This session gathers ARISE members to exchange views, experiences and knowledge based on an all-of-society approach.

Where do we stand

Private sector companies, both large and small, recognize the growing importance of disaster risk reduction (on macroeconomic stability, value chains, etc.). Nevertheless, the private sector is not alone in this task. As the Sendai Framework established, the “commitment, goodwill, knowledge, experience and resources” from all stakeholders including academia, media, and other sectors in civil society at the local, national, regional and global levels are needed.

Session guiding questions

1. How does the private sector and ARISE contribute to DRR?
2. How to enhance collective engagement in DRR?

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?

Read this section to ensure you come prepared for this special session. 

Where do we stand

Up to 3.6 billion people, or around 40% of the world's population, are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change… and that multiple climate hazards will occur simultaneously, and multiple climatic and non-climatic risks will interact, resulting in compounding risk and risks cascading across sectors and regions – these were among the headline messages from Working Group II of the 6th Assessment Report of the IPCC. The report further warns that a continued warming planet imposes limits to adaptation, while risk-blind planning is resulting in increased risk and maladaptation. 

The Glasgow Climate Pact, agreed at the COP 26, emphasizes the urgency of scaling up action and support to strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change, including through enhanced finance, capacity- building and technology transfer. Through outlining the functions of the Santiago Network, it recognizes the importance of demand-driven technical assistance in building capacity to implement approaches to reduce the adverse effects of climate change. The Pact offers glimpses of hope though it is acknowledged that the ambition needs to be much higher. 

The COP 26 also laid the foundation for the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) through the Glasgow-Sharm el-Sheikh Work Programme on the Global Goal on Adaptation. The Work Programme is expected to follow a bottom-up approach whereby the aspirations of local communities are brought to the fore and aggregated upwards to define what constitutes resilience in the face of different hazards – floods, droughts, storms, extreme temperatures and sea-level rise. The perspective of stakeholder experience at the last mile underscores the importance of including affected populations in the assessment of collective progress towards achieving the GGA.   This approach is consistent with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction which emphasizes a people-centric, multi-stakeholder approach to resilience-building.    

Further, the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement (GST) will also review the overall progress made in achieving the GGA1. This will happen concurrently with the Mid-Term Review of the Sendai Framework (MTR-SF), allowing for joint reflection on how to take forward collective efforts to build resilience to growing climate and disaster risks.  

Thus, the 2022 Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction provides a unique opportunity, in the run up to the COP 27 to convene DRR and CCA representatives to identify ways to scale up joint action to reduce disaster risks and build resilience in the climate emergency. The special event will lead to forward-looking and foresight-driven inputs to into the GGA and the MTR-SF, and also identify high-priority recommendations to drive global efforts to urgently confront the climate emergency.  

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?

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?

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?

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?

This section provides information about the Ministerial Roundtable: “Scaling-up Disaster Risk Reduction to Tackle the Climate Emergency”

Where do we stand

The climate emergency is the biggest economic, social, and environmental threat facing the planet and humanity. Climate-related disasters have almost doubled in the last 20 years compared to the previous twenty- year period. This has exacerbated inequalities within and between countries, with those contributing least to global emissions often experiencing the worst impacts of the climate emergency.  

Driven by climate and conflict, often interrelated humanitarian needs are at their highest-ever with one in every 33 people globally in need of assistance and protection. We are at a crossroads. Climate change is undermining the ability to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, including the Sendai Framework.   

Collective action, political leadership, and financing are needed to keep the global average temperature within the 1.5 degrees safer limit outlined in the Paris Agreement. However, prudent risk management requires preparation for a range of negative outcomes associated with varying degrees of warming and to effectively manage unexpected concurrent threats, such as the current COVID-19 crisis. 

Session guiding questions

1. How can disaster risk reduction (DRR) be accelerated to address the climate emergency and align with climate change adaptation goals?   
2. What are positive examples of how the governance of DRR and climate change action is being strengthened and synergized to meet the challenges of growing disaster and climate risks? 
3. What are the financing opportunities, both on a national and international level, to scale-up more integrated climate and disaster risk management approaches? 

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?