyuy Jacanamejoy, Technical Secretary FILAC  
  3. Dr Shirish Ravan, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs 
  4. Dr Simon Lambert, University of Saskatchewan
Learn more

Learn more about Integrating Indigenous knowledge in building disaster resilience and usefulness of the Global Research Initiative and Knowledge Repository concept called IKRI- Indigenous Knowledge Research Infrastructure, a tool for Sendai Framework implementation. 

Where do we stand

While the Indigenous knowledge-IK is vital for DRR covering land, oceans, ecosystems, and societal transitions, there are challenges and barriers for Indigenous communities to implement workable and replicable solutions in pursuit of building disaster and climate resilience.  

  1. IK is widely scattered, at times, exists in small pockets; much of the IK is transferred through practices and not well-documents.  
  2. There is an urgent need of capturing, preserving, and nurturing the DRR system-specific components of IK  
  3. Need to derive simplified knowledge products that are outcome of research to create baselines and targets for Indigenous communities.  
  4. Need to strengthen technical capacity of indigenous communities to consolidate existing knowledge that may be useful to assess disaster risks, vulnerabilities, and exposure to all hazards. 
  5. Need to empower Indigenous youths to use integrated technologies driven DRR solutions to address the challenges with accelerated technological inequalities amongst the Indigenous Peoples. 

Session guiding questions

  1. What are the challenges for integrating Indigenous knowledge with emerging technology-based solutions for implementation of Sendai Framework? 
  2. What are the requirements of key stakeholders those interested in indigenous knowledge related to SFDRR, and how these can be incorporated into IKRI? 
  3. How to tap into existing scattered data from the public/private domain for IKRI? 
  4. How to develop and test IKRI prototype to make a robust infrastructure to support SFDRR? 

 

Event bucket
Informal Programme
Organizing Team members
  1. CANEUS (Canada-Europe-US-Asia-Africa) Organization on Emerging Technologies for Societal Applications 
  2. FILAC (The Fund for the Development of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean) 
  3. UNOOSA (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs) 
  4. Indigenous Knowledge and Disaster Risk Reduction Network 
  5. Indigenous Studies - University of Saskatchewan

Lessons Learned in Building Resilience - Over the Past 3 Years

During the last years the world has faced an increasing number of disasters with far-reaching social, economic and structural disruption. 

On the 11th of March 2020, the World Health Organisation, announced the covid-19 pandemic. Due to climate change and environmental degradation we are facing a rapid increase in hazard severity and frequency.

The negative consequences of these disasters are devastating, but we can learn from them.  When people work together, they thrive together. Our lives are entirely interdependent and disasters - from COVID to climate induced disasters - perhaps more than any other events, demonstrate this reality.

This session will address and bring light to lessons learned from the last three years, and how this can inform future strategies and work in the field of disaster risk reduction.

Session Objectives 

  1. Share good practices and lessons learned in building disaster resilience, and that in an ever changing world.
  2. Enhance the understanding about the evolution of the UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism (UNDRR-SEM) and its recent work in implementing the Sendai Framework.
  3. Bring attention to the Sendai Framework Voluntary Commitments, and its citizens led data collection in monitoring the Sendai Framework implementation, and generation of accountability mechanism of realising global policy.

Online Attendance

This session will be live-streamed online. Note that it is live-streamlining and no active online participation. You can access the live streaming through this link: 

Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
On
Contact
Terry Otieno, MGCY, terry.otieno@unmgcy.org Moa Herrgård, moa.m.herrgard@gmail.com
Accessibility
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Primary floor language
Room/Location
Exhibition Gallery
BICC Ground Floor
Conference event type
Speakers

Moderators

  • Tanjir Hossain, Global Resilience Advisor, Action Aid International

  • Terry Otieno, Global Focal Point, Sendai Children and Youth Stakeholder Group

Speakers

  • Rebecca Murphy, Policy Lead, Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction (GNDR)
  • Fernando Britto, CEO, AI Systems Research (AISR)

  • Andreas Hapsoro, Strategic Alliance Director, Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
  • Nirankar Saxena, Global ARISE Board Member and Deputy Secretary General, FICCI
  • Yuki Matsuoka, Head of The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction Office in Japan
  • Rahma Hanifa, Secretary-General, U-INSPIRE Alliance
Learn more

Expected Outcomes

  • Enhanced knowledge and understanding about SEM and its work in contributing to an all of society approach in building disaster resilience.
  • Enhanced knowledge on lessons learned in implementing the Sendai Framework, from a stakeholder perspective.
Event bucket
Preparatory Days

Plans and Opportunities for the future of SEM

The UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism gathers a wide range of stakeholders across the society. They are all unified under the mission of contributing to the implementation of the Sendai Framework, building a sustainable resilient society for all, where disaster risk does not threaten the wellbeing of people and the planet.
Since its establishment, SEM has continuously grown, both in the size and scope of its members, as well as the impact of its work.
This session will increase awareness of SEM and the work the SEM is undertaking. Within the context of the SEM’s new Action Plan, this session will showcase how the SEM continues to have an influencing role and a crucial contributor to key DRR global development fora and processes, bringing the voices of civil society to DRR mechanisms, and catalyse collective action among different stakeholders for risk-informed development.

