The GPDRR Preparatory Days took place on 2-3 June in Geneva. GNDR and our members are in Switzerland representing the voice of civil society, and ensuring that our eight key priority messages are being heard. 

Meeting with SRSG, Kamal Kishore

Representatives from GNDR’s global board and secretariat began their engagement at the Global Platform 2025 with a meeting with the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General (SRSG) for Disaster Risk Reduction and Head of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Kamal Kishore. 

At the meeting, Becky Murphy, GNDR’s Head of Policy presented GNDR’s Call to Action, emphasising that it was developed by our members from across the world, and represented their priorities as we look towards the final five years of the Sendai Framework.

The SRSG shared that while actions on disaster risk reduction have progressed substantially over the past 10 years, since the implementation of the Sendai Framework, there is an urgent need to focus on the localisation of disaster risk reduction efforts, especially since there are only five years left to meet the Sendai targets. 

Stakeholder Forum on DRR

1. NGO Stakeholder Forum

The first session of the day was the NGO Stakeholder Forum of the Stakeholder Engagement Mechanism (SEM), which GNDR co-chairs. During the session NGO/CSO representatives from Africa, Asia and Latin America, and GNDR members, Fatima Zannah Mustapha (Future Prowess Islamic Foundation, Kenya), Dann Diez (Sustainable Energy and Enterprise Development for Communities, Philippines), and José Ramón Ávila (Asociacion de Organismos No Gubernamentales de Honduras, Honduras) presented the work their organisations are doing in fragile, conflict-affected and extremely volatile climatic conditions. 

Their call was clear – there is a need to focus on:

1. Empowering women to lead DRR actions on the frontline
2. Addressing the urgent and specific DRR needs of fragile conflict-affected communities
3. Institutionalising inclusive DRR action at the local level

After their contributions, the Co-Chairs presented the NGO stakeholder group’s key recommendations in the form of GNDR’s Call to Action.

The session ended with participants sharing their reflections on the key recommendations and they were invited to continue contributing throughout the day so that we could bring a single unified civil society voice to the Platform. 

2. Data and Financing for Disaster Displacement as Loss and Damage

This session, which featured GNDR member, Catalina Díaz Escobar of Corporación Antioquia Presente, Colombia, began with IDMC presenting findings from the Global Report on Internal Displacement 2025:

• In the period of the Sendai Framework, 2015-2024, 265 million people have been displaced by disasters. The distribution of disaster displacement has affected virtually every country around the world. The message? Everyone everywhere is at risk. 
• Under current conditions, on average, 32 million people every year are displaced by disaster.
• Storms and floods were the main drivers of displacement during 2015-2024.
• While this clearly demonstrates the danger of these hazards, it also shows that displacement data in these instances is more widely available than, for example, the impact of sea level rise.
• Low and middle-income countries continue to bear the brunt of disaster displacement impacts.
• GNDR member, Catalina Diaz Escobar posed the question: “How can we, as stakeholders, use data to ensure the safety and rights of people on the move, especially children, youth , women and others vulnerable solutions?”
• Planned, regular and safe human mobility is a catalyst for minimising loss and harm. How can we,  as stakeholders, use data to ensure the safety and rights of people on the moves, especially children, youth , women and other on vulnerable solutions?
• She explained that it’s necessary to recognise the sensitivity of a conflict and disaster event and its impact on human mobility. Conflict and disasters must be addressed differently.
• She went on to describe how: The mechanisms for losses and damages should be like an embrace in a moment of deep distress, a helping hand that offers tangible support and hope.

You can see her presentation here.

• ActionAid Vietnam presented a smartphone app which is used to report disasters, providing real time data and support for early warning – the data is also used to support trend analysis. 
• It is essential to work on the Availability and accessibility of data.
• The key recommendations from the session:
  • Information is power. We need to work on the availability of data – it saves lives. 
  • We must recognise the intersection between conflict, climate and disasters
• Risk assessments should be at the micro level.
• We need Innovative financing tools and more private sector engagement

3. Spotlight Session: From Paris to Sendai: The Fundamental Connection of Climate and DRR

• The session started with Animesh Kumar, Head of UNDRR Bonn Office, introducing the Santiago Network and how to become an OBNES. 
• The Government of the Maldives shared information about the coordination mechanism between DRR and climate change. They recommended mandating DRR into climate change policies along with adaptation policies at the national level. There has to be integrated resilience plan and cohesive policies.  
• Closing the session, Ruiti Aretaake, a GNDR member from Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific Kiribati (FSPK), described how climate change is  impacting the Small Island Developing Nations States (SIDS). She highlighted the non-economic loss and damages they are facing and the crucial role that the Santiago Network must play in addressing inequality.

