How to catalyse a shift to disaster risk management in fragile and conflict settings

For those concerned with the rupturing effects of climate shocks and disasters on developmental progress across Africa, catalysing a shift to disaster risk management (DRM) in conflict-affected settings has become increasingly necessary. Climate shocks and disasters in Africa increasingly coincide with fragility and conflict. During October 2024, floods swept through West and Central Africa and El Niño-induced droughts debilitated Southern Africa.

At international forums - the Berlin Climate and Security Conference to Africa Regional Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (AfRP) in Namibia - a persistent concern permeated the discussions. This colocation poses severe risks to Africa's development and stability.

Countries hardest hit by the floods, including Chad, Niger, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Cameroon, form a distressingly familiar list. All but one-Guinea, which itself contends with recent political turbulence-are on the World Bank's classification of fragile and conflict-affected situations.

Fragility, conflict and violence on the resilience agenda

Discussions at these meetings honed in on this nexus from very different angles.

In Berlin, conversations applied a security lens, exploring civil-military coordination in disaster response and integrating climate concerns into peacebuilding efforts.

In Namibia, government and civil society representatives rallied around the theme 'Act Now for the Resilient Africa We Want', DRM goals to the African Union's Agenda 2063 and the broader global Sustainable Development Goals.

Over the past 15 years, mentions of fragility, conflict and violence (FCV) have been few and far between at previous AfRP meetings. It was a marked change to hear the opening remarks by the head of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR): Kamal Kishore stressed the unique difficulties faced by countries affected by FCV in achieving their ambitions towards disaster resilience.

Government representatives, including Dr. Banak Del Wai, Director of South Sudan's Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs and Disaster Management, amplified the call for special consideration of FCV contexts.

With the mid-way point of the Sendai Framework already past us - and flags already raised that the targets for 2030 will require significant acceleration, particularly in FCV-affected countries - this emphasis was prescient.

Much more is needed than just early warnings

Early warning systems (EWS) were a dominant theme within the AfRP.

The launch of a UN Handbook on Early Warning Systems and Early Action in Fragile, Conflict, and Violent (FCV) Contexts[KP2] complemented efforts by others such as the World Bank. This focus on EWS is justified - effective EWS provide a foundation for early action and aligns with UN Secretary-General Guterres's ambitious goal for universal EWS coverage by 2027.

While EWS are essential for providing timely information to at-risk communities and governments, and help spur pre-emptive action, they must not become the singular focus. The scale of Africa's climate and disaster challenges demands much more.

Shifting focus from the disaster event to long-term resilience

The humanitarian response to floods and droughts, climate security discussions in Berlin and EWS conversations in Windhoek - despite their very different discourses, stakeholder groups and motivations - share a common trait: the emphasis on the disaster event itself, whether presumed, impending or present.

However, the DRM community has, since the 1980s, sought ways to shift focus from the disaster event. We must apply the same logic (even if using a different approach) to FCV-affected regions as we do when encouraging long-term risk reduction through development in relatively stable settings.

Of course, DRM approaches must reflect the unique context of each setting. In active conflict zones, for example, working out of a crisis or taking early action may be among the few options available.

Expanding options in FCV settings

Recent reports like the World Bank's highlight the differences in fund allocation in FCV contexts. Per capita, adaptation finance for high-intensity conflict regions is half that allocated to areas with institutional fragility or medium-intensity conflict.

Although adaptation finance for FCV countries grew to $1.8 billion by 2020, investment strategies have some way to go to account for climate and disaster risks and the intersection with each context's unique FCV conditions.

The World Bank's acceleration of its Disaster-FCV nexus work over the past few years demonstrates how DRM in FCV settings can be pursued, leveraging development finance for DRM with a longer-term vision and, critically, through sectoral investments.

Pressing questions

As we move beyond COP29 and towards the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, and the SDG countdown, a pressing question remains: how can we catalyse a shift toward DRM that works in-and for-populations in FCV-affected states?

• Knowing that climate shocks drive short-term thinking among governments grappling with compounding risks, can we capitalize on the climate spotlight to prioritize support for national disaster management agencies in FCV contexts?
• Given that climate finance is only a fraction of development finance, can we better utilize this to leverage sectoral development in risk-informed ways?
• Understanding that climate shocks can (if indirectly) ignite or amplify FCV conditions, can we craft more ambitious interventions that leverage the political momentum behind the EWS agenda? For example, in contexts where disaster impacts have historically amplified tensions, can we utilise EWS to take action to reduce disaster risk and address potential conflict flashpoints? If we were to do this systematically, what operational changes would be required to facilitate conflict prevention?
• Recognising that effective DRM requires long-term avoidance of risk creation - can we reorientate the focus away from the disaster event through DRM integrated into development planning and investments in critical sectors? Can we emphasise providing FCV-differentiated DRM support to governments, focusing on long-term development approaches in such settings?

We need to address these questions, if we're to truly grapple with the amplifying impact on risk from climate shocks and disasters in FCV contexts or we will fail in our responsibility to build resilience for all.

Katie Peters specialises in disaster risk management in contexts of fragility, conflict and violence. With over 20 years' experience across the globe, her technical expertise span policy advisory work, research design and operational delivery. Since 2022, Katie has provided technical and operational support to the World Bank Disaster-Fragility, Conflict and Violence Cross-Cutting Thematic Area of the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). Mrs Peters is a doctoral candidate at the University of Cambridge.

Katie has advised donor governments on disaster and climate resilience, including the UK, Australia, Germany, Switzerland and Japan. She led the programmatic implementation of various Australian and UK government backed initiatives, including being Deputy Director of a £120 million Knowledge Management Consortium working with over 120 non-governmental organisations. Ms Peters has consulted for various UN Inter-Agency Standing Committees, UNDP and UNDRR. Her field experience spans over 17 countries. Katie has led multi-disciplinary research teams, authored over 60 publications, and is a founding Board Member of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association.