Objectives

  • Enhance awareness about the UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism, and its structure.
  • Share knowledge about the plans of SEM for year 2022-23, and invite stakeholders, the United System and member states to partner on implementation of these actions.
  • Generate a motivation and excitement to support the implementation of the collective SEM Action Plan 2022-23.

Online Attendance

This session will be live-streamed online. Note that it is live-streamlining and no active online participation. You can access the live streaming through this link: 

Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
On
Contact
Rebecca Murphy, rebecca.murphy@gndr.org Jekulin Lipi, jekulin.lipi@unmgcy.org Moa Herrgard, moa.m.herrgard@gmail.com
Accessibility
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Primary floor language
Room/Location
Exhibition Gallery
BICC Ground Floor
Conference event type
Speakers

Moderator

  • Jyothi Bylappa Maralenahalli, Programme Management Officer, The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction

Speakers

  • Rebecca Murphy, Policy Lead, The Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction & SEM Focal Point
  • Jekulin Lipi, Young Scientist, Sendai Children & Youth Stakeholder Group & SEM Focal Point
  • Ramona Miranda, Member of the Steering Committee, Duryog Nivaran (South Asian network on Disaster Risk Reduction)
  • Bikash Chandra Manna, Emergency Response Manager, HelpAge International
  • Sotha Sok, Sotha Sok, Family Farmer & Manager of Cambodian Farmer Federation Association of Agricultural Producers (CFAP)
Learn more

Session guiding questions

  •  Do you have any suggestions of additions or adaptations of the SEM Action Plan 2022-23?
  • What do you think the key priorities are in terms of SEM’s Action Plan2022-23 activities?
  • Do you have a good understanding of what the SEM is?
  • What initiatives can be undertaken to increase SEM’s actions and impact as well as visibility and awareness?
Event bucket
Preparatory Days

WRC5 Technical Session: Responding to Recovery Challenges in the Urban Environment

Watch this session on-demand 

 

 

Cities can present unique challenges for disaster recovery. Rapid urbanization has led to unplanned growth, overcrowding, poor housing conditions, poor connectivity, and vulnerable locations. Cities have borne the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic and revealed the extent of vulnerability in urban areas. Past urban disasters have also shown that addressing the exposure and vulnerability of infrastructure systems, services and the built environment continue to be critical recovery issues in urban environments. 

The session will provide insights into the recovery challenges in an urban environment pre and post disaster including from COVID-19. It will show innovative solutions to prevent cities from being locked in unsustainable development pathways, creating new risks and further being exposed to future risks.  It will also discuss approaches and strategies in long-term recovery that foster resilience, environmental sustainability and socio-economic well-being of populations in urban areas.  

 

Session objectives

 

  • Assess to what extent preparedness for recovery and building back better are implemented in the urban setting;  
  • Demonstrate emerging partnership models among local government, the private sector, civil society, academia, scientific and research institutions to strengthen disaster and climate risk reduction actions in cities;  
  • Recognize the adjustments required in urban planning and local governance especially in recovery given the systemic nature of risk, and experiences (including cascading and indirect impacts) of the COVID-19 pandemic; and
  • Define priority actions to harness the transformative potential of the pandemic recovery and achieve multiple Sustainable Development Goals
Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
On
Contact
Yuki Matsuoka matsuoka@un.org, Paul Rosenberg paulelliott.rosenberg@un.org
Session type
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Interpretation (Language)
Primary floor language
Room/Location
Hibiscus & Frangipani
BICC Ground Floor
Conference event type
Speakers

Moderator

  • Mr. Steven Goldfinch, Disaster Risk Management Specialist, Asian Development Bank (ADB)

Panelists

  • Ms. Kazuko Kori, Mayor, Sendai City, Japan
  • Mr. Patta Tope, Professor and former Head of Central Sulawesi Province Development Planning Agency, Indonesia
  • Ms. Ares Gabás Masip, Head, Urban Resilience Department, Barcelona City Council
  • Ms. Elizabeth Riley, Executive Director, Caribbean Disaster and Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA)
  • Mr. Arne Janssen, Urban Environment Specialist, Cities Alliance
  • Ms. Saini Yang, Professor, Beijing Normal University, China
Learn more

Where do we stand

Many urban areas are becoming hotspots of disasters due to population growth, increasing and unplanned urbanization, environmental challenges including climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution, and other anthropogenic pressures. Since asset concentration and resource utilization are higher in cities, the disruption of critical infrastructure and essential services after a disaster can cripple the functioning of society and derail prospects for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the key global climate change-related risks are concentrated in urban areas. Climate change is expected to exacerbate urban risks due to exposure to hazards, socio-economic vulnerabilities, and poor governance, among others. However, cities have the unique ability to respond to disasters, climate changes and environmental stresses at a local, more tangible level with dynamism, scale, stronger linkages and partnerships, and a greater sense of urgency among citizens and local authorities. From this perspective, the co-benefits of climate mitigation and adaptation actions are largest in cities, including increasing preparedness for recovery.

Emergency response and the international humanitarian community are not prepared to deal with urban emergencies. Urban areas need a holistic approach to resilient recovery and reconstruction. Sectoral responses are not enough in a system of systems setting as are cities.  

