GADRIACTIONS
Spring 2023
Volume 19— Number 1

1

Dear Members of GADRI,
We are pleased to bring to you the current GADRI ACTIONS Volume 19 –Spring 2023 which specifically features the 6th Global Summit of GADRI. We
hope this will serve as a mini-version of the Proceedings of the 6th Global
Summit of GADRI. We also hope this will bring back fond memories of the 6th
Global Summit of GADRI held in Kyoto, Japan after a dormant of four years.

Contents•

The newsletter captures the impressive and informative ten keynote speeches,presentations at the two panel discussion sessions, Posters and Networking
with Institutes sessions, the final resolution, and other events.
We have taken the liberty to include photos from all of the Poster andNetworking Session with GADRI member institutes. If you, need a copy of thephoto, do not hesitate to contact us.
In addition, it captures the final outcome of the Side Event - Sendai Midterm
Review – MTR-SF - Viewpoints and Discussion for the Next Seven Years of
the Sendai Framework which we have shared with UNDRR office.
We would like to encourage you to
use GADRI ACTIONS to share yourinstitute information on activities andreports with the GADRI community.

6th Global Summit of GADRI, DPRI,
Kyoto University, Uji campus,
Kyoto, Japan15 to 17 March 2023


Plenary Sessions



GADRI Regional Alliances

Panel Discussion Session IPanel Discussion Session II

Poster Session

Networking Session

Wrap-up and Closing Session

Closing Banquet•

Side Event•

3rd General Assembly of GADRI

We hope you will enjoy going
through the newsletter.

Hirokazu Tatano andEveryone at the
GADRI Secretariat

Participants enjoying an outing—Amagase Dam Control Office (left); and the Ujigawa Open
Laboratory, DPRI, Kyoto University (right).
Photos are contributed by Ms. Kaoru Saeki, Public Affairs Office, DPRI, Kyoto University; and other members of DPRI.
© Copyright 2023 GADRI Secretariat. All material provided are subject to copyright . GADRI Actions is designed, formatted andedited by Hirokazu Tatano and Wilma James.
26th Global Summit of GADRI
Towards GADRI Objectives of Achieving a Sustainable Disaster-Resilient World
Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University, Uji Campus, Kyoto, Japan
15 to 17 March 2023

The prolonged worldwide pandemic and cascading risks havetaught us that the conventional approach to disaster risk planningand management is ineffective for the development ofsustainable and resilient communities. A worldwide pandemic
underscores the importance of integrating the following key
areas: •••Disaster risk should not be treated in isolation but should be
integrated with health risks, climate change, andenvironmental risks;

DRR objectives and vision should be integrated withsustainable development goals to foster a resilient world;
Short-term DRR objectives need to be integrated with a longterm vision and plans for a resilient society.

Towards a sustainable and resilient society, the GADRI's five-foldobjectives, which include establishing global research networks,
developing research roadmaps and plans, building the capacities
of research institutes, sharing information and engaging incollaborative research, and advocating for organizations, need tobe directed toward the above-mentioned three key areas for
integration in research and development.
th

The 6 GADRI Global Summit aims to systematically identify theprocesses, techniques, evidence, challenges and opportunities
for achieving the GADRI objectives for a sustainable and resilient
society against hazards and working to keep them from becoming
disasters. Outcomes will communicate academic science acrossscientific disciplines to policymakers and practitioners.

3

Panel Group Discussion Session I:
1. GADRI Objective - I (global research network) for Sustainable
and Resilient Society Against Disasters (SRSAD)
2. GADRI Objective - II (developing research roadmaps andplans) for SRSAD
3. GADRI Objective - III (building the capacities of research
institutes) for SRSAD
4. GADRI Objective - IV (mutual sharing information andengaging in collaborative research) for SRSAD
5. GADRI Objective - V (serve as an advocacy organization ) for
SRSAD

Panel Group Discussion Session II:
1. Big Science for DRR: Large-scale Experiment
2. Sustainable DRR: Integrating climate action, SDGs and DRR:
Field DRR & Data (experience) Sharing New Challenges for
Actions by GADRI
3. Gender and Inclusivity in DRR Policy and Practice
4. Putting Health into Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery
5. Youth and DRR

The 6th Global Summit of GADRI: Towards GADRI Objectivesof Achieving a Sustainable Disaster-Resilient World was
successfully convened at the DPRI, Kyoto University, UjiCampus, Kyoto, Japan from 15 to 17 March 2023. The
biennially held Global Summits of GADRI brought together
participants engaged in disaster risk reduction or disasterscience from multidisciplinary research fields.
The Opening Ceremony was honoured by Prof. Eiichi Nakakita,
Director, DPRI, Kyoto University; Prof. Nagahiro Minato,
President of the Kyoto University, Ms. Mami Mizutori, Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk
Reduction, UNDRR; and the Ms. Atsuko Matsumura, Mayor, Uji
City opened the 6th Global Summit of GADRI.
On behalf of all members of the summit, the members of theOpening Ceremony took the opportunity to express
condolences to the people and governments of Turkey and
Syria and to state solidarity at this very challenging time.
The Secretary-General of GADRI, Prof. Hirokazu Tatanopresented an overview of the Global Alliance of Disaster
Research Institutes (GADRI) and of the history of the Summit.
Dr. Genta Nakano, DPRI, Kyoto University shared the results ofthe pre-conference survey undertaken among the members of
GADRI. The survey was responded by 87 institutes of GADRI.
Dr. Nakano presented in detail the information of the survey.

Another forty-three experts in various fields shared theirexperiences, views and opinions during the two panel
discussion sessions. Panel Session I concentrated on the five
Committees of GADRI while the Panel Session II focused on
New Challenges for Action by GADRI in the areas of Big
Science for DRR; Sustainable DRR covering Climate Change,
SDGs, and Field DRR; Gender and Inclusivity in DRR Policy
and Practices; Putting Health into DRR and Recovery; andYoung Scientists Session on Youth and DRR.

The three plenary sessions of the summit featured keynote
speeches by ten prominent speakers from around the world toaddress multidimensional global crises among others fromclimate change to the recent earthquakes in Southern Turkey,
the global covid-19 pandemic, systemic risks and emerging
future challenges.

Poster Session
The poster session attracted over 50 abstracts. The prospective
presenters were encouraged to specifically highlight theirrespective institutes’ research activities, achievements,
implementations in support of the Sendai Framework Priority
Areas.
In addition to the above, the poster session provided a platform
for young and upcoming scientists to share their researchachievements, activities and future plans. There were 33
presenters who joined the 6th Global Summit of GADRI inperson to present their work. Six of the presenters won thebest abstract award of a GADRI Scholarship to participate in
the summit.
Seeds and Needs Networking Session
The Networking Session on Seed and Needs brought together
13 institutions who shared their institutions’ research
aspirations and challenges.
At the closing session, the conference draft final outcomes andresolution was tabled for discussion and called for inputs fromthe audience. Draft document of outcomes and resolutions wascompiled with important points contributed by all keynote
speakers and panel discussion groups. The document ofoutcomes and resolutions was finalized by Prof. Andrew Collins
with the support of Prof. Paul Kovacs and Prof. Hirokazu
Tatano. This was later shared by e-mail with all participants ofthe summit.
GADRI Secretariat awarded 24 full and partial scholarships tovarious scholars out of which 12 were awarded to female
scholars.
The 6th Global Summit of GADRI was attended by 185
participants out of which there were 67 females. The
participants represented 74 institutes in 30 economies.

