Evidence of positive progress on Disaster

Risk Reduction in the Humanitarian-

Development-Peace nexus
Thematic report to inform the Mid-Term Review of the Sendai Framework

Katie Peters, independent consultant

1
Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction: the HDP nexus helps challenge myopic approaches to risk...................................... 8
The HDP nexus: DRR, an integral component .................................................................................................. 8
Report parameters: positive examples of progress ...................................................................................... 9
2. Evidence and findings ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk ........................................................................................................... 10
National and local levels: priority areas a-o ............................................................................................. 11
Global and regional levels: priority areas a-i............................................................................................ 14
Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk .................................. 17
National and local levels: priority areas a-k ............................................................................................. 17
Global and regional levels: priority areas a-f ........................................................................................... 19
Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience ................................................................ 23
National and local levels: priority areas a-q ............................................................................................. 24
Global and regional levels: priority areas a-i............................................................................................ 28
Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better”
in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction ............................................................................................ 30
National and local levels: priority areas a-p ............................................................................................. 31
Global and regional levels: priority areas a-h .......................................................................................... 37
3. Actionable recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 39
Headline recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 39
Detailed recommendations .................................................................................................................................. 39
Advancing the HDP nexus ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Recommendations: Priority 1. Understanding disaster risk .................................................................. 41
Recommendations: Priority 2. Strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk 42
Recommendations: Priority 3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience........................ 44
Recommendations: Priority 4. Enhance disaster preparedness for effective response and to
"Build Back Better" in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction ................................................... 46
References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 50
Annex .................................................................................................................................................................................. 61

2
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Katie Peters (independent consultant).

Sincere thanks go to Sofia Palli (UNDRR) and Marc Gordon (UNDRR) who oversaw this report.
Special thanks go to Ms Mami Mizutori, Assistant Secretary-General and Special Representative
of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction in the United Nations Office for Disaster
Risk Reduction for her continued support to this important theme.

Many thanks go to the experts who generously provided their time and technical knowledge to
help inform the report: Huw Beynon (DPO), Guillaume Bouveyron (AFD), Paul Conrad (UNDP),
Valeria Drigo (independent consultant), Marcus Elten (UNDRR), Paula Valeria Klenner Forttes
(UNESCO), Loretta Hieber Girardet (UNDRR), Catherine-Lune Grayson (ICRC), Saeeda Gouhari
(UNEP), Marlene Grundstrom (UNDRR), Ria Hidajat (GIZ), Annick Hiensch (UNDP), Catalina
Jaime (Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre), Gary Jones (UNAIDS), Jan Kellett (UNDP),
Aashish Khullar (independent), David Knaute (UNESCO), Gernot Laganda (WFP), Matti
Lehtonen (DPO), Rina Meutia (GFDRR), Manuel Pereira (IOM), Marcus Oxley (independent),
Thomas Ritzer (DPO), Elisa Selva (ILO), Jonathan Stone (UNDRR), Reshmi Theckethil (UNDP),
Nigel Timmins (independent), Emilia Wahlstrom (UNDRR), Brennan Webert (DRC), Mark
Weegmann (UCL), Emily Wilkinson (ODI), Catherine Wong (UNDP), Michelle Yonetani (UNHCR).

3
Executive Summary
Moving away from the myopic
The 2022 Global Assessment Report (GAR22) warns us of the perils of taking a myopic
approach to risk; risks cross boundaries (geographical, political and sectoral), have cascading
impacts, and can be systemic in nature. To address this, comprehensive risk management
approaches are required; approaches which do not shy away but actively seek to grapple with
such complexity. In reality, this means broadening the way we understand and act on the
complex interplay of, for example, natural hazards, climate variability and change, pandemic
threats, violence and conflict, food insecurity and economic fluctuations, and political change,
among others. It also means harnessing the added-value of expertise across humanitarian-
development-peace (HDP) nexus.

Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is also an obvious bridge between humanitarian and
development action, with DRR-related activities spanning both domains. Integration of DRR into
humanitarian action – as has been pursued by UNDRR - is one entry point for advancing DRR in
the HDP nexus. DRR also requires continued mainstreaming within development approaches
and with climate change action.

We must also look at the connections that are yet to be made. A nascent area of work that
requires redress is to connect the dots between DRR and peace work. Consideration of the
potential for DRR to harness links with those seeking peace outcomes aligns with the UN
system’s evolution towards prevention, peace, and a doubling down on efforts to better support
transitions into and out of crises. And yet to date, the links between DRR outcomes and conflict
prevention and peacebuilding are nascent.

About this report

This report contributes to deepening our collective understanding of the potential role of DRR
within the HDP nexus; a gap identified as part of the consultative processes leading up to the
Mid-Term Review of the Sendai Framework. We do not focus here on the challenges and
barriers to action. Drawing on an extensive review of published material as well as insights from
experts, this report showcases examples of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) policy, practice
and financing as it relates to the HDP nexus. This includes: DRR linked to humanitarian action;
adapted to conflict and crisis contexts, and; collaborations to advance action on systemic risks.

Organised around the four Sendai Framework priorities, examples are provided for over 30 of
the Sendai Framework priority areas, leading to over 60 actionable recommendations.

There is still much to be learned about what DRR in the context of the HDP nexus looks like in-
practice. Context specificities mean that the examples provided throughout this report are not
necessarily replicable in other contexts; at least, not without careful consideration. Whether a
context is conducive to HDP nexus action will vary greatly, as will the types of DRR actions that
are viable and appropriate in different constellations of systemic risk.

Summary of the key findings

Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk

4
As has been well documented, failure to grasp the multicausal drivers of vulnerability to
disaster risk leads to piecemeal understandings of disaster risk and impacts. HDP nexus
approaches offer possibilities to overcome the shortfalls of such blinkered approaches. Thus, to
understand and act on the complexity of systemic risk, we must move beyond the tendency to
take a myopic approach to risk. As the GAR22 makes clear, data-driven risk management
systems in increasingly complex risk environments offer a means to address this common
pitfall. Furthermore, pursuing comprehensive risk management approaches – which bring
together action on DRR, climate change adaptation, humanitarian and others, “requires
fostering a risk culture based on mutual trust among generalists, specialists and communities at
risk" (UNDRR, 2022a: 8). In Section 2.1, examples are provided which demonstrate this –
working across technical specialists in order to achieve a better understanding of disaster risk.

Under Sendai Framework Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk, the report shows the increased
consideration of violence and conflict as a driver of vulnerability to disaster risk, but also
increasingly as a hazard in itself – a societal hazard. Examples are given of enhancements in risk
analysis to better understand compound and cascading risks, and examples of NGOs integrating
conflict risk analysis into traditional disaster risk analysis tools. Section 2.1 includes progress
on designing composite index, such as the DRM-Fragility, Conflict and Violence (FCV)
Vulnerability Index and new INFORM products, and innovations in the use of mobile
technologies to collect data to inform Covid-19 responses in violent and armed conflict contexts.
The Comprehensive School Safety Framework is another useful example provided as it
originally focused solely on natural hazards and now includes a broad range of current and
emerging risks. Finally, details of new trainings on DRR and humanitarian aid in conflict settings
are highlighted, as well as Anticipatory Action in conflict and crisis settings.

Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk

As risk is not created in neat sectoral or hazard-based siloes, the governance of disaster risk
similarly cannot be compartmentalised – as this leaves open the possibility for negative
unintended impacts and setbacks by one risk management system on another. To address
systemic risk, we need to transform our structures of risk governance. Furthermore, the
complexity of today's risk landscape necessitates institutional cultures which are comfortable
with uncertainty, acknowledging that a range of outcomes are possible. Systemic risk points
planners "…to consider “baskets” of possible outcomes, to be more agile in identifying when
changes in assumptions are needed, and to respond to those changes actively" (UNDRR, 2022a:
202).

Under Sendai Framework Priority 2: Strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk,
the report provides evidence of national and regional DRR strategies and plans citing the role of
societal hazards in increasing disaster risk - as in the African regional strategy, and in the
intention to pursue dual outcomes for peace and disaster resilience. Examples are provided of
local-level disaster risk governance initiatives enhancing community solidarity and trust in
Afghanistan. Relatedly, the growing interest in environmental peacebuilding offers new insight
into possibilities for enhancing peace outcomes through natural resource management – which
is inextricably linked to DRR in many contexts. At the regional level, examples are provided of
climate security-orientated initiatives having relevance for disaster governance in the Sahel and
Caribbean, in their linking of resilience, stabilisation and recovery.

Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience

5
If we are to deepen our understanding of the complexity of systemic risk (Priority 1), and
pursue comprehensive approaches to risk management through transformed disaster risk
governance approaches (Priority 2), then it follows that financial systems will also need to be
reconfigured to work across silos. Previous efforts to elucidate the gaps and areas of overlap in
the context of financing emergency preparedness, for example, reveal how taking the full suite
of available finance - including but not limited to national and international, development,
humanitarian, climate and peace funds - could offer means to enhance the complementarity of
different funding streams for similar goals. Working across the HDP nexus offers potential to
move towards a reconfigured financial architecture that has the capability to advance
comprehensive risk management approaches in the context of systemic risk.

Under Sendai Framework Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, the report
provides examples of the nascent funds dedicated to pursuing DRR outcomes in crisis and
conflict contexts. The most notable example is GFDRR’s DRM-FCV Nexus programme, while
Agence Française de Développement (AFD) have commissioned an internal review to identify
barriers and incentives to enhance financing for DRR in conflict settings. Evidence of adapted
financing mechanisms and models are provided which offer opportunity to scale-up
preventative and early action to address complex risks, such as anticipatory action, forecast-
based finance, and crisis modifiers. Section 2.2 also includes illustrations of more flexibility in
the use of programme budgets being permitted by donors to adapt programming priorities in
response to changing risk contexts, as in Somalia. While internally, illustrations are provided of
donors encouraging more connections between their DRR and peace and conflict cadre. There is
also a wealth of evidence on dealing with Covid-19 in settings of armed conflict and insecurity,
including the potential to utilise peacebuilding hubs for data collection and response. Finally,
examples of adapted social safety net and social protection mechanisms are provided to
elucidate the opportunities such innovations provide to dealing with multiple shocks and
stressors.

Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back
Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction

Improving how we collectively manage disaster risks to take better account of how risks
cascade across systems and sectors, requires designing and deploying comprehensive risk
management approaches. It also requires consideration of systemic risk. DRR experts are
generally well-versed in the notion that "Societal choices are at the heart of why some
individuals and groups are more vulnerable to disasters, experience proportionally greater
immediate impacts due to exposure and lack of resources, and face slower recovery and long-
term impoverishment” (UNDRR, 2022a: 203). Addressing structural inequality, through
development actions, offers one avenue through which to address systemic risk and ‘leave no
one behind’. Failure to do so means at-risk populations may become trapped in cycles of
response and recovery; and made worse through persistent risk creation. Risk-informed
development approaches, coupled with comprehensive risk management, offer pathways
towards disaster resilience; requiring action across the HDP nexus.

Under Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back
Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction, the report includes examples of multi-
hazard early warning systems, as in Yemen. Insights from the Lebanese Red Cross show how
citizens’ concerns over conflict risk can be an entry point for enhancing disaster management
capabilities, and later expanded to include a broader range of hazards. Section 2.4 features

6
efforts to integrate ‘do no harm’ and conflict sensitive approaches into DRR programming, as
well as examples of psychosocial support being offered to individuals suffering from trauma
related to violence and forced resettlement. Examples of linking humanitarian and climate
action are provided, including the Climate Charter - which encourages humanitarian agencies to
take greater consideration of climate change risks and impacts into account. Finally, innovations
in adapting disaster recovery tools and methods to conflict settings are showcased, such as the
UNDP, World Bank and EU guidance on Post Disaster Needs Assessments for conflict settings.

Headline recommendations
Over 60 detailed recommendations are provided in Section 3. Outlined below are the headline
recommendations:

• Advancing the HDP nexus: Demonstrate the value of DRR for advancing the HDP nexus -
harness DRR expertise on risk-informed development and the integration of DRR into
humanitarian action as a basis for developing comprehensive risk management approaches to
HDP nexus action. Relatedly, address the evidence and practice gap on pursuing disaster
resilience and peace.
• Priority 1: Work across the HDP nexus to better understand risk, including systemic risk. Use
vulnerability as the common thread to explore and reveal how different hazards, shocks and
stresses interrelate.
• Priority 2: Align risk governance systems across the HDP nexus – to avoid one risk
management system undermining another. Take into consideration the complementarity of
risk management actions across different sectoral, spatial, temporal and hazard dimensions.
• Priority 3: Harness the multitude of financing commitments and mechanisms from across the
HDP nexus to positively exploit their added-value to pursue shared comprehensive risk
management outcomes. Jointly mobilise additional resources where required.
• Priority 4: Design and deploy flexible DRM systems and actions corresponding to the systemic,
complex and cascading nature of risks. Utilise systems, institutions and mechanisms from
across the HDP nexus to pursue disaster resilience outcomes.

7
 1. Introduction: the HDP nexus helps challenge myopic approaches
to risk
The 2022 Global Assessment Report (GAR22) (UNDRR, 2022a) warns us of the perils of
continuing to take a myopic approach to risk; risks cross boundaries (geographical, political and
sectoral), have cascading impacts, and can be systemic in nature. Our perceptions and
understanding of the interrelationships between vulnerability, exposure and hazards, need to
better reflect the complexity of current and future risk landscapes. For example, “Many fragile
and humanitarian contexts are characterized by a dangerous combination of conflict, exposure
to natural hazards and limited coping capacities…” (Mizutori, 2020). Comprehensive risk
management approaches are required; approaches which do not shy away but actively seek to
grapple with such complexity. In striving towards improved approaches to uncertainty, risk
assessments which encompass the full range of risks are required, and in seeking solutions,
‘“Science can help identify positive pathways, test options and find weak points" (UNDRR,
2022a: xiv).

Finding pathways towards disaster resilience requires avoidance of the oversimplification of

complex risk; and instead improving the way we collectively understand and act on individual
and cascading threats and hazards within and endogenous to a given system. In reality, this
means broadening the way we understand and act on the complex interplay of, for example,
natural hazards, climate variability and change, pandemic threats, violence and conflict, food
insecurity and economic fluctuations, and political change. This means harnessing the added-
value of expertise across humanitarian-development-peace (HDP) nexus, “…to address the
growing disaster and climate risks in fragile contexts … This is where the vulnerable have the
most risk of being left behind.” (UN press release, 2022).

The HDP nexus: DRR, an integral component

Operationalization of the nexus has manifest in different ways. Sector specific guidance is
available, for example, health sector guidance on the HDP nexus exists for protracted and
complex emergencies (WHO, 2021). Other examples include donors such as the European Union
(EU) developing Resilience Markers to apply to humanitarian projects to ensure interventions
help reduce risks and strengthen coping capacities (European Commission, 2021). Efforts to
strengthen the coherence and complementarity of HDP work - while continuing to respect the
sustained need for principled humanitarian action - has also led to joint horizon scanning, early
warning and risk monitoring (OECD, 2019). This has been aided by an increase of Multi Year
Humanitarian Response Plans (MYHRP), which have helped strengthen shared risk analysis,
planning and coordination of responses (UNDRR, 2021).

Integration of DRR into humanitarian action is one means to advance DRR in the HDP nexus.
UNDRR have been taking this opportunity. The report Scaling Up DRR in Humanitarian Action
(UNDRR, 2020) was developed, and subsequent Checklist for Action (UNDRR, 2021) based on
pilot testing in Bangladesh, Haiti (UNDRR, 2021b) and Pakistan (UNDRR, 2021c). Scoping is
underway to explore the feasibility of rolling-out the Checklist at the country level in South
Sudan, Madagascar, Sudan and Nigeria. Looking ahead, a mapping will be released of needs,
capacity and resources to translate guidance into reality (Debling, 2022 – forthcoming),
following the ‘Global Review of Disaster Risk Reduction / Risk in 2021 Humanitarian Needs
Overviews and Humanitarian Response Plans’ (UNDRR, 2021a).

8
Integration of DRR into humanitarian action is just one avenue to pursue. DRR is an obvious
bridge between humanitarian and development action, with DRR-related activities spanning
both domains. DRR thus also requires continued mainstreaming within development
approaches and with climate change action. This can be achieved by advancing the Guidance
Note on Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in the UN
Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework (UNDRR, 2020a). Action on comprehensive
risk management can also help in this regard. The UNFCCC’s (nd) conception of comprehensive
risk management includes many overlaps with DRR including action on extreme and slow onset
events through emergency preparedness and early warning systems, recovery and
rehabilitation, and social protection instruments.

Finally, a nascent area of work that requires redress is to connect the dots between DRR and
peace work. Consideration of the potential for DRR to harness links with those seeking peace
outcomes - within the context of the HDP nexus - aligns with the UN system’s evolution towards
prevention, peace, and a doubling down on efforts to better support transitions into and out of
crises. Building on UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres’ prevention agenda, the Grand
Bargain Commitment to Action’s New Way of Working together with the drive towards
collective outcomes has emphasised the value of working more collaboratively with the peace
cadre. Appreciating that development, peace and stability do not happen in linear pathways, the
HDP nexus agenda offers potential to help advance early warning and early response to crises –
given that “…conflict and peace are not entirely separate realities” (Mena and Hilhorst, 2021:
np).

This report contributes to deepening our collective understanding of the potential role of DRR
within the HDP nexus (for others, see Swiss NGO Platform, 2021); a gap identified as part of the
consultative processes leading up to the Mid-Term Review of the Sendai Framework.

Report parameters: positive examples of progress

Drawing on an extensive review of published material as well as insights from experts (see
acknowledgments list), this report documents examples of DRM policy, practice and financing
as it relates to the HDP nexus. This includes, DRR linked to humanitarian action, adapted to
conflict and crisis contexts, and collaborations to advance action on systemic risks. Every effort
has been made to include evidence from a broad range of risks across different geographies.

Organised around the four Sendai Framework priorities, the evidence presented is intended to
be illustrative – it does not constitute a comprehensive mapping of all DRM actions.
Furthermore the examples have not been independently evaluated and many reflect
preliminary findings, are pilots, or are exploratory in nature. We do not focus here on the
challenges and barriers to action. Readers wanting to know more are pointed elsewhere (for
example, details of the barriers to pursuing DRR outcomes in conflict and crisis settings can be
found in: Annex 1; Siddiqi and Peters, 2019; Peters et al., 2019c; Xu et al., 2016).

There is still much to be learned about what DRR in the context of the HDP nexus looks like in-
practice. The context specificities of risk settings means that the examples provided throughout
this report are not necessarily replicable in other contexts; at least, not without careful
consideration. What types of DRR actions are viable and appropriate in conflict and crisis
settings will change depending on the context (UNDRR, 2019; Peters, 2019). Hence, “…some
contexts may be conducive to greater alignment of humanitarian, development and
peacebuilding planning and programming than others” (OECD, 2019: np).

9
 2. Evidence and findings
The evidence and findings are presented below. Examples are organised under the four Sendai
Framework priorities, and presented in chronological order according to the Sendai Framework
action area that they contribute towards. Each of the Sendai Framework priorities begins with:
a warning of the limitations of failing to grapple with systemic risk or harness the potential to
work across the HDP nexus; a summary of the findings, and; a table illustrating the priority
areas where evidence has been found. Further explanatory information of key themes and
empirical examples are included in the annex.

Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk

As has been well documented, failure to grasp the multicausal drivers of vulnerability to
disaster risk leads to piecemeal understandings of disaster risk and impacts (Peters, 2019;
UNDRR, 2022a). HDP nexus approaches offer possibilities to overcome the shortfalls of such
blinkered approaches. Thus, to understand and act on the complexity of systemic risk, we must
move beyond the tendency to take a myopic approach to risk (UNDRR, 2022a). As the GAR22
makes clear, data-driven risk management systems in increasingly complex risk environments
offer a means to address this common pitfall. Furthermore, pursuing comprehensive risk
management approaches – which bring together action on DRR, climate change adaptation,
humanitarian and others, “requires fostering a risk culture based on mutual trust among
generalists, specialists and communities at risk" (UNDRR, 2022a: 8). Examples are included
below which demonstrate this – working across technical specialists in order to achieve a better
understanding of disaster risk.

This section on Sendai Framework Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk, shows the increased
consideration of violence and conflict as a driver of vulnerability to disaster risk, but also
increasingly as a hazard in itself – a societal hazard. Examples are given of enhancements in risk
analysis to better understand compound and cascading risks, and examples of NGOs integrating
conflict risk analysis into traditional disaster risk analysis tools. The section includes progress
on designing composite index, such as the DRM-FCV Vulnerability Index and new INFORM
products, and innovations in the use of mobile technologies to collect data to inform Covid-19
responses in violent and armed conflict contexts. The Comprehensive School Safety Framework
(CSSF) is another useful example provided as it originally focused solely on natural hazards and
now includes a broad range of current and emerging risks. Finally, details of new trainings on
DRR and humanitarian aid in conflict settings are highlighted, as well as Anticipatory Action in
conflict and crisis settings.

Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk, includes examples from 10 Sendai Framework priority
areas (highlighted in blue).
Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk
National and local levels
(a) dissemination of data and practical information for different categories of users
(b) strengthen baselines of disaster risks and their effects at relevant social and spatial scales
(c) develop and disseminate location-based disaster risk maps in appropriate format
(d) systematically evaluate, record and share disaster losses in order to understand impacts
(e) make disaster risk disaggregated information freely available accessible
(f) use information and communications technology innovations to enhance measurement tools and collection and analysis of data

(g) build stakeholder knowledge, including training, on DRR

10
 (h) promote dialogue and cooperation among scientific and technological and other stakeholders for effective science-policy
interface
(i) harness use of local knowledge and practice, with cross-sectoral approach
(j) enhance technical and scientific capacity to apply method and models to assess disaster risk, vulnerability and exposure
(k) promote investment in innovation and technology to address gaps
(l) incorporate disaster risk knowledge in education
(m) promote national strategies to enhance educational and awareness taking into account specific audiences and needs
(n) apply risk information to develop DRR policies
(o) enhance involvement of local stakeholders and CBOs and NGOs
Global and regional levels
(a) enhance science-based methods and tools to record and share disaster losses, strengthen disaster risk modelling, assessment,
multi-hazard EWS
(b) regional disaster risk assessments including climate change scenarios
(c) technology transfer, in situ and remote sensed earth and climate observations, big data etc.
(d) promote partnerships to share good practice
(e) support services for information exchange on good practice, cost-effective and lesson learnt
(f) regional and global DRR campaigns
(g) strengthen evidence-based scientific and technical work through networks, methodologies, standards
(h) negotiate available of copyrighted and patented materials
(i) enhance multi-hazard research

National and local levels: priority areas a-o

Sendai Framework Priority 1: Understanding disaster risk, seeks to ensure that policies and
practices for DRM are “…based on an understanding of disaster risk in all its dimensions of
vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics and the
environment” (UNDRR, 2015: 14). One advancement in pursuing a more comprehensive
understanding of systemic risk is to explore violence and conflict – specifically in relation to the
interaction with disaster risk. This has been initiated. Efforts to document and summarise the
multitude of ways conflict and violence interact with and exacerbate vulnerability to disaster
risk can be found in various ‘state of the evidence’ reports (including for example Peters et al.
(2019c) and Siddiqi and Peters (2019)). More recently, as well as conflict and violence being
elucidated as part of the vulnerability component of disaster risk (see Peters, 2019), it is being
considered as part of the hazard component. The UNDRR and ISC (2020) Hazard Definition &
Classification Review includes for example an expanded set of societal hazards such as
international armed conflict, explosive remnants of war, environmental degradation from
conflict, and violence. 1

Safely storing data is critical for developing more comprehensive understandings of risks.
However collecting, storing and accessing hazard data in contexts of sustained conflict,
particularly armed conflict, can be particularly challenging. For example, the hydrological and
meteorological data needed to identify trends, quantify climate changes, and assess forecast
accuracy is lacking in many countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region such
as Yemen, Syria and Iraq (Peters et al., 2022). Low coverage of hydrometeorological stations,
destroyed records - including from conflict damage, underinvestment in maintenance and
repair, and conflict disrupting public administration and financial management - all undermine
the feasibility of collating data required for weather and climate forecasting. That said, in recent
years Government commitments – aided by climate funds – have seen forecasting capacity for
floods and droughts improve across the region including in Tunisia, Morocco, Jordon, Lebanon
and Egypt (Peters et al., 2022). The Jordanian Meteorological Department for example draws on

1 The full list of societal hazards includes: international armed conflict, non-international armed conflict, civil unrest, explosive

remnants of war, environmental degradation from conflict, violence, stampede or crushing (human), financial shock.