The critical role of population size, density and urban form has been highlighted in the COVID-19 recovery. Recognizing the city as a system of systems, cities are also now rethinking how to better address interdependencies, cascading, compounding and systemic risks, urban-rural connectivity, and transdisciplinary and multi-scale governance, among others, in an integrated manner. The biggest opportunity for urban areas from the pandemic is to build back better with the planned fiscal stimulus as the seeds of transformation toward resilient, green, more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable recovery. 

Session guiding questions

  • To what extent are cities building back better in recovery from disasters? What are the main setbacks and opportunities?
  • How has systems thinking been effectively applied to recovery in urban settings? 
  • How many of the recovery decisions are data and evidence driven? What's the role of quality information in recovery decision making?
  • How can cities adapt to the changing risk environment and recover better from COVID-19 and future disasters?
  • What are some recent and emerging innovations at the local level that can be scaled up in other contexts?
  • How are cities leveraging urban planning and policy to build back better, more sustainable and resilient communities?

 

Event bucket
Preparatory Days

WRC5 Technical Session: Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning

Watch this session on-demand 

 

 

 

Pre-disaster recovery planning (PDRP) and recovery preparedness measures offer solutions that can mitigate challenges toward building back better. The benefits of PDRP for building resilience and improving recovery outcomes are potentially substantial. However, relatively few countries or communities have plans or preparedness measures in place for recovery. PDRP facilitates long-term recovery with a holistic approach, considering the range of potential recovery decisions, actions, and financing needs that will be needed in the event of a disaster. It is consistent with other plans promoting coherence and avoiding planning conflicts in recovery. It links with recovery frameworks, it fosters broad-based participation, and it is often flexible and scalable to meet uncertain needs.

This session aims to demystify PDRP and offer practical options for uptake. Speakers will provide insights and lessons to support leaders and practitioners with PDRP. Speakers will share PDRP success factors and how they have overcome barriers to implementation.   

 

Session objectives

 

 

  • Demonstrate effective models for implementing pre-disaster recovery planning at national and local levels;
  • Share practical experiences and lessons from practitioners, including success factors, barriers, evidence of effectiveness;  
  • Explore the scope of pre-disaster recovery measures and their feasibility to support building back better;  
  • Develop recommendations for a core set of pre-disaster recovery measures. 

 

Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
On
Contact
Yuki Matsuoka matsuoka@un.org, Paul Rosenberg paulelliott.rosenberg@un.org
Session type
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Interpretation (Language)
Primary floor language
Room/Location
Hibiscus & Frangipani
BICC Ground Floor
Conference event type
Speakers

Moderator 

  • Mr. David McLachlan-Karr, Regional Director Asia-Pacific, United Nations Development Coordination Office (UNDCO)

Speakers

  • H.E. Mr. Inia Seruiratu, Minister for Rural and Maritime Development and Disaster Management, Government of the Republic of Fiji
  • Ms. Cynthia Spishak, Associate Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Analysis, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Government of the United States of America
  • Mr. Takeo Murakami, Director, Cabinet Office, Government of Japan
  • Mr. Renato Solidum Jr., Undersecretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of the Philippines
  • Ms. Lesley Jeanne Y. Cordero, Senior Disaster Risk Management Specialist, World Bank
  • Mr. Jeremias Cabral, Recovery Project Coordinator Recovery 1 and II , National Service for Civil Protection and Fire Brigades (SNPCB), Government of the Republic of Cabo Verde

Discussant

  • Mr.Raul Salazar, UNDRR Chief, Regional Office for the Americas and the Caribbean 
Learn more

Where do we stand

Pre-disaster recovery planning offers solutions that can mitigate challenges toward better, faster, and more equitable recovery outcomes. PDRP can help affected communities to build back stronger. Integration of disaster risk reduction measures and resilient designs into recovery is facilitated by, among other things careful planning, standards-setting, public-private partnerships and pre-arranged agreements. It depends on pre-event baseline data and protocols for timely and accurate post-event data collection to inform decision making. In the absence of preparedness, build back better measures can be cut short and quality may be compromised for the urgency of recovery.  

Pre-disaster recovery planning can help affected communities to build back faster. Pre-disaster recovery plans identify recovery stakeholders, their roles and responsibilities, and set up mechanisms for interagency multi-sectoral coordination. They can identify necessary recovery capacities and training needs. They can establish recovery governance measures, institutions and relationships, policies, and triggers that can snap into action when an event occurs. Pre-disaster recovery plans can also identify funding sources and arrange for available funds when needs arise. These types of measures expedite recovery and reduce losses from delays. 

Preparedness measures can help to build back more inclusively and equitably. The PDRP process gives an opportunity to ensure inclusive planning. It gives time to engage and understand communities, vulnerabilities and needs, and a vision for how communities should recover in ways that are consistent with their values. It allows communities to prepare for disruption and for recovery, and for their governments to establish mechanisms to meet their needs in recovery. 

Session guiding questions

  • What progress has been made in recovery preparedness and planning?
  • What are the major obstacles and enabling conditions for implementing and scaling up PDRP? How could community leaders and practitioners be supported with pre-disaster recovery planning?
  • What ex ante recovery measures have been shown to be effective in achieving better recovery outcomes?
  • What innovative approaches are emerging to improve recovery readiness?
  • How can communities and other stakeholders be meaningfully engaged to ensure inclusive planning?