4

The Opening Ceremony
The Opening Ceremony
The Master of Ceremony for Day 1: 15 March 2023, of the 6 th Global Summit of the Global Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes (GADRI)
was Dr. Masamitsu Onishi, Associate Professor, Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University. With the university-wide
relaxed rules of COVID-19, it made it easier for Dr. Onishi to keep the logistical details to the minimum and welcome the first speaker, Prof.
Eiichi Nakakita to open the 6th Global Summit of GADRI.
Prof. Eiichi Nakakita, Director, Disaster Prevention ResearchInstitute (DPRI), Kyoto University
Prior to welcomingalldistinguishedguests, he took theopportunity
toexpresshis
condolences to thevictims and families
in Turkey and Syria.
Proceeding with thewelcome remarks,
Prof.
Nakakita
offeredawarm
welcome to everyone. He acknowledging and personally welcomed
Ms. Mami Mizutori, Special Representative of the Secretary-Generalfor Disaster Risk Reduction, UNDRR, Prof. Nagahiro Minato,
President of Kyoto University, and Ms. Atsuko Matsumura, Mayor, Uji
City.

With the high school graduations taking place across cities, andcherry blossoms waiting to bloom, echoing Spring around the corner,
he said it gives a perfect backdrop to welcome everyone to the UjiCampus of the Kyoto University. Prof. Nakakita further stressed that
he is delighted to see everyone in person at the 6 th Global Summit of
GADRI. The past few years with the global corona virus posed many
challenges. He is pleased to see that the research community
continued with their important research work in the area of disasterrisk reduction and prevention of disasters. He stressed theimportance of voicing our opinions supported by evidence-based
scientific results to influence decision-making processes in various
issues in today’s global agendas. He voiced DPRI’s mission to “savepeople’s lives, make people happy, and make them smile”, and he,as the Director of DPRI, believes that this is very much at the heart oftheir activities. He believes in strengthening the efforts by the youngthat this is something with which we should proceed to pass on to thenext generation, and the generations to come.

Prof. Nagahiro Minato, President, Kyoto University, Japan
Prof. Nagahiro Minato, President, Kyoto University started his
welcome remarks by expressing sincerest sympathies andcondolences to the victims of the devastating earthquakes that
occurred at the southern border of Turkiye and Syria last month. He
expressly stated how Japan, which has experienced such devastating
earthquakes in the past, is able to empathize with the pain andsuffering of those affected by this terrible catastrophe.
In continuing his welcome address, he stressed how the global
agendas such as the Sendai Framework, Paris Agreement on climatechange, SDGs, unequivocally draw our attention to the importance ofpromoting sustainable development and increasing disaster
resilience, and encourage us to focus and unite our efforts, with thecommon goal of leaving no one behind.
He stated that the presence of GADRI has become the foundation of
an international research network to systematically promote disasterrisk prevention and contribute to global agendas, science andtechnology roadmaps, and action plans. As a community of science,5

we can synergistically combine our research activities, resources,
and knowledge to support our communities with evidence-based
outcomes and implementable real-world solutions.

Ms. Mami Mizutori, Special Representative of the SecretaryGeneral for Disaster Risk Reduction, UNDRR, Switzerlandof GADRI, Prof. Paul Kovacs and the Chairs of the summit. She
thanked the most generous host Prof. Nagahiro Minato and Prof.
Eiichi Nakakita for hosting the Summit at the Kyoto Univesity, UjiCampus and thanked Ms. Atsuko Matsumura, Mayor, Uji City fortaking the time to be present at the Summit to greet all participants.
She noted that this time, the 6th Global Summit of GADRI takes
place at a time of rapid global change where the impacts ofcomplex risks are cascading across sectors, and across borders.
Madam Mizutori welcomed the focus of GADRI summit whichappropriately captured the priorities for reducing global risks. The
summit’s first area of focus recognized that disaster risk should not
be treated in isolation but should be integrated across sectors. The
second area of focus of the summit is integrating risk reduction tosustainable development. The third objective of the conference
focus is around the need to integrate short term objectives withlong term plans for resilience.

Ms. Mizutori wamly thanked the organizers for giving theopportunity to be present at the 6th Global Summit of GADRI. She,
too, expressed condolences to people and government of Turkiye
and Syria and expressed streadfast solidarity at this very
challenging time.

Ms. Mizutori expressed her excitement to be present at the 6 th
Global Summit of GADRI in person to greet everyone and to beamong those who understand the challenges faced and dedicatedto help the world to develop scalable solutions.

She acknowledged Prof. Hirokazu Tatano, the Chair of the Board

Ms. Atsuko Matsumura, Mayor, Uji City, Kyoto, Japan
Ms. Atsuko Matsumura expressed that she is delighted tocongratulate everyone, face-to-face for organizing in grand scale,the 6th Global Summit and GADRI at the DPRI, Kyoto University,
Uji Campus. As the Major of the Uji City, she welcomed everyone
from the bottom of her heart.
She stated that in recent years, various natural disasters such as
flood, draught, heatwaves, cold wave have been reported in global
scale, and the ability to respond to disasters is being emphasizedagain.
During the earthquakes that struck Turkey and Syria on 6
February 2023, she noted that more than 52,000 people lost theirlives and more than two million people are in need of help. Japan
has experienced the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake and theGreat Eastern Japan Earthquake. She empathized with the people
about the hardships that will continue for some time to come. She
wished for speedy restorations and revival of the situation.

acknowledged the continuous efforts and cooperation the city andpeople are privileged to enjoy in many areas from the presence of
DPRI, Kyoto University in the city. She also stated that the themesof the 6th Global Summit of GADRI are aptly related to the current
global situations to achieve a sustainable and a disaster resilient
world. She concluded by asserting her strong hope that the summit
will deepen research of disaster prevention, and the results of theresearch will serve the communities and be an impetus to support
disaster prone areas.

She also continued to explain how about 10 years ago, the Uji City
was inundated by a deluge of unexpected heavy rain which
resulted in loss of lives and properties due to the overflowing ofrivers; and how the Kyoto University and the Disaster Prevention
Research Institute (DPRI), offered expert advice and support. She

6

Prof. Hirokazu Tatano, Secretary-General, Global Alliance ofDisaster Research Institutes (GADRI); and Professor and Head,
Social Systems for Disaster Risk Governance, Disaster
Prevention Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University, JapanAs the Secretary-General of the Global Alliance of Disaster
Research Institutes (GADRI, Prof. Hirokazu Tatano stated that itgives him great pleasure to welcome everyone to the Uji Campus
and his joy ofbeing able to
meet
and
greet
everyoneinperson.
Heoutlined
the three-day
programme of
the conference
and laid down
the goals andobjectives ofthesummitand expected
outcomes. He expressed the main philosophy of the summit is theimportance of discussion, learning, exchange and shareexperiences. In particular, what are the needs and expectations fromGADRI? What actions should be planned for example, visions to
mitigate in global agendas such as climate change, DRR, etc. Third,

Dr. Genta Nakano, Disaster Prevention Research Institute(DPRI), Kyoto University

After thanking all members of GADRI for their input to the GADRISurvey conducted prior to the 6th Global Summit of GADRI, Dr.
Genta Nakano shared the results of the survey. The survey
specifically identified three main important areas:•

First, is to learn more about the activities of member institutes.