11
regional and international institutions (WMO, Météo-France and the European Centre for
Medium Range Weather Forecasts) to issue forecasts (Peters, et al., 2022).

Efforts are also underway to enhance technical capacities to better understand risks beyond the
narrow focus on natural hazards (contributing to Priority 1 local/national (j) enhance technical
and scientific capacity to apply methods and models to assess disaster risk, vulnerability and
exposure). For example, when enacting DRR in humanitarian settings; “Risk analysis in contexts
of protracted conflict should deliver a deeper understanding of how a community or society has
changed and adapted in response to the pressures of conflict. It should consider the
community’s capacities and mechanisms for providing protection and meeting basic needs, and
importantly, whether they can be sustained if the conflict continues, and if they are compatible
with peace” (UNDRR, 2020: 20). Only then, is it possible to consider what actions could be
compatible with reducing risks to a range of hazards (UNDRR, 2020).

Cordaid are similarly advocating for a deeper consideration of natural hazard-related disaster
and conflict risks in risk analysis tools. Field experience led to the realisation that community-
based DRR approaches such as the Participatory Disaster Risk Analysis tool were not sufficient
to analyse conflict or conflict risks, nor to inform programme design to address conflict risks – a
concern raised repeatedly elsewhere (see Harris et al., 2013; Peters 2019). This is because
comprehensive and systematic conflict information is required to ensure a ‘no-harm’ approach
can be adopted. Based on piloting conflict risks analysis within conventional foundational DRR
assessments, Cordaid have been able to mature their DRR programme design in conflict
contexts (Loof, 2019). Cordaid’s Conflict (Risk) Analysis Tool is now adopted in DRR planning
and implementation (see Annex 3).

The conflict risk analysis described above includes consideration of climate-related conflicts,
something the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement have been exploring in detail. Building on a
series of global roundtables exploring the humanitarian implications of intersecting climate and
conflict risk (see ODI et al., 2019), the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre have developed a
series of country and regional climate factsheets for contexts affected by armed conflict. This
includes for example Colombia, Mali, Myanmar, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen and more (Climate Centre
website, 2021). Currently being updated, the factsheets have been used within the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) climate screening process to inform programming decisions
(Jaime correspondence, August 2022); demonstrating how climate-humanitarian collaborations
can help mature our collective understanding of complex risk landscapes. 2

Composite index have also started to be developed. Similarly contributing to Priority 1

local/national (j), the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) overlaid
hazard and exposure data with fragility, conflict and violence (FCV)-related spatial data to
develop a composite score of disaster and FCV risks. The Disaster-FCV Vulnerability Index
(GFDRR, 2022a) forms part of GFDRR’s Disaster Risk Management–Fragility, Conflict and
Violence (‘DRM-FCV’) Nexus programme. In time, the composite index created for South Sudan
(see Annex 4) may be replicated in other contexts and used to inform fund allocation to address
compound risks (GFDRR, 2022a).

Mobile technologies have been harnessed in complex humanitarian settings to help better
understand vulnerabilities and disaster impacts (contributing to Priority 1 local/national (f) use

2 Catalina Jaime, Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre – correspondence. August 2022.

12
information and communications technology innovations to enhance measurement tools and
collection and analysis of data). In al-Shabaab controlled rural areas of southern and central
Somalia, remote sensing technology and social media analytics combined with local partner
insights and household surveys helped document drought impacts and humanitarian needs
(UNDRR, 2019). Mobile technologies have also been used in Ebola responses in conflict settings,
which have since informed Covid-19 responses in similarly difficult operating environments.
Oxfam response teams for example used a digital tool, SurveyCTO, to systematically collate
community perceptions into a database to allow triangulation with epidata, to assess trends in
vaccination, outreach, case management etc. (Oxfam, nd). Working across the HDP nexus also
provides opportunities for enhancing data collection. Saferworld (2020b) for example describe
how peacebuilding coordination hubs became forums for rapidly assessing the impact of Covid-
19 and facilitating planning of responses.

As with the example above, where conflict and insecurity present limitations on physical access
in hazard- and conflict-prone contexts, local assets are crucial. Understanding disaster risk thus
requires deep contextual understanding of local actors, dynamics and conditions. Examples
from South Sudan and Kenya demonstrate this clearly (contributing to Priority 1 local/national
(i) harness use of local knowledge and practice, with cross-sectoral approach). In Western Bahr el
Gazal and Eastern Equatoria States of South Sudan, a project Interlinking Peacebuilding,
Decentralisation and Development saw participatory disaster risk analysis being undertaken at
the community-level with integrated conflict risk analysis. 3 This led to joint implementation of
community-based peacebuilding initiatives together with livelihood security and water
management activities (Loof, 2019). In practice this meant activities such as holding peace
conferences, creating an early warning system, constructing rainwater harvesting, and
undertaking training on conflict transformation. Water committees, DRR committees and peace
committees were also established and supported (Loof, 2019).

Linking different risk analysis, performing participatory risk analysis processes, and conducting
environmental impact assessments can be important tools for decision-making in complex risk
environments. For example, in the Ewaso Nyiro River and Tana River basins, Kenya,
participatory risk analysis formed the basis of a set of programme interventions in the arid and
semi-arid lands. Well documented conflict threat factors in the area included drought-related
movement, competition over dwindling natural resources, the influx of small arms and light
weapons particularly in the border areas with Ethiopia, Sudan and Somalia, and feelings of
marginalisation by affected groups. Only through actively linking natural hazard-related
disaster and conflict risk analysis was it possible to design appropriate interventions. This
included facilitating peace dialogues, (re)establishing peacebuilding committees and
performing peace rituals. Advocacy campaigns also took place. One example is the Camel
Caravan Campaign which targeted decision-makers and ultimately led to halting the
construction of a mega dam until more robust community engagement could take place. The
dam was predicted to decrease water flow with impacts for water-dependent livelihoods, cause
displacement and increase resource-based conflicts among pastoral communities. Following
more substantive consultations, a Memorandum of Understanding between communities and
the Government was crafted, together with a more inclusive review of an Environmental Impact
Assessment (Loof, 2019).

3 Implemented between 2013 to 2017 by VNG International, Paz and Cordaid with funding from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign

Affairs.

13
Working across the HDP nexus requires individuals to have a base level of knowledge about the
terminology, principles and concepts commonly used by humanitarians, development and peace
practitioners. In support of this, specifically tailored trainings have been developed on the HDP
nexus (contributing to Priority 1 local/national (g) build stakeholder knowledge, including
training on DRR). Examples include a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on DRR and
humanitarian aid in conflict settings (Coursera, 2022). The e-course is practitioner focused,
exploring the practicalities of humanitarian aid, DRR and disaster response in conflict contexts.
Other trainings are sector specific. For example, the WHO and Centre for Conflict and
Humanitarian Studies developed a course which describes how to implement the HDP nexus by
health professionals. Focusing on leveraging the comparative advantage of the HDP component
parts, it includes working in partnership across humanitarian, development and peace actors,
improving efficiencies, reducing service delivery gaps, and reducing duplication of efforts (WHO
and CCHS, nd). Finally, trainings focusing on specific aspects of the DRM cycle in the conflict
contexts are emerging. This includes on anticipatory action (AA) in conflict contexts by the
Anticipation Hub (nd). Two dimensions are covered (i) AA in conflict settings for climate-
related hazards, and (ii) the humanitarian consequences of conflict (Anticipation Hub, nd).

Across other sectors, more critical thinking is needed to consider the adjustments to
programming as a result of adopting a HDP nexus approach and/or embracing action on
systemic risks. The education sector provides an example of forward thinking. Detailed
consideration has been given to the types of education required in emergency programming
with complex risks and peace in mind (contributing to Priority 1 local/national (l)
incorporate disaster risk knowledge in education). The Comprehensive School Safety
Framework (CSSF) has done just this. Originally focusing on natural hazard-related disasters,
the latest CSSF 2022-2030 now includes current and emerging risks, such as Covid-19, climate
change, conflict, violence, technological threats, and everyday threats (GADRRRES, 2022).
Looking ahead, greater consideration could being given to the role of peace education in the
recovery phase and in exiting crisis situations - as an avenue to enhance empowerment and
invest in the longer-term resilience of populations. Relatedly, in support of the Transforming
Education vision statement of the UN Secretary-General, making the curriculum more relevant
for today’s world should include education on systemic risks.

Global and regional levels: priority areas a-i

There are a growing number of indices which help encourage a deeper understanding of
systemic risks, combining natural hazard-related data with data on pandemic threats, political
instability, violence and armed conflict, economic insecurity and other measures (contributing
to Priority 1 regional / global (a) enhance science-based methods and tools to record and share
disaster losses, strengthen disaster risk modelling, assessment, and multi-hazard EWS). Most
notably INFORM, a collaborative effort of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Reference
Group on Risk, Early Warning and Preparedness and the European Commission, led by the Joint
Research Center of European Commission (DRMKC, nd). INFORM shares quantitative analysis
relevant to humanitarian crises and disasters alongside its annual report (IASC and EC, 2022).
The products on offer have expanded over the years, with increasing focus on preventative and
predictive insights; in line with the Sendai Framework shift away from managing disasters to
managing risk (see Annex 5).

14
Further, in addition to the aforementioned Disaster-FCV Vulnerability Index (GFDRR, 2022a),
there are other efforts to enhance the collection and assessment of data on a range of hazards,
including societal hazards. One example is the Water, Peace and Security Partnership which has
developed a means to overlay conflict forecast maps with precipitation data to predict emerging
and ongoing conflict over the coming 12 months, to inform regional and global early warning
tools (WPS, nd.).

For many regions, employing composite index and multi-hazard risk analysis to move towards
comprehensive risk management is still some way off. The challenges of downscaling and
customising forecasts have been documented elsewhere (see Peters et al., 2022), though it is
worth noting that for some regions such as MENA, data sharing across institutions remains a
challenge, inhibiting multi-hazard risk analysis and forecasting. This has direct implications on
the feasibility of enacting early warning systems. Further limitations are apparent when looking
beyond the focus on meteorological and hydrological hazards (which dominate); “even if they
[multi-hazard early warning systems] are ‘multi’-hazard, they largely concentrate on a narrow
hazard cluster and tend not to include biological or societal hazards. Momentum is growing for
enhancing the recognition of conflict in AA in the humanitarian community, but conflict analysis
is a still a major shortcoming in AA and predicting conflict and its effects remains a challenge”
(Peters et al., 2022: 5). Thus for some risks – such as conflict, the feasibility of developing
predictive measures may be methodologically unviable.

There remains much that can be done to enhance risk analytics in support of a deeper
understanding of systemic and cascading risk, and to provide a foundation stone for HDP nexus
action. A significant contribution to enhancing the data ecosystem for risk is the Complex Risk
Analytics Fund (CRAF’d), “…a multilateral financing instrument aiming to support a more
collaborative data ecosystem and enhance data capabilities to better anticipate, prevent and
respond to complex risks in fragile and crisis-affected settings” (CRAF’d, 2021). CRAF’d aims to
fundraise $15-25 million in investment to tackle the well documented frustration that data on
disaster risks and impacts in complex and crisis settings are lacking (see Peters and Budimir,
2016; Peters, 2019). If successful, CRAF’d will contribute to: real-time, high-resolution data on
complex risks; predictive models, including the integration of insights from social media, and;
standards and guidelines for responsible use of data and interoperability across the data
ecosystem (CRAF’d, 2021).

Aforementioned efforts to integrate climate risks and impacts into humanitarian action are
worth reiterating under this subsection as they contribute to various Sendai Framework
priority areas. As well as national factsheets, the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre
developed regional climate factsheets for the Americas, Eurasia, Middle East, Asia Pacific and
Central Asia (Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre, 2021) (contributing to Priority 1 regional /
global (b) regional disaster risk assessments including climate change scenarios). These are
currently being used within the ICRC screening process, and are being updated to reflect the
latest climate insights, with adapted versions to reflect the IFRC mandate. 4 The Climate Centre –
ICRC partnership is one of a number that helps inform action on natural hazards - including
those that are climate-related, in conflict contexts.

4 Catalina Jaime, Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre – correspondence. August 2022.

15
Important collaborations across the HDP nexus are emerging which are proving effective at
strengthening partnerships across previously disparate expert groups, and in enhancing
technical and analytical capabilities to pursue comprehensive risk management approaches.
Most notably, the Climate Security Mechanism (contributing to Priority 1 regional / global (d)
promote partnerships to share good practice). The Mechanism, established in 2018, brings
together climate change, peace and security expertise through a collaboration between the UN
Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), UN Development Programme (UNDP)
and UN Environment Programme (UNEP) (DPPA, nd). Aiming to address climate-related
security risks more systematically throughout the UN, the initiative – though rarely using the
language of disasters or DRR – helps support a deeper appreciation of complex and cascading
risks. It does so through climate security risk assessments which inform risk management
strategies, and most visibly its UN Community of Practice on Climate Security with over 300
partners (DPPA, nd). The mechanism has trained analysts on integrated climate security risk
measures, supported 18 UN Country Teams to include climate security risks into strategic
planning processes, and established a climate security toolbox (CSM, 2021).

Other initiatives using the framing of climate security, but invariably exploring climate-related
disaster risks in conflict contexts, are the Planetary Security Initiative whose recent publication
of climate security practices includes weather index insurance as an example (von Lossow et al.,
2021). 5 Similarly, the World Climate and Security Report 2021 makes several references to HDP
nexus action as an avenue for addressing climate security risks; “Reducing climate-related
security risks in theory therefore requires multiple different actors across many fields, to
include peacebuilding, mediation, disaster preparedness, climate adaptation and climate
mitigation “ (ICCMS, 2021: 28).

There also exist a number of networks and working groups whose efforts are helping to deepen
our collective understanding of complex risks and their impacts on specific sub-sets of society
(contributing to Priority 1 regional / global (g) strengthen evidence-based scientific and technical
work through networks, methodologies, standards). The multi-agency Disaster Displacement
Working Group based in Bangkok in one example. The group have sought to nuance the
evidence-base on multiple, repeated and protracted disaster displacements and their
intersection with conditions of violence and armed conflict – not least because of member
agency’s experiences of responding to the Rohingya crisis on the Myanmar/Bangladesh border
(Peters and Lovell, 2020).

Finally, innovative collaborations across the HDP nexus have helped reveal previously
unassessed risk factors which result from programme interventions. A useful example of this is
the World Food Programme’s (WFP) collaboration with the conflict specialists Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). Together they have undertaken research to
understand whether WFP programming “…has had an identifiable effect in exacerbating conflict
or increasing the risk of conflict. The results are mixed, and there are some instances of WFP
programming having a marginal negative effect or risking one” (Delago et al., 2019).
Collaborations and research such as this are necessary if agencies are to better understand their
own impact on patterns of risk; and to fulfil the commitments of the 2016 UN Peace Promise
(Delago et al., 2019).

5 https://www.planetarysecurityinitiative.org/

16
Priority 2: Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk
As risk is not created in neat sectoral or hazard-based siloes, the governance of disaster risk
similarly cannot be compartmentalised – as this leaves open the possibility for negative
unintended impacts and setbacks by one risk management system on another. To address
systemic risk, we need to transform our structures of risk governance (UNDRR, 2022a).
Furthermore, the complexity of today's risk landscape necessitates institutional cultures which
are comfortable with uncertainty, acknowledging that a range of outcomes are possible
(UNDRR, 2022a). Systemic risk points planners "…to consider “baskets” of possible outcomes, to
be more agile in identifying when changes in assumptions are needed, and to respond to those
changes actively" (UNDRR, 2022a: 202).

This section on Sendai Framework Priority 2: Strengthen disaster risk governance to manage
disaster risk, provides evidence of national and regional DRR strategies and plans citing the role
of societal hazards in increasing disaster risk - as in the African regional strategy, and in the
intention to pursue dual outcomes for peace and disaster resilience. Examples are provided of
local-level disaster risk governance initiatives enhancing community solidarity and trust in
Afghanistan. Relatedly, the growing interest in environmental peacebuilding offers new insight
into possibilities for enhancing peace outcomes through natural resource management – which
is inextricably linked to DRR in many contexts. At the regional level, examples are provided of
climate security-orientated initiatives having relevance for disaster governance in the Sahel and
Caribbean, in their linking of resilience, stabilisation and recovery.

Priority 2: Strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk, includes examples from 6
Sendai Framework priority areas (highlighted in blue).
Priority 2: Strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk
National and local levels
(a) mainstream DRR across all sectors
(b) implement national and local DRR strategies and plans
(c) assess technical, financial and administrative DRM capacity
(d) ensure compliant, sectoral lases, regulations and codes
(e) periodically assess progress on national and local plans
(f) assign community representatives within DRM institutions and processes and ensure consultations
(g) strengthen government coordination forums, including national and local platforms
(h) empower local authorities through regulatory and financial means
(i) encourage parliamentarians to support implementation of DRR via legalisation and budget allocation
(j) promote quality standards
(k) formulate public policies to address prevention, relocation, of disaster-risk prone zones
Global and regional levels
(a) regional and subregional strategies and mechanisms
(b) cooperation through global and regional mechanisms and institutions
(c) engage in Global Platform and regional and subregional platforms to share practice and forge partnerships
(d) promote transboundary cooperation with regard to shared resources
(e) promote multi-lateral learning and exchange of good practice through peer review
(f) promote international voluntary mechanisms for monitoring and assessment of action

National and local levels: priority areas a-k

Sendai Framework Priority 2: Strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk, aims
to ensure mechanisms and institutions are in place for the implementation of instruments
relevant to DRR. In practice, attention tends to focus on designing and implementing national
and sub-national DRR strategies and plans, with a focus on natural hazards (contributing to
Priority 2 local / national (b) implement national and local DRR strategies and plans). In an effort

17
to situate DRR strategies and plans in the systemic risk context in which they are expected to be
actioned, the GAR19 for the first time included an entire chapter on DRR strategies in fragile and
complex risk contexts (UNDRR, 2019). The chapter was informed by a range of examples
demonstrating just how differently national and local DRR strategies deal with issues of conflict
and violence (Peters et al., 2019d; Hilhorst et al., 2019). Findings from a review of Afghanistan,
Chad, Colombia, Haiti and Liberia have been mixed (Peters et al., 2019d). For example, Colombia
has relatively mature DRM institutions and architecture but for various political reasons the
national DRR strategy does not discuss the role of armed conflict in increasing individuals
vulnerabilities to disaster risk (Siddiqi et al., 2019). Lebanon on the other hand includes a broad
range of hazards and threats under one policy framework, including earthquake, flood, and fire,
as well as societal hazards such as conflict (Peters et al., 2019b). More recently, questions have
been posed about whether conventional and somewhat formulaic approaches to crafting
national and sub-national DRR strategies are appropriate for countries with significant political
instability and/or protracted conflict - as in Chad - and whether more flexibility is required in
what constitutes a DRR strategy (see Peters et al., 2019a).

There exist a number of national strategies which explicitly and implicitly recognise the
systemic nature of risk. In 2017, Afghanistan undertook a multi-hazard risk assessment to
inform the development of the National Strategy on Disaster Risk Reduction. The strategy
subsequently noted that decades of conflict have undermined local to national coping
mechanisms, and identified conflict as a driving factor of degraded infrastructure and public
service delivery (UNDRR, 2019). In another example, the Central African Republic’s draft
national strategy took the implications of the political crisis into account and explicitly
discussed armed conflict (UNDRR, 2019). Iraq also provides a useful example. The National
Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy includes a description of the security context and
acknowledges that communities at higher risk of disasters are those in areas affected by
insecurity. The strategy also describes a range of programmes and plans to increase societal
resilience by tackling disaster risk and cascading impacts (UNDRR, 2019). It also described the
ambition to address not only risks from floods and drought but also toxic and non-toxic
remnants of war – which can create health risks and hamper basic service delivery (UNDRR,
2019).

In line with HDP approaches, the GAR19 suggested that, “National and regional DRR policies
across contexts must formally and explicitly recognize the interlinked risks of disasters, conflict
and displacement with an eye to present and future conditions. Both current, and a range of
likely future, conditions, should inform the design of immediate humanitarian and long-term
development strategies” (UNDRR, 2019: 418). A year on, this message is reemphasised in the
context of advancing DRR in humanitarian settings with the call to; “Create legislation and plans
which include provisions for both climate and pandemic-related risks as well as conflict related
shocks and stresses. In some countries, laws governing response to man-made hazards are
separate from those for natural hazards with weak linkages between them, leading to confusion
on roles and responsibilities. …[risk analysis] should identify overlaps between the two, which
should feed into the drafting of legislation” (UNDRR, 2020: 21). Thus further work is required to
better understand how to design, fund, implement and monitor, national and local DRR policies
and strategies that adopt a comprehensive risk management approach and in doing so grapple
with the complexity of governing systemic risk.

18
At the local level, the challenges of disaster risk governance can be quite different. The skillsets
commonly found within the peace cadre can be critical for navigating and securing local buy-in
for DRR interventions, and when utilised effectively can have positive effects on societal
cohesion. For example, a northern Afghanistan DRR reforestation project aimed to reduce the
risk of landslides from earthquakes and reduce water flow from rain and snowmelt; and in turn
reduce river flow and flooding risk. Tensions over land ownership, land use and job
opportunities related to project implementation lead to the termination of the project (Mena
and Hilhorst, 2020). In another Afghan example from Badakhshan province, a DRR project
intended to build retention walls and protection walls along river banks to reduce flood risk.
The specific location of the mitigation infrastructure caused disputes between communities, as
did questions over who would benefit from employment opportunities in the construction of
the flood-prevention measures (Mena and Hilhorst, 2020). It was learnt that in such cases, it is
necessary to make consultation processes and forms of mediation an integral component of
project implementation (contributing to Priority 2 local / national (f) assign community
representatives within DRM institutions and processes and ensure consultations). Afghan staff
highly experienced in managing local tensions and averting the risk of conflict escalation were
invaluable to the consultation process in the design phase of the project. In some instances
social cohesion may have been strengthened as a result of the DRR interventions, owing to those
mediation and collaboration efforts (Mena and Hilhorst, 2020).