 

Event bucket
Preparatory Days

WRC5 Technical Session: Addressing Critical Infrastructure Recovery

Watch this session on-demand 

 

 

Evidence shows that infrastructure systems are increasingly affected by natural and man-made hazards, and the impacts of climate change. The COVID-19 pandemic has particularly shown the breadth of the consequences of systematically underinvesting in resilience. As recovery packages are readied and implemented, recovery efforts must build resilience and sustainability into infrastructure systems and networks. Recovery strategies can strengthen resilience of key sectors which provide the first line of defence against disasters and the negative impacts of climate change.

However, today’s reality is that disaster recovery too often is unplanned, and underfinanced. Preparedness to build back better remains limited and is usually addressed only as a post-disaster consideration. Given the growing frequency and intensity of disasters, more needs to be done to allocate necessary resources and develop capacity for recovery actions that build resilience and reduce risk across sectors.

 

Session objectives


  • Improved understanding of the role and importance of resilient infrastructure for recovery
  • Strengthening policy instruments to integrate and finance resilient infrastructure.
  • Identifying ways for improved data collection as a basis for evidence-based decision-making and financing of infrastructure recovery
Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
On
Contact
Helen Ng helen.ng2@gmail.com; Erick Gonzales Rocha erick.gonzalesrocha@un.org
Session type
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Interpretation (Language)
Primary floor language
Room/Location
Mangupura Hall
BICC Ground Floor
Conference event type
Speakers

Moderator

  • Mr. Abhilash Panda, Deputy Chief for Intergovernmental processes, Partnerships Branch and the Head for Infrastructure Resilience, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR)

Panelists

  • Mr. Ranjith Dissanayke, Secretary of Infrastructure, Sri Lanka    
  • Mr. Igor Linkov, Senior Scientific Technical Manager, USACE and Adjunct Professor, University of Florida
  • Ms. Liz Varga, University College London 
  • Mr. Shaun Tarbuck, International Cooperative and Mutual Insurance Federation (ICMIF) 
  • Mr. Ajay Makhija, Team Leader, Infrastructure Resilience, Planning & Sector Partnerships, National Emergency Management Agency, Government of New Zealand
  • Mr. Bijay Kumar, Executive Director, Global Network of Civil Society Organisations for Disaster Reduction (GNDR)
Learn more

Where do we stand

Evidence shows that existing infrastructure systems are increasingly being affected by natural and man-made hazards, and from the impacts of climate change. According to reports, infrastructure disruptions impose costs between $391 billion and $647 billion a year in low and middle-income countries. Investing in disaster risk reduction is thus a precondition for developing sustainably in a changing climate. 

However, today’s reality is that disaster recovery too often is unplanned, and underfinanced. Preparedness to build back better remains limited and is usually addressed only as a post-disaster consideration. Given the growing frequency and intensity of disasters driven by climate change, more needs to be done to allocate necessary resources and develop capacity for recovery actions that build resilience and reduces risk across sectors. 

Improved data collection on loss and damage to infrastructure and related services through the Sendai Framework Target D and the Damage, Loss and Needs Assessment mechanisms could support planning, decision-making and investments. That said, a recent analysis by UNDRR and UNDP of 57 PDNA processes under the DaLA methodology, conducted worldwide over the last decade, has shown that service disruptions are estimated on a lower ratio when compared to physical damages, thus missing the opportunity to gain comprehensive understanding of mid- and long-term impacts of disasters on infrastructure systems and the communities that depend on them.

 

Session guiding questions

  • How can recovery strategies be used to strengthen resilience of key infrastructure sectors?
  • How can we ensure that recovery of infrastructure is planned in such a way so as to ensure resilience against future disasters?
  • How can data collection and reporting on infrastructure losses and damages, and service disruptions, at the local, national and regional levels be improved?
  • What are some options for financing resilience in infrastructure recovery? How do we integrate resilience in the current COVID-19 recovery and stimulus packages?
Event bucket
Preparatory Days

WRC5 Technical Session: Exploring Anticipatory Financing to Address Recovery Needs

Watch this session on-demand 

 

 

Anticipatory financing is a mechanism that allows the release of pre-planned funds in the event of imminent disaster or a shock event, which significantly speeds up response and recovery efforts, running ahead of traditional financial aid provision and economic recovery, which require a lot more time and coordination (Weingärtner & Wilkinson, 2019). That said, anticipatory financing should not be understood as a substitute for investment and action to reduce vulnerability and ensure long-term recovery, but should instead be seen as an integral component of disaster risk management, recovery, adaptation and resilience (ODI, 2020). 

To be effective, FdF and anticipatory financing require planning, dedicated funding, establishing systems and distributing roles to stakeholders. Options could be diverse and should be applicable to the local context. This requires improved understanding of the benefits of anticipatory financing, the mechanisms behind it, how it can be integrated into existing policy and practice, and how can different stakeholders contribute and engage in this process. 