•

Second, is to understand collectively the progress, andachievement of member institutes towards GADRI’s objectives(https://gadri.net/about/Aims/).

•

Third, is to make inputs as GADRI’s collective contributions
towards the Sendai Midterm Review.

The survey form was distributed electrically to all the GADRI’s
institutions with the assurance to share the results at the 6 th Global
Summit.

7what are the new challenges and how could we tackle them?
Through the plenary and discussion sessions, he stated that it isexpected to fulfill the agenda and the goals of the summit.
At the end, a resolution of the conference will be prepared with thehelp of all in attendance.

He briefly summarized the results. Out of over 200 members of
GADRI, nearly 90 institutes replied to the GADRI Survey. Dr.
Nakano will publish the results of this survey in the Proceedings of
the 6th Global Summit of GADRI.

Plenary Session I: Listening to Various Stakeholders on Integration of Disaster Risks to Present and Future
Disasters
Chaired by: Prof. Virginia Murray, Head, Global Disaster Risk Reduction, UK Health Security Agency, UK; and Prof.
Rajib Shaw, Keio University, JapanGADRI look back at its activities and contributions to current key
concerns in disaster risk reduction since its inception in March2015. While disaster risk reduction remains in the core of its
activities, GADRI constantly share their viewpoints and contributeto many of the global agendas related to the Sendai Framework,
Climate Change initiatives and other DRR related activities.
During the 6th Global Summit of GADRI, it hopes to receive
feedback from other key stakeholders in the field of academia,
government and non-governmental institutions, the UN, private
section and other entities.

With the first plenary speaker from the UNDRR, GADRI hoped to
be enlightened on current disaster risk reduction in the world; towhat extent the Sendai Framework has brought forth countries/
states/non-state members to contribute towards achieving thegoals set out therein; what could be possible contributions fromGADRI be to further encourage the support of the S&T Roadmap
to implement the Sendai Framework; and what expectations
UNDRR has from the members of the GADRI for the remaining
seven years of the Sendai Framework?

The third speaker, Prof. Masahide Kimoto spoke from theperspective of the climate change related activities in the world.
He reviewed the latest results of climate science which supports
robust decision-making of human being. He discussed theimpacts of climate change on extreme weather that causes
disasters together with issues that lead to countermeasures andactions.
The fourth speaker expressed his views from the perspective of
the private organizations, citizens, as well as from the academic
society to touch upon the significant contributions done so far in
DRR; and the expected contributions to DRR during the next
decade.

The second speaker, Prof. Mustafa Erdik with enlightened theaudience with first-hand information on the devastating
earthquakes that engulfed Tukey and Syria; and its causes andthe damages.

Keynote 1: The state of Disaster Risk Reduction and the Transformations Needed to Take the World from Risk to Resilience,
Ms. Mami Mizutori, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations
Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), Switzerland
At the outset, she thanked GADRI for the comprehensive survey
conducted prior to the 6th Global Summit of GADRI. She statedthat it gave everybody a real perspective of what GADRI is and it isvery positive in itself.
From the UNDRR viewpoint of a risk landscape, Ms. Mizutoristated, it is a very complex situation. Risk is systemic. It crosses
borders and they are not siloed while approach to risk management
is very much siloed. There are systemic risks, cascading impacts,
compound disasters; and the Sendai Framework pioneers in thisrespect.
She stated that since the beginning of the pandemic, theuncertainty has become more and more stronger; and people areliving in a world not only with systemic and complex risks, but witha lot of uncertainty. And they are constantly called to adapt theapproach to situation.
As a result, the conventional risk
management and crisis responses system are not working as they
are not able to cope up with the situation.
Ms. Mami Mizutori once again took the floor to share from theperspective of UNDRR, the current state of disaster risk
management, and what can be done to strengthen long term
resilience. Specifically, she shared information on findings of theMidterm Review of the Sendai Framework and highlights from GAR
for DRR.

Many are becoming pessimistic about achieving the goals of
Sendai Framework and SDGs by 2030; and to say it can be done isa waning. Therefore, it required a “course-correct” o by reviewing
what SF-MTR process. It said that failure to plan, is a plan for
failure. She continued to share status of the four Priority Areas andhow best we could move forward in contributions to achieve them.

8Keynote 2: What Happened on 6 February 2023 Earthquakes in Türkiye, Mustafa Erdik, Emeritus Professor, Dept. Earthquake
Engineering, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, Türkiye
Prof. Erdik shared before and after photos of the city of
Kahramanmaraş and equaled the destruction of the city to an
atomic bomb explosion.
From the photographs, a few buildings could be seen still standing
and Prof. Erdik explained the reasons behind that.
•

As of 12 March 2023, damage assessment investigations wereconducted on about 1.8 million buildings, encompassing about 5
million housing units.

•

About 280,000 buildings (about 820,000 housing units) wereidentified as collapsed or to be demolished (96% of these werebuilt before 2000).

•

Of the inspected building stock in the earthquake affected
region:Prof. Mustafa Erdik’s title of the talk was on “February 6, 2023
Kahramanmaraş- Türkiye Earthquakes – What Happened? Prof.
Mustafa accepted the GADRI invitation to speak at the 6 th Global
Summit of GADRI, specifically to relate what happened on 6
February multiple earthquakes.
Prof. Mustafa stated, that the earthquake hit areas were triple
junctions of three major fault lines. After the first earthquake, there
was a second one. These two massive earthquakes occurred within
9 hours apart with 7.8 and 7.5 magnitudes respectively.

In terms of energy released by the Türkiye earthquake he statedthat it was three times higher than the Kobe earthquake and hecited examples of the New Zealand and Antioch earthquakes.

•

More than 1.4 million have been resettled.

•

There were 280,000 collapsed and heavily damaged buildings•

There are at least 48,000 (54,000 including Syria) deaths and120,00 injuries.

•

About 2% were identified with medium damage.

•

About 25 % were identified with light damage.

•

About 57 % were identified with no damage.

He concluded by stateing that what is needed is a retrofit campaignthat will:

The two Turkiye earthquake affected:
3.3 million people who were evacuated from the quake zone.