More recently, there is evidence of DRR interventions adopting tools traditionally in the domain
of conflict and peace experts. Some DRR teams are more systematically adopting ‘do no harm’
and conflict-sensitive approaches in conflict contexts, and even integrating aspects of conflict
prevention alongside risk reduction ambitions (Mena and Hilhorst, 2020). In an Afghan
Resilience Consortium project on ecosystem-based DRR involving natural resource
management strategies and reforestation, conflict sensitivity approaches have been integrated
into project log frames, despite not being a donor requirement (Mena and Hilhorst, 2020).

Finally, as a contributions to the HDP nexus, ensuring community governance mechanisms form
part of disaster risk governance implementation processes have been shown to enhance
community solidarity and mutual trust – important components of peaceful relations
(contributing to Priority 2 local / national (f) assign community representatives within DRM
institutions and processes and ensure consultations). In the Project for City Resilience
implemented by UN-Habitat, small-scale block grants were offered to implement community
resilience action plans in Afghanistan. The grants funded physical assets such as infrastructure
as well as awareness raising and education activities. Pertinent to this topic, it also included
efforts to enhance social capital through community-led development and monitoring of the
action plans, and in turn enhancement of community solidarity and trust. This was achieved by
mobilising a community governance body responsible for fund management - with training for
members on project management, finance and procurement and social audits (Takabayashi,
2019).

Global and regional levels: priority areas a-f

Disaster risk governance strategies and plans of action at the regional level - particularly in
Africa - provide useful illustrations of linking risks and impacts across the HDP nexus
(contributing to Priority 2 regional / global (a) regional and subregional strategies and
mechanisms). From the onset of its first African Regional Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction

19
2005-2009, the region made clear that “…disaster risk results from the interaction between
natural, technological or conflict induced hazards and vulnerability conditions… and states that
conflicts can increase the risk of natural hazard related disaster, and that disasters can influence
the form, onset and intensity of conflict” (Peters, 2019: 22). Recognition of a symbiotic
relationship continues to current day with the African Union Programme of Action 2015-2030
urging there to be “Enhanced mutual reduction of disaster risk, fragility and conflict” (Peters,
2019: 22). There are also examples of sub-regional entities recognising the links between
multiple hazards. As the East African Community (EAC) Disaster Risk Reduction and
Management Strategy 2012-2016 coneys, “…it is understood that disaster risks result from the
interaction among natural, technological or conflict induced hazards and vulnerability
conditions’ (EAC Secretariat, 2012: 9)” (Peters, 2019:22).

Across other regions inclusion is slight, though it is worth noting that the Asia Regional Plan for
Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2020 makes
valuable note of the need to ensure the adoption of gender-sensitive approaches to support the
“…prevention and response to gender-based violence” (Peters, 2019: 22). Relatedly, the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Gender Strategy and Action Plan
(GSAP) aims to ensure adoption of a gender-sensitive approach to all aspects of disaster risk
reduction, noting that “…gender-blind approaches to post-disaster relief and recovery can
reinforce inequalities …and have the potential to transform power relations” (AU and UNDP,
2022 – forthcoming).

Beyond the regional strategies crafted to specifically address DRR and support delivery of the
Sendai Framework, a number of regional initiatives framed around climate security exist, and
bear relevance. One example is the Plan of Action on Resilience in the Caribbean chaperoned by
the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA) supported, among others, by
the Planetary Security Initiative (2019). Alongside knowledge sharing, alignment of activities on
water, food and energy, and enhancing networks on resilience, the initiative aims to strengthen
the integration of DRR and climate change adaptation. Agreement was also made to advance a
number of areas of work related to climate and security including for example to: strengthen
capacity and knowledge of Caribbean small island developing states on climate and security;
strengthen regional coordination in support of humanitarian crises (contributing to Priority 2
regional / global (b) cooperation through global and regional mechanisms and institutions, and
Priority 4 regional / global (a) coordinated regional approach to prepare for and respond to
disasters that exceed national capacity); advocate for stronger political support for the Regional
Climate and Security Agenda (Planetary Security Initiative, 2019).

There are similar examples from Africa wherein climate and security focused initiatives have
devised regional strategies and action plans to support a range of outcomes across the HDP
nexus including poverty reduction, risk-informed development, stabilisation and peace (AU and
UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming). The Lake Chad region is notable given the plethora of such
documents – including but not limited to a number of major initiatives by the G7 and partners. A
comprehensive mapping of such initiatives and plans (see AU and UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming)
details for example: the Lake Chad Basin Commission’s 2015 Lake Chad Development and
Climate Resilience Action Plan; the African Union’s 2018 Regional Strategy for Stabilisation,
Recovery and Resilience and; the 2018 UN OCHA and UNDP Resilience for Sustainable
Development in the Lake Chad Basin. Though the potential for utilising such commitments to
enhance national and regional disaster risk governance institutions and strategies are woefully

20
underexplored, each supports different aspects of disasters resilience and recovery relating to
climate impacts, security and peace, and human mobility (AU and UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming).

Deeper understanding of the way different risks are governed, in conjunction with the systemic
risk landscape of a locale, has become necessary for advancing various aspects of the DRM cycle.
This is illustrated using the example of WFP’s work in the MENA region (contributing to Priority
2 regional / global (b) cooperation through global and regional mechanisms and institutions).
WFP have supported a mapping of the institutional and policy environment for anticipatory
actions across a range of hazards in the region. The mapping represents a baseline of
experiences and capacities – the first of its kind, and notes the additional challenges presented
by a number of co-existing risks including armed conflict, political upheaval and sub-national
conflict (Peters et al., 2022). The findings indicate that “Conflict contexts in the region present
additional challenges to advancing AA, particularly as many institutions and systems that
provide a critical basis for AA have been significantly weakened by protracted conflict, political
change or contestation. Some progress has been made to integrate elements of AA into
humanitarian response planning” (Peters et al., 2022: 6). This is the case in Yemen for example
where sub-national conflicts present significant barriers to sustaining or maturing the disaster
risk governance landscape. The report itself represents significant advancement in thinking on
AA in the region, and its launch in 2022 was accompanied by the establishment of a MENA
Anticipatory Action Regional Community of Practice instigated by IFRC and WFP (IFRC, 2022).

As with the illustration above, regional platforms and mechanisms represent important spaces
for sharing knowledge, forming coalitions, and collaborative advocacy to increase awareness
and commitment to the additional challenges presented by conditions of compound and
cascading risks – and more recently on the contribution of DRR in the HDP nexus (contributing
to Priority 2 regional / global (c) engage in Global Platform and regional and subregional
platforms to share practice and forge partnerships). UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina
Mohammed remarked that she was “…pleased to see increasing collaboration between United
Nations agencies to address the growing disaster and climate risks in fragile contexts and to
strengthen the humanitarian-development-peace nexus” (UN press release, 2022). Similarly,
the Co-Chair’s Summary of the 2022 Global Platform in Bali, Indonesia, stressed that “Disaster
risk reduction should be integrated into the humanitarian-development-peace nexus to
overcome the protracted and recurrent nature of crises and strengthen local and global food
security. Countries affected by conflict and humanitarian crises warrant greater attention”
(UNDRR, 2022: 6).

To achieve this change in practice, new initiatives such as the launch of a Centre of Excellence
for Climate and Disaster Resilience within UNDRR represent a collective effort to scale-up
climate and disaster risk management in highly vulnerable and fragile contexts (UNDRR, 2022).
As documented elsewhere (see Peters, 2019), employing language related to conflict within the
DRR convening spaces is not commonplace. It results from a collective and sustained effort on
the part of many champions of the DRR-conflict nexus agenda - particularly ODI, GFDRR and
various NGOs - to encourage recognition of the additional complexities that violence and conflict
present to achieving DRR outcomes. Historically, the topic has been showcased in the margins of
the regional and global events - in side events and IGNITE stage presentation. Interest and
visibility for the topic has gown, with a dedicated Spotlight Session on Scaling Up Disaster Risk
Reduction in Fragile and Conflict Contexts at the 2022 Asia Pacific Ministerial Conference on
Disaster Risk Reduction. One of the critical factors enabling greater visibility to the topic in DRR

21
convening spaces has been the support from UN Assistant Secretary-General and Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction in the United Nations Office
for Disaster Risk Reduction, Ms Mami Mizutori. This includes for example, sharing her thoughts
through various platforms including the ODI podcast series When Disasters and Conflict
Collide. 6

Understanding progress on DRR in the HDP nexus also requires us to look beyond the DRR
sphere. A complementary sphere of work is environmental peacebuilding. In 2022, renewed
focus on the value-added of environmental peacebuilding – defined as an approach that
“…integrates natural resource management in conflict prevention, mitigation, resolution, and
recovery to build resilience in communities affected by conflict” (Brown and Nicolucci-Altman,
2022: 11) – was consolidated in the form of a White Paper on the Future of Environmental
Peacebuilding (Brown and Nicolucci-Altman, 2022). Though the contribution of DRR to the
agenda remains exploratory (see Bollettino and Darwish, 2022), it forms part of a broader
interest to understand the role of DRR in the context of the sustainability-peace nexus (see
Peters and Peters, 2021).

Relatedly the Environmental Peacebuilding Association (EnPAx) convenes an Interest Group on

Disaster and Resilience (contributing to Priority 2 regional / global (b) cooperation through
global and regional mechanisms and institutions). 7 Though not currently systematically collated
or analysed, there are examples of environmental-DRR interventions in crisis and conflict
settings which contribute to this agenda (contributing to Priority 2 regional / global (d) promote
transboundary cooperation with regard to shared resources). One is EcoPeace Middle East Good
Water Neighbours project. The project brings together Mayors from Israeli, Palestinian and
Jordanian towns, fostering cooperation through shared water resources (von Lossow et al.,
2021). This includes: connecting Palestinian sewage networks to Israeli networks to reduce
wastewater pollution; constructing a decentralised wastewater treatment plant near Bethlehem
enabling female agricultural workers to prevent pollution of shared underground resources,
and; installing greywater treatment systems in Jordan to reduce environmental pollution. By
focusing specifically on communities dependent on transboundary rivers, environmental entry
points for peacebuilding are exploited (von Lossow et al., 2021).

Another example is the 3S Initiative (sustainability, stability and security), an

intergovernmental initiative aiming “…to address the root causes of instability in Africa,
particularly migration and conflict related to land and resource degradation” (van Schaik et al.,
2019: 20). Through investments in natural resource governance in post-conflict recovery
settings, ambitions include sustainable land practices, displacement prevention through
disaster preparedness, and enhanced governance in order to reduce grievances which can
create or escalate conflict (von Lossow et al., 2019). A plethora of other initiatives exist, such as
the Great Green Wall, Bonn Challenge on landscape restoration, New York Declaration on
Forests and the AFR100 Initiative aiming to restore 100 million hectares of forest and degraded
lands (van Schaik et al., 2019; AU and UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming).

In the final example of this subsection, transboundary cooperation on DRM can be an avenue for
regional cooperation, even in the context of geopolitical tensions and political disagreements
(contributing to Priority 2 regional / global (d) promote transboundary cooperation with regard

6 ODI podcast series ‘When disasters and conflict collide’ (https://odi.org/en/insights/multimedia/podcast-series-when-disasters-

and-conflict-collide/#:~:text='When%20disasters%20and%20conflict%20collide,but%20also%20contribute%20to%20peace)
7 https://environmentalpeacebuilding.org

22
to shared resources). Take the example of the Hindu Kush Himalayan mountains - home to 10
major river systems servicing 1.4 billion people. The International Centre for Integrated
Mountain Development (ICIMOD) have facilitated data and information sharing through
regional and national flood information systems. This has subsequently aided the design and
implementation of risk reduction measures for floods, droughts and land erosion (van Schaik et
al., 2019). ICIMOD found “…that governments can and will collaborate on science and
development issues, even when political negotiations are difficult. This is partly because these
governments increasingly realize that the risks require a joint development of resilience and
adaptation strategies including disaster risk reduction, information sharing and regional water
management between border communities” (van Schaik et al., 2019: 21). Extrapolating from
this example – and many others world over, the governance of transboundary risks may
therefore be viable even when other humanitarian, development or peace-related objectives
may be politically unfeasible.

Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience

If we are to deepen our understanding of the complexity of systemic risk (Priority 1), and
pursue comprehensive approaches to risk management through transformed disaster risk
governance approaches (Priority 2), then it follows that financial systems will also need to be
reconfigured to work across silos (UNDRR, 2022a). Previous efforts to elucidate the gaps and
areas of overlap in the context of financing emergency preparedness, for example, reveal how
taking the full suite of available finance - including but not limited to national and international,
development, humanitarian, climate and peace funds - could offer means to enhance the
complementarity of different funding streams for similar goals (Kellett and Peters, 2013).
Working across the HDP nexus offers potential to move towards a reconfigured financial
architecture that has the capability to advance comprehensive risk management approaches in
the context of systemic risk.

This section on Sendai Framework Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience,
provides examples of the nascent funds dedicated to pursuing DRR outcomes in crisis and
conflict contexts. The most notable example is GFDRR’s DRM-FCV Nexus programme, while
Agence Française de Développement (AFD) have commissioned an internal review to identify
barriers and incentives to enhance financing for DRR in conflict settings. Evidence of adapted
financing mechanisms and models are provided which offer opportunity to scale-up
preventative and early action to address complex risks, such as anticipatory action, forecast-
based finance, and crisis modifiers. This section also includes illustrations of more flexibility in
the use of programme budgets being permitted by donors to adapt programming priorities in
response to changing risk contexts, as in Somalia. While internally, illustrations are provided of
donors encouraging more connections between their DRR and peace and conflict cadre. There is
also a wealth of evidence on dealing with Covid-19 in settings of armed conflict and insecurity,
including the potential to utilise peacebuilding hubs for data collection and response. Finally,
examples of adapted social safety net and social protection mechanisms are provided to
elucidate the opportunities such innovations provide to dealing with multiple shocks and
stressors.

Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, includes examples from 6 Sendai
Framework priority areas (highlighted in blue).
Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience
National and local levels

23
 (a) allocate financial and logistical resources to all levels of administration to implement DRR
(b) promote mechanisms for disaster risk transfer and insurance
(c) strengthen public and private investments in critical facilities and infrastructure
(d) protect cultural institutions and sites
(e) create resilient workplaces through structural and non-structural measures
(f) promote disaster risk assessment into land use policy
(g) promote disaster risk assessment and management into rural development planning
(h) building codes and standards created and enforced
(i) enhance national health systems resilience
(j) strengthen social safety-net mechanisms
(k) inclusion of people with life-threatening and chronic disease to be included
(l) policies and programme to address disaster-induced human mobility
(m) integrate DRR into financial and fiscal instruments
(n) sustainable use and management of ecosystems and implement environmental and DRM approaches that incorporate DRR
(o) increase business resilience and livelihood protection
(p) strengthening of livelihoods and protective assets
(q) integrate DRM within tourism industry
Global and regional levels
(a) promote coherence across sustainable development and DRR
(b) promote disaster risk transfer and sharing mechanisms and instruments within international community
(c) promote cooperation between academic, scientific, and research entities and private sector to develop new products and
services
(d) encourage coordination between global and regional financial institutions to assess and anticipate economic and social
impacts of disasters
(e) enhance cooperation between health authorities to implement International Health Regulations (2005)
(f) collaboration and capacity-building for protection of productive assets
(g) social safety net development
(h) broaden international effort to eradicate hunger and poverty through DRR
(i) enhance collaboration of public and private stakeholders to enhance business resilience

National and local levels: priority areas a-q

Sendai Framework Priority 3: Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience, aims to ensure
structural and non-structural measures are in place to pursue DRR outcomes, through sustained
public and private investment. A recent review of selected government donors and
development finance institutions found positive progress in specifically dedicating funds to
address one aspect of the HDP nexus - natural hazard-related disaster risk including climate-
related risks, in contexts affected by violence and conflict (see Peters, 2022). In terms of volume
of funds specifically dedicated to DRR in conflict contexts, GFDRR and Germany are most
notable with their support to the DRM-FCV Nexus programme (GFDRR, 2020). Under the Nexus
programme, US $47.5 million grant commitments have been dedicated across 35 conflict-
affected countries from FY16-FY20.

A number of donors have also sought to integrate DRR within their humanitarian and other
portfolios, contributing directly and indirectly to HDP nexus approaches – whether labelled as
such or not. For example, Germany and Switzerland have taken great strides in integrating DRR
across sector portfolios including humanitarian interventions, conflict prevention, and
peacebuilding. AFD on the other hand have undertaken internal reviews to scope options for
enhancing investments on climate and disaster risk in conflict and crisis contexts (see Annex 6).

A number of different financial arrangements offer potential to advance DRR in the context of
the HDP nexus (contributing to Priority 3 local / national (a) allocate financial and logistical
resources to all levels of administration to implement DRR). This includes, but is not limited to:

24
• Anticipatory Action – “a set of planned and pre-financed measures taken when a disaster is
imminent, prior to a shock or before acute impacts are felt” (Wilkinson et al., 2020: 2).
Recent baseline studies of AA in the MENA region (Peters et al., 2022) reveal the potential to
scale-up action in crisis settings, and in conflict and post conflict contexts.
• Forecast-based finance – wherein funds are automatically allocated when a pre-defined
threshold is reached to enable early action prior to a disaster (German Red Cross, nd).
• Crisis modifiers – pre-agreed deployment of humanitarian and/or development funding
specifically designated to protect longer-term resilience investments in the event of a crisis
(see Peters and Pichon, 2017).

In addition, numerous studies have considered the validity and viability of financing
anticipatory actions from humanitarian funds, such as the UN Central Emergency Response
Fund (CERF) (see Pichon, 2019). This has been taken forward in regards to drought in Somalia
and Ethiopia. In April 2021, forecasts of unusually dry conditions triggered the release of CERF
funds to take preventative action against the risk of food insecurity (CERF, 2021). The Start
Fund has also been active with its anticipation window being deployed in Iraq, Lebanon and
Morocco to respond to upsurge in displacement (Start Network, 2021).

Work has also been undertaken to explore the potential for AA to reduce disaster risks amidst
conflict in Palestine and Sudan (see Weegmann, 2021). Interestingly for this report’s
consideration of DRR in the HDP nexus, it is find that AA, “Whilst potentially a valuable tool …
does not tackle the underlying vulnerabilities that remain present in the affected communities.
It can therefore not replace more holistic efforts of sustainable development and peacebuilding
which would deliver a more enduring risk reduction activity” (Weegmann, 2021: 2).

Relatedly, calls to scale up investment of climate adaptation funds in conflict and post-conflict
contexts are also becoming more visible, as are demands for climate programming to be
conflict-sensitive when being programmed in conflict and post-conflict settings (Cao et al.,
2021). Multilateral climate funds have already been supporting weather forecasting and Early
Warning System development in Sudan for example (Peters et al., 2022).

At the sub-national level, future HDP nexus action may want to consider the value of adaptive
programming approaches which have proven useful for undertaking climate and disaster
resilience activities in changeable crisis and conflict settings. For example, in Somalia armed
group and clan violence combined with drought and flood-related disasters prompted the need
for flexible programme budgets. When the security situation escalated, adjustments to the
budgetary allocations for line items were needed to reflect changes to programming priorities
(UNDRR, 2019). In complement, having target ranges for what constitutes a successful
programme – rather than fixed targets – could offer scope to continue operations under more
flexible conditions when conflict escalates (UNDRR, 2019). For alternative examples from the
Building Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters (BRACED) programme,
see Neaverson et al., (2019).

Broadly speaking, there is evidence of government budget allocations to DRR and crisis
response in contexts typically classified as conflict or post-conflict, though risk management and
preparedness systems in-practice remain largely underfunded – this is certainly the case in the
MENA region for example (Peters et al., 2022). Across the region, contingency funds are rare
and mostly ex-post. There is evidence however of humanitarian response funds providing a
backstop function; “…crisis response plans and pooled funds are supporting ongoing

25
humanitarian responses. In part, these mechanisms provide the flexibility to respond to sudden
onset disasters within a larger crisis situation” (Peters et al., 2022: 38). One example is the UN
Population Fund (UNFPA), WFP and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) rapid response
mechanism in Yemen which provides support to displaced populations, resulting from natural
hazard-related disasters, conflict and other shocks. In many instances, recipient households are
facing multiple concurrent shocks. For example, in 2020, 22% of recipient households were also
affected by floods (Peters et al., 2022).

Attempts to better understand the multidimensional nature of vulnerability and risk have been
ongoing, with a view to supporting governments to prioritise funds for infrastructural
investments (contributing to Priority 3 local / national (c) strengthen public and private
investments in critical facilities and infrastructure). GFDRR for instance supported the
development of detailed vulnerability maps of Maputo, Mozambique. In order to identify the
most vulnerable and disadvantaged neighbourhoods, data on flood risk, poverty, urban crime,
gender-based violence, climate change and access to infrastructure, were combined using
multiple geospatial layers. The findings helped inform the government’s funding decisions
(GFDRR, 2022b).

The remainder of this subsection explores Covid-19 in the context of systemic risk, before
closing with consideration of social safety-net and social protection mechanisms. The onset of
the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 exposed the heightened vulnerability of populations contending
with multiple concurrent risks and impacts, not least in contexts with long-term
underinvestment in public and private health systems. Countries world over had to deal with
the complicating and compounding factor of Covid-19 in addition to natural hazards, biological
and technological hazards, violence and conflict, climate variability and change, economic
downturn and multiple other pre-existing shocks and stressors. Much has been written on the
challenges of responding to Covid-19 in complex risk environments, and of the way pre-existing
social and political conflicts shaped responses (Hilhorst and Mena, 2021). While UN Secretary-
General António Guterres Appeal for Global Ceasefire opened space for humanitarian responses
in some contexts, new patterns of conflict and violence emerged in others. New tensions arose
as a result of government choices related to lockdowns and measures aiming - or claiming - to
curb the spread of infection.

Disaster risk managers have experience of the intersection of violent conflict and spread of
infectious diseases, having dealt with Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), polio in
Syria and cholera in Yemen, among others. Displaced populations have been particularly
affected, with 364 disease outbreaks reported across 108 refugee camps between 2009-2017
(Bousquet and Fernandez-Taranco, nd). As responses to Covid-19 are ongoing, so too is
research on their effectiveness. In terms of financial support, it is worth mentioning the UN
Covid-19 Global Humanitarian Response Plan and UN Covid-19 Response and Recovery Fund
which provides support to low and middle-income countries to address the health crisis, and
the UN Secretary General’s Peacebuilding Fund which provides support to address conflict risks
exacerbated by the pandemic (Bousquet and Fernandez-Taranco, nd) (contributing to Priority 3
local / national (i) enhance national health systems resilience).