 

Session objectives


  • Discuss the role of anticipatory financing for recovery
  • Identify gaps and opportunities for the establishment and adoption of anticipatory and forecast-based financing mechanisms for improved and more resilient recovery
  • Provide examples and share practices from the implementation of anticipatory financing approaches >
  • Identify stakeholders’ roles and engagement
Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
On
Contact
Helen Ng helen.ng2@gmail.com; Erick Gonzales Rocha erick.gonzalesrocha@un.org
Session type
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Interpretation (Language)
Primary floor language
Room/Location
Mangupura Hall
BICC Ground Floor
Conference event type
Speakers

Moderator 

  • Mr. Abhilash Panda, Deputy Chief for Intergovernmental processes, Partnerships Branch and the Head for Infrastructure Resilience, the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR)

Speakers

  • Mr. Ronald Jackson, Head of the Disaster Risk Reduction, Recovery for Building Resilience, UNDP, and Chair of the International Recovery Platform Steering Committee
  • Mr. Matthias Amling, Senior Desk Officer Humanitarian Assistance, Auswärtiges Amt – Federal Foreign Office, Government of the Federal Republic of Germany
  • Ms. Cristel Pratt, Assistant Secretary-General, Environment and Climate Action, Organization of African, Caribbean and Pacific States (OACPS) 
  • Ms. Aisha Jamshed, Director for Welthungerhilfe Pakistan, Coordinator for Start Network's Disaster Risk Financing (DRF) for Pakistan
  • Ms. Quynh Tran, Humanitarian Affairs Officer, Policy Branch, UNOCHA
  • Ms. Kara Siahaan, Head of the Anticipation Hub
Learn more

Where do we stand

Disasters and negative climate change impacts are quite often predictable. Using data and tools for risk assessments and forecasts is now possible, rendering early action not only possible but morally imperative (Weingärtner & Wilkinson, 2019; British Red Cross, 2022). 

Governments worldwide are now spending vast sums of money on economic recovery to counter the impact of COVID-19, which will significantly influence our ability to deliver a green, resilient recovery. COVID-19 and complex disasters have highlighted the need for more investment in ex-ante resilience and the economic stimulus packages are an opportunity to address multiple risks, including climate change impacts. 

Forecast-based financing (FbF), and anticipatory actions and financing are early-action approaches which are gaining more and more attention and traction with the humanitarian agencies, donors, and disaster risk respondents as mechanisms for providing critical support to endangered communities and for ensuring faster and more sustainable recovery. Anticipatory financing is a mechanism that allows the release of pre-planned funds in the event of imminent disaster or a shock event, which significantly speeds up response and recovery efforts, running ahead of traditional financial aid provision and economic recovery, which require a lot more time and coordination (Weingärtner & Wilkinson, 2019).

 

Session guiding questions

  • How do anticipatory financing and FbF support recovery efforts?
  • How can we encourage adopting anticipatory financing policies and practices for recovery at the national level?
  • What incentives can governments provide to the private sector and other stakeholders to invest in anticipatory financing?
  • What are the main obstacles and opportunities in adopting such approaches and how can those be overcome?
  • What are some good examples of applied anticipatory financing?

 

Event bucket
Preparatory Days

Ministerial Roundtable: Thinking Resilience: Changing the Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction Financing

The Ministerial Roundtable provides an opportunity to discuss challenges, share experiences, identify solutions, and enhance political leadership and commitments towards the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. 

The Ministerial Roundtable “Thinking Resilience: Changing the Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction Financing” will be co-chaired by the Government of Indonesia and UNDRR.  

Please note that the Ministerial Roundtable is not open to the public. It is organized by invitation only at the ministerial level. 

Session objectives

The Ministerial Roundtable will discuss challenges, identify solutions and enhance political leadership and commitments towards the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, especially as they pertain to disaster risk reduction financing. 

Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
Off
Format
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Interpretation (Language)
Primary floor language
Room/Location
Singaraja Hall 1
BNDCC 1-1st Floor
Conference event type
Learn more

This section provides information about the Ministerial Roundtable: “Thinking Resilience: Changing the Approach to Disaster Risk Reduction Financing”

Where do we stand  

Investing in disaster risk reduction is a precondition for developing sustainably in a rapidly changing climate. Global investments of $1.8 trillion in appropriate DRR strategies could avoid losses of $7.1 trillion.  Yet, for every $100 spent on total development aid between 2010-2018, disaster risk reduction received as little as 47 cents.  

Though action is lagging, the stark realities of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic coupled with rapidly increasing climate risk provide political leaders with a pressing reason to put the world on track for a resilient and sustainable future. 

For change to happen, a complete shift in mindset needs to take place across the financial system. We must move from short-term thinking and under-prioritizing disaster risks to a “Think Resilience” approach to become the norm in all public and private sector investments. There is an urgent need for a new “social contract” on investing in disaster resilience, which would set out the responsibilities and liabilities of national governments, financing bodies and the private sector to manage the negative externalities arising from disaster risks. 
 

Session guiding questions

  1. How can countries determine or estimate the cost required to implement the national DRR strategy?  
  2. Which financial DRR solutions, beyond insurance, have been successfully applied to mainstream disaster risk into investments and financial strategies and activities?  
  3. What policies and measures have proven particularly effective that make disaster risk disclosure and inclusion mandatory in public and private sector investments? 
Event bucket
Official Programme

Official Statements

The Official Statements formed an integral part of the GP2022 Official Programme. Member States and representatives of stakeholder groups, such as the United Nations, international or regional organizations, were invited to provide prerecorded or written statements focusing on progress made in disaster risk reduction and best practices of the country or the organization they represent. 