About 16% were identified with heavy damage to collapse(27% in Hatay)

Prior to the 1998 code, the designer was permitted to design nonductile reinforced concrete buildings. Driven in part by cost, thedesigns resulted in non-ductile reinforced concrete buildings(Sezen, 2000) . The 1998 code was similar to the US 1997 Uniform
Building Code. The 2019 code has similar features to the ASCE 716 and EC8 Codes. Almost 98% of the heavily damaged andcollapsed buildings were built before year 2000, designed following
the 1968 or 1975 code with inadequate design and construction
controls resulting in non-ductile (brittle) concrete frames prone tototal collapse during strong earthquake shaking.

To make it more comprehensive, he compared the earthquakes tothe 1906 San Francisco earthquake, where 80% of the city wasdestroyed; and closest from Japan would probably be the Great
Hanshin earthquake in 1995 with a magnitude of 6.9 with 6,000
mortalities.

•

•

•

Improve the earthquake performance of the buildings by external
retrofit methods that does not require the tenants to vacate theirapartment units.

•

Revise the earthquake performance objectives for retrofit (e.g. for
Istanbul, collapse prevention under 84-percentile deterministic
ground motion) and develop new campaign-specific earthquake
retrofit guidelines.

Copy of image from Prof. Erdik’s PPT.
9

Keynote 3: Climate Science for Action, Prof. Masahide Kimoto, President, National Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES); andProfessor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan
Climate change is taking place and most of the scientificknowledge is summarized in the UN IPCC report in three parts.
First, climate change is occurring vastly due to our actions, hestated and it is a fact. Second, climate change triggers otherdisasters. Third, we are not in the track of the targets of the Paris
Agreement.
Although every effort is made to combat climate change, it is notenough and it is impossible to achieve the goals. Therefore,
countermeasures against climate change are really urgent. Futurescience predictions project various scenarios according to the levelof efforts to avoid climate change. If burning of fossil fuelcontinues, the situation will only become even more serious..

Prof. Masahide Kimoto discussed climate science for action. In his
presentation, he covered:•

Climate change -•Impacts of climate change— Changing extremes-•

He shared graphs which show increase of both frequency andstrength of the extreme events. He stated, therefore, the standardof protecting the previous disaster may not be sufficient in the
coming decades and a change in strategy is needed.

Progress

Compound events, compound impacts-

The IPCC report summarizing all science papers says that global
warming makes extreme weather more frequent and severe. In
other words, global warming increases disaster risk. Not only heat,but also heavy rain and drought. In the case of precipitation andhydrology, it has two extremes; heavy rain and drought.

Heat wave and drought/pollution …

•

Early warning— Resolution— Processes—Climate impact
drivers and impact assessments— From hours to decades

Science should contribute to people’s action.

•

Climate change is projected to increase and intensify extreme
weather events and associated disasters. Science can andshould provide information to support policy planning.
Early warning information for extreme weather should bescientifically designed not only for days to hours but also for
longer time scales.

Keynote 4: The Potential for Recovery to Support Transformative Improvement in Disaster Risk Reduction, Prof. Paul Kovacs,
Chair, Board of Directors of GADRI; and Executive Director, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction (ICLR), Western
University, Canada
improved warnings; priority two - strengthen governance – national
DRR plans, perhaps local DRR plans; priority three - invest inresilience – budget for resilience investments; and priority four build back better – introduce incentives.

Reflecting on the conversations he had the previous day with theparticipants at the Side Event of GADRI, Prof. Paul Kovacs
expressed his enthusiasm to be among a group of people
generating science knowledge. He stated that, in his opinion, theFour Priority areas in the Sendai Framework Agenda, there is no
doubting the disaster risk reduction research community have put
everything in place to challenge the increasing disasters andhazards. The Sendai Framework Agenda is the right plan to act on
to reduce disasters and build resilience. Yet, again and again, one
event after another continue to hamper the agenda items and pushthem to the bottom. Yet the science foundation is right there to get
it right back on track again.
Prof. Kovacs described what is needed for the implementation of
the four priority areas of the Sendai Framework - Priority one understand risk – better hazard data, proactive communication,
10

He then proceeded to discuss in detail and specifically, the Priority
Area Four of the Sendai Framework, Building Back Better. He
shared examples of areas that Canada has worked on and seen
results; and areas that may also apply to other countries and fromwhich they may wish to draw the knowledge to apply to theirindividual country situations.. He shared information and how thestorytelling of DRR case studies improve share successes of DRR
activities in the country. The case studies shared covered theHigh River following 2013 flood; Calgary following 2020 hailstorm;
Barrie following 2021 tornado; and Lytton following 2021 wildfire.
Prof. Kovacs reiterated that the recovery conversation is a big
opportunity to be bold and be transformative. To achieve bold andtransformative DRR in recovery need proven, affordable solutions
to be identified for most hazards; the policy failures have resulted
in alarming increase in damages; political will and financial support
are needed to crease awareness, incentives and change inregulations; and recovery planning is essential. He concluded bystating that the case studies and other recovery stories gives
Canadian community a global opportunity to take science and topush for things in recovery that are hard to do the rest of the time.

Plenary Session II: Visions to mitigate climate change and increase resilience through DRR objectives with SDGs
Chaired by: Prof. Yuichi Ono, Director, IRIDES, Tohoku University, Japan; and Dr. Tom De Groeve, Acting Head of Unit,
European Commission, Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), Italy

Plenary session two shared views from various experts on how
best to mitigate climate change and increase resilience through
DRR objectives with SDGs. Under the Sustainable Development
Goals, there are 25 targets related to disaster risk reduction in
10 of the 17 sustainable development goals, firmly establishing
the role of disaster risk reduction as a core development strategy.
The following three distinguished keynote speakers with takes us
through various topics.

Prof. Virginia Murray informed us that “The Climate Crisis is a
Health Crisis - Climate Change and Public Health - sharing links to
the Sendai Framework, the Paris Agreement and the SDGs while
Prof. John van de Lindt shares “Digital Twinning of Communities
for Disaster Risk Reduction: Climate Adaptive Solutions; andDr. Chipo Mudavanhu “Addressed climate change and disasterrisks in the context of sustainable development in Southern Africa”.

(L): Prof. John van de Lindt, Prof. Virginia Murray and
Dr. Chipo Mudavanhu

11Keynote 5: The Climate Crisis is a Health Crisis - Climate Change and Public Health - links to the Sendai Framework, the Paris
Agreement and the SDGs, Prof. Virginia Murray, Head, Global Disaster Risk Reduction, UK Health Security Agency,
UK
Prof. Murray stated that disasters, many of which areexacerbated by climate change. To foster collaboration, there
was a need to implement coherence for climate change disasterrisk reduction such as impact of climate change and incorporate
DRR measures including adaptions for climate change which are
all mentioned in the Sendai Framework and shared the linkages
between the SDGs and the Paris Agreement.
Referring to the IPCC Assessment Report 6 and particularly thetechnical report working group 2 – which is on impacts,
adaptation and vulnerability, Prof. Murray stated that the scienceclearly mentions that any delay in concerted global climate actionmeans missing a brief and rapidly closing window to secure alivable future. Advocacy needs to be clearer, stronger and more
personalized. Most specific, to try and change. Multiple climate
hazards can present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans.