4. Investments and Concessional Financing for Effectiveness and Efficiency of Disaster Risk Reduction

Our executive director, Marcos Concepcion Raba, was part of a high-level session on Investments and Concessional Financing for Effective DRR. He described the key barriers community-based organisations face in accessing funds and how we can simplify this. The four key barriers: 

1. Risk aversion: This can prevent donors from directly funding local actors, but can also have effects on local agency and ways of being.
   • Short-term, project-based funding can be used by donors to control outcomes and manage risk, but can be critiqued for not providing local actors the long-term predictability required for sustainability, institution-building and strategic action.
   • Perceptions that local actors may have limited ability and experience to absorb, disburse and manage large sums of finance transparently and at scale can also work against locally led initiatives.
   • Donor perceptions of risk can increase the use of intermediary organisations that can absorb and spend large grants quickly in line with donor systems and frameworks. However, these are often Global North-based agencies, reinforcing existing power imbalances and hindering local leadership

2. Administrative constraints: Organisational capacities and cultures of donor agencies are not always aligned with the needs of locally led practice.
   • Locally led practice is often considered a more ‘staff-intensive business model’. This is not simply because of the associated increase in the number of grants, but also because of the expected ‘accompaniment’ required of donor staff working with organisations that may be unfamiliar with their practices, systems and requirements.
   • Recent analysis indicates that local intermediaries could deliver programming that is 32% more cost-efficient than international intermediaries by stripping out international overhead and salary costs (Cabot Venton et al., 2022).
   • The technical skills and behaviours of donor staff applying localisation models and approaches also matter (Ingram, 2022; Goodwin and Ager, 2021). For example, co-creating solutions requires significant investment in building facilitation, accompaniment and co-design capabilities among staff. Supporting locally led development often involves shifts in behaviour and mindsets towards greater humility, respect, patience, the ability to listen and openness
   • Dual accountabilities: There is tension between accountability to local actors and accountability to domestic constituents.

3. Publicly funded donors are legislatively accountable to domestic stakeholders, including their political leadership, parliament and taxpayers. But donor work is usually targeting actors or activities outside their domestic constituencies, to whom they also have obligations and responsibilities. These ‘split constituencies’ require balancing donor accountability both ‘upwards’ and ‘downwards’. Declining public support for aid, budget cuts and heightened aid scepticism all contribute to ‘hyper-accountability’ upwards (Bond, 2021: 12; ICAI, 2023).
   • Limited donor accountability towards local actors is a barrier to locally led development(Tye and Saurez, 2021
   • Power asymmetries: The relative power between donors and local actors is a fundamental challenge at the heart of the localisation effort.
   • Structural power asymmetries in development cooperation can result in top-down, donor-defined definitions of local capability, as well as donors dictating acceptable modes of working and organising (Peace Direct, 2021).

Five recommendations emerge

• Strengthen donor capacities and shift mindsets
• Enhance access to quality finance
• Create space for local agency and decision-making
• Track localisation progress in DRR goals and instruments
• Reconceptualise local actor ‘capacity’

Spotlight Session: Early Warnings for All

Three GNDR members, Carolina Garcia, Winnie Okoth and Shamim Arfeen presented at the EW4All Spotlight session, moderated by GNDR’s Head of Policy, Rebecca Murphy. 

• Carolina spoke about the importance of accessibility and understanding with EWS, emphasising that sirens and alarms mean nothing without context. She highlighted the need to develop trust with communities to enable effective action and ‘think forward’. 
• Winnie spoke about the challenges of EWS implementation in rural Kenya, highlighting issues with accessibility, infrastructure and weak coordination systems. She emphasised the need for displacement contexts to be at the forefront and advocated for the importance of involving young people. 
• Shamim spoke about the need for EWS to reach everyone in order to save lives, and the importance of tailoring warnings for different contexts. He emphasised that locally-led action and risk-informed development must take centre stage, involving communities at all stages.

The session also featured a youth interlude on the value which young people bring to the DRR space and a segment from ODI on the importance of political systems supporting the most marginalised, with politics being key to last mile implementation. Several reflections from the floor were shared, highlighting priorities such as women-led action, the combination of scientific and traditional knowledge and trust building. The session concluded with recommendations for effective disaster response including enhancing infrastructure to enable practical action, strengthening local governance, and prioritising education for effective disaster response.

Global EW4ALL Multistakeholder Forum

1. Empowering Communities: People-Centred and User-Tailored Approaches for Early Warnings and Early/Anticipatory Action

The first technical session of the Global Early Warning for All Multistakeholder Forum focused firmly on the need to prioritise communities and people-centred approaches for localising Early Warning and ensuring that Early Warnings effectively translate into Early Action.