GP2022 Official Statements were submitted via the GP2022 website Official Statement form between 1 March and 28 May 2022. Delegations were encouraged to submit their statements as soon as possible. Statements submitted at the latest by 1 May 2022 became available on the website by 23 May 2022. Statements submitted after this may only have become available on the GP2022 website after 29 May. 

Please note that only persons authorized to speak on behalf of a specific Member State, stakeholder group, international or regional organizations, could submit a statement. UNDRR liaised with the person submitting the statement in unclear cases to confirm identity and mandate.

Conference content type
Conference session
Onsite Accessibility
Off
Contact
gp-statements@un.org
Format
Display on agenda
Yes
Time zone
Asia/Makassar
Participation
Primary floor language
Parent - Conference
Conference event type
Learn more

Member States and representatives of stakeholder groups, such as the United Nations, international or regional organizations, are invited to provide prerecorded or written statements focusing on progress made in disaster risk reduction and best practices of the country or the organization they represent. 

Where do we stand

The GP2022 represents an important opportunity to take stock of progress and challenges in reducing disaster risk, and to identify good practices to accelerate the implementation of the Sendai Framework at local, national, regional and global level. Furthermore, taking place at half-way of the agreed timeline to reach the Sendai Framework targets in 2030, the GP2022 will serve as a milestone for governments, stakeholders, and the UN system to reconfirm and advance their commitments in disaster risk reduction

Session guiding questions

Member States and representatives of stakeholder groups, such as the United Nations, international or regional organizations, are invited to consider the following questions when preparing their statements: 

  • Where does your country/organization stand? Are you on track to reach the expected outcomes, goals, and targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction by 2030? Which are the key areas of progress and success, and which are the areas where concerted attention is needed? 
  • What good practices exist? In which areas is the implementation of national and local strategies and plans for disaster risk reduction yielding results? Are you achieving synergies with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and other global policy processes, ensuring that no one is left behind? 
  • How do we work together? How can we strengthen existing, and forge new networks and partnerships on disaster risk reduction? 
  • How do we accelerate progress? What are the foremost priorities for action towards 2030? Are there any specific commitments or announcements your country/organization would like to make? 

 

Event bucket
Official Programme

Midterm Review Plenary 3: Rethinking sustainable development; investing with strategic foresight to build resilience

The Provisional List of Speakers for MTR SF Plenary 3

 

This provisional list of speakers for the MTR SF Plenaries is based on expressions of interest received by the Secretariat.

As multistakeholder sessions, the list of speakers in the MTR SF Plenaries will rotate among representatives of Member States, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), UN agencies, funds and programmes, and other stakeholders.

As a large number of requests was received, invitations to speak will be adjusted according to protocol, time permitting, and will be made at the discretion of the Co-Chairs.

In view of the limited time available, delegations that do not have the opportunity to speak can submit their interventions to the Secretariat (midtermreviewsf@un.org).

 

Overview of the MTR SF Plenaries
 

The Plenaries of the Midterm Review of the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (MTR SF) provide States and non-State stakeholders the opportunity to engage in a moderated exchange and discussion to:

  • take stock of progress in implementing the framework since adoption,
  • examine changes in context and new emerging issues since 2015, and those expected in the period to 2030
  • examine renovations to risk governance and risk management that can accelerate and amplify actions pursuing the achievement of the outcome and goal of the Sendai Framework, and risk-informed regenerative and sustainable development.

The MTR SF Plenaries form a central part of the consultations which will inform a report on the MTR SF, that will guide a High-Level Meeting of the General Assembly on the MTR SF (HLM) in New York on 18 and 19 May 2023.

The HLM will adopt a concise and action-oriented political declaration to renew commitment and accelerate the implementation of the Sendai Framework which can inform the quadrennial review of the SDGs at the ECOSOC High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development in July of 2023; the SDGs Summit and the UN Secretary General’s Summit of the Future, at the 78th Session of the UN General Assembly in September 2023; and COP28 in November 2023.

The three MTR SF Plenaries – each with a thematic focus – will take place over two days in hybrid format and inform the outcome of the Global Platform 2022. Presided over by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the host Government, MTR SF Plenary sessions are open to all registered participants of the Global Platform 2022.

Summary of MTR SF Plenary 3

The operating environment in which the Sendai Framework and other frameworks are being implemented at global, regional, national and local levels, has altered immeasurably since 2015, not least with the COVID-19 pandemic and global warming through anthropogenic climate change. Both demonstrate the systemic nature of risk, and demand urgent and fundamental reflections on how the world seeks to understand, collaborate and manage risk within the context of sustainable and regenerative development in the 21st century; now, to 2030 and beyond.

This Plenary will therefore initiate a forward-looking discussion on how we address risk in a way that is timely, coherent and is drawn from diverse knowledge systems, and explores the shifts in values, perspectives and paradigms that underpin current efforts to rethink approaches to sustainable development.

While convening this discussion, the Plenary will explore options of enhancing or renovating existing arrangements and tools present in the multilateral system to identify, govern and address risk to build resilience in a rapidly destabilizing world.

