The supranational view: action to drive disaster risk reduction

Interviewer: Gareth Byatt – Principal Consultant, Risk Insight Consulting 

Interviewee: Ms Mami Mizutori – Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction and Head of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR)

[...]

Avoiding disasters and reducing risk – what’s in a name? 

Gareth: The 2024-2025 Work Programme document does not refer to natural disasters, it refers to natural and human-made hazards and disasters that can result from them. Why is it important to refer to “disasters” rather than “natural disasters”? We continue to see different terms being used (for example, I often see the media referring to natural disasters). 

Ms Mizutori: You are absolutely right that different terms are used, and not only by the media. Some member states in their formal speeches and remarks use the term “natural disasters”. This is a term that, it is important to note, UNDRR was using a while ago. However, when we unpack what a disaster is, we see that it is a combination of a hazard – which can be natural or human-made – together with exposure and vulnerability. The premise of disaster risk reduction is that if we can work on one, two or hopefully all three of these elements of hazards, exposure and vulnerability then we can reduce disaster risk. It is also important to acknowledge that the reason a hazard turns into a disaster is largely because of our own decisions on how we develop and how we invest. There is nothing natural about disasters. This is why we have a campaign at UNDRR called “No Natural Disasters”. Hazards can be natural, and they can also be human made. This distinction is important, and it is linked to why we refer to disasters, not natural disasters. Indeed, if we consider a deeper historical context, a long time ago people made a connection between disasters and the will of their god or gods in their religion. Religious and political leaders a long time ago would describe how a disaster was a way of punishing us. Humankind has made strides to move away from this mindset. We have to make sure that our own acts, policies and decisions are seen as either helping us to be resilient, or conversely, they can lead to disasters occurring. We have to acknowledge this distinction in the way we act.

[...]

Disaster risk reduction governance strengthened at global, regional, national and local levels

Gareth: I can see linkages between the new-generation tracker for hazardous events, losses and damages, the Sendai Framework’s main seven targets, and the training focus in the Work Programme 2024-2025. Moving on to Objective 2 of the Work Programme and its focus on governance, I have two questions about it. First, we have talked about the role of governments a few times in this interview. To support the focus on doing things differently, do any aspects of the existing governance framework for disaster risk reduction need to be updated to address systemic disaster risk, and how to better monitor lead indicators of risk?

Ms Mizutori: To be honest, I think that the global framework we have currently, in the form of the Sendai Framework, is appropriate for us up to 2030, even in these times when we have such systemic and interconnected risks. I continue to think that the Sendai Framework is a very insightful document – and I owe that to my predecessor and the team that developed it before I moved into my role for UNDRR. The members states and the secretariat thoroughly reviewed and thought about the landscape of risk for the world when the Sendai Framework was created, and the risk governance framework that it proposes, is still appropriate. The challenge moving forward that I see exists at the national level. We would like to see an “all of government approach” in countries around the world, but we do not yet see this consistently happening. What I mean by this is that, most of the time in many governments, a National Disaster Management Agency or similarly named group exists that focuses on disaster risk and responding to disasters. These groups predominantly and historically have come from civil protection, and their forte is typically in responding to disasters – which of course they must do, with many being in constant action on this front as the frequency and intensity of disasters continues.

[...]