Prof. Virginia Murray, through her presentation and with all
available data, reiterated the fact that climate crisis is a healthcrisis. On the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks ofExtreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation where she was able to contribute as one of theauthors and published in 2012, Prof. Murray showed that change
in climate leads to changes in extreme weather and climate
events of droughts, floods, fires and even storms. The impact ofweather events by nature and severity of events, vulnerability,
exposure and increasing severity and frequency of climate events
contribute to growing numbers of disaster risk. She shared adiagram that brought together all of the above factors which was
published in the IPCC Special Report. She continued to reiterate
the importance of understanding individual events and risk
factors to understand some of the risks of extreme events andhow they translate into impacts and disasters and how the risks
management and adaptation opportunities existed.

...climate is not a hazard but climate isa driver of hazards.
Referring to various UN technical reports by IPCC, WMO, and
UNFCCC, she stated that climate change is not a hazard but
climate is a driver of hazards. It is necessary to be aware of all
the different types of hazards that can occur. From the heatwave, to severe weather, to the air pollution, to the increased invectors, to the increasing allergens, to the increasing water
quality impacts, including cholera which causes something evenhappening now – to the malnutrition, and diarrheal diseases, tothe water and food supplies, to the environmental degradation,
forced migration, and civil conflicts and also mental health.
She stated that possibly none of these vulnerable things matters.
It is to know that these will have significant effect on increased
illness and deaths and also increased health inequalities.

The opportunities were that of advocacies.
Prof. Murrayhighlighted an example in the UK, how the health protection
agency needed a new team on extreme events and healthprotection. With quite a lot of negotiations and advocacy
internally, they were able to build the first extreme events andhealth protection team which was responsible for heat weather
planning, cold weather planning, floods, droughts, winds, wild
fires and many other events coming in together.

What are we doing about it? What have been done this time?
Using an example from the UK, Prof. Murray stated that the UK
Health Security Agency has brought in a new Centre for Climate
and Health Security in October 2022. It is trying to use the links
locally, nationally, and internationally, to increase awareness of
the impacts of climate change on public health by building theevidence-based and then mobilise it to the inform policy
development.

Moving to 2015 UN agreements, the Sendai Framework, SDGs,
Paris Agreement, she stated that all three of them have climatechange in them. SDGs very clearly covers climate, Paris
Agreement is all about climate; and the Sendai framework is also
about climate.

Prof. Murray concluded by stating that she shared the fact thatclimate crisis is a health crisis. And this time, unlike covid, there
is no vaccination. She referred to the IPCCC work that has been
done and some of the steps taken at the COP27; aswell as WHO’s achievements on how they brought
together the hazards to try and understand what could
be done and steps taken for early warning. She
shared how they are going to look at all these different
kinds of risks that are going to be impacted and how in
the UK, they are trying to deal with it and how thepartnership with GADRI is critical in delivering it.

Copy of image from Prof. Murray;s PPT

12Keynote 6: Digital Twinning of Communities for Disaster Risk Reduction: Climate Adaptive Solutions, Prof. John van de Lindt,
Harold H. Short Endowed Chair Professor, Co-Director, Center for Risk-Based Community Resilience Planning,
Colorado State University, USA
Spring boarding off
from the previous
presentation, Prof.
John van de Lindt
said that one of therecommendations
wastoimproveresilience.
His
keynote talk was on
an illustration of how
it is possible tomeasuretheresilienceofanentire city of community so that improvements can be made on it.
Although, one of the challenges believed in are that measuring canbe done but do not know how much is improving.

Prof. van de Lindt continued to explain that by integrating thephysics and process-based models with empirically data-driven
models and combining components from across disciplines, and IF
it represents something close to reality, how they propagate asmuch uncertainty as possible to look at alternative actions andideas to explore and enhance community resilience. He alsomentioned that in modeling the entire resilience process involves
five areas of community stability – populations; economic; social
services; physical services; and governance. Without taking these
five areas in to modeling, it is not possible to study and model
resilience.
He stated that his center, Center for Risk-Based Community
Resilience Planning, they are funded by NIST, the National
Institute for Standards and Technology which is tasked by
Congress in the US with measurement science in support of US
Commerce. Prof. van de Lindt continued to explain how thecomplex INCORE model operates, and what kind of data that canbe generated from it; and by using various computational
environmental models, how they work to improve the area ofcommunity level mitigation.

At this point of uncertainty, the challenge is climate change, sealevel rise (SLR), among others – but the magnitude is highly
uncertain.
Socially equitable solutions are possible but require extensive
interdisciplinary modeling which have to include:•

Physical infrastructure and buildings•

Social institutions•

Households, the people themselves•

As well as the economy and its interaction of all of those all theway through the process not just risk.

With the help of all the complex models that they use, they areable to calculate the real cost of a hazard. For example, the costto the people, to the long-term economy, and do a long-term
benefit. Those are the decisions to be made with regard toresilience and climate as it is a long-term process.

Prof. van de Lindt concluded by stating that:

He mentioned how they have wondered of the possibility of having
a model to predict the damage probability at the individual building
level using physics, so that it could be transferred anywhere to
predict not only how many but also which households will dislocate
based on their race/ethnicity, income, and other factors. It could
be done through the modeling by taking census and syntheticallyallocating, aggregating and reproducing the census. While
protecting the individuals information, this will allow to predictchanges in community level incomes by household demographics,
changes in gross product at the community level, and changes intax base by sector as a result of hazard; and ultimately making
resilience-formed socially equitable decisions.
Prof. van de Lindt continued to address questions that they ask
themselves: what exactly should we be measuring? Who decides
what metric levels represent resilience? How does humandecisions enter into a resilience calculation? and what do we dowith these measured values in the end?
He brought the attention to one of the US Presidential policy
directive, “the resilience is the ability to prepare for and adapt tochanging conditions and to withstand and recover rapidly from
disruptions…”
Particularly drew the attention to several words - it's just prepare
for to adapt to those changing conditions or climate to withstandso that's the mitigation effects hardening, stiffening and thenrecover rapidly. He said the hardest part for modeling is how tomodel recovery? Ultimately, the desire to improve community
resilience and city resilience requires measuring what can, andcannot be seen, touch or feel. The easy part is modeling thethings that can be seen. However, modelling the things thatcannot be seen, such as the economy and its interaction withthe people, with the physical infrastructure, these are thing thatbrings twin model to the picture.
13•

resilience analysis requires “modeling” before, during, andafter the hazard whether it's an earthquake or a flood•modeling physical building and network damage to an event no matter how comprehensive that's just a portion of thestory, and so the real digital twin can't be seen. there's no
way to see it all. because it's the people, it's the economy, it's
things like that.

•

Being able to comprehensively “measure” resilience in termsof stability areas is critical to provide these near optimal
solutions. We can mathematically optimize anything. It is justa bunch of equations. But bringing in the community goals
and what the community truly wants, that's key.

•

“Improving” resilience through communication, decision, andthese actionable strategies is the goal.

Keynote 7: Addressing Climate Change and Disaster Risks in the Context of Sustainable Development in Southern Africa,
Dr. Chipo Mudavanhu, Vice-President, AADRI; and Senior Lecturer, Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe
the Chiefs, sometimes, living within urban community. The chief
may not even visit the raw community where the vulnerable
communities are supposed to be represented and end up withmisrepresentation at the local level. Another challenge isinstitutional capacity. It needs to capacitate the local institutions.
Also, inadequate legal Frameworks some of which are outdated andnot in sync with the new frameworks.
There is also the challenge of documentation and proper record ofcollection of data at national and regional levels. Sometimes,
although the data is available, to package it in a manner that thecommunities understand is a challenge due to various dialects,
community knowledge and accessibilities. It is very important tomake sure that the information is packaged in a way that the end
user can understand and also take appropriate action.
Dr. Chipo Mudavanhu’s keynote speech was on climate change anddisaster in the context of sustainable development in Southern
Africa. She shared challenges in implementing the goals set in
Sustainable Development Goals and the Sendai Framework, andhow hazards impact the human development. Natural hazards,
floods, zero poverty, equality, access to quality education, healthand outbreak of diseases, these are clearly mentioned in the abovementioned agendas.
Looking at disaster issues, Dr. Mudavanhu stated that there is no
doubt that they are increasing in frequency and intensity. It is verytrue in the case of Southern Africa which has seen an increase of
cyclones and cyclone-induced disasters, and droughts during thepast 10 years. These disasters are affecting human development.
The Sustainable Development Goals, especially goal 17 talk about
no hunger, zero poverty, equality, access to quality education, andso forth. With an onset of hazards impacting Africa, all one can see
are setbacks to human development. For example: when talking
about educating children and participating in disaster risk
management, especially in rural and vulnerable communities, thechildren do not have access to these as some of them need to crossthe rivers to access schools. When the rivers are flooded, they haveno way of getting to schools.
On health and livelihoods, Dr. Mudavanhu stated that there areoutbreaks and emergence of new diseases that are becoming
complex. Recently, the outbreak of the Newcastle disease isaffecting the livelihoods of a larger population as most of the Africancountries are agrarian and rural. These populations are the mosthampered by changing climates, floods and droughts to mention afew. The climate change is affecting the human development and, inthe end, it affects even the achievement or the attainment of the
Sustainable Development Goals.
Referring to the Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development Goals
and the Sendai Framework, she stated that the goal is to reduce
vulnerability and also to enhance resilience. However, in observing
what is happening in communities back home, and in the region,
despite all efforts to domesticate the frameworks at national, local
levels and communities, the vulnerabilities are increasing. It seems
that there is a lack in building resilience in communities. What is the
problem? What are the challenges?
She highlighted a few of the difficulties faced with communities. The
number one challenge could be lack of community participation.
Citing an example, Dr. Mudavanhu stated when talking aboutcommunity involvement or representation, it is important to note
how they are represented. For example, the vulnerable ruralcommunities, they were represented by the traditional leaders like14

In the limited technical capacity sector, there is a serious brain drain
especially in Zimbabwe - people are leaving the country and there isa limited number of technical personnel to run the various sectionsof the national disaster offices.
The major challenge of all are budgetary issues.
There isinadequate budgetary allocation, and sometimes and in most cases,
there is a reactive approach where more resources are put towards
disaster response and not to mitigation and not preparedness.
Going back to the UN agreements, Sendai Framework, Paris
Agreement, and Sustainable Development Goals, she stated that at
local levels, they do not have the strategies nor the policies that
support the implementation of these frameworks.
And, there is a poor understanding of disaster risk reduction among
the stakeholders. Because, within most communities, there are
activities that are contributing to disaster risk reduction on a daily
basis. Yet, it is not perceived as DRR activities. When people talkabout DRR within communities, they portrait it as something
completely new. Although, there is a common goal, there is a siloedapproach in all sectors.
The key reason behind the slow
implementation of DRR strategies and policies, is the limited
research and development.
In
conclusion,
Dr.
recommendations:Mudavanhu

statedthefollowingCommunity involvementstrengthen research and innovation and technology transfer

Evidence-based decision-making

Data management and sharingMulti-sectoral approach

Plenary Session III: Systemic Risks and Emerging Future Challenges
Chaired by:Part 1: Prof. Charles Scawthorn, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley, USA; and Ms. Ritsuko
Yamazaki-Honda, Deputy Director, NIED, Japan
Part 2: Prof. Wei-Sen Li, Secretary-General, NCDR, Chinese Taipei; and Prof. Gretchen Kalonji, Dean, IDMR, Sichuan
University, China

The final plenary session on Systemic Risks and Emerging Futurechallenges featured three speakers from diverse backgrounds.

This session was held
during the afternoon of
Day
2
of
the
conference, and was
Chairedby
Prof.
Charles
Scawthorn
andMs.
Rtisuko
Yamazaki-Honda.

It is always fascinating and interesting to listen to Prof. Ortwin
Renn and the way he lays down the structures within which we
operate and live-by on a daily basis.
Discussing Risk
Communication and Governance in a Post-Truth Environment,
Prof. Ortwin Renn enlightened the audience by touchingspecifically upon “New challenge of polycrises” and by giving adetailed and comprehensive overview of the entire polycrises
situation.

Keynote 8: Online - Risk Communication and Governance in a Post-Truth Environment, Prof. Ortwin Renn, Retired ScientificDirector, International Advanced Science Studies (IASS), Germany
Chaired by: Prof. Charles Scawthorn, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley, USA; and Ms. Ritsuko
Yamazaki-Honda, Deputy Director, NIED, Japanany form, it can be explosion, it can be terms of kinetic energy or
it can be terms of chemical energy. Substance that of course,
toxic substances specifically, and biota the major element, covid
was mentioned in the previous session which is of course is amajor element. There are also social risk agents. Power can beone, violence, information, including money can be another, andrisk of these are different agents. They can have impacts on theso-called risk absorbing system. That is a system that is being
exposed to one of these five risk agents.
The new signatures of systemic risk are that these five agents areintertwined. That energy can lead to the release of substance;
release of substance can release to biota coming up that canmake power shifts, or power may exacerbate the problem andwith wrong information, people do the wrong thing and theimpacts are even worse. All of those are interrelated and thatmakes it quite interesting. The emphasis is to look at risk agents
as normally as looking into risk analysis.
What do these agents do? Who is exposed? What are theconsequences? What are the impacts?

Discussing Risk Communication and Governance in a Post-Truth
Environment, Prof. Ortwin Renn enlightened the audience bytouching specifically upon “New challenge of polycrises”,
something that is being experienced right now when looking forresilient and inclusive strategies.
He continued to state from a systemic risk perspective, that it isspecifically crucial as there is multiple crises that have happenedat the same time. For example, the climate crisis is coming up,
and at the same time, there is the war in Europe which brings acrisis in energy supply, crisis in supply of goods which affects thewhole value chain in the entire world, and also, there is anincrease in natural hazards.