The Plenary will specifically talk about institutional and collaborative arrangements within sustainable development, that can be ‘fit for purpose’ and thus more ‘effective’ for developing capacities to foster relationships, collective endeavour and coherence that span institutional silos and levels. This includes: adaptive governance and dispersed coordination practices; inclusive novel partnerships composed of different sectors and actors working vertically and horizontally in an integrated manner, while continuing to strengthen the role of all stakeholders in decision making through an all of State institutions[1] and all-of-society[2] approach.

This Plenary will further discuss identifying key attributes of a multilateral system that can effectively address risk and build resilience, particularly in the context of imminent and emerging risks. It can also discuss options to actualize these attributes through a range of measures.

The discussions will focus on enhancing the effectiveness, accountability and inclusivity of the multilateral system, including by addressing fragmentation, gridlock and lack of agility, and greater engagement of local communities. It will also consider suggestions on how to end the rigid silos that impede the address of critical issues, and which contribute to risk governance and risk management approaches that promote divergence rather than convergence and coherence.

Context

As with the rapidly changing riskscape and our understanding of it, the architecture and mechanisms of risk governance and risk management at the international and national levels available to address these risks are also evolving. These bring both challenges and opportunities.

Contemporary policy measures and initiatives are moving in the direction of being more receptive to a more complex understanding of risk that more accurately depicts the interdependent relationship between the economy, environment, and society. Such risk reduction measures and initiatives, however, are often still hampered by aspects of ‘sectorisation’, ‘departmentalisation’ and artificial separation by mandate, which can result in, for example, structural inefficiencies, or a lack of public trust when multiple perspectives and the contextual agency of local communities are not adequately incorporated. Such measures and initiatives often also fall short of accounting for the scope of risks and hazards highlighted in the Sendai Framework, do not consider scenarios for catastrophic risks, nor invest adequately in flexibility to enable pre-adaptative capacity. Within this context, reform and realignment are imperative.

The current disposition of the multilateral system has been successful in ‘agenda setting’ by developing i) global frameworks (e.g., the Paris Agreement, the 2030 Agenda, the New Urban Agenda, etc.) that, in part, address critical hazards and risks, and ii) also developing a framework dedicated to, inter alia, the governance of these hazards and risks (Sendai Framework). Taken together, these frameworks provide the basis for an all-of-society framework for risk governance at the global and regional levels.

However, as demonstrated so starkly by COVID-19 and other intersecting and cascading risks and hazards (both current and emerging), the global risk governance architecture – and the risk management mechanisms that emanate from it – are inadequate[1]. This situation is compounded by the fact that an increasing number of stakeholders now view the multilateral system and its institutions as not being ‘fit for purpose’ to govern and adapt effectively to today's realities. These institutions are often seen as inadequate to effectively address risk in their own domains, thus making addressing the systemic nature of risk even harder. Deficient governance can lead to initiatives with insufficient commitment – political and economic; further increasing knowledge gaps.

The Plenary may therefore explore renovations that, for example:

  • facilitate novel collaboration among multilateral entities that allow earlier and better identification of anomalies and signals of risk creation and propagation to be identified,
  • that subsequently trigger timely transdisciplinary, inter-institutional action to explore and implement pre-adaptive approaches to prevent and reduce risk, and  ultimately support reliable ‘monitoring’ and ‘follow up’ on the implementation of policies intended to address these risks and build resilience.

 

Broadening the Conversation

In 2019, the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR)[1] identified the centrality of “building greater resilience against shocks….at the societal level” whether minimising “the spread of infectious diseases due to human mobility and climate change”, or “financial volatility that can impact individual incomes and the health of economies”, and argued that implementation of the Sendai Framework can support the SDGs, the Paris Agreement, the New Urban Agenda etc.

The report identified six essential entry points and four levers to be applied, where the interconnections among social, ecological, economic and political systems exist for renovating our relationship with risk, and accelerating the transformative power of sustainable development.

In exploring these entry points[2], the GSDR examined levers that can be applied to correct the balance between achieving human well-being and its social and environmental costs; the first of these levers being governance[3]. While recognising that governance approaches need to be “diverse, tailored, innovative and adaptive”, the GSDR emphasises the importance of “using science to support decision-making and develop early-warning systems that can pick up and authenticate weak signals”, of creating institutions and modalities of collaboration “that deal with uncertainties and risks”, and identifies “opportunities for moving in pragmatic, open and pluralist directions in global governance”.

Building on inter alia the UN Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction (GAR)[4] and the GSDR, the Secretary General’s Our Common Agenda report[5], aims to ensure that the UN system is equipped to act more systematically for the long-term. This includes a proposal on strengthening the capacity of the United Nations in foresight and planning through the establishment of a Futures Laboratory, and regularly presenting a Strategic Foresight and Global Risk Report once every five years[6]. It discusses how the current reliance on GDP to determine access to concessional finance and support, could be redressed by inter alia giving greater weight to indices of vulnerability to external shocks and systemic risk criteria[1].

Synchronized with the GAR, the GSDR, and consistent with the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 2022[2], the proposals contained in the Our Common Agenda report have the potential:

  • for streamlining vast institutional complexity and fragmentation,
  • by convening processes and mechanisms that enable broad agreement for pressing challenges across intersecting, competing, and overlapping interests, and
  • to enable flexible operational and institutional arrangements that are more proactive and include self-organised community structures that operate prospectively, and thus build greater pre-adaptive capacities in fast changing environments.

