Critical gaps and implications of risk communication in the global agreements - SFDRR, SDGs, and UNFCCC: 3 select case studies from urban areas of tropics in South Asia

This paper examines critical gaps and implications of risk communication in the global agreements SFDRR, SDGs, and UNFCCC by assessing three select case studies from urban areas of tropics in South Asia. There has been a consistent rise in urban disasters, particularly in developing countries located in tropical areas. Among various challenges of disaster risk management and climate change impacts, it is noted that most residents are poorly informed about their risk exposure or apposite response. The paper is based on the premise that one important cause for this gap is inadequate emphasis on risk communication at different levels of planning and agreements. Accordingly, it highlights some important gaps in the risk communication across international agreements including Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and evaluates their impacts at the local level. It brings three selected urban case studies located in the tropical areas of the South Asia region that illustrate gaps in risk communication that result in enhanced vulnerability and deviations in response.

The findings are based on secondary data and literature focusing on global agreements, risk communication, and disaster response. The paper argues that even though global strategies address urban risks, the fragmented nature of risk communication results in poor response and contributes to losses that occur in disasters. Three critical gaps noted in risk communication include (i) it is not prioritized at different levels, (ii) inadequate structures to measure its impacts and stakeholders inclusiveness, and (iii) indifference to cultural diversity and integration. Further, it is suggested that there is a need to redefine risk communication at the global scale that extends beyond warning generation and considers multiple factors influencing response including interlinked vulnerabilities and variations in perceptions emerging from varied geographical, socio-cultural, economic, and political processes.