Some key issues that were discussed during the session were:

• Early warnings are integral to building community resilience, however it is imperative that early warning systems are inclusive and collaborative to address the needs all sections of society, especially the most affected groups and people with disability i.e. ensure early warnings reach those who need it the most
• Community and local government ownership is critical in ensuring that early warning systems are not only sustainable (beyond project life-cycles), but also the warnings are understood and acted upon. 
• Early warning communication needs to be understandable i.e. early warnings need to be as localised as possible to relevant local contexts and/or use of photographs/pictures
• The role of different actors, especially using existing structures of communities, need to be explored, such as involving religious leaders, schools, etc. 
• The importance of traditional, indigenous knowledge needs to be recognised and embraced
• There is a need to connect scientific and technical experts with communities at the local level and building trust with communities is a critical starting point 
• There is a need to resource Anticipatory Actions at the local level not only in terms of financial resources but also in the form of time, intent and commitment. 

Some key reflections that emerged from the session were:

• Establishing effective early warning systems is a shared responsibility which needs a whole of society approach not only in its implementation but also in its design, set-up and monitoring
• While setting up Early Warning Systems are essential to reduce the impact of hazards or avoid disasters as a whole, they should not be seen as an alternative to undertaking integrated disaster risk reduction actions

No Time to Waste: The Race for Effective Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems in Fragile and Conflict Settings 

The second technical session focused on the complexities of establishing effective early warning systems in fragile and conflict settings.  The key challenges that are faced in such contexts, as shared by representatives from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq and Somalia were as follows:

• One of the biggest challenges to set up EWS in fragile and conflict settings is mobility of communities driven by conflict and/or disaster displacement
• Often the displacement is to high risk areas which means early warnings are all the more essential but lack of/limited infrastructure makes it difficult to ensure effective delivery of early warnings
• Security of early warning personnel and infrastructure required for issuing early warnings is hard to achieve and often access to communities to disseminate early warnings (because of blocked roads, damaged or collapse of infrastructure, safety and security concerns) becomes a major challenge
• In conflict and fragile contexts there is a high chance of communities getting fragmented information in the form of early warnings because of which communities are not able to understand and/or undertake effective anticipatory action, it is therefore important that different actors are engaged during all phases of EWS
• There is a need to invest in local knowledge of communities and include it into the EWS and towards this efforts need to be made to overcome cultural barriers

The key recommendations from the sessions:

• Invest in knowledge to build EWS infrastructure, take decisive decisions and undertake effective governance at the local level
• Build local capacities and recognise the role of community volunteers
• Understand the different nuances of protracted conflict viz-a-viz high intensity conflict and towards that invest in training local scientists

Effective Governance Models to Support Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems

The third technical session focused on governance models in the context of early warning sessions. Some key reflections from the session were:

• The session began with a presentation by Animesh Kumar, Head of the UNDRR Office in Bonn who presented the key highlights of the ‘Global Status of Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems’ which reflects on countries’ challenges and good practices in forecasting capabilities, early warning coverage and systems to act on them. Early Warning Systems are the need of the hour and both the SFDRR and the Paris Agreement call for the establishment of Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems, however the lack of integrated governance at the national level is resulting in duplication of efforts and there is an urgent need for coordinated efforts. 

• Chandrika Kulrathna from World Vision Sri Lanka (a GNDR member) reflected on the role played by non-state actors like CSOs in early warning systems. CSOs work directly with communities, they have the knowledge and adopt inclusive and integrated approaches to establish effective early warning systems at the local and it is this role of civil societies that can be leveraged to establish effective governance at the local, sub-national and national levels.
• Dr. Prithviraj Booneeady from Mauritius shared that the multi-hazard early warning approach has brought an integrated approach to early warnings and disaster risk reduction. The most important factor is political buy-in to have the capacities and mandate to implement EWS at the national level. He also reflected on the need to invest in Anticipatory Action to make sure the cycle of EWS is completed as well as the role of indigenous knowledge to augment technical information. There is a need to take along different actors and to start with smaller more achievable parts of the system before including new/emerging complexity.
• Dr Ahmed Amdihun from IGAD, spoke about regional and trans-boundary governance that can support coordination, data sharing and effective implementation of early warning systems. Coordination at the regional and national level is essential. Disasters don’t stop at borders, however transboundary governance is almost never given importance. There is a need to under risks in a transboundary manner. 

Early Warnings for All – Highlights from the forum – closing ceremony 

This session reflected on two days of discussions at the Early Warnings for All Forum. GNDR’s Rebecca Murphy shared insights from the SEM stakeholder group, emphasising political inclusion, local leadership, and the need for financing and trust-building. Participants across UN, government, and civil society called for people-centred, inclusive, and accessible early warning systems.