Looking specifically at the risk absorbing system, it is looking at
the vulnerability in resilience of the system. For example, the city
or even a human body – how vulnerable that person is? How
resilient is that person to withstand whatever risk agent isapproaching to him or to her. That is kind of a framework within
which it operates.

Hence the potential loss of a breakdown of system functionality
with the likelihood that it affects other systems – one crisis in one
system that transports negative impacts into other systems
leaving the likelihood of risk cascade in between systems.

Then crisis itself leads to the polycrises itself which can bebasically characterized with high complexity interconnectivity.
Tipping points makes it extremely difficult. There are crosssectoral, transboundary cascading effects though the effects that
go beyond a geography, beyond different sectors, beyond
political constituencies and all of that means that there is a needto have a more integrated approach. Very often there are major
ambiguities when trying to interpret and manage these risks often
they are attenuated because all these sides are not seen.
Sometimes they are also amplified.

Although it is very sophisticated and complex, it is normally fairly
good that there is a very simple model to deal with suchsituations. The model supposed and written about by Prof. Renn
is to always look into risk from two components, risk agents andrisk absorbing systems. Risk agents are those that carry negative
impact for disaster. It could be physical. There are three physicalsubstances – one energy substance and biota; energy can be
15

The challenges for managing our governing this multiple risk or
this systemic risk were already mentioned. The quantification isdifficulty of very complex cause affect assessment which is very
often difficult to be well prepared.

stakeholders with experiential knowledge are needed andalso stakeholders should be included to get regional
knowledge and to be aware of local concerns.
•

There is an endless list of black swans. Everything is connectedwith everything. Small things can have very major impacts interms of outcomes. That means that at least in one million
events, there is a probability that one over million that something
bad happens. That makes it very difficult to do good risk
assessment because it is not possible to know all the blackswans.

Prof. Renn concluded by describing several properties ofpolycrises:

There is always a polarity of knowledge claims andassessments. It is not just one. There are conflicts evenbetween scientists or between scientists and policy makers.
What examples of these kinds of big systemic risks?
•

•

•

•

Firstly, there is the intensity of human intervention to thenatural environment, climate biodiversity pollution which aremain aspects here;
there is the interconnectivity of technology, cybersecurity,
energy blackout and others
The one that most familiar with is action between natural
habitat and human habitats, the earthquake, floods, etc.

•

first is high complexity. There are cross-sectoral and crossboundary cascading effect which made it very difficult tomanage risk because different agencies are responsible andneed to cooperate with each other and very often they do not
do it.

•

There is stochastic relationship between cause and effects.
Again, that makes it something difficult to be effective in a risk
reduction.

•

There are a lot of nonlinear functional relationships often withtipping points so that trial and error is not a good method tolearn; it is necessary to learn from anticipation and;•

There is a lack of attendance to systemic risk very often byrisk managers and regulators.

What is required:Social side effects of modernization, globalization,
pandemics, social activity, populism, war, distress ingovernment, could also be systemic risks. Those are more
related to power information but they very often havemanifestations in terms of energy, in terms of substance, andin terms of biota.

These are some of the main examples when we talk aboutsystemic risk that leads to polycrises.

•

Need to focus on resilience and risk absorbing systems andmake sure that they are as resilient as possible, independentof the stress that they will experience in the future. They will
experience some stress in a polycrises. It is very unlikely that
it will not face a stress situation.

•

Need to focus on a variety of unlikely stress scenarios tomake sure that even in a stress scenario that was notexpected to come, that it will still be able to deal with thatstress and that risk of solving system can recover in a very
short period of time.

•

Need to focus on integration on multiple stakeholders inpublic participation. Because it is necessary to haveownership over the process because that guarantee thatpeople will - first play it along the rules; and secondly will be
accepting the various strategies that are necessary to makeus less vulnerable in a polycrises world.

What are the requirements for risk and crisis governance?
There are some principal strategies that are quite important.
•First one is that if there are billions of Black Swans, very
often, there is no good probability assessments about the risk
agents and their impact. It is better to focus on resilience.
That means overcoming vulnerabilities of the risk absorbing
system. That is true for natural hazards as very often we do
not know when they are happening. For example, it isnecessary to make sure that the structures are basicallycapable of withholding or withstanding better natural hazards.
Just recently, in Turkey that has not been the case and power
and information were one of the big risk agents that madethese cities much more vulnerable than they needed
to be.

•

It is possible to do reverse stress test. Starting withvulnerabilities and assess potential stressors to see
how it fit for this.

•A third component is a Black Swan scenario. What isneeded to be done is to construct a set of diverse
Black Swan scenarios - very unlikely scenarios or
tests of robustness of risk absorbing systems. This
will not probably forecast or predict the Black Swanthat will happen. But if the system works well withthree or four Black Swan scenarios, we can be pretty
confident there is a possibility that it will also work forus.

•

The last thing which Prof. Renn thought important
was that it is not possible to know whether it is only
systemic risks or systematic risks from science.

There are also new societal conditions in which all of that
happens which makes it difficult in terms of governance andcommunication.

Prof. Renn ended with a quote “what man desires is notknowledge but certainty”. from Bertrand Russell. Policy makers
cannot produce certainty. They can help people to develop
coping mechanisms to deal prudently with a necessary
uncertainty that is required for societies to progress.

The

16

Chaired by: Prof. Wei-Sen Li, Secretary-General, NCDR, Chinese Taipei; and Prof. Gretchen Kalonji, Dean,
IDMR, Sichuan University, China
One of the points continuously mentioned from the Plenary
Session I up to the GADRI Committee on Networking was, how to
relate disaster science news to the community. The suggestion
was storytelling of disaster science practices, results and successstories. Dr. Tom De Groeve showed us how this could be done
and set the stage by starting with the story of the European Union
efforts on disaster risk reduction and mitigation to disaster. Thereis also a wealth of resources and knowledge for everyone who iswilling to use them to apply to their local situations.

The Part two of the Plenary Session III was Chaired by Prof. WeiSen Li, Secretary-General, NCDR, Chinese Taipei; and Prof.
Gretchen Kalonji, Dean, IDMR, Sichuan University, China.

Prof. David Alexander started his keynote speech with thefollowing: “An eminent French expert on risk, once told me, he
was going to found a rapid reflection force. Not a rapid reaction
force. They will go to disaster and reflect.” Great! I thought. I
would go one step further. And I will want to found a rapid
skepticism force. What I do is, I doubt and therefore I am. We will
go to disaster and be skeptic. There is a surmountable raw
material out there. So I thought, what am I going to do to distract
the audience from reading their emails? I thought to myself,
maybe I will simply say what I think.”

Keynote 9: Anticipation, Integration and Impact – Three Elements for Tackling Future Risks, Dr. Tom De Groeve, European
Commission, Joint Research Centre (EC-JRC), Italy
Dr. De Groeve continued to state that an organization such as theEU, with every government being in crisis mode all the time, EC
JRC try to deal with this situation. In a way, risk is dealt within thiscontext of uncertainty. The beginning of COVID is unknown.
Nobody knew what the virus could do and what it did. Within that
context, decisions were made. It is complex and ambiguous anddoes not always have an answer. Perhaps, there is no answer, it
is about trade-offs and making the right decision.