A wealth of guidance on responding to Covid-19 in complex operating environments has

emerged. The World Bank for example supported a number of response measures, with
important learnings for understanding systemic risk:

26
• Covid-19 and response measures will interact with pre-existing vulnerabilities and
exclusions – particularly affecting displaced, refugees and minorities. Initiatives such as the
Refugee and Host Communities Support Project in Niger supported women’s groups and
local social networks to enhance inclusion of local stakeholders in pandemic response
measures (Bousquet and Fernandez-Taranco, nd).
• Equitable service delivery and ensuring equal access to health services can help reduce the
risk of grievances which can undermine people’s trust of the state and local authorities.
Addressing pre-existing grievances and trust building was part of a Community Resilience
Initiative alongside health interventions in the Ebola response in eastern DRC (Bousquet
and Fernandez-Taranco, nd).
• Working across the HDP nexus is necessary in conflict contexts where Covid-19 necessitates
immediate health responses while ineffectual governance arrangements undermine longer-
term peace prospects. One example of a multipronged response is the US $26.9 million
World Bank grant in Yemen which couples the WHO response to Covid-19 with joint UN and
other multilateral and bilateral partner responses to reduce conflict risks, sustain peace and
safeguard health systems (Bousquet and Fernandez-Taranco, nd).

From a HDP nexus perspective, responding to Covid-19 in complex humanitarian settings

warrants tailored approaches relevant to contextual specificities. Finding that initial Covid-19
guidance focused on high-income countries with relatively well-functioning national health
system capacity, or a broad single category of humanitarian settings, the
www.covid19humanitarian.com website was established to host guidance documents which
offer support to respond to a wider range of contexts – including low income and crisis settings
(contributing to Priority 3 local / national (i) enhance national health systems resilience). With
over 135 guidance documents, largely populated by the UN, WHO and UNICEF, the site aims to
better inform responses in crises and conflict settings (Singh et al., 2020). The examples of
triage and sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) (see Annex 7) provide clear illustrations of
how standardised approaches to deal with pandemic threats in crisis settings are not
necessarily appropriate and could do more harm than good.

An HDP nexus approach to biological disasters has been emerging through the application of
conflict sensitive approaches to Covid-19 responses and new partnerships between response
agencies and peace actors. An illustration of the former is Oxfam’s (nd) guidance for taking into
account current and potential new conflict risks in the context of Covid-19 response. Oxfam’s
rapid conflict sensitive analysis is outlined in Annex 8. The analysis is used to inform the
development of monitoring indicators throughout the response and to inform accountability
mechanisms to affected communities (Oxfam, nd). Other examples of conflict sensitive guidance
are available. For example, Saferworld (2020a) provide sector specific conflict considerations
for Covid-19 response teams in relation to WASH, protection, shelter and camp management,
democracy, human rights and governance, gender equality, sustainable economic development,
conflict prevention and peacebuilding.

An example of the latter is when humanitarian action and conflict prevention expertise have
been combined to inform Covid-19 responses. In Yemen, peacebuilding coordination hubs
became forums for rapid Covid-19 assessments and supported response planning (Saferworld,
2020a) (see Annex 9). While in Sudan, UNDP worked with health authorities and community
leaders through community management committees, peace committees, natural resource
groups, police networks, and others to respond to the pandemic (UNDRR, 2020).

27
The final theme in this subsection is the advancement of social safety-net and social protection
mechanisms which provide new means to support populations confronted with multiple
cascading risks (contributing to Priority 3 local / national (j) strengthen social safety-net
mechanisms). Though challenges abound (see Cooper, 2018), there are examples of success. In
MENA, evidence of establishing or adapting social protection systems to respond to shocks are
evident. For example, the Tunisian Ministry of Social Affair’s social system scaled up, providing
cash transfers as part of early responses to Covid-19 (Peters et al., 2022). In Jordan, the
standardisation of definitions and measurements of vulnerability offer potential to improve
humanitarian targeting of refugees (though at present natural hazards are not included in the
conception of vulnerability) (Peters et al., 2022). While in Iraq, it is hoped ongoing efforts to
build a single registry will support the development of social safety-net programmes in the
future.

The case of Yemen reveals opportunities for collaboration across the HDP nexus in the context
of social protection and assistance. Yemenis are enduring armed conflict, humanitarian crisis
and economic collapse and more recently contending with the Covid-19 pandemic alongside
natural hazard-related disasters, a cholera epidemic and desert locus infestation (Ghorpade and
Ammar, 2021). Despite an expanded social protection mechanism existing pre-conflict,
programs and services are now disbanded, many development programmes closed and demand
for humanitarian aid has increased. Helpfully, the previous national cash transfer system
provided the foundation for the World Bank’s Yemen Emergency Crisis Response Project
implemented by the Social Fund for Development and Public Works Project (Peters, et al.,
2022). Moreover, perseverance of the state service delivery capacity is written into the 2019
Humanitarian Response Plan (contributing to Priority 4 local / national (g) ensure continuity of
operations, social economic recovery and basic services in post-disaster phase).

The case of Yemen demonstrates many areas of alignment between development and
humanitarian programming, which could be enhanced through greater HDP nexus action. There
is for example often a shared focus on cash assistance, focus on the poor, food-insecurity and
internally displaced populations (IDPs), and commonalities in the delivery systems employed
(Ghorpade and Ammar, 2021). As a result, it can be the case that households receive multiple
benefits from different programmes while others receive none. This suggests there are
possibilities for enhanced targeting and support through “…the harmonization of transfer
values and mutually intelligible approaches to geographical and household targeting. Improved
coordination can also result in (i) maximizing complementarities between programs, such that
recipients of low transfer value programs can benefit from top-ups and complementary services
offered by other agencies (representing a beneficial form of program overlap…” (Ghorpade and
Ammar, 2021: 5).

Global and regional levels: priority areas a-i

Dedicating finance to address complex and compound risks has historically been under par (see
Peters, 2019). At the international level over the past few years, interest and appetite for
exploring risk sharing and transfer mechanisms have been growing. And more recently,
consideration of how existing mechanisms can be adapted to become operational in contexts
where risks intersect (contributing to Priority 3 regional / global (b) promote disaster risk
transfer and sharing mechanisms and instruments within international community). Financing AA

28
for example has been advanced through the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP) 8,
and the InsuResilience Global Partnership. Other initiatives such as the Crisis Lookout Coalition
- launched in 2021 - are leading global advocacy to reform disaster financing. Improved
prediction capabilities together with pre-agreed financing, it is argued, could help improve
quality and timeliness of responses in the event of a trigger being met. In a similar vein, efforts
under the Grand Bargain to address the humanitarian financing gap are calling for greater
investment in anticipatory finance.

In another example of HDP nexus action (contributing to Priority 3 regional / global (b)), WFP
describe various interventions and mechanisms for supporting integrated climate risk
management, which help improve prospects for peace. This includes tailoring climate risk
insurance services for food-insecure populations, enabling access to weather index insurance
(through the R4 Resilience Initiative), and in partnership with the African Risk Capacity
establishing a climate protection mechanism (ARC Replica) to allow humanitarian agencies to
purchase climate risk insurance policies to leverage finance for response to extreme drought
(WFP, 2019).

At the regional and global scale there remains much work to do to better understand what
mechanisms and instruments could be best suited to delivering social safety nets in contexts
affected by multiple shocks and stressors (Cooper, 2018). Alongside various investments in
evidence-gathering and research, entities such as the World Bank are advancing measures to
assess program performance (contributing to Priority 3 regional / global (g) social safety net
development). The World Bank’s Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity
(ASPIRE) provides means to assess the scope and performance of social protection programmes
(World Bank, nd). The Bank finds that “…safety nets are better positioned than ever to help
households manage the risks associated with the multiplicity and complexity of shocks” and are
among a number of well recognised tools for enhancing resilience of at-risk communities
(World Bank, 2018). The Atlas, it is hoped, could help address the low coverage of national
safety net programmes in high-risk disaster-prone contexts by, among other things, challenging
the heterogeneity of programme design to be able to flexibly respond when shocks occur
(World Bank, 2018).

Adaptive Social Protection (ASP) is another example of a mechanism with the potential to
address multiple vulnerabilities associated with systemic risk. Originally conceived as bringing
together social protection, DRR and climate change, ASP has evolved to adapt to multiple shocks
a community might face. As the World Bank (2018: np) note, “This recognition has resulted in
many complex questions, including precisely how best can SSNs [social safety nets] and social
protection be equipped to help households manage diverse types of shocks across myriad
country contexts”. This has been pursued by scaling up and scaling out (enlarged geographical
area, broader range of shocks covered, additional beneficiaries, additional benefits). One such
example are the adaptive approaches used to reorientate existing social safety net and social
protection programmes to respond to food insecurity, lack of basic services and livelihood loss
due to armed conflict (World Bank, 2018). A conflict sensitive monitoring approach has been
employed which encompassed GPS technology, real-time data flow, identification of conflict-
related vulnerabilities, IDPs, female-headed households and youth. The inputs combined to
create a Distress Index which subsequently informed fund allocation (World Bank, 2018).

8 https://www.early-action-reap.org/

29
A swathe of social protection investments are ongoing globally. Of note is the Sahel Adaptive
Social Protection Programme (SASPP) (contributing to Priority 3 regional / global (g) social
safety net development). Entering its second phase (2020-2025), the SASPP strengthens
adaptive social protection systems across Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and
Senegal in order to bolster climate resilience among highly vulnerable households. It is also
expanding the reach of shock responsive cash transfer programmes (World Bank, 2022).
Progress has been made in establishing social registry in Chad and Mali, and in a number of
countries governments provide co-finance: Senegal provides 85% of funds for the national
Family Security Transfers programme; Burkina Faso allocated $5.3 million to support the
development of a social safety net system; Mauritania allocated $10 million to a social safety net
project, and; the Mali government contributed $1 million towards the Mali Emergency Safety
Nets Project Jigisemejiri (World Bank, 2019).

Social protection systems also offer scope to be adapted to support more anticipatory
mechanisms across the HDP nexus. Of note are the piloting of design features which could make
social protection systems capable of responding to shocks. In Mauritania and Niger satellite
imagery and food insecurity modelling are helping improve drought prediction to inform
triggers for shock-responsive social protection (World Bank, 2019). While in MENA, social
protection systems offer an entry point for developing shock-responsive and anticipatory action
interventions – particularly in contexts where DRM governance is limited. There are plenty of
options for maturing the existing systems including digitisation, expanding the range of shocks
considered and geographical coverage of recipients, integration with Early Warning Systems
(EWS) allowing for more pre-emptive action, and placing greater emphasis on longer-term risks
and vulnerabilities (Peters et al., 2022).

Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back
Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction
Improving how we collectively manage disaster risks to take better account of how risks
cascade across systems and sectors (UNDRR, 2022a), requires designing and deploying
comprehensive risk management approaches. It also requires consideration of systemic risk.
DRR experts are generally well-versed in the notion that "Societal choices are at the heart of
why some individuals and groups are more vulnerable to disasters, experience proportionally
greater immediate impacts due to exposure and lack of resources, and face slower recovery and
long-term impoverishment” (UNDRR, 2022a: 203). Addressing structural inequality, through
development actions, offers one avenue through which to address systemic risk and ‘leave no
one behind’ (UNDRR, 2022a). Failure to do so means at-risk populations may become trapped in
cycles of response and recovery; and made worse through persistent risk creation. Risk-
informed development approaches, coupled with comprehensive risk management, offer
pathways towards disaster resilience; requiring action across the HDP nexus.

This section on Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build
Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction, includes examples of multi-hazard
early warning systems, as in Yemen. Insights from the Lebanese Red Cross show how citizens’
concerns over conflict risk can be an entry point for enhancing disaster management
capabilities, and later expanded to include a broader range of hazards. This section features
efforts to integrate ‘do no harm’ and conflict sensitive approaches into DRR programming, as

30
well as examples of psychosocial support being offered to individuals suffering from trauma
related to violence and forced resettlement. Examples of linking humanitarian and climate
action are provided, including the Climate Charter - which encourages humanitarian agencies to
take greater consideration of climate change risks and impacts into account. Finally, innovations
in adapting disaster recovery tools and methods to conflict settings are showcased, such as the
UNDP, World Bank and EU guidance on Post Disaster Needs Assessments for conflict settings.

Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in
recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction, includes examples from 11 Sendai Framework
priority areas (highlighted in blue).
Pillar 4: Enhance disaster preparedness for effective response and to "Build Back Better" in recovery, rehabilitation
and reconstruction
National and local levels
(a) update disaster preparedness and contingency policies, plans and programmes, considering climate change scenarios
(b) develop people-centred multi-hazard, multisectoral forecasting and EWS, disaster risk and emergency communications
mechanisms - tailored to users
(c) promote resilience of critical infrastructure for response
(d) establish community centres for public awareness and stockpiling
(e) adopt public policies to strengthen coordination and funding for relief and post-disaster recovery and reconstruction
(f) train disaster responders and strengthen technical and logistical capacities for emergency response
(g) ensure continuity of operations, social economic recovery and basic services in post-disaster phase
(h) disaster preparedness, response and recovery exercises as appropriate to local needs
(i) promote cooperation of diverse institutions, authorities and stakeholders for post-disaster reconstruction
(j) incorporate DRM into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation, use relief phase opportunities to reduce disaster risk, including
temporary settlements for disaster displaced
(k) develop guidance for preparedness for disaster reconstruction
(l) consider relocation of public facilities and infrastructure in post-disaster reconstruction process
(m) strengthen local authority capacity to conduct evacuations
(n) establish case registry and mortality database
(o) enhance recovery scheme for psychosocial support and mental health services
(p) review national laws and procedures on international cooperation
Global and regional levels
(a) coordinated regional approach to prepare for and respond to disasters that exceed national capacity
(b) promote standards, codes, operational guidelines to support coordinated action in disaster preparedness and response, with
lessons learnt for reconstruction
(c) develop regional multi-hazard EW mechanisms in line with Global Framework for Climate Services
(d) enhance International Recovery Platform
(e) improve water-related disaster risk understanding and strategies
(f) regional cooperation with preparedness through common exercises and drills
(g) promote regional protocols for sharing response capacities
(h) train workforce and volunteers in disaster response

National and local levels: priority areas a-p

Sendai Framework Priority 4: Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to
“Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction, aims to ensure the entire risk
management cycle is pursued with a view to achieving sustainable disaster resilience. An
important starting point for achieving this goal is having in place multi-hazard EWS. This report
does not seek to map or assess the progress made in multi-hazard EWS but to identify examples
which offer scope to better address systemic risks. For example, a number of pilot initiatives
across MENA have sought to bring together insights on conflict, displacement and disease
outbreak (contributing to Priority 4 local / national (b) develop people-centred multi-hazard,
multisectoral forecasting and EWS). In one example from 2019, the UK Met Office, US National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and University of Maryland predicted cholera

31
outbreaks in Yemen with 92% accuracy (Peters et al., 2022). Weekly guidance tailored to
humanitarian agencies facilitated pre-emptive action in locations identified as high-risk (Met
Office, 2018). Though nascent, it is worth noting that elsewhere, the integration of conflict
analysis into anticipatory action is being explored. A highly political endeavour - especially
where government are party to a conflict - consideration is nonetheless being given to the
feasibility of incorporating violent conflict data into multi-hazard EWS (Maxwell and Hailey,
2020).

In other related examples, in-depth contextual analysis has informed humanitarian action on
displacement risks. For example, the Start Fund’s anticipation window has been actioned in Iraq
and Lebanon to address displacement risk in contexts where heightened military action and
destruction of refugee camps have been imminent (Start Network interview, in Peters et al.,
2022). In such complex environments, it is local and expert judgement rather than predefined
automated triggers that were critical for prompting action (Start Network interview, in Peters et
al., 2022).

Of note is the International Organization of Migration (IOM) Displacement Tracking Matrix

(DTM) which monitors displacement and mobility to inform humanitarian planning and
response (IOM, nd). The DTM covers countries typically regarded as being crisis and/or conflict-
affected, including for example Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Yemen. A valuable tool, the DTM
is used to help decision-making of National Disaster Management Authorities (NDMAs) and
national and international agencies in preparedness, response and recovery - including for
example the mapping of possible evacuation and displacement sites (IOM, nd).

The development of early warning early action (EWEA) mechanisms for livelihood protection in
Sudan offer interesting insights operating in contexts experiencing concurrent shocks and
stresses (contributing to Priority 4 local / national (b) develop people-centred multi-hazard,
multisectoral forecasting and EWS). A Food Security Technical Secretariat under the Ministry of
Agriculture and Irrigation with support from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and
the EU developed an EWS triangulating local to global information systems, coupled with risk
and vulnerability analysis and the identification of soft and scientific triggers. In 2017,
deteriorating conditions triggered a rapid needs assessment to identify suitable interventions
and target populations. The release of funds through an FAO Special Fund for Emergency and
Rehabilitation Activities enabled pre-emptive action to protect pastoralist livelihoods, including
the distribution of animal feed, vaccinations, mineral licks, training on destocking etc. Triggers
were again met in 2018 when drought peaked, and funds similarly mobilised. Of particular
relevance to this report is the fact that early action in some contexts can sidestep the political
impediments caused by declaring a drought. Declaration of drought “…is generally a politically
fraught process, AA [Anticipatory Action] has suffered less from government interference
because it is focused on reducing and mitigating future impacts rather than requiring
declarations of actual drought situations” (Peters et al., 2022: 50). In 2020 in Sudan, the
Secretariat together with WFP and FAO established a EWEA Technical Working Group to
coordinate future early actions, expanding the range of hazards considered to include flood and
desert locusts (Peters et al., 2022).

There have also been efforts to assess the possibility of using OpenStreetMap (OSM) mapping to
overcome geospatial data availability in conflict settings as a starting point for enabling
planning of early actions. A study on the feasibility of utilising OSM in Sudan for this purpose
found that “OSM mapping has shown to be a suitable and useful tool for anticipatory mapping,

32
closing crucial data gaps and enabling the planning of early actions in FbA [Forecast-based
Action] for disasters in conflict settings” (Scholz, 2021: 2).

Expanding the range of hazards considered within the remit of disaster risk management - to
include a range of societal hazards for example - could present new entry points for managing
disaster risk. The case of Lebanon illustrates this (contributing to Priority 4 local / national (f)
train disaster responders and strengthen technical and logistical capacities for emergency
response). In locations where the Lebanese Red Cross delivered school safety programmes,
citizens’ were primarily concerned about inter-community conflict, sectarian violence and
cross-border conflict risk. Joint activities under the school safety programmes were conducted
to bring together conflicting communities, and the entry point of conflict risks used as a starting
point from which a broader range of hazards were subsequently addressed - including fire,
flood and seismic risk (Peters, 2019b). With a strong emphasis on equal service provision, the
Lebanese Red Cross harnessed the primary concerns of the communities to address these and
other risks which don’t feature high in the public consciousness. The Lebanese Red Cross
experience demonstrates “…how compromise and management of competing interests can be
effective in building greater social cohesion, in addition to delivering such essential DRR
capacities as first aid training and coordination of religious-affiliated ambulance service
provision” (Peters et al., 2019b: 6). Another important lesson is that the local conditions were
routinely referred to as a ‘fragile peace’. This helped challenge disaster risk managers
perceptions of what a conflict context looks like. It also prompted “…the need for a deeper and
more nuanced understanding of the shades of conflict inherent in any society, and a more
sophisticated analysis of the politics and dynamics of inclusion and exclusion” (Peters, 2019:
28).

Working across the HDP nexus also means working across scales. In armed conflict contexts
collaboration with local actors is commonplace and provides a means to enhance disaster
response. This was the case in DRC where rebel held areas impeded international responses to
the Ebola crisis (contributing to Priority 4 local / national (f) train disaster responders and
strengthen technical and logistical capacities for emergency response). Local actors - Comité de
Pilotage, Forum Humanitaire de Oicha and others - worked with Oxfam to shadow casework in
order to learn about hygiene standards, knowledge of disease prevention and transfer, and
treatment, and subsequently use that knowledge in outreach work (UNDRR, 2020).

The need for DRR to be embedded into the HDP nexus (and in both developmental and
humanitarian action) is none more apparent than in contexts where a rapid escalation of armed
conflict can trigger an immediate switch between developmental and humanitarian work. To
expand, the escalation of violent and armed conflict in crisis settings has direct implications on
the aid agency presence, with implications for the continuation of programming and ability to
utilise development expertise in the context of humanitarian responses. Take the case of Yemen.
With increasing conflict in 2015, aid transitioned from development to humanitarian agencies.
The number of Yemeni NGOs doubled (from 2017-2019) in response to the need for local
implementation counterparts and business opportunities to address unmet needs (Mena and
Hilhorst, 2021). Despite pre-civil war developmental challenges still being present, such as
water-related disasters, the reorientation to ‘new’ needs and the focus on relief required a
change in the type of interventions being carried out (Mena and Hilhorst, 2021). Though some
agencies were able to continue working on water-related disasters under humanitarian WASH
schemes, most ceased (Mena and Hilhorst, 2021). With more effective HDP nexus planning,

33
addressing pre-existing and continuing ‘developmental’ needs through humanitarian responses,
could offer ways to ensure continuity in service provision and support to at-risk communities.

In this regard, to achieve more effective DRR action involving humanitarian and peace actors,
lessons can be drawn from emerging collaborative work across the nexus. The conscious
consideration of complex and cascading risks in DRR programming is becoming more visible –
as documentation emerges on how such conditions have been proactively taken into account in
the design and delivery of risk management interventions (contributing to Priority 4 local /
national (h) disaster preparedness, response and recovery exercises as appropriate to local needs).
For example, following Cyclone Idai in Zimbabwe, a cross-disciplinary workshop was convened
to develop a multi-sector risk framework to inform response and recovery efforts. Specifically,
to consider how responses might impact other fragility-related risks across the country – as
part of the GFDRR’s DRM-FCV Nexus programme (GFDRR, 2022b).

Similarly in Afghanistan, care has been taken to ensure DRR interventions take measures to
reduce the risk of violent and armed conflict escalation. Finding that vulnerability assessments
routinely neglect consideration of conflict - which in turn could risk project designs
inadvertently exacerbating social and violent conflict - agencies have started to adapt their
approaches. This included for example undertaking conflict analysis and adopting principles of
‘do no harm’ (Mena et al., 2019). Although not considered conflict resolution or peacebuilding
interventions, a number of DRR and livelihoods projects felt that being more conflict sensitive
helped to contribute towards reducing conflict risk. Specific actions included: deploying conflict
analysis tools; integrating conflict risk in project planning, and; designing community projects
on forest degradation which incorporate conflict resolution mechanisms (Mena et al., 2019).

Relatedly, where ambitions to better manage natural resources, disaster risk, stabilisation and
conflict prevention are intertwined, designing interventions appropriate to local needs
necessitates working towards multiple ambitions. Community dialogues and joint management
of natural resources in support of resilience building, such as IOM’s work in Kenya, PNG,
Mauritania and the Lake Chad region, also helped foster peaceful and sustainable relationships
among mobile populations (UNDRR, 2020). Here, the interventions explicitly bring together
community stabilization, conflict prevention and environmental protection ambitions.