Proposals that can ultimately strengthen the relevance and effectiveness of the United Nations within the global multilateral system, specifically in relation to addressing risk and building resilience.

 

Guiding Questions

  1. How has the Sendai Framework, together with other landmark UN agreements such as the 2030 Agenda, the Paris Agreement, the New Urban Agenda, the Aichi Targets and the Convention on Biological Diversity, contributed to the shift towards risk-informed sustainable development and associated transformations, including of the multilateral system?
  2. What does effective multilateral risk governance and risk management look like?
  3. How can the UN system be fit-for-purpose to better support this?
  4. How can this be systematically informed by multiple, diverse knowledge systems – including conventional science, and indigenous, local and traditional knowledge systems?
  5. How can the multilateral sustainable development coordination and support architecture better understand, incorporate, and thus effectively address risk, inspire activity in support of the global commons, and deliver public goods?
  6. In pursuing risk-informed sustainable development, how can the proposed Strategic Foresight and Global Risks Report, the GAR and the GSDR be better aligned?
    1. How can these reports be better informed by, inter alia, the Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO), IPCC Assessment Reports, and the Global Environmental Outlook?
    Conference content type
    Conference session
    Onsite Accessibility
    On
    Contact
    Marc Gordon, Senior Coordinator, gordon6@un.org, Momoko Nishikawa momoko.nishikawa@un.org, The MTR SF email, midtermreviewsf@un.org
    Display on agenda
    Yes
    Time zone
    Asia/Makassar
    Participation
    Interpretation (Language)
    Primary floor language
    Room/Location
    Nusa Dua Hall
    BNDCC 1-Ground Floor
    Session recording
    Conference event type
    Speakers

    Co-chairs

    • H.E. Airlangga Hartarto, Coordinating Minister for Economy, Ministry of Economy, Indonesia
    • Mami Mizutori, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction
    Learn more

    Concept Note of the MTR SF Plenary 3
    Technical Guidelines for the MTR SF Plenaries
    Pre-registration for interventions in the MTR SF Plenaries
     

    Related Documents

    Concept Note of the Midterm Review of the Implementation of the Sendai Framework 2015-2030 (AR/ENG/FR/RU/SP)
    MTR SF Guidance for Member States (AR/ENG/FR/RU/SP)
    MTR SF Guidance for Stakeholders

    Supplementary Recommendations and Guidance for a gender-responsive MTR SF
    Literature Review of the Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework (forthcoming)
    Template for Voluntary National Reports of the MTR SF
    Report of Preliminary Inputs of Stakeholders to the MTR SF 
    List of UNDRR MTR SF Focal Points by region
    Website of the Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework

    Learn More about the Midterm Review of the Sendai Framework (MTR SF)

    With climate breakdown and the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrating the consequences of a failure to better understand and manage risk, and with the achievement of the goals and outcomes of the Sendai Framework and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in jeopardy, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) decided[1] to hold a “midterm review of the implementation of the Sendai Framework 2015-2030” (MTR SF).

    A retrospective and prospective stocktaking and review exercise, the MTR SF will assess progress made, examine challenges experienced in preventing new and reducing existing disaster risk, explore context shifts and emerging issues, and so identify renovations to risk governance and risk management able to contend with 21st century challenges. It will explore aspects of the integration of risk reduction into development, humanitarian, and climate action, allowing the re-examination and redress of our relationship with risk.

    Through consultations and review by States and other stakeholders, the MTR SF will “assess progress in integrating disaster risk reduction into policies, programmes and investments at all levels, identify good practice, gaps and challenges and accelerate the path to achieving the goal of the Sendai Framework and its seven global targets by 2030”[2].

    States recognised that “the Sendai Framework….provides guidance relevant to a sustainable recovery from COVID-19 and [….] to identify and address underlying drivers of disaster risk in a systemic manner”[3].

    The recommendations of States and non-State stakeholders seek to amplify and accelerate action in all sectors and at all scales through to 2030 and beyond, in pursuit of the outcomes and goals of inter alia the Sendai Framework, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement, and risk-informed sustainable and regenerative development.

    As both a retrospective and prospective exercise, the MTR SF process aims to:

    • Prompt deep reflections in the COVID reality on how we understand the systemic nature of risk, our relationship with it, and how we can reduce disaster risk and loss.
    • Support integrated partnerships and actions that harness what we know and what we do, to shape how we choose, interact and decide.
    • Build collective and relational intelligence to establish new ways of knowing risk and new forms of collaboration that mean risk governance and management mechanisms and approaches are no longer overwhelmed.
    • Develop policy options, and new modalities of implementation through recommendations for Governments and other stakeholders to accelerate realisation of the goal and outcome of the Sendai Framework and risk-informed sustainable development.

    Guided by the Concept Note of the MTR SF, the Guidance for Member States, and the Guidance for Stakeholders, which can be accessed here. Consultations and review will generate critical analysis to assist countries and stakeholders develop recommendations for prioritised, accelerated and integrated international, national and local cooperation and action in the period 2023 to 2030, and to initiate nascent thinking on possible international arrangements for risk-informed sustainable development beyond 2030.

    Event bucket
    Official Programme