The keynote presentation by Dr. Tom De Groeve focused on the
DRR and DRM challenges, systemic risks and future risks from theperspective of the European Union and the European Commission
Joint Research Centre (EC JRC). Through the PPT presentation,
he illustrated different aspects and scenarios of the ongoing workwithin the European Union.
Dr. De Groeve thanked the opportunity to talk about how they see
things in the EU, and in the JRC. Because it is interesting to knowhow different parts of the world deal with the new challenges,
challenges of systemic risks and more and more future risks; andto see how they try to move forward in the EU.
He discussed the concept of VUCA-world – a world that ischaracterized by - Volatility – Uncertainty – Complexity andAmbiguity -. This is actually a way of looking at the world in termsof decision making. What does crises manager have to do? It is
not a simple problem anymore. If it is floods, it is more and more
complex. There are more things interlinked, and that is what links
to systemic risks.
Different impacts may have cascading effects through different
systems. The are volatile because it is changing too quickly –sometimes there is talk about permacrisis – meaning one thing
after the other.

17

EC JRC deals with such situations as they are actually part of thethat government - EU. There is the EC and the government part of
the EU. Within that lies the research center, JRC which does
science for policy, to help the policies of the European level,
policies that are translated to the member states of the EU. In
there, there is one unit, the Disaster Risk Unit which is lead by Dr.
Tom De Groeve. There is also a center, Disaster Risk
Management Knowledge Centre, working together oninterdisciplinary research.
The policies that they work for is what the 27 member states can
do together under the civil protection. The solidarity principle isimportant. If something happens to one country, another can help.
They need to be member states and requested and encouraged tobe more and more resilient. At the European level there is also a
lot of thinking what that means in a collaborative context. Because
for EU, the EC rarely dictates what happens. It is more aboutcollaborations and about doing things together.
Collaboration is in the DNA of the EU and Dr. De Groeve statedthat it is also within themselves. They also work externally in thecontext of the Sendai Framework, etc. in the humanitarian world
and towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

A few of the priorities:•••

Understanding risks and the risks of the future – and acting on
them. The work we do is actionable, again similar toobjectives of GADRI. Using a cartoon by Graeme MacKay, hesaid that we have a short-term vision. When it was COVID,
our thoughts were about COVID, and did not think about otherpotential risks that could come in the future.
Having a mindset, where one can try to think of the risks,further into the future, and the broader picture is very
important. It is to try through things like foresight, looking
further ahead, working with others nationally, and trying tohave things on the radar. It is important for them, but also for
the EU and other organizations that need to manage risks.

2nd part is the satellite world – where their big data is –modelling of all these things. It is an enhanced situationalawareness for crisis management. For example: In case ofcrisis happens, to be there, to give the right information at theright time to the disaster managers.

Those are the two area where we can improve a lot and where ourresearch really focuses. Another important aspect of the Centre is
its publications. The knowledge is summarized through books.

He shared examples for anticipation - Climate change anticipation- A result of a whole series of study on climate change in Europe.
Another point Dr. De Groeve touched upon was the humanitariancrisis, a very important part of work for EC JRC. What happens in
the future at humanitarian crisis level and shared the risks in the
future using IPCC predictions cascade in to humanitarian risks.
Figures showed that there will be an increase in 36 countries in thehigher risk category to 52 countries in 2030 in the worse-casescenario. Increase in the number of countries in humanitariancrisis does not look good. Even in a best-case scenario, there isalso an increase. Even in a more optimistic scenario, it will bedefinitely be worse even if it goes to a net zero situation.
On risk data, Dr. Groeve said that there is always a dream of
putting data together. It may not work as data is going to be
everywhere—to have the process for where things come together,where the standards are, and where the discussions about it are,and comparing data, and throwing it from one discipline to anotherall these facts are important and come in to play. He shared an
example of the European Central Bank using the data that comesfrom fires and floods to do their report for the financial world.

….. it takes skills to develop theforesight and knowledge
management as a profession

On the policy side, he stated that it is not easy. The policy side, isalso very complex. Perhaps more complex. Definitely for them as
they do not necessarily understand how things work, who has
which responsibility and how the whole system works. Yet, it isimportant to try to understand so that they can be the bridge.
The principles are a very important part - try to anticipate and workin an environment discussed previously, and think of the impact ofeverything that is done by the Centre.
The three principles of the Joint Research Centre.
•

Anticipation – to anticipate all the time. As scientists, it ispossible to look a bit further ahead than policy makers. It is
possible to bring a bit more vision, and this should be made thetask of scientists.

•

Integration – both sides need to be integrated•

Impact – is having a business approach to the work that isdone. Not just doing science for the fun of science. It has toachieve clear objectives and try to measure.

He stated that it is also necessary for them to think ahead with abroadest view on future risks; and foresight are important such as
to be on top of current and ongoing events and disasters.

18

In conclusion, Dr. Groeve stated that to anticipate, integrate anddeliver impact is very useful as a concept for every action they do.
But it takes skills to develop the foresight and knowledge
management as a profession. Be strategic about things. We reallythink strategically but our data, communication, strategy, andstakeholder engagement play a bigger part in putting things
together. He said he will be happy work with anyone who would
want to connect and benefit from the European story.

Keynote 10:

Disaster Science: Updating Theory to Guide Disaster Risk Reduction in the Future, Prof. David Alexander, Institutefor Risk and Disaster Reduction (IRDR), University College London, UK
Showing the pyramid of Abraham Maslow dating to 1942,
Prof. Alexander said that he thinks it is time to update it a little bit.
A layer should be written related to connectivity to connection as
we depend upon it so much in this day and age. Not only, butwhat that means is that we are increasingly and heavily
dependent on critical infrastructure. What if that goes wrong? The
essence is according to Prof. Alexander is of cascading
consequences as it is the interaction between different kinds ofvulnerability. He stated that if you like intersectionality again which
can multiply to give us an escalation in the cascading path that
could well mean that the secondary impact is worse than the
primary ones.

Secondary events, cascading paths, complexity and the transfer,by what is called panarchy of effects to different scales from theglobal to the local simultaneously. That really is complexity. At theheart of its critical infrastructure which of course is multifaceted,multi-dimensional, not merely a question of technology in somekind of geographical space but it also has a social component. Of
course, a cyber component which is also increasingly importantand is also dynamically changing. For example, we are moving
somewhat away from direct sabotage towards subversion towards
digital influence.

Prof. David Alexander stated that theory is necessary because it
shines a light on what we are doing. The trouble with it is much of
the theory used in it dates from the 1960s if not earlier. Meanwhile
the world has moved on. It is moving on faster, and faster andfaster. At least, it discovered systemic risks. Actually, if one
reads about the origins of these in the business economics field,
they would call it systematic risk. Because systemic risk is actuallycaused by a single entity. Nevertheless, we are talking about thepossible proliferation