Civil Society was included but were we listened to?

The Global Platform (GP) is the global multi-stakeholder forum to review progress on the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. After the dust has settled, GNDR’s Head of Policy and Research, Becky Murphy provides this policy analysis.

Why now? Why so important?

The 2025 Global Platform for DRR (GP) made an urgent call to act now for resilience. Held in Geneva from 2-6 June, this was the 8th session of the Global Platform for DRR. GNDR recognised the importance of this particular GP as it was the first since the Sendai Mid-Term Review (MTR) process was completed and the penultimate GP for the Sendai Framework for Action. 

Ultimately it was an opportunity to reflect on whether we can get back on track and reach the Sendai targets by 2030 or if we are running out of time. One of the key outcomes of the MTR is for all stakeholders to be meaningfully engaged to accelerate a whole-of-society approach for the last five years of the Sendai Framework for Action implementation. 

Our allies at UNDRR certainly championed this and supported us to create space for civil society voice across the agenda*. However, the big question is: were we listened to? Did government member states hear our call-to-action messages and did our voice lead to tangible action?

Time to think…

It has been a couple of months since GNDR took one of its largest delegations to date of staff and members to the GP. The high level dialogue dust has settled and we’ve had some time to think. We’ve celebrated winning the prestigious Sasawaka Award and congratulated our members on their powerful interventions in Geneva. However, before the global community’s attention swings to COP30, we must ask, did civil society’s voice make an impact and will government member states take forward our call to action messages?

Were we included? Yes. Very much so. Were we listened to and did our voice lead to tangible action? Not entirely…

What was heard…?

Our efforts were recognised and did have an impact. The official co-chair summary, the Geneva Call for Disaster Risk Reduction included many of our eight Call-to-Action policy demands, including the importance of taking an all-of-society approach and making sure no one is left behind. Here, we can see commitment to listening to local voices, inclusion, risk-informed development, the challenge of disaster risk governance in fragile and conflict affected states (FCAS) and the need to invest in early warning systems and anticipatory action at the local level.

What was forgotten…?

One of the most pressing recommendations coming from our members, the call to make disaster risk governance legally binding, was not included.

Our members from across the globe stressed that to really act now, we must make disaster risk governance legally binding, including the allocation of disaster risk finance. There have been developments at the International Law Commission – a new human rights article on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters (PPED) is on track to be passed by 2030. UNDRR even shared an article on this in December 2024, titled One step closer to legal protection from disasters and stated “By making DRR a legal obligation, a PPED Convention could give Member States greater incentive to act with urgency to mitigate rising risks.” . And yet, this was certainly missing from the GP discussions in Geneva.

On the sidelines of the platform, when specifically asked about this, both member states and United Nations delegates expressed concern for any discussion around making disaster risk reduction legally binding. The message seemed to be clear across the board – disaster risk policy is not political, it is an open, collaborative, friendly space, and introducing legally binding commitments would undermine this and could reverse progress made in cross border collaboration. Examples from climate negotiations were given to highlight how their legally binding nature can make progress in climate policy challenging.

However, as our members point out, we are not on track to reach our commitments, so they question whether this is because they are voluntary commitments. If this global platform is promoting the urgency of action, surely moving beyond voluntary commitments to legally binding agreements will apply the desperately needed pressure to act.. Could the combination of voluntary, soft law incentives, such as the Sendai Framework, and a legal framework to require states to offer protection from disasters, be the formula needed? By not doing this, are we burying our heads in the sand and justifying it with notions of collaboration, peace and easy ways of working? 

Furthermore, while the challenging issue of how to ensure disaster risk governance is not forgotten in fragile and conflict affected states, the tangible, actionable commitments are not clear. At a time where global conflict seems to be ever increasing, we must see commitment to making sure those living in FCAS are not left behind. We therefore ask member states again to come together to agree on a tangible commitment for supporting the effective risk governance in FCAS.

Are disasters political?

Reflecting on all of this, is it really correct to say that disasters are not political and the need for disaster risk reduction is a simple topic to agree on, where the global community can be easily brought together? Is every member state really playing its role in reducing disaster risk? Or isn’t everything happening in the global environment political, now more than ever? Yes, it is more challenging to negotiate agreements in the climate space, due to the legally binding nature of the Paris Agreement, however, has it not also produced more robust legislation? Should we really be afraid of putting a little extra political pressure on disaster risk governance to push forward and collectively reduce the risk to lives and livelihoods through legally binding agreements?

What was the hot topic? Disaster risk finance

Whilst legal frameworks were not on the agenda, finance certainly was. Our analysis is that there is a definite shift towards focusing on risk reduction finance and risk-informed investment.

We foresee this opening up new players in the disaster risk reduction space, beyond public finance and hope the private sector, particularly the financial services sector, can join forces with governments to strengthen resilience and risk governance. However, how this will be done in a way that truly leaves no one behind is unclear, reminding us of the important role civil society has to play.

GNDR recognises this challenge and commits to working across sectors to start bridging the gap between civil society and the financial sector on risk. We will work to start increasing civil society’s awareness and understanding of the potential of financial services in support of disaster risk governance and aim to ensure the role of civil society in these developments continues to be championed at all levels.

As we start to look at what comes after the Sendai Framework, we will continue to support our members to champion the need to see financial and legal commitments to disaster risk reduction from the international community and all member states.

What do you think?

Watch this space and let us know your thoughts…should DRR and risk reduction finance become legally binding? Or would that undermine the open, cross border, collaboration of member states working together to reduce disaster risk?

For more information, please contact Becky Murphy (rebecca.murphy[at]gndr.org), Head of Policy and Research at GNDR and Co-Chair of the UNDRR Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism NGO constituency.

*GNDR is the largest network of civil society organisations working on disaster risk reduction, with over 2,000 members across 131 countries. Our Call-to-Action messages for the GP were developed through consultation with the GNDR membership where over 200 civil society organisations inputted. We obtained sponsorship for 26 members and 10 of our staff to attend the platform in Geneva, and secured space across 25 events.