Key highlights:

• UNDP, UNDRR, and national representatives stressed the role of governance, data, low-cost innovation, and whole-of-society cooperation.
• Gavin White and other speakers underscored the ethical imperative of reaching people in fragile contexts.
• Australia’s Brendan Moon and Norway’s Lars Lunde called for stronger technical capacity, funding shifts, and cross-sector partnerships.
• Ecuador’s Andrea Hermenejildo and UNDRR’s Paola Albrito reiterated that EWS4All is not only necessary but viable—with resilience co-created with communities, not delivered to them.
• ITU and WMO reinforced the importance of communication infrastructure, accessible technologies, and the scientific clarity to act.
• IFRC’s Jagan Chapagain concluded with a powerful message: disasters are increasing, and those most vulnerable suffer most. Inclusive action, integration, and political investment are essential—action is in our hands.

The session ended with a call to continue collaboration and localise these global discussions into meaningful community-driven preparedness.

World Resilient Recovery Conference

From commitment to action – leadership for resilient recovery 

GNDR’s Head of Programmes, Shivangi Chavdaa moderated WRRC Plenary 2: ‘From commitment to action – leadership for resilience recovery’, featuring panellists from the World Bank, International Organisation for Migration, Fund for responding to Loss and Damage, Tilt Renewables and a Professor at Keio University.

The panel discussed strategies for resilient disaster recovery, emphasising financial preparedness, rapid response financing, displacement integration, private sector involvement, the role of academia, and good governance. Key takeaways included:

• Whole of society approach is vital, integrating displacement risks into disaster management
• Power and centrality of partnership
• Importance of innovative ways to mobilise resources – particularly leveraging the role of philanthropy and the private sector
• Critical that private sector plays a role – businesses need to shift from reactive to proactive resilience 
• Resilience needs to be embedded into investment planning
• Role of research in enhancing monitoring, disaster preparedness and adaptive recovery
• There have been enough calls for action, now is the time for commitment. 

The session finished with UNDRR presenting the Resilient Recovery Framework: pre-disaster planning policies and practices which enable communities and systems to undertake resilience recovery – governance, finance, data & knowledge, and capacity components.

Special Sessions

1. Stakeholder Session for the Americas and the Caribbean: Boosting Local Action: Strategic Dialogue on the Localisation of the Sendai Framework

João Figueiredo, GNDR LAC Regional Lead, contributed to the crucial discussion on boosting local action. He shared that listening to communities is essential. Those who face risk every day have the knowledge, experience, and capacity to inform policy and practice. Localisation must go beyond discourse: it needs to be institutionalised through inclusive decision-making, with real participation and accountability mechanisms.

Second, he emphasised investing in local leadership. This includes financing locally-led early warning and anticipatory action systems, ensuring resources reach the community level, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings, where risks are amplified. Without localised funding, effective action is not possible.

Third, implement a whole-of-society approach. That means including all actors, CSOs, youth, women, Indigenous Peoples, persons with disabilities, the private sector and faith-based organisations, recognising their critical role in disaster risk reduction.

Fourth, we need legally binding frameworks. Voluntary commitments have not been enough. We must advance laws and policies that guarantee rights and assign clear responsibilities, especially in contexts where vulnerability is institutionalised.

Lastly, all development must be risk-informed. Resilience starts with inclusive urban planning, green infrastructure, technological innovation, and nature-based solutions that bridge ancestral knowledge and scientific approaches.

He advocated for effective localisation of the Sendai Framework, which means transferring power, resources, and decision-making to the communities themselves. As a global network, we remain committed to amplifying these voices so that resilience is not delayed — it happens today.

2. LAC and Asian Women’s DRR Network Meeting

This cross-regional meeting brought together nearly 40 participants, including civil society, government, and UN representatives, to discuss gender equality and women’s leadership in DRR. The session was moderated by Saskia Carusi (UNDRR LAC) and opened by UNDRR Director Paola Albrito, who highlighted the importance of governance structures and data to institutionalize gender inclusion in DRR.

Key highlights:

• The Government of Canada reaffirmed its commitment with USD 2.65 million over four years for regional gender equality initiatives.
• The LAC Women’s Network and ECLAC were recognised for their regional advocacy and peer learning.
• UNDRR’s Gender Advisor shared a 4-pillar approach: evidence generation, capacity-building, leadership, and institutional policy support.
• African and Asian women’s highlighted growing grassroots mobilisation and the importance of trans inclusion.
• Colombia’s Risk Management Unit Director shared national progress via gender scorecards and MCR2030 tools.
• Australia reiterated the ethical imperative of gender inclusion and the policy impact of women’s leadership.

The session concluded with a shared call for robust governance, intersectional data, and long-term institutional investment in gender-inclusive DRR.