Though rarely explicit, there is evidence of DRR adopting tools, skills and approaches from the
peace cadre. Whether in peaceful, conflict or crisis settings, interviews with DRR experts from
across the globe have revealed how community-level interventions require a high level of
diplomacy, networking and relationship building (Peters, 2022). Community-based
programming has been identified as one of the most effective causal pathways towards peace
(Peters, 2022) (contributing to Priority 4 local / national (h) disaster preparedness, response and
recovery exercises as appropriate to local needs). Though substantial further research is required
to validate the anecdotal evidence, document the specificities, and decipher what aspects might
be suitable as replicable lessons learnt, initial insights reveal positive examples of creating
interventions that address dual risks of natural hazard-related disaster and conflict risks (see
Annex 10). In other examples, human security approaches to DRR have been adopted – as in a
UNDP and UNDRR community resilience programme in Mauritania (UNDRR, 2020). While the
Building Resilient Communities in Somalia consortium implemented conflict sensitive drought
and flood mitigation interventions to reduce the risk of conflict increasing vulnerabilities to
drought (UNDRR, 2020).

34
Anecdotal evidence also points to the possibility of harnessing shared intersectional
characteristics, such as health conditions or impairments, to bring together individuals from
conflicting communities. DRR experts from East Africa believe that in some contexts, where
individuals identify first with a particular social category or condition - such as disability or
group identity - this can provide opportunity for collaboration through shared identity
characteristics or experiences (Peters, 2022). In turn this can represent a “…small building
block from which bigger peacebuilding and conflict prevention actions could be made”
(interview with East African DRR expert, in Peters, 2022: 161).

The examples above build the case that in order to advance Sendai Framework outcomes in
contexts of systemic risk, vulnerability must be understood in all its facets; because
vulnerability to natural hazards interacts with other forms of shocks and stresses, including
climate change, economic volatility, violence, conflict and more (Peters, 2019; UNDRR, 2019).
For specific groups, such as displaced populations - whatever the driver or multicausal driver of
displacement - the need to think holistically about vulnerability and risk is clear. The IDMC
Disaster Displacement Risk model for the Horn of Africa for example affirmed that ‘socially
created situations of vulnerability’ coupled with high concentrations of exposed populations has
a large impact on displacement risk. This is evident in the case of the Central African Republic,
Iraq and the Rohingya (UNDRR, 2019). Thus in relief, and in post-disaster recovery and
rehabilitation contexts, disaster risk-informed humanitarian programming is needed; and this
needs to be based on a solid understanding of patterns of vulnerability.

To expand, take the case of Syria. In absence of a recognised state, the humanitarian
organisation GOAL provided critical inputs to maintain the water supply system and establish a
bread market system in collaboration with local stakeholders, small businesses and
intermediaries (Patel et al., 2021). Providing support to displaced populations in Idleb and
North Aleppo, GOAL adopted ‘do no harm’ approaches which intentionally aimed to support
local coping strategies to deal with disaster and conflict shocks. Their experience finds that
“…the impact of conflict and protracted crisis does not render the goals of the SFDRR [Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction] moot but only necessitates a greater emphasis on
important facets of successful and disaster risk informed humanitarian programming -
something that the SFDRR needs to better incorporate into its guidance to Member States.
GOAL’s disaster risk informed interventions in northwest Syria provides evidence that DRR can
be used to reduce risk in FCAS [fragile and conflict affected states]” (Patel et al., 2021: 6).

Just as GOAL’s work in Syria found that DRM could be pursued in conflict contexts by building
on pre-existing networks, likewise Covid-19 responses in conflict settings found value in
utilising existing programmes. Limited public health data has been a longstanding impediment
to effective risk management – hence its inclusion in the Sendai Framework. For low income
and conflict-affected contexts, monitoring and planning responses to Covid-19 highlighted the
multiple challenges involved in collecting case data. One example from Somalia shows how
telephone interviews with households already participating in a cash transfer programme was a
useful method to complement laboratory testing and mortality data from the health system. So
much so, the use of a rapid mortality surveillance tool and syndromic score identified case rates
at 159 times higher than the average laboratory cases reported by WHO (Seal et al., 2021)
(contributing to Priority 4 local / national (n) establish case registry and mortality database).

For many countries, the Covid-19 pandemic is an additional complication to pre-existing

interacting and concurrent disaster impacts and risks. Often neglected, an important component

35
of any response to single and multiple shocks and stressors is psychosocial support. Progress
has been made in this regard in the context of the Rohingya. To expand, Covid-19 became one of
a number of compound risks affecting conflict-displaced Rohingya populations in Bangladesh.
Makeshift settlements caused deforestation increasing vulnerability to monsoon rains, flash
flooding and landslides, as was the case in 2018. Higher rates of SGBV were evident, particularly
for women, girls and individuals identifying as LGBTQI+. Psychosocial activities to support
survivors of violence and forced resettlement (contributing to Priority 4 local / national (o)
enhance recovery scheme for psychosocial support and mental health services) have been
forthcoming. The Reaching Out-of-School Children Project is one example, providing refugee
and host communities safe and equitable learning opportunities, including SGBV awareness-
raising, psychosocial well-being activities, and infrastructural improvements to ensure a safe
physical learning environment to tackle high exposure rates to natural hazards (UNDRR, 2019).

Working across the HDP nexus could provide opportunity for DRR experts to learn from the
delivery of psychosocial support interventions which are more commonly found in responses to
conflict settings. Interventions in Somalia for example seek to tackle SGBV through economic
empowerment targeting women, coupled with clinical, psychological and legal support (UNDRR,
2019). While in the central Sahel region - Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger - insecurity from non-
state armed groups and intercommunal disputes have placed hundreds of thousands of people,
including children, at heightened risk of violence and displacement. Deliberate attacks and
threats on schools led to several agencies stepping-up provision of psychosocial support
(contributing to Priority 4 local / national (o) enhance recovery scheme for psychosocial support
and mental health services). For example: in 2020 the Norwegian Refugee Council launched the
Better Learning Program to enable teachers to support children’s recovery from trauma
experienced by conflict and displacement; in 2021 the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) provided psychosocial support training to teachers in refugee and IDP
hosting areas; while UNICEF have provided psychosocial support through interventions on
education, child protection and nutrition (NRC et al., 2022). Mental health support is
particularly necessary for specific groups at heightened risk of violence and exclusion (see
Annex 11).

Finally, addressing biological hazards from a HDP perspective gives rise to a focus on the
intersectionality of at-risk groups, particularly those oft neglected in mainstream development
and humanitarian responses. For example, the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and
AIDS (UNAIDS) are tackling sexually transmitted infections and HIV prevalence in conflict and
humanitarian settings. This includes working to address the exclusion of stigmatised groups
who are not routinely considered in humanitarian responses, peace processes or risk reduction
efforts, such as sex workers, drug dependent users, incarcerated persons, undocumented
migrants, and the like. The adoption of HDP nexus principles to UNAIDS work for example
includes training on HIV in Port au Prince, Haiti, where gang violence is prevalent. They are also
harnessing the power of well-connected gay and lesbian networks to advance risk
communications including in contexts where it is politically dangerous for such groups to exist. 9

9 Interview with Gary Jones, UNAIDS. September 2022.

36
Global and regional levels: priority areas a-h
Working across the HDP nexus to address complex and cascading risks in contexts of protracted
conflict often requires collaborative efforts. The United Nations Assistance Mission to Somalia
(UNSOM) is one such case (contributing to Priority 4 regional / global (a) coordinated regional
approach to prepare for and respond to disasters that exceed national capacity). Working across
the spheres of defence, diplomacy, development and humanitarian, the mission supports the
establishment of the Somali federal government and a range of ambitions in state building,
democratization, and peacebuilding (IMCCS, 2021). UNISOM established a Drought Operations
Coordination Centre to help encourage preventative action to avert famine, coordinate
humanitarian relief efforts, and where required relocate drought-affected IDPs. In 2020,
increasing recognition of the compounding impact of climate variability and change on
livelihood security, and in turn Al-Shabaab recruitment processes - which were exploiting
livelihood hardships by offering stable income and a sense of belonging - UNISOM recruited an
environmental advisor. The advisor’s remint includes: bringing environmental security
approaches to the mission; considering the potential impact on conflict dynamics of
environmental projects, and; supporting the implementation of environmental peacebuilding
approaches (IMCCS, 2021) (see earlier in this report).

Another example of collaboration is the advances being made to link humanitarian and climate
action. The compounding effect of climate variability and change on dynamics of conflict and
security have become an increasing concern for humanitarian agencies; and in particular what
this means practically in terms of operational responses. One of the most prominent
developments in this space is the Climate Charter instigated by the ICRC which aims to address
humanitarian needs related to climate and environmental stress, maximize environmental
sustainability of responses, call for climate action, and work across humanitarian-climate-
environmental sectors (contributing to Priority 4 regional / global (b) promote standards, codes,
operational guidelines to support coordinated action in disaster preparedness and response, with
lessons learnt for reconstruction). As well as sitting firmly within the HDP nexus in terms of its
ambition to work across a broad range of shocks and stressors, address immediate through to
long-term vulnerabilities, and better understand and act on the intersection of multiple threats,
it also necessitates enhanced action on DRR. For example, the Charter includes the commitment
to:

• “…reduce risks and vulnerability to shocks, stresses and longer-term changes through an
increased focus on climate change adaptation, disaster risk reduction and anticipatory
action…
• strengthen our collective capacity to reduce risks, anticipate crises, act early and ensure the
sustainability of our activities…
• [and] work collaboratively across the humanitarian sector and beyond to strengthen climate
and environmental action” (ICRC / IFRC, 2022: np).

As of January 2022, the Charter had 205 humanitarian organization signatories, from over 80
countries - including state signatories of Switzerland, the United States, and Norway. 10 The
Charter includes commitment to enhance anticipatory action on climate-related disaster risks
including in crisis and conflict settings. The Anticipation Hub (nd) have a related ambition, to
devise anticipatory action programming for armed conflict settings. This is in recognition of the

10 The Charter Team email communication, 18th January 2022

37
fact that most anticipatory action programming is happening in non-armed conflict settings,
despite high needs and demand in conflict settings (contributing to Priority 4 regional / global
(b) promote standards, codes, operational guidelines to support coordinated action in disaster
preparedness and response, with lessons learnt for reconstruction). Two distinct options have
been identified: Forecast-based Action of hydro-meteorological hazards in conflict settings (to
act early in anticipation of climate-related hazards in ongoing conflict settings), and Forecast-
based Action on forecasts of humanitarian consequences of conflict (i.e. food security and
displacement) (Anticipation Hub, nd). Accompanything this ambition is a Red Cross Red
Crescent Working Group aiming to devise Early Action Protocols and Forecast-based Financing
by the Disaster Response Emergency Fund (DREF), and an external group to provide a platform
for exchange of technical ideas and solutions (Anticiaption Hub, nd).

This subsection closes with a few important reflections on disaster recovery. The shift described
in the GAR19 (UNDRR, 2019) to addressing cascading and compound risks, including in
complex and crisis settings, has similarly been reflected in a maturing of thinking on disaster
recovery (contributing to Priority 4 regional / global (d) enhance International Recovery
Platform). For example, at the 5th World Reconstruction Conference (WRC) in 2022,
consideration was given to how best to develop “…institutional systems for recovery from
complex and interconnected disaster-conflict events, including pandemics, natural hazards and
climatic shocks and stressors” (World Bank et al., 2022: 1). Consideration was also given to how
recovery processes could help reset development pathways towards more resilient futures, and
in doing so incorporate climate change adaptation, poverty reduction and human security
(World Bank et al., 2022). Marking a shift from the previous focus on natural hazard-related
disasters, the 2022 event encouraged the risk management community to reconsider what
kinds of recovery governance models are required to manage recovery from complex and
interconnected disaster-conflict events. More than being mindful of conflict, the WRC went one
step further in proposing that there needs to be “strategies to build resilience to future shocks in
a way that helps to resolve conflict” (World Bank et al., 2022: 2).

Finally, some progress has been made in adapting disaster recovery tools and methods to
complex operating environments. The World Bank, UNDP and EU for example developed
guidance on adapting Post Disaster Needs Assessments (PDNAs) to conflict settings (UNDP et
al., 2019). Relatedly, the African Union Programme of Action included a commitment to develop
operational guidelines on post-disaster response, recovery and reconstruction in conflict
settings (AU and UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming). The PDNA guidance (UNDP et al., 2019) does not
seek to alter conflict conditions by actively addressing resolving conflict - considered beyond
the remit of a PDNA - but does intend to ensure post-disaster and recovery operations are
sensitive to conflict dynamics, to avoid exacerbating existing tensions or creating new tensions
(AU and UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming). Relatedly, following an earthquake in Haiti in August 2021,
the ILO mainstreamed conflict sensitivity into their PDNA process. This included sector-based
assessments of conflict risk as well as an active pursuit of social cohesion and peace. Their
experience led to the design of a peace-responsive recovery strategy, and subsequent
development of a PDNA Training Module for the employment and livelihood sectors. 11

11 Email communication with Elisa Selva, ILO. September 2022.

38
 3. Actionable recommendations
In order to deliver comprehensive risk management approaches capable of addressing systemic
risk, action across the HDP nexus is required. Below are a set of headline and detailed actionable
recommendations to progress towards this overarching ambition.

Headline recommendations
• Demonstrate the value of DRR for advancing the HDP nexus - harness DRR expertise on risk-
informed development and the integration of DRR into humanitarian action as a basis for
developing comprehensive risk management approaches to HDP nexus action. Relatedly,
address the evidence and practice gap on pursuing disaster resilience and peace.
• Work across the HDP nexus to better understand risk, including systemic risk. Use vulnerability
as the common thread to explore and reveal how different hazards, shocks and stresses
interrelate.
• Align risk governance systems across the HDP nexus – to avoid one risk management system
undermining another. Take into consideration the complementarity of risk management
actions across different sectoral, spatial, temporal and hazard dimensions.
• Harness the multitude of financing commitments and mechanisms from across the HDP nexus
to positively exploit their added-value to pursue shared comprehensive risk management
outcomes. Jointly mobilise additional resources where required.
• Design and deploy flexible DRM systems and actions corresponding to the systemic, complex
and cascading nature of risks. Utilise systems, institutions and mechanisms from across the
HDP nexus to pursue disaster resilience outcomes.

Detailed recommendations
As outlined below, in order to achieve the headline recommendations, action across the four
Sendai Framework priorities is required, as well as advancing the HDP nexus more broadly.

Advancing the HDP nexus

Headline recommendation: Demonstrate the value of DRR for advancing the HDP nexus -
harness DRR expertise on risk-informed development and the integration of DRR into
humanitarian action as a basis for developing comprehensive risk management approaches to
HDP nexus action. Relatedly, address the evidence and practice gap on pursuing disaster resilience
and peace.

Detailed recommendations:

• To advance the UN Senior Leadership Group (SLG) Recommendation 1: ‘Accelerate

efforts to risk-inform programming in development, humanitarian and peace actions
respectively, and strengthen collaboration around DRR in humanitarian and crisis contexts’,
donors and UN agencies need to provided dedicated technical, political and financial
backing. With adequate support, the ambitions within the current and future workplan of
the IASC Task Force 4 Humanitarian-Development Collaboration (chaired by Oxfam and
UNDP) can be achieved. 1
• To ensure DRR considerations are systematically embedded into humanitarian
action, UN Humanitarian Coordinators should demand that DRR technical expertise,
indicators and targets are integrated into routine processes and procedures. This includes
for example: including a DRR component into the Humanitarian Programming Cycle Quality

39
 Criteria Worksheet; creating DRR targets as part of Collective Outcome and Multi-Year
Response Plans, and; employing the Checklist for Action on scaling-up DRR in humanitarian
action. 2 With regards to the latter, this includes reviewing the Checklist and identifying
priority actions when commencing the annual humanitarian programming cycle to inform
the Humanitarian Needs Overview (HNO) and Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP). 3
• To enhance the technical capabilities required to advance collaborative working on
systemic risks, DRR experts should undertake dedicated training programmes to upskill on
the terminology, tools, and technical content of a range of different approaches to dealing
with risks including humanitarian, climate, peace and conflict, economic and political
stability, and stabilisation, among others. Reciprocally, basic understanding of the concepts,
approaches and trends in disaster risk need to be shared across the HDP cadre. Building on
this foundation, practitioners, policy makers and funders from all fields should undertake
training on systemic risk, with Human Resources departments making this a mandatory
component of career development. Specific sessions can be dedicated to systemic risk
analysis, linking with the Global Risk Assessment Framework (GRAF). 4
• To help mature thinking and action specifically on DRR in the HDP nexus, UNDRR
should compile and publish a quarterly newsletter on DRR in the HDP nexus, listing
summaries of relevant funding and investment opportunities, the latest literature, training
and knowledge exchange, and an events calendar. Relatedly, agency- or sector-specific
trainings may need to be created and/or use made of existing resources such the MOOC on
DRR and humanitarian aid in conflict settings.
• To scale-up awareness of DRR within the HDP nexus, UN agencies – specifically UNDP
and UNDRR - should consider harnessing the political attention on the climate-fragility and
stabilisation to advance DRR in conflict and crisis settings. For example, existing joint
analysis efforts such as those undertaken by the UN Climate Security Mechanism would
benefit from stronger inclusion of DRR expertise, and in doing so strengthen linkages
between DRR-humanitarian-climate security cadre. This could entail, for example,
seconding a DRR expert to support the Mechanism to ensure integration of DRR technical
knowledge.
• To strengthen the DRR-peace aspect of the HDP nexus and advance DRR in setting of
violence and conflict, a range of actions by operational agencies from across the HDP
nexus are required including: the integration of conflict in vulnerability and disaster risk
assessments; guidance on applying conflict sensitive approaches to DRM operational tools
and manuals; dedicated finance and adapted results frameworks to pursue DRR in difficult
operating environments, and; piloting of programmes with dual outcomes for disaster
resilience and peace. 5 Such an ambition would require, among other things, training on
integrated disaster and peace programming developed through innovative collaborations
between disaster risk and peace building expertise. Relatedly, existing work on
environmental peacebuilding may be a useful entry point in some contexts to consider the
viability of DRR as a tool for peace and similarly climate change adaptation as a tool for
peace. 6
• To encourage enhanced collaboration between disaster-peace expertise to support
HDP action, national level multi-stakeholder platforms should be supported to adopt more
holistic and systemic approaches to prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response and
recovery - that takes account of the dynamic nature of peace, conflict and violence. Globally,
an IASC Inter-agency group on risk should be established. 7

40
• To address the significant research gaps on the intersection of disasters-conflict-
peace, science and research councils should dedicate funds to enable empirical research.
Research should focus on identifying the causal pathways and mechanisms between
disasters, conflict and peace, and how intentional action can alter those pathways to secure
peace outcomes. With such insights, it will become more feasible to provide guidance on
where, when and how to act to reduce disaster impacts in conflict and post-conflict settings,
reduce disaster-related conflict risks, and increase peace potential.
• In order to take responsibility for one’s own climate emissions, Member States must set
and deliver ambitious climate commitments, and all UN agencies and NGOs should consider
their carbon footprint. Taking heed of recommendations by protection agencies concerned
with the climate-disaster-conflict intersection, all stakeholders interesting in pursuing
peaceful disaster resilience outcomes should be concerned with their own contribution to
tackling climate change. Agencies can: become signatory to The Climate and Environment
Charter for Humanitarian Organisations; develop green action plans for reducing carbon
emission; establish an environmental footprint baseline as a means to track reductions
progress, and; green operations by prioritising eco-friendly supply chains and shifting to
renewable energy. 8

Recommendations: Priority 1. Understanding disaster risk

Headline recommendation: Work across the HDP nexus to better understand risk, including
systemic risk. Use vulnerability as the common thread to explore and reveal how different hazards,
shocks and stresses interrelate.

Detailed recommendations:

• To achieve a more in-depth analysis of disaster risk, Member States and UN agencies
and others are strongly encouraged to support national and international efforts to bring
together hazard, exposure, vulnerability and risk mapping and support interoperability
across risk information systems. And, to facilitate collaborations with entities who collect
data on other shocks and stresses (including climate change, pandemic threats, economic
and political stability, violence, conflict, and peace etc.) to assess the relevance and
feasibility of combining data sets for more in-depth analysis of compound risks. Agencies
are strongly encouraged to commit to move away from compartmentalised understandings
of risks and move towards composite assessments (which assess the interaction between
component hazards/threats). In time, international and national agencies can harness
insights from CRAF’d to achieve this goal. 9
• To align with the updated conceptualisation of the construction of disaster risk,
NDMAs and their technical and scientific counterparts are encouraged to commit to
expanding the range of hazards assessed within multi-hazard risk analysis, forecasting and
early warning systems. Specifically, to include biological and societal hazards. In some
contexts, NDMAs and UN agencies may want to consider violence and conflict as a ‘societal
hazard’. 10
• To help develop interoperability across the disaster risk ecosystem and enhance
capacities to understand and respond to complex risks, donors and the UN system are urged
to provide financial backing to CRAF’d to help meet the fundraising target of $15-25
million. 11

41
• To ensure continued functionality of databases on risk information and impacts, and
to tackle the risk of data loss in the event of their destruction (e.g. by technological disaster,
armed conflict etc.), Member States together with their respective scientific and technical
agencies are encouraged to form collaborations with information and technology specialists
to digitize climate and disaster data with pre-agreed protocols for access. This includes
digitising historical records.
• In order to mature joint multi-hazard and vulnerability analysis to inform multi-year
planning, sustained donor support is required to learn from the Secretary General’s Joint
Steering Committee to Advance Humanitarian and Development Collaboration. This
includes learning from existing priority countries and applying replicable lessons to a
broader range of risk contexts. 12
• To encourage a shift away from managing disasters and towards managing risk,
government and non-government agencies are encouraged to utilise existing data and
analysis, such as the INFORM Risk, INFORM Warning, and INFORM Severity Index. These
products, and others, can help mature national and sub-national early warning and early
action mechanisms - as well as preparedness and risk reduction measures, to become
responsive to elevated risk and emerging crises.
• To better understand complex risks as perceived by at-risk and affected
communities, operational agencies are strongly encouraged to harness mobile technologies
to expand and nuance their understanding of risk perceptions, risk tolerance and other
variables on vulnerability, exposure and coping capacities. Coupling such insights with
social media analytics could help build a more comprehensive picture of affected and at-risk
communities experiences and needs in situations of compound and cascading risks.
• To better understand and act on climate security challenges, systematic information
exchange between those working on natural hazards and those on stabilisation and climate
security is required. This includes ensuring that disaster risks are fully embedded into the
Climate Security Mechanism’s risk assessments. This could provide a stepping stone for
subsequently demonstrating the potential value of national and sub-national risk
management entities to addressing hazard-related risks in insecure contexts. To advance
this goal it would be logical to start with the Africa Working Group on DRR and the G5
members, given the concentration of climate security investment in the Sahel and West and
Central African region. 13

Recommendations: Priority 2. Strengthen disaster risk governance to manage disaster

risk
Headline recommendation: Align risk governance systems across the HDP nexus – to avoid one
risk management system undermining another. Take into consideration the complementarity of
risk management actions across different sectoral, spatial, temporal and hazard dimensions.

Detailed recommendations:

• To enable Member States to craft local to regional DRR strategies and plans that
better reflect conditions of systemic risk, UNDRR and UNDP are requested to expand the
current guidelines on what an effective DRR strategy comprises of. New guidelines should
take the form of a suite of options which account for the diversity of risk governance
arrangements within a country, and the different constellations of compound risk. This may

42
 include more radical options, such as a DRR strategy being a nodal organising structure,
with commitment to delivering disaster resilience embedded into sectoral plans. 14
• To broaden the range of hazards being considered in national DRR strategies, policies
and plans, Member States are encouraged to review the ISC and UNDRR (2020) hazard
definitions and classifications report, alongside existing national strategies which include a
broad range of societal hazards (such as explosive remnants of war, armed conflict and
violence). Member States should consider the appropriateness of expanding their own
hazard classifications. And in turn, review the legislative and governance frameworks which
tackle different hazards and risks, and (re)consider the NDMA’s parameters of risk
governance. 15
• To better align local to regional DRR strategies, plans and policies to the range of
hazards under the remit of the Sendai Framework, regional entities should lead the way
in encouraging Member States to make clear the interaction between hazards and
vulnerability conditions – including technological, biological and societal hazards. The
African Union Programme of Action is a useful example, with the explicit ambition to
address linked disaster, fragility and conflict risks. Regional DRR Platforms should be
harnessed as opportune moments to encourage Member States to similarly reflect the
symbiotic relationship between vulnerabilities in their risk governance frameworks. 16
• To ensure clear risk governance arrangements are in place in contexts where risks
co-locate, Member States - with support from risk governance experts - should map and
assess the institutional and policy architecture for risk governance in relation to the risk
landscape. At the national level this should be undertaken with the intention of identifying
entry points for enhanced collaboration between the responsible government ministries
and departments. Member States should ensure there are clear roles and responsibilities for
addressing complex risks with pre-agreed standard operating procedures or guidelines for
collaboration (including data sharing, resource allocation etc). At the regional level, this
should include mapping regional strategies and action plans - including those originating
from the humanitarian, peace, and climate security domains - to identify opportunities for
enhancing disaster risk governance arrangements and delivering on existing regional DRR
strategies.
• To ensure adequate legal, policy and institutional frameworks for people at-risk and
impacted by displacement, Member States are strongly advised to review their existing
legal and policy landscape in conjunction with specialist displacement and protection
agencies. Consideration should be given to ensuring adequate protection to at-risk and
displaced persons in light of the multi-casual drivers of displacement; and any protection
gaps addressed. Rights-based human mobility approaches should be embedded into
disaster risk governance arrangements to ensure adequate protection and support is
mobilised for all individuals on the move, whatever the multi-dimensional triggers and
drivers. 17
• To enhance disaster risk governance at the sub-national and local level, operational
agencies are strongly encouraged to utilise insights from conflict risk analysis (see Priority 1
recommendations) to inform intervention design - and make adaptations where required to
minimise the risk of negatively impacting conflict dynamics. For example, this may include
collaborating with conflict and peace experts to integrate additional components such as:
decentralised governance mechanisms; equitable inclusion of at-risk populations in

43
 consultation and decision-making processes, and; proactive measures to support social
cohesion.
• To ensure equitable support for pursuing disaster resilience, a geographically focused
pilot should be crafted wherein multi-hazard risk and vulnerability analysis (see
recommendations in Priority 1) are overlaid with analysis of humanitarian and
development programming coverage to reveal gaps and overlaps. The finding can then
inform specific commitments on levelling-up disaster resilience for conflict-affected
populations. 18
• To advance the operationalisation of disaster risk governance in the HDP nexus,
Member States should request UNDRR continue to allocate dedicated spaces to the topic in
upcoming regional and global DRR platforms. Discussions should reflect on analysis of
current progress and gaps in advancing risk governance in the HDP nexus, and what this
means for the Mid-term Review of the Sendai Framework and remaining implementation
period. Insights, and ideally commitments to advance action, should then be shared with a
broader audience at UN convening spaces such as the 2023 Sustainable Development Goal
Summit.

Recommendations: Priority 3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience

Headline recommendation: Harness the multitude of financing commitments and mechanisms
from across the HDP nexus to positively exploit their added-value to pursue shared comprehensive
risk management outcomes. Jointly mobilise additional resources where required.

Detailed recommendations:

• To finance comprehensive risk management approaches, all donors and funding

entities should convene an internal consultative process to devise their own distinct
position on, and contribution to, key concepts such as the HDP nexus, comprehensive risk
management, and systemic risk. Position papers should be crafted which articulate the
donor’s contribution based on their unique strengths from across their development, DRR,
humanitarian, conflict and peace cadre. For development finance institutions (DFIs), this
should include a bespoke offer to clients to encourage integration of comprehensive risk
management approaches into financial and investment arrangements.
• To inform fund allocation, investment and programming priorities, government
donors and DFIs are encouraged to take heed of the suite of composite risk index (such as
GRAF, INFORM, GFDRR Disaster-FCV Vulnerability Index etc.) and adopt or craft their own
composite index which can better capture complex, cascading and systemic risk.
• To improve targeting and support in contexts where development, humanitarian,
climate and peace programmes are implemented concurrently, the New Ways of
Working should be used as a prompt to UN agencies to assess the viability of harmonising
action. Improved coordination could offer opportunities to enhance complementarity
between programmes and design linked interventions that support at-risk and affected
populations to transition into and out of crises. This could include for example: improved
coordination and data sharing for needs assessment; harmonisation of cash transfer values
and of household and geographical targeting; thematic alignment to achieve shared goals;
harmonising responses to political economic risks; mapping the relationship between
different financing horizons; harnessing connections between programmes to provide

44
 complementary services; mutually intelligible beneficiary databases, and; commonly agreed
monitoring measures to allow for intervention comparison. 19
• To finance the technical integration of DRR in HDP settings, lessons from Haiti and
Pakistan should be heeded. This includes the need for dedicated finance to provide qualified
field staff to champion DRR in the Humanitarian Programming Cycle and the establishment
of performance indicators on DRR in the HRP monitoring framework. UN Resident
Coordinators and UN Humanitarian Coordinators should ensure DRR expertise are part of
HNO, HRP and crisis planning teams, without exception.
• Specific financing gaps across the HDP nexus should be addressed, such as the need to
enhance DRR financing commitments in crisis and conflict settings. Government
donors and DFIs should champion fund allocation and mobilisation for DRR in difficult
operating environments - including conflict settings. To do this, GFDRR should share the
lessons learnt from the implementation of their DRM-FCV Nexus programme. Where
government donors and DFIs are yet to dedicate such finance, internal reviews to assess the
strategic value of enhancing investments on climate and disaster risk in difficult operating
contexts could be commissioned – following the lead of AFD (see Annex 6). As clients to
DFIs, Member States can request dedicated finance for climate and disaster risk in conflict
and crisis settings whether as part of development, humanitarian and/or climate funding
portfolios. 20
• To better understand the DRR financing landscape for conflict contexts, donors are
strongly encouraged to perform a portfolio review. The review should identify current and
emerging funding streams and volumes for DRR in different types of conflict, violence and
crisis settings. Based on this, options for enhanced tagging of DRR fund allocations can be
drafted and put into operation to enhance longer-term analysis of funding trends. 21 Other
necessary actions include: establishing a clear link between funding of DRR and attainment
of existing DFI/government donor strategies; articulating the return on investment,
informed by an evaluation of the DFI/government donor portfolio in relation to the
sustainability of financing commitments over the past 5–10 years relative to their inclusion
of DRR; developing a future scenarios paper that assesses the potential positive, negative
and neutral impacts on a DFI/government donor’s reputation (related to the quality and
sustainability of its financing commitments) as a result of different levels of DRR
integration. 22
• To mobilise funds for risk-informed humanitarian action, guidance for fund
mobilisation should be devised - as recommended in UNDRR’s recent mapping of capacities
and needs to enhance risk-informed humanitarian action. The guidance would need to be
informed by a review of the available funding mechanisms for DRR in humanitarian settings
(a workstream led by UNDP), and set in the context of fund mobilisation for shared
comprehensive risk management outcomes across the HDP nexus. 23
• To pursue adaptive management in response to systemic risks, donors should pool
expertise on flexible finance from across the HDP nexus to draft a set of guidelines for
piloting DRR investments in a range of fragile, crisis and conflict settings. This may include
for example flexibility to adapt programming priorities or budget line allocations in
response to changing risk profiles.
• To advance, and finance, the risk governance of transitions into/out of crises, NDMAs
supported by the UN system, should pilot a range of financing arrangements in contexts
contending with multiple compounding risks (including natural hazards, climate variability

45
 and change, violence and armed conflict). The pilots should include the explicit ambition to
harness the added-value of the HDP cadre, and could include adaptations to crisis modifiers,
Forecast-based Financing, anticipatory action, shock-responsive social protection, disaster
recovery, and more. On this basis it will then be possible to design and operationalise
strategic bridging interventions that can support transitions into and out of crisis. Once
trialled, successful approaches can be replicated at scale. The pilots should be accompanied
with a real-time evidence and learning processes, to document lessons, required
adjustments and funding and investment outcomes. 24
• To enhance the adaptation of social safety net mechanisms and social protection
schemes so they can be mobilised in crisis contexts, dedicated technical advisory work is
required to assess existing country-specific mechanisms and to propose a suite of adaptive
measures to accommodate fluctuating conditions of risk – including displacement risk.
Building on the considerable empirical experience, Member States are strongly encouraged
to work with UN counterparts and DFIs to mobilise adapted social protection in crisis
settings through design tweaks (e.g., waived conditionality in a crisis), piggy-backing (e.g.,
using social registry to channel preparedness and response assistance), vertical expansion
(e.g., additional benefits in response to new risks), horizontal expansion (e.g., expanded
beneficiary or geographical coverage), and alignment (e.g., aligning response to bolster
social protection systems). 25
• To access and utilise climate funds in support of HDP nexus outcomes, investigation is
required to identify national and subnational contexts where opportunities to become
accredited recipients of climate funding could be feasible in conflict and crisis settings.
Further work is also required to adapt access requirements of multilateral climate funds -
such as the Green Climate Fund - through enhanced direct access and simplified
approaches. 26 With access, the design and delivery of climate change adaptation
programmes offer potential to address HDP nexus outcomes for climate- and disaster-
resilience and peace. To support such efforts, financial and technical support to mature the
public financial management capacities of Member States would be a significant help, as
would more flexible operational protocols, and a shift in donors risk perception, appetite
and tolerance when disbursing climate funds in crisis and conflict contexts. 27
• As a contribution to comprehensive risk management, to improve response to
pandemic threats in the context of systemic risk, lessons from Covid-19 responses
should be documented and their replicability for dealing with other biological threats
assessed. Specific attention should be given to drawing out lessons to protect and ensure
safe spaces for individuals at high-risk of violence including SGBV. Intersectional
dimensions of violence should be considered, including SGBV and Sexual Orientation,
Gender Identity and Expression and Sex Characteristics (SOGIESC). Given that community
mobilisation in public health responses in conflict settings proved to be vital to Ebola and in
Covid-19, guidance should be aimed at local as well as national entities.

Recommendations: Priority 4. Enhance disaster preparedness for effective response

and to "Build Back Better" in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction
Headline recommendation: Design and deploy flexible DRM systems and actions corresponding
to the systemic, complex and cascading nature of risks. Utilise systems, institutions and
mechanisms from across the HDP nexus to pursue disaster resilience outcomes.

46
Detailed recommendations:

• To better act on the range of risks present within a country, Member States are strongly
encouraged to develop a National Risk Register scanning the full range of risks from across
the HDP nexus. An oversight body to monitor and update the register should also be
responsible for ensuring adequate mechanisms are in place for risk reduction,
preparedness, response, recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction. This will require cross-
ministerial and departmental efforts delivering on their respective mandates. Gaps in risk
governance can then be identified, and expertise pooled to address systemic risk. 28
• To pursue comprehensive risk management approaches, non-traditional entry points
should be harnessed. For example, to mobilise action on DRR in conflict and crisis settings,
citizens’ concerns over conflict risks can be used as an entry point for advancing risk
management capabilities, and over time expanded to consider a broader range of threats
and hazards. 29 Current responses to the pandemic could provide further opportunities for
risk management, with scope to expand the range of hazards and risks discussed with
communities and local-national risk management entities.
• To encourage more diverse partnerships between different risk specialists,
operational agencies should consider establishing collaborations between DRR and
humanitarian agencies, and peace specialists, in order to take advantage of their relative
expertise. This includes for example utilising peacebuilding coordination hubs for data
collection and outreach of disaster risk information. And, partnering to consider the value
and viability of including elements of peace processes into DRR interventions e.g., peace
dialogues, performing peace rituals etc.
• To mobilise early warning and early action across the HDP nexus, Member States
should provide a high level of financial, political and operational support to continue
trialling innovative mechanisms to do just this. This includes but is not limited to, the Red
Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre’s innovations on Anticipatory Action in conflict settings,
the START Network’s anticipation window, and forecast-based finance for climate-related
hazards in conflict settings. Particularly relevant to this report is the ability of some pre-
emptive mechanisms to use pre-defined triggers to prompt action - side-stepping the
politics of declarations of disaster which can hinder action.
• To enhance support for displaced persons and those at risk of displacement, the
contextual specificities of each case require dedicated attention (see Annex 12). Evidence
from UNHCR, IOM and other specialist displacement and protection agencies have
recommended the need to: conduct empirical research to better understand the multicausal
drivers of displacement; collect disaggregated data to inform tailored mitigation,
preparedness, and response measures and solutions; and recognise and respond to the
specific interplay of displacement risks in order to deliver tailored approaches to
protection. 30
• To develop evidence and action on disaster recovery in the context of systemic risk,
NDMAs together with DRR Platforms should dedicate specific workstreams to the theme. In
collaboration with research entities, empirical data collection is also required on disaster
recovery in a range of settings with different risk profiles. Such insights would help ground
understanding of the formal and informal disaster recovery processes across a sub-set of
contexts to inform the design of disaster recovery plans and processes. Without which, there
is a danger that negative unintended consequences may unfold as formulaic processes are

47
 ill-suited to the nuances of different risk landscapes. As an active learning process, the
evidence-gathering would suit a multidisciplinary team from across the HDP cadre. 31
• To encourage HDP nexus approaches to disaster recovery, existing guidance such as the
PNDA for conflict settings require trailing in a range of contexts – including armed conflict,
post-conflict, and crisis settings, and subsequent editions created through collaborations
across the HDP nexus for different settings. The PNDA in conflict settings report should also
be regarded as the first in a series of guidance documents, with others supporting the
transition from immediate recovery to medium- and long-term recovery and the transition
to risk-informed development. Building on the current guidance, consideration should be
given to trialling approaches that integrate aspects of conflict management and prevention
into natural hazard-related disaster recovery processes in conflict settings; and exploring
the practical and ethical viability of bringing together these two domains. 32
• To develop a comprehensive risk management approach to combating biological
hazards, Member States and UN agencies and other stakeholders are strongly advised to
continue global vaccination efforts on Covid-19 and learn from effective collaborations
between peacebuilding mechanisms and health professionals. Vaccination is important not
only to combat the pandemic in conflict and crisis settings, but to limit the impact of the
pandemic and pandemic response measures as drivers of conflict and instability.
Recommendations to adopt a holistic response to pandemic recovery which incorporate
conflict prevention efforts and resilience programming have been voiced. Any analysis of
Covid-19 impacts should go beyond health metrics to include governance, political stability,
poverty, environmental and climate impacts and other domains - to inform the design of
comprehensive risk management approaches to biological hazards. 33
• To enhance the use of ‘do no harm’ and conflict sensitive approaches by DRM experts,
operational agencies are strongly advised to review their existing policies and guidelines
and make adjustments where required to ensure conflict dynamics are systematically taking
place. A plethora of toolkits and guidance notes exist on conflict sensitivity targeting
different sectors (though less tailored for DRR), and recent experiences in responding to
Covid-19 have reaffirmed the need for the application of conflict sensitivity. Operational
agencies undertaking DRR in settings of violence and conflict are strongly encouraged
partner with conflict and peace specialists in order to adopt ‘do no harm’ approaches as a
minimum, and explore the feasibility of applying conflict sensitive approaches. Taking
something practical, like the operationalisation of ‘do no harm’ and conflict sensitivity
approaches, also provides a common purpose for multiple diverse stakeholders to coalesce
around – and should be considered an opportunity to bring together technical specialists
from across HDP nexus. Where conflict sensitive approaches are not mandated, agencies
(and their back donors) are strongly advised to make this a routine part of any intervention
design, implementation and monitoring process. 34
• To mature understanding and action on the intersectional dimensions of systemic
risks and impacts, Member States, UN and other stakeholders are strongly advised to take
greater consideration of the intersectional dimensions of vulnerability. Particular attention
should be paid to LBGTQI+, SOGIESC, stateless persons and undocumented migrants, and
conflict displaced populations, among others. Mainstream DRR discourse promotes ‘whole
of society’ approaches. For this to happen, it must be recognised that intra-societal cohesion
is not always present, and certain sub-sets of society can face exclusion and discrimination.
Efforts to address aspects of intersectionality and specific individual groups within society
require dedicated attention in complex risk settings. Regressive laws and practices (for

48
 example, towards homosexuality and women’s rights) impact inclusion and equity of
achieving disaster resilience for all. 35
• To provide tailored psychosocial support to individuals affected by disasters and
other impacts of systemic risk, specialist psychosocial support services - including those
with experience in interpersonal violence and conflict trauma - should collaborate to offer
integrated packages of support. Donors should consider this a necessary requirement of any
response or recovery intervention, and provide funding accordingly. Specific consideration
should be given to women and girls, LGBTQI+ and those with particular SOGIESC, drawing
on the experiences of agencies who provided tailored support to these groups during the
Covid-19 pandemic.
• To support DRR experts to become more competent in engaging with systemic risks,
dedicated spaces within DRR convening at the national, regional and global level are
required. This includes for example at regional DRR ministerial conferences and platforms,
the Global Platform on DRR, and in national DRR Platform convening. Specific gaps in
understanding and action - such as the disaster-conflict intersection - should be given
specific attention. At the global scale, the existing informal group of champions on DRR in
conflict settings should be financially supported to become a formalised Network on
Disaster Risk Reduction in Contexts of Violence, Conflict and Fragility, and accompanied
with an annual international conference on the theme in the margins of an existing forum
such as Understanding Risk, the Fragility Forum, or Global Platform on DRR. 36 Addressing
specific linked risks (such as disasters-conflict) will help advance action on systemic risks in
the long-term.
• Finally, to enhance the commitment of humanitarian agencies to climate action, all
must become signatories to the Climate Charter. Under the Charter, commitments to
enhance climate change adaptation, DRR and AA are encouraged, as are the ambitions to
work collaboratively to anticipate crises, act early and work towards reducing the carbon
emissions of operational activities. 37

49
References
AKAH website – Aga Khan Agency for Habitat (2021) Continuity through conflict: disaster risk
reduction in Afghanistan. Available at https://www.akdn.org/project/continuity-through-
conflict-disaster-risk-reduction-afghanistan. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Anticipation Hub (nd) Anticipatory Action in Conflict Practitioners Group. Available at

https://www.anticipation-hub.org/anticipatory-action-in-conflict-practitioners-group.
Accessed 16 August 2022.

Anticipation Hub (nd. a) The double affliction: Conflict and natural hazard- the importance of
tacking disaster risk amidst insecurity. Anticipation Hub. Available at
https://www.anticipation-hub.org/news/the-double-afflication-conflict-and-natural-hazard-
the-importance-of-tackling-disaster-risk-admist-insecurity. Accessed 16 August 2022.

AUC – African Union Commission (2017) Programme of action for the implementation of the
Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 in Africa. Addis Ababa: AUC.
Available at
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/67054_poaimplementationofthesendaiframewo[1].pdf.
Accessed 10 August 2022.

AU and UNDP (2022 – forthcoming) Disaster Risk Reduction in the West Africa and the Sahelian
Region: A Review of Progress. Addis Ababa: AUC.

Bousquet, F. and Fernandez-Taranco, O. (nd) COVID-19 in Fragile Settings : Ensuring a Conflict-

Sensitive Response. United Nations blog. Available at https://www.un.org/en/un-coronavirus-
communications-team/covid-19-fragile-settings-ensuring-conflict-sensitive-response. Accessed
10 August 2022.

Brown, O. and Nicolucci-Altman, G. (2022) The future of environmental peacebuilding.

Nurturing an Ecosystem for Peace. A White Paper and Compendium. Geneva Peacebuilding
Platform, PeaceNexus Foundation, Environmental Peacebuilding Association, Environmental
Law Institute, and International Union for Conservation of Nature. Available at
https://www.ecosystemforpeace.org/. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Cao, Y., Alcayna, T., Quevedo, A. and Jarvie, J. (2021) Exploring the conflict blind spots in climate
adaptation finance. London: ILRI, Mercy Corps, and ODI. Available at https://www.sparc-
knowledge.org/sites/default/files/documents/resources/exploring-the-conflict-blind-spots-in-
climate-adaptation-finance.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2022.

CERF – United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (2021) UN Central Emergency
Response Fund supports anticipatory action in Ethiopia and Somalia. 16 April 2021. Available at
https://www.unocha.org/story/un-central-emergency-response-fund-supports-anticipatory-
action-ethiopia-and-somalia. Accessed 16 August 2022.

CSM - Climate Security Mechanism (2021) Climate Security Mechanism. Progress Report. May
2021. New York: UNDP, UNEP, UN DPPA. Available at
https://dppa.un.org/sites/default/files/csm_progress_report_2021_final.pdf. Accessed 25
September 2022.

50
Coursera (2022) When Disaster Meets Conflict. Available
at https://www.coursera.org/learn/whendisastermeetsconflict#enroll. Accessed 10 August
2022.

CRAF’D (2021) The Complex Risk Analytics Fund. December 2021. Available at
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60df58f306c9b647835feb69/t/61de386a196ccb6a0f0
12647/1641953386578/CRAF%27d-1-Pager-Dec-2021.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Debling, F. (2022 – forthcoming) Mapping of needs, capacities and resources to risk-inform

humanitarian action. Geneva: United Nations.

Delago, C., Jang, S., Milante, G. and Smith, D. (2019) The World Food Programme’s Contribution
to Improving the Prospects for Peace. Stockholm: Stockholm International Peace Research
Institute (SIPRI). Available at https://www.sipri.org/publications/2019/other-
publications/world-food-programmes-contribution-improving-prospects-peace. Accessed 29
September 2022.

DRMKC – Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre (nd) INFORM. Available at

https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/inform-index/. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Erman, A., Robbé, S., Thies, S., Kabir, K. and Maruo, M. (2021) Gender Dimensions of Disaster
Risk and Resilience. Washington D.C.: World Bank Group and GFDRR. Available at
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/35202/Gender-Dimensions-
of-Disaster-Risk-and-Resilience-Existing-Evidence.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 10
August 2022.

European Commission (nd) Social Protection across the Humanitarian-Development Nexus. A

Game Changer in Supporting People through Crises. Brussels: European Commission. Available
at
https://socialprotection.org/sites/default/files/publications_files/Guidance%20Package%20S
PaN_Summary%20Reference%20Document_0.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2022.

European Commission (2021) Resilience & Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus. Available

at https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/humanitarian-aid/resilience-
and-humanitarian-development-peace-nexus_en. Accessed 10 August 2022.

German Red Cross (nd) Forecast-based Financing. A new era for the humanitarian system.
German Red Cross. Available athttps://www.forecast-based-financing.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/03/DRK_Broschuere_2019_new_era.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2022.

GFDRR (2022b) Disaster Risk Management-Fragility, Conflict and Violence Nexus. Washington
D.C.: GFDRR. Available at https://www.gfdrr.org/en/drm-fcv. Accessed 10 August 2022.

GFDRR (2020) GFDRR Strategy 2021–2025: Scaling Up and Mainstreaming Resilience in a

World of Compound Risks. Washington DC: GFDRR. Available at
https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-
reports/documentdetail/955811620194170587/gfdrr-strategy-2021-2025-scaling-up-and-
mainstreaming-resilience-in-a-world-of-compound-risks. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Ghorpade, Y. and Ammar, A. (2021) Social Protection at the Humanitarian-Development Nexus:

Insights from Yemen. Washington D.C.: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
and The World Bank. Available at

51
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/35421/Insights-from-
Yemen.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 10 August 2022.

GIZ (2019) Frexus: Improving security and climate resilience in a fragile context through the
Water-Energy-Food Security Nexus. Bonn: GIZ.

GADRRRES - Global Alliance for Disaster Risk Reduction & Resilience in the Education Sector
(2022) Comprehensive School Safety Framework 2022-2030 for Child Rights and Resilience in
the Education Sector. GADRRRES.

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery - GFDRR (2022a) Results in Resilience:
Informing and Driving Resilience-Building at the DRM-FCV Nexus in South Sudan. Washington
D.C.: GFDRR. Available at https://www.gfdrr.org/en/feature-story/results-resilience-
informing-and-driving-resilience-building-drm-fcv-nexus-south. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Harris, K., Keen, D., and Mitchell, T. (2013) When disasters and conflict collide: Improving the
links between disaster resilience and conflict prevention. London: ODI. Available at
https://www.odi.org/publications/7257-disasters-conflicts-collide-improving-links-between-
disaster-resilience-conflict-prevention. Accessed 12 August 2022.

Hilhorst, D. and Mena, R. (2021) When Covid-19 meets conflict: politics of the pandemic
response in fragile and conflict-affected states. Disasters, vol. 45, issue S1. PS175-S194. Available
at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/disa.12514. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Hilhorst, D., Mena, R., van Voorst, R., Desportes, I. and Melis, S. (2019) Disaster risk governance
and humanitarian aid in different conflict scenarios. Contributing Paper to the Global
Assessment Report 2019. Geneva: UNDRR. Available at
https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/disaster-risk-governance-and-humanitarian-aid-
different-conflict-scenarios. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee and the European Commission, INFORM REPORT 2022;
Shared evidence for managing crises and disasters, EUR 31081 EN, Publications Office of the
European Union, Luxembourg, 2022, ISBN 978-92-76-52775-6, doi:10.2760/08333, JRC129343.
Available at https://drmkc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/inform-index/. Accessed 10 August 2022.

International Committee of the Red Cross / International Federation of the Red Cross and Red
Crescent Societies - ICRC / IFRC. (2022) The Climate and Environment Charter for
Humanitarian Organisations. Available at https://www.climate-charter.org/. Accessed 10
August 2022.

International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies - ICRC (2022) WFP and
IFRC join forces to strengthen response to anticipated climate shocks in MENA. Press release.
Available at https://www.ifrc.org/press-release/wfp-and-ifrc-join-forces-strengthen-response-
anticipated-climate-shocks-mena. Accessed 12 August 2022.

International Labour Organization - ILO (nd) Resource page on Recommendation No. 205.
Available at https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/employment-promotion/recovery-and-
reconstruction/r205/WCMS_648752/lang--en/index.htm. Accessed 10 August 2022.

52
International Military Council on Climate and Security - ICCMS (2021) World Climate and
Security Report 2021. Washington D.C.: Centre for Climate and Security. Available at
https://imccs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/World-Climate-and-Security-Report-
2021.pdf. Accessed 13 August 2022.

International Organization for Migration - IOM (n.d.) Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM):
About. Available at https://dtm.iom.int/about. Accessed 10 August 2022.

International Science Council and United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction - ISC and
UNDRR (2020) Hazard definition & classification review. Technical report. Geneva: ISC and
UNDRR.

Kellett, J. and Peters, K. (2013) Dare to prepare: taking risk seriously. London: ODI. Available at
https://www.odi.org/publications/7955-dare-prepare-taking-risk-seriously. Accessed 10
August 2022.

Loof, M. (2019) Enhancing resilience in fragile & conflict-affected contexts. Linking disaster risk
reduction with conflict risk analysis and conflict risk reduction: Cordaid experiences and
recommendations. The Hague: Cordaid. Available at https://www.cordaid.org/en/wp-
content/uploads/sites/11/2019/05/Report-Enhancing-Resilience-in-Fragile-and-Conflict-
affected-Contexts-2019.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Loof, M. and Ogonda, K. (2020) Enhancing resilience in fragile & conflict-affected contexts.
VOICE Out Loud #30. Available at https://www.cordaid.org/en/wp-
content/uploads/sites/11/2020/08/VOICE-out-Loud-30-humanitarian-action-climate.pdf.
Accessed 10 August 2022.

von Lossow, T., Schrijver, A., van der Kroon, M., can Schaik, L. and Meester, J. (2021) Towards a
Better Understanding of Climate Security Practices. Planetary Security Initiative. The Hague:
The Clingendael Institute. Available at
https://www.planetarysecurityinitiative.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/PSI-2021_Climate-
Security-Practices_final.pdf. Accessed 12 August 2022.

Maxwell, D. and Hailey, P. (2020) Towards anticipatory information systems and action: Notes
on early warning and early action in East Africa. Boston and Nairobi: Feinstein International
Centre and Centre for Humanitarian Change. Available at https://fic.tufts.edu/wp-
content/uploads/Towards-Anticipatory-Information-Systems-and-Action.pdf. Accessed 10
August 2022.

Mena, R. (2020) Disaster response and DRR in high-intensity conflict settings. Research brief.
December 2020. The Hague: International Institute of Social Studies. Available at
https://www.iss.nl/en/media/2021-01-hic-brief-final. Accessed 16 August 2022.

Mena, R. and Hilhorst, D. (2020) The (im)possibilities of disaster risk reduction in the context of
high-intensity conflict: the case of Afghanistan. Environmental Hazards. Volume 20, Issue 2.
Available at https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2020.1771250.
Accessed 16 August 2022.

53
Mena, R. and Hilhorst, D. (2021) The transition from development and disaster risk reduction to
humanitarian relief: the case of Yemen during high-intensity conflict. Disasters. Available at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/disa.12521. Accessed 16 August 2022.

Mena, R., Hilhorst, D. and Peters, K. (2019) Disaster risk reduction and protracted violent
conflict: the case of Afghanistan. London: ODI. Available at www.odi.org/publications/11413-
disaster-risk-reduction-and-protracted-violent-conflict-case-afghanistan. Accessed 16 August
2022.

Met Office (2018) World first as UK aid brings together experts to predict where cholera will
strike next. Met Office, 28 August 2018. Available at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-
us/pressoffice/news/corporate/2018/yemen-2018. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Mizutori, M. (2020) Scaling up DRR in Humanitarian/Development Contexts. Opening Remarks

by Assistant Secretary-General and Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster
Risk Reduction in the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Mami Mizutori. Geneva:
UNDRR. Available at https://www.undrr.org/news/scaling-drr-humanitarian/development-
contexts. Accessed 21 August 2022.

Neaverson, A., Gould, C. and Peters, K. (2019) Delivering climate resilience programmes in
fragile and conflict-affected contexts. London: ODI. Available at
https://www.odi.org/publications/16494-delivering-climate-resilience-programmes-fragile-
and-conflict-affected-contexts. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Norwegian Refugee Council – NRC, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - UNHCR,
United Nations Children’s Fund - UNICEF and Education Cannot Wait (2022) Improve children’s
wellbeing and learning in central Sahel. Increasing psychosocial support in schools. NRC,
UNHCR, UNICEF, Education Cannot Wait. Available at
https://www.nrc.no/globalassets/pdf/reports/improve-childrens-wellbeing-in-sahel/improve-
childrens-wellbeing-and-learning-in-central-sahel.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2022.

ODI, ICRC and Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre (2019) Double vulnerability: the
humanitarian implications of intersecting climate and conflict risk. London: ODI. Available at
https://odi.org/en/publications/double-vulnerability-the-humanitarian-implications-of-
intersecting-climate-and-conflict-risk/. Accessed 10 August 2022.

OECD (2020) COVID-19, crises and fragility. OECD website. 29 April 2020. Paris: OECD.
Available at https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/covid-19-crises-and-
fragility-2f17a262/. Accessed 8 August 2022.

OECD (2019) DAC Recommendation on the Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus. Paris:

OECD. Available at https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-5019.
Accessed 8 August 2022.

Oxfam (nd) Covid-19 and conflict sensitivity. London: Oxfam. Available at

https://peacenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Oxfam-Conflict-Sensitivity-and-Covid-
19-response-guidance.pdf. Accessed 16 August 2022.

54
Patel, S., McCaul, B., Caceres, G., Peters, L.E.R., Patel, R.B., and Clark-Ginsberg, A. (2021)
Delivering the promise of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in fragile and
conflict-affected contexts (FCAC): A case study of the NGO GOAL's response to the Syria conflict.
Progress in Disaster Science, volume 10. Available at
https://sdgresources.relx.com/articles/delivering-promise-sendai-framework-disaster-risk-
reduction-fragile-and-conflict-affected. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Peters, K. (2021) Enhancing financial commitments to disaster risk reduction in conflict

contexts. London: ODI. Available at https://odi.org/en/publications/enhancing-financial-
commitments-to-disaster-risk-reduction-in-conflict-contexts/. Accessed 22 August 2022.

Peters, K. (2019) Disaster risk reduction in conflict contexts. An agenda for action. London: ODI.
Available at https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/12910.pdf. Accessed 22 August 2022.

Peters, K. (2017) The next frontier for disaster risk reduction: tackling disasters in fragile and
conflict-affected contexts. London: ODI. Available at https://www.odi.org/publications/10952-
next-frontier-disaster-risk-reduction-tackling-disasters-fragile-and-conflict-affected-contexts.
Accessed 22 August 2022.

Peters, L.E.R. (2022) Disasters as Ambivalent Multipliers: Influencing the Pathways from
Disaster to Conflict Risk and Peace Potential Through Disaster Risk Reduction. Journal of
Peacebuilding & Development. Vol. 17(2) 151-172. Available at
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/15423166221081516. Accessed 22 August
2022.

Peters, K. and Budimir, M. (2016) When disasters and conflict collide: facts and figures. London:
ODI. Available at https://www.odi.org/publications/10410-when-disasters-and-conflicts-
collide-facts-and-figures. Accessed 22 August 2022.

Peters, K., Davies, G. and Holloway, K. (2021a) Addressing protection risks in a climate changed
world: challenges and opportunities. London: Humanitarian Policy Group and ODI. Available at
https://odi.org/en/publications/addressing-protection-risks-in-a-climate-changed-world-
challenges-and-opportunities/. Accessed 22 August 2022.

Peters, K., Gray Meral, A., Opitz-Stapleton, S. and Measures, H. (2021) Gray-Meral, A., Opitz-
Stapleton, S. and Measures, H. (2021) Climate, conflict and displacement: implications for
protection agencies. London: ODI. Available at https://odi.org/en/publications/climate-change-
conflict-and-displacement-implications-for-protection-agencies/. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Peters, K. and Lovell, E. (2020) Reducing the risk of protracted and multiple disaster
displacements in the Asia-Pacific. London and Bangkok: ODI and UNDRR. Available at
https://www.odi.org/publications/16911-reducing-risk-protracted-and-multiple-disaster-
displacements-asia-pacific. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Peters, K. and Peters, L.E.R. (2021) Terra incognita: the contribution of disaster risk reduction in
unpacking the sustainability–peace nexus. Sustainability Science, 16: 1173–1184. Available at
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-021-00944-9. Accessed 10 August 2022.

55
Peters, K. and Pichon, F. (2017) Crisis modifiers: a solution for a more flexible development-
humanitarian system? London: ODI. Available at https://www.odi.org/publications/10975-
crisis-modifiers-solution-more-flexible-development-humanitarian-system. Accessed 8 August
2022.

Peters, K., Dewulf, A., Barbelet, V., Benoudji, C. and Le Masson, V. (2019a) Pursuing disaster risk
reduction on fractured foundations: the case of Chad. London: ODI. Available at
www.odi.org/publications/11411-pursuing-disaster-risk-reduction-fractured-foundations-
case-chad. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Peters, K., Eltinay, N. and Holloway, K. (2019b) Disaster risk reduction, urban informality and a
‘fragile peace’: the case of Lebanon. London: ODI. Available at
www.odi.org/publications/11412-disaster-risk-reduction-urban-informality-and-fragile-peace-
case-lebanon/. Accessed 10 August 2022.
Peters, K. Holloway, K. and Peters, L.E.R. (2019c) Disaster risk reduction in conflict contexts: the
state of the evidence. London: ODI. Available at https://odi.org/en/publications/disaster-risk-
reduction-in-conflict-contexts-the-state-of-the-evidence/. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Peters, K., Peters, L.E.R., Twigg, J. and Walch, C. (2019d) Disaster risk reduction strategies:
navigating conflict contexts. London: ODI. Available at
www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/12690.pdf. Accessed 14 August 2022.

Peters, K. Peters, L.E.R. and Walch, C. (2019e) The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk
Reduction as a vehicle for conflict prevention: attainable or tenuous?. Contributing Paper to the
Global Assessment Report 2019. Geneva: UNDRR. Available at
https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/66303. Accessed 14 August 2022.

Peters, K., Weingärtner, L., Mall, P., and Balcou, C. (2022) Anticipatory Action in the MENA
region. State of Play and Accelerating Action. Cairo and London: WFP and ODI. Available at
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/WFP-
0000141598/download/?_ga=2.224859802.1638108307.1660663369-
1188907186.1660663369. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Pichon, F. (2019) Anticipatory humanitarian action: what role for the CERF? Moving from rapid
response to early action. Working paper 551. London: ODI. Available at
https://odi.org/en/publications/scoping-and-design-for-taking-forecast-based-early-action-to-
scale-three-case-studies/. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Planetary Security Initiative (2019) Planetary Security in the Caribbean region: Plan of Action
on resilience. 14 February 2019. Planetary Security Initiative. Available
at https://www.planetarysecurityinitiative.org/index.php/news/planetary-security-caribbean-
region-plan-action-resilience. Accessed 8 August 2022.

Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre (2021) Publications. Available at

https://www.climatecentre.org/resources/publications/#Country%20Climate%20Factsheets.
Accessed 10 August 2022.

56
Saferworld (2020a) Conflict sensitivity in responses to COVID-19. Initial guidance and
reflections. London: Saferworld. Available at
https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/publications/1254-conflict-sensitivity-in-
responses-to-covid-19-initial-guidance-and-reflections. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Saferworld (2020b) COVID-19 in Yemen: Yemeni organisations on the frontline. London:

Saferworld. Available at https://www.saferworld.org.uk/resources/news-and-
analysis/post/867-covid-19-in-yemen-yemeni-organisations-on-the-frontline. Accessed 21
August 2022.

van Schaik, L., Born, C., Sellwood, E. and de Bruin, S. (2019) Making Peace with Climate
Adaptation. Netherlands: Clingendael. Available at
https://www.clingendael.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/Making_peace_with_climate.pdf.
Accessed 10 August 2022.

Scholz, C. (2021) OFF THE GRID. OSM mapping has shown to be a suitable and useful tool for
anticipatory mapping, closing crucial data gaps and enabling the planning of early actions in FbA
for disasters in conflict settings. Copenhagen: Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre and
University of Copenhagen.

Seal, A., Jelle, M., Nameth, B., Hassan, M., Farah, D., Musili, F., Asol, G., Grijalva-Eternod, C. and
Fottrell, E. (2021) Data innovation in response to COVID-19 in Somalia: application of a
syndromic case definition and rapid mortality assessment method, Global Health Action, volume
14, Issue sup 1. Available at
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16549716.2021.1983106. Accessed 6 August
2022.

Seglah, H. and Blanchard, K. (2021) LGBTQIA+ People and Disasters. DRR Dynamics. Available at
https://bit.ly/DRR_LGBT_Rept. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Siddiqi, A. and Peters, K. (2019) Disaster risk reduction in contexts of fragility and armed
conflict: a review of emerging evidence challenges assumptions. Contributing Paper to the
Global Assessment Report 2019. Geneva: UNDRR. Available at
https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/disaster-risk-reduction-contexts-fragility-and-
armed-conflict-review-emerging-evidence. Accessed 6 August 2022.

Siddiqi, A., Peters, K. and Zulver, J. (2019) ‘Doble afectación’: living with disasters and conflict in
Colombia. London: ODI. Available at www.odi.org/publications/11414-doble-afectacion-living-
disasters-and-conflict-colombia. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Sillmann, J., Christensen, I., Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Huang-Lachmann, J., Juhola, S., Kornhuber, K.,
Mahecha, M., Mechler, R., Reichstein, M., Ruane, A.C., Schweizer, P.- J. and Williams, S. (2022)
Briefing note on systemic risk. Paris: International Science Council, Platform for the Promotion
of Early Warning, Risk-KAN Working Groups. Available at
https://www.undrr.org/publication/briefing-note-systemic-
risk#:~:text=Systemic%20risk%20is%20associated%20with,regions%2C%20countries%20an
d%20continents. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Singh, N., Abrahim, O., Altare, C., Blanchet, K., Favas, C., Odlum, A. and Spiegel, P. (2020) COVID-
19 in humanitarian settings: documenting and sharing context-specific programmatic

57
experiences. Conflict and Health, 14:79. Available at
https://conflictandhealth.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13031-020-00321-w.pdf.
Accessed 6 August 2022.

Start Network (2021a) CV19 040 Lebanon. March 2021. London: Start Network. Available at
https://startnetwork.org/start-fund/alerts/cv19-040-lebanon. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Stein, S. and Walch, C. (2017) The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction as a Tool for
Conflict Prevention. Conflict Prevention and Peace Forum. Available at
https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-tool-
conflict-prevention. Accessed 8 August 2022.

Swiss NGO DRR Platform (2021) The role of DRR in the Humanitarian-Development Nexus –
linking GAR19 concepts, connecting stakeholders, strengthening resilience. Swiss NGO DRR
Platform. Available at https://drrplatform.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/08/2021_Outline_annual-workshop_Nexus-DRR.pdf. Accessed 10
August 2022.

Takabayashi, H. (2019) Urban disaster risk reduction strategy in fragile contexts: a case from
Kabul, Afghanistan. Contributing Paper to the Global Assessment Report 2019. Geneva: UNDRR.
Available at
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/66143_f315finaltakabayashiurbandisasterri.pdf.
Accessed 10 August 2022.

United Nations Development Programme - UNDP, World Bank, and European Union (2019)
PDNA guidance: integrating conflict sensitivity. New York: UNDP. Available at
https://www.undp.org/publications/pdna-guidance-integrating-conflict-sensitivity. Accessed
21 August 2022.

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction - UNDRR (2022 unpublished) Scaling up DRR
in humanitarian action. Core Group Meeting no.1 (2022-2023). 18 August 2022. PowerPoint.
Geneva: UNDRR.

UNDRR (2022) Co-Chair’s Summary. Bali Agenda for Resilience. Bali: UNDRR. Available at
https://globalplatform.undrr.org/publication/co-chairs-summary-bali-agenda-resilience-risk-
resilience-towards-sustainable. Accessed 10 August 2022.

UNDRR (2022a) Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2022. Geneva: UNDRR.

UNDRR (2021) Scaling Up Disaster Risk Reduction in Humanitarian Action 2.0.

Recommendations for the Humanitarian Programme Cycle. Geneva: UNDRR.

UNDRR (2021a) Reduction/Risk in 2021 Humanitarian Needs Overviews and Humanitarian

Response Plans. Geneva: UNDRR.

UNDRR (2021b) Scaling up Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Humanitarian Action. Haiti
Snapshot 2021. Geneva: UNDRR.

UNDRR (2021c) Scaling up Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in Humanitarian Action. Pakistan
Snapshot 2021. Geneva: UNDRR.

UNDRR (2020) Scaling Up Disaster Risk Reduction in Humanitarian Action. Recommendations

for the Humanitarian Programme Cycle. Geneva: UNDRR.

58
UNDRR (2020a) Integrating Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in the UN
Sustainable Development Cooperation Framework. Geneva: UNDRR. Available at
https://www.undrr.org/publication/integrating-disaster-risk-reduction-and-climate-change-
adaptation-un-sustainable. Accessed 10 August 2022.

UNDRR (2019) Global Assessment Report 2019. Geneva: UNDRR. Available at

https://gar.undrr.org/ Accessed 8 August 2022.

UNDRR (2015) Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Geneva: UNDRR.
Available at https://www.undrr.org/publication/sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-
2015-2030. Accessed 8 August 2022.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees - UNHCR (2022) Five things you should know
about Afghanistan. 15 August 2022. UNHCR. Available at
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/news/stories/2022/8/62fa24ac4/five-things-know-
afghanistan.html. Accessed 10 August 2022.

UN press release (2022) Deputy Secretary-General, at Global Disaster Risk Reduction Platform,
Urges Action to Strength Humanitarian-Development Nexus, Resilience against Future
Calamities. United Nations. Available at https://press.un.org/en/2022/dsgsm1749.doc.htm.
Accessed 14 August 2022.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - UNFCCC (nd) Comprehensive risk
management approaches. UNFCCC online. Available at https://unfccc.int/wim-excom/areas-of-
work/crm-approaches. Accessed 27 September 2022.

Water, Peace and Security - WPS (nd) Water, Peace and Security. Available at
https://waterpeacesecurity.org/. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Weegmann, M. (2021) Disasters in conflict. Disaster impacts and risk reduction strategies, a
case for Palestine and Sudan. London: Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre and University
College London.

Weerasinghe, A. (2021) Bridging the Divide in Approaches to Conflict and Disaster

Displacement: Norms, Institutions and Coordination in Afghanistan, Colombia, Niger, the
Philippines and Somalia. Geneva: UNHCR and IOM. Available at
https://www.iom.int/sites/g/files/tmzbdl486/files/inline-files/bridging-the-divide-in-
approaches-to-conflict-and-disaster-displacement-english.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2022.

Wilkinson E., Pforr T., and Weingärtner L. (2020) Integrating ‘AA’ in disaster risk management.
Briefing Note. London: ODI. Available at https://odi.org/en/publications/integrating-
anticipatory-action-in-disaster-risk-management/. Accessed 14 August 2022.

World Bank (nd) ASPIRE: The Atlas of Social Protection Indicators of Resilience and Equity.
Washington D.C.: World Bank. Available at
https://www.worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire. Accessed 10 August 2022.

World Bank (2022) Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program (ASPP). Washington D.C.: World
Bank. Available at https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/sahel-adaptive-social-protection-
program-trust-fund#1. Accessed 16 August 2022.

59
World Bank, GFDRR and UNDRR (2022) Joint communique on reconstruction for a sustainable
future. World Reconstruction Conference 5. World Bank, GFDRR and UNDRR. Available at
https://recovery.preventionweb.net/sites/default/files/inline-
files/JOINT%20COMMUNIQUE%20ON%20RECONSTRUCTING%20FOR%20A%20SUSTAINABL
E%20FUTURE_2.pdf. Accessed 10 August 2022.

World Bank (2019) Sahel Adaptive Social Protection Program. Annual Report 2019. Washington
D.C.: World Bank. Available at
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/680361585895594749/pdf/Sahel-Adaptive-
Social-Protection-Program-Annual-Report-2019.pdf. Accessed 21 August 2022.

World Bank (2018) The State of Social Safety Nets 2018. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available
at https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/29115. Accessed 10 August 2022.

World Food Programme – WFP (2019) Climate Change and Conflict. Improving the prospects
for peace through WFP climate action. WFP. Available at
https://www.wfp.org/publications/climate-change-and-conflict. Accessed 29 September 2022.

World Health Organization - WHO (2021) Bridging the Divide. A guide to implementing the
Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus for Health. Geneva: WHO. Available at
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/351260/9789290227502-
eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 22 August 2022.

WHO and Center for Conflict and Humanitarian Studies - CCHS (nd) Training Course:
Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus (HDPNx) for Health. WHO and CCHS. Available at
https://chs-doha.org/en/Initiatives/Pages/Training-Course-Implementing-the-Humanitarian-
Development-Peace-Nexus-(HDPNX)-for-Health.aspx. Accessed 8 August 2022.

Xu, J., Wang, Z., Shen, F., Ouyang, C. and Tu, Y. (2016) Natural disasters and social conflict: A
systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, volume 17: 38-
48. Available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212420916300024.
Accessed 10 August 2022.

Yayboke, E., Graff, C. and Staguhn, J. (2021) Beyond Emergency Pandemic Response. The Case
for Prioritizing Peacebuilding and Conflict Prevention. Center for Strategic and International
Studies - CSIS Briefs. Available at https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/publication/210810_Yayboke_BeyondEmergency_PandemicResponse.pdf?w6hiJY7zHFv
IpUVCfyIg.v.kQsVwNHSH. Accessed 14 August 2022.

60
Annex
Annex 1: Taking stock of how violence compromises progress in the Sendai
Framework priorities
• Priority 1: Many conflict contexts lack quality and timely disaster risk data at the
appropriate level, which challenges the Sendai Framework Priority 1 on understanding
disaster risk. Yet, organizations working to reduce risk in conflict contexts may be too
consumed by the acute crisis to adequately gather the necessary data to understand the full
dimensions of disaster risks.
• Priority 2: The Sendai Framework and many disaster management plans rely on a strong
state in order to employ an effective and efficient management of disaster risk. However, in
conflict contexts, the burden on the state is quite high and, in most cases, the central
governance body is unable or unwilling to implement DRR because of the impact of the
conflict on state structures.
• Priority 3: This priority focuses on the need to have cost-effective and instrumental
institutionalized measures to save lives, prevent and reduce losses, and ensure effective
recovery and rehabilitation from a disaster. Yet, these are financial instruments and
resources that are absent in conflict contexts, again consumed by acute crises rather than
future risk. The financial systems that would normally address this challenge or provide
innovative mechanisms and policies are not found in conflict contexts but in more stable
contexts that can divert resources toward that end.
• Priority 4: Build back better in the recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction phases is a
critical opportunity for states to be prepared ahead of a future disaster. Yet, this priority is
rarely incorporated in the acute relief phase of humanitarian response, and actors may
struggle to transition into recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction due to consecutive
crises. Achieving the goal of building back better requires an investment in the systems that
underlie the delivery of basic goods and services to build recovery, which may not even be
identifiable in conflict contexts.

Source: quote from Patel et al., (2021)

Annex 2: The positive peace potential of DRR

• Disasters and disaster-related activities have the potential to influence – but not determine
– violent conflict risk and peace potential in conflict-affected regions; disasters can magnify
or ameliorate existing conflicts and shape how subsequent conflicts are addressed violently
or non-violently
• DRR is possible to varying extents in diverse contexts affected by violent conflict, though
organisations tend to avoid or conduct minimal programming amidst high-intensity armed
conflicts.
• A disaster can increase awareness of structural violence and poor governance, and this
awareness may represent the first step towards overt conflict and eventually reordering
relationships in ways that sustain peace. However, durable peace is far from a certain
outcome where vulnerabilities to disasters and conflicts are mutually reinforcing.
• For example, different social groups may act cooperatively to reduce their shared disaster
risks where state-sponsored services are limited, which could ameliorate communal conflict
while magnifying conflict risk between civil society and the state. Regimes may try to avoid

61
 these conflict risks by stymying civil society participation in delivering resources, but this
can inadvertently aggravate tensions.
• Disasters may create spaces for new interactions involving governments and social groups,
which could lead to novel sources of conflict or cooperation. DRR and disaster relief are
often painted as politically neutral, but even seemingly innocuous activities (or lack thereof)
can influence conflict risk and peace potential. It is important to recognise that in conflict-
affected contexts humanitarian and development interventions including DRR become part
of the conflict. Rather than striving to merely ‘do no harm’ … DRR can actively encourage
pathways to peace potential through activities taken before, during, and after disasters that
reduce vulnerabilities, improve equitable resource distribution, encourage cooperation, and,
in some cases, find opportunities for social and/or political (re)integration
• DRR may have the greatest opportunities for advancing peace potential where
programming is designed to address multiple pathways that are self-reinforcing.

Source: quote from Peters (2022)

Annex 3: Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction and Conflict Risk Reduction
Step 1: Conduct a conflict (risk) analysis. When doing this step, ensure that you consider in your
analysis: conflict profile (include type of conflict, level of conflict – e.g. local, national); conflict
causes (environmental, political, economic, socio-cultural); conflict actors (stakeholders
involved, power relations, role in conflict); conflict dynamics (analysing trends, risks,
opportunities); summary of data, and analysis (high – medium – low conflict risk).

Step 2.a: Determine the scope and focus of the project (part of planning phase). Discuss what is
appropriate in the context. Work on a conflict sensitive resilience/DRR project, or on conflict
risk reduction.

Step 2.b: Community Action Planning for the resilience project in a context or area affected by
conflict, considering conflict risk and disaster risk (including climate change).

Step 3: Establish or strengthen community structures for the resilience project. This may
include existing development, DRR, or other committees at a community level, and/or specific
peace committees.

Step 4: Implementation of resilience measures, to address disaster risks and/or conflict risks. A
focus on livelihood security in this stage is important.

Step 5: Monitoring and documentation of the outputs and outcomes of the resilience project
(including collecting stories of change).

Step 6: Advocacy and fundraising for upscaling the work done, to further enhance people’s
resilience.

Source: quote from Loof (2019: 9).

Annex 4: Disaster-FCV Vulnerability Index

In the aftermath of two civil wars, South Sudan is contending with Covid-19, climate change,
droughts and floods among other coexisting and compounding risks. In all 10 states, spatial data
on hazards, exposure of populations and assets were collated alongside data on conflict
fatalities, food insecurity and forced displacement. Hazard and exposure data were overlaid

62
with conflict-related data to develop a composite score which formed the Disaster-FCV
Vulnerability Index.

The Index revealed state variances, with some of the most conflict-affected such as Unity and
Jonglei scoring highest. The findings informed the World Bank’s $45 million International
Development Association (IDA)-financed Enhancing Community Resilience Project in the
country.

Concerningly, the Index revealed that the increased frequency of compound risks, including
flood and drought, contributed to rise in community-level conflicts – a finding later supported
by remote damage and needs assessments following seasonal floods July-October 2020. Among
those most vulnerable to compound risks were women, girls and internally displaced
populations.

Several local level interventions have been supported which are helping combat livelihood
insecurities, such as crop diversification to groundnuts in Aweil East County – creating more
stable food supplies. In Nasir County, rehabilitation dukes have helped protect crops and
shelters from flooding.

The insights gathered have informed a set of recommendations given to the Government of
South Sudan in support of the development of a DRM strategy. This includes for example the
recommendation to establish a national approach to collecting data on disaster and conflict
risks, and establishing coordination entities at the state and national level responsible for
tackling disaster-conflict risks. GFDRR have found that “When designing and implementing a
DRM intervention, it is critical to consider the full range of interconnected and often compound
risks affecting people and communities, including those that lie at the nexus of DRM and FCV. As
highlighted by this engagement, siloed approaches, which consider only one set of risks in
isolation, are typically not able to grasp how risks interact with one another. This isolation often
has grave impacts that could be counterproductive to resilience building.” (GFDRR, 2022a: np).

Source: GFDRR (2022a)

Annex 5: INFORM products

INFORM open source products include the following:

Product Description Application Analysis Status

INFORM Global, open source Development, Generalised risk of Operational
Risk risk assessment. risk reduction, a crisis based on
crisis structural
prevention, conditions
preparedness
INFORM A way to objectively Preparedness, Indications of In
Warning measure and compare early warning, elevated risk, development
the severity of crises early action emerging crisis or
and disasters. crisis trigger
INFORM Supports decisions Early action, Severity of an Release in
Severity around preparedness, crisis response existing crisis 2020

63
 early warning and
early action.
Source: DRMKC, nd.

Annex 6: Proactive development finance institutions and government donors

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

• Disaster risk is now included in the Peace and Conflict Analysis Tool and has been used
in recent assessments in Nepal and Lebanon;
• DRR projects in violent and armed conflict contexts have been documented, including in
Afghanistan, Chad, Colombia and Lebanon (see Peters, 2019);
• German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) funding
has been provided to GFDRR to work in collaboration with the World Bank. This has
facilitated disaster risk management to be integrated into investments in FCV contexts,
particularly on issues of social cohesion;
• The theme has been championed as part of Germany’s role as Co-Chair of the OECD
International Network on Conflict and Fragility (INCAF).

Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR)

• The intersection of disaster and conflict risks, and the need to adapt disaster risk
management approaches as a result, has been made explicit in the latest GFDRR Strategy
2021-2025;
• Funding for DRR in conflict contexts has been mobilised under the Disaster Risk
Management-Fragility, Conflict and Violence Nexus Initiative;
• Integrated multi-hazard risk analysis have been trialled, bringing together natural
hazards and FCV to inform investment design and delivery;
• Technical Team Leaders (TTL) acting as champions of this theme have recorded videos
documenting their experiences of integrating the disaster-conflict links into project
designs, to help internal advocacy efforts.

Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)

• Under Switzerland’s International Cooperation Strategy 2021–2024, technical training

on disasters, conflict and other issues, has sought to encourage inclusion of DRR in
responses in FCV contexts;
• The Climate, Environment and Disaster Risk reduction Integration Guide (CEDRIG) has
been used to systematise the integration of these topics into development and
humanitarian interventions, as well as identify possible impacts on carbon emissions.

Agence Française de Développement (AFD)

• Various grants have been awarded to implement DRR activities in contexts of violence
and conflict (including in Haiti and Lebanon);
• In 2021 AFD commissioned ODI to undertake an internal review to identify barriers,
opportunities and incentives to enhance action between technical specialists working on
issues of disasters, peace and conflict.

Source: adapted from Peters (2021).

64
Annex 7: Covid-19 in crisis settings, the case of triage and SGBV
• Triage: Covid-19 triage systems, critical to effective health system response, require
adaptation to local conditions. Experiences in Myanmar, South Sudan, DRC and Somalia
share similarities – such as temperature screening at health facility entrance. This is also
similar to global guidance for standard procedures. But in contexts where other infections
are commonplace, such as endemic malaria – as in DRC and South Sudan, relying on cough
or fever can create unnecessary burden on investigations teams and increase the risk of
cross contamination. Community-based triage was found to be useful in many contexts, as
was use of rapid tests – as in South Sudan – to rule out other conditions. In conflict settings
whether isolation was voluntary – as in Somalia, DRC and South Sudan, or compulsory – as
in Myanmar, was particularly sensitive. It was found that in contexts where trust of
government is low, people’s willingness to test or seek treatment was affected.
• SGBV: Measures to respond to Covid-19 and reduce risk of infection, in particular
restrictions on movement and social isolation, were found to exacerbate SGBV risks and
violence against women and girls. Such measures reduced the ability of survivors to access
support, or distance themselves from their abusers. In Haiti and Lebanon, integration of
SGBV programming lessons into Covid-19 responses have proved helpful. This includes for
example using digital technology and social media to reach target populations – including
use of social media influencers in Lebanon, and providing fully women-led service delivery
as in Haiti.

Source: adapted from Singh et al. (2020)

Annex 8: Rapid conflict analysis

The following rapid conflict analysis questions can be used as part of a rapid analysis (which
includes gender and safe programming considerations) with partners and field teams when
planning an intervention. They can also be used on a weekly or daily basis to understand how
the situation is unfolding and to take rapid decisions on how to change the intervention
strategy. Depending on the context, these questions could be very sensitive, so it would not be
appropriate to use them with communities directly at the risk of exacerbating tensions.

Understanding the conflict context:

1. What is the history of conflict and violence in this community/ between surrounding
communities? Is there anything recent we need to be aware of?
2. Where are the divisions and tensions in this community or between surrounding
communities? (I.e., who are we potentially going to agitate in our response?)
3. How does the conflict impact different groups women (such as how are women uniquely
impacted by the conflict, are minority groups disproportionately affected?)
4. Are there new conflicts or tensions arising, who is most at risk?
5. Are there any formal or informal mechanisms in place for governing or managing water
sources or existing conflict resolutions mechanisms between divided groups that we could
work with? Understanding the evolving Covid-19 situation
6. How are concerns about spread of or treatment of Covid-19 manifesting themselves
throughout the area of intervention?
7. What kind of information are people receiving about the spread and prevention of Covid-
19? How do women receive information? Do they trust the information sources they
receive?

65
8. How are preventive measures being implemented and enforced? And by who?
9. Is the government trusted or seen as legitimate in all communities it is supposed to serve?
And is it using the crisis to withdraw political or civil rights in an excessive manner, not
consistent with Covid-19 mandated response?
10. Are health centres controlled or only serving one particular group?
11. How have (local) armed groups responded to the Covid-19 outbreak? Do they seem open to
providing access for humanitarian aid and health workers? Are there increased risks for aid
diversion? Is there an increase in sexual and gender based violence?
12. Are (local) armed groups using movement restrictions and a potential decrease in security
force presence as manner to increase their control over areas? Thinking about our
intervention
13. Are markets still accessible? Is access restricted/prevented by or for specific groups?
14. Are water sources or water infrastructure being controlled and dominated by one particular
group?
15. How are public health providers or local actors leading on the response being perceived?
16. How is Oxfam and/ or partners perceived?
17. What could go wrong and what tensions could erupt as a result of our intervention? (such as
where we distribute, which communities we serve first, how we communicate about our
response, any feedback mechanisms used, who we hire?)

Source: quote from Oxfam (nd)

Annex 9: Peacebuilding CSOs in Yemen adapt to support Covid-19 responses

Yemeni civil society organisations (CSO) – often functioning with a small core staff and
volunteers – have been central to the pandemic response efforts throughout the conflict.
Navigating complex political divides, supply shortages and armed conflict, CSOs provide many
of the functions typically the remit of local authorities. Working across the HDP nexus, including
in many areas of peacebuilding, CSOs had to adapt their work to respond to the spread of Covid-
19 across the country.

In Taiz, Yemen, organisations such as the National Organisation for Community built on their
existing trusted networks to establish electronic community centres to pool insight and
intelligence from across a range of local groups. This insight was then used to form a basis for
Covid-19 case monitoring and awareness-raising.

In conflict settings information sharing can be highly politicised. The Youth Organization for
Development & democracy adapted its peacebuilding handbook to provide guidance on
accurate and sensitive sharing of information related to the spread of the virus. In a similar
vein, the Center for International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights adapted their work with
schools to educate teachers and students on Covid-19 in collaboration with local doctors.

Source: Saferworld (2020b)

Annex 10: Community-based DRR programming as a causal pathway to peace

Interviews with global DRR practitioners revealed a number of potential links between DRR and
peace outcomes – as the following snippets reveal:

66
 • In Yemen, DRR education and training programmes have increased awareness of the
norms that give rise to linked disaster-conflict risks and have built capacities for youth-
led peace activities.
• In Egypt, DRR programmes explicitly encourage people to foster a safer society – rather
than revisit difficult aspects of a violent past.
• In Sierra Leone, post-conflict tensions were transcended when communities worked
together to form disaster management committees to respond to shared disaster risks.
• In DRC, a disaster reconstruction project on safer shelters facilitated a forgiveness
ceremony to bring together two villages embroiled in violent communal conflict – in
order to work together to build shelters.
• In Kenya and Ethiopia, water reservoir projects not only help mitigate disaster risks but
can create shared benefits and in turn cultivate prosocial relationships.

Source: Peters (2022)

Annex 11: Psychosocial support for LGBTQI+

Identifying as LGBTQI+ or with particular SOGIESC, can leave individuals as the target of
violence and exclusion. This is true in peacetimes as well as in crisis and conflict settings, and
notable during the Covid-19 pandemic where tailored support was required, and delivered:

• Exclusion of LGBTQI+, trans people and sex workers from Covid-19 relief efforts led the
Youth Champs 4 Mental Health group in Fiji to provide tailored relief and mental health
support – including suicide prevention, alongside its efforts to offer mental health services
as part of first responder services (Seglah and Blanchard, 2021).
• During the pandemic, Mawjoudin We Exist for Equality found demand for counselling the
second most requested service after food aid. They provided medical assistance, food aid
and vouchers, phone credit and housing support.
• Fundación AMal Argentina provided psychosocial support via WhatsApp to LGBTQI+
people, refugees and migrant sex workers, alongside funds to support debts,
accommodation and food aid.

Source: Seglah and Blanchard (2021)

Annex 12: Climate-disaster-conflict interface, implications for protection agencies

Advocate to close legal protection gaps

• Demand greater clarity around the legal basis for access to a country’s territory.
• Continue to work in collaboration with the Platform on Disaster Displacement to better
understand how the Global Compact on Refugees can ensure protection and humanitarian
support to those forcibly displaced by natural hazard related disasters (UNHCR, 2018).
• Develop, implement and promote organisational Climate Action Frameworks (in line with
UNHCR (n.d.) and the Norwegian Refugee Council) to steer future policy and advocacy work.

Close knowledge gaps

• Take a longer-term perspective on tracking the multifaceted drivers of displacement in

contexts where climate change, conflict and displacement interact, and ground truthing
findings with the lived experiences of communities affected by this tripartite relationship.
• Pool financial resources and commission mixed-methods research to reveal new insights on
displacement drivers, triggers and trends.

67
• Protection agencies should support calls for improved interoperability of displacement data
sets, and coherence in definitions and key metrics.
• Use partnerships with meteorological organisations to examine the relative attribution of
climate change to an event that has contributed to displacement.
• Lead the way in experimenting how climate change attribution analysis can be integrated
into existing organisational tools and methods to better understand complex interactions.

Broker new partnerships for policy and advocacy engagement

• Push back on securitised framings of climate change and redirect attention to the
attainment of rights and the varying protection needs of displacement-affected people in a
changing climate, in contexts of violence and conflict.
• Engage with UN Security Council members on humanitarian access, climate and hunger,
protection of civilians and displacement linked to extreme weather events. Accelerate
sectoral responses that support humanitarian and climate ambitions
• Devise a strategy between likeminded agencies for how the proposed Climate, Environment
and Conflict Action Plans on the humanitarian impacts of climate-conflict-environmental
nexus can be scoped further.
• Mainstream climate resilient adaptation into multi-year interventions (e.g., for water,
sanitation and hygiene; electricity; health; and education).
• Advocate for the financial inclusion of crisis affected people through access to bank
accounts, credit and other mainstream financial services.
• Collaborate with development counterparts specialising in disaster risk to design and
deliver genuinely conflict- and displacement-sensitive disaster risk reduction interventions.
• Engage with NDMAs and join the Risk-informed Early Action Partnership (REAP) to
champion displacement issues within early action (REAP, 2021).

Source: quote from Peters et al., (2021)

1 This includes:
• Mapping good practice and strengthening the peace element of the HDP nexus (workstream led by UNICEF);
• Mapping of good practice of HDP nexus (workstream led by UNICEF);
• Providing sector/cluster-specific practical guidance to HDP collaboration (workstream led by FAO and UNHCR);
• Mapping good practice of humanitarian contributions to basic service delivery in protracted contexts (workstream led by OCHA);
• Propose solutions for strengthening funding for joined humanitarian-development programming and bringing to scale
(workstream led by UNDP);
• Develop an IASC Conflict Sensitivity Accountability Framework (workstream led by IOM).
2 UNDRR, 2021
3 UNDRR, 2021a; UNDRR, 2021. Further detailed recommendations on harmonising tools, and approaches to jointly undertake
systemic risk assessments can be found in UNDRR (2021).
4 Coursea, 2022; UNDRR, 2021
5 Peters, 2019; UNDRR, 2021
6 Peters, 2019; Peters, 2022; Brown and Nicolucci-Altman, 2022; Peters et al., 2019e; van Schaik et al., 2019
7 UNDRR, 2021; UNDRR, 2022 unpublished
8 ICRC and IFRC, 2022; Peters et al., 2021
9 Peters et al., 2022
10 ISC and UNDRR (2020)
11 CRAF’d, 2021
12 UNDRR, 2021
13 AU and UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming
14 Peters et al., 2019a
15 Peters, 2019; UNDRR and ISC, 2020; UNDRR, 2021
16 AUC, 2017: 24
17 Weerasinghe, 2021
18 Peters et al., 2019d
19 Ghorpade and Ammar, 2021
20 GFDRR, 2020; UNDRR, 2021a

68
21 Peters, 2021
22 Peters, 2021
23 Debling, 2022 – forthcoming
24 Peters, 2021; Peters, 2021
25 European Commission, nd
26 Cao et al.,. 2021
27 Cao et al.,. 2021
28 Sillmann et al., 2022
29 Peters, 2019
30 Weerasinghe, 2021; Peters et al., 2021a
31 AU and UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming
32 UNDP et al.,. 2019; AU and UNDP, 2022 – forthcoming
33 Yayboke et al., 2021
34 Peters, 2019; Bousquet and Fernandez-Taranco, nd
35 Peters, 2019
36 Peters, 2021
37 ICRC / IFRC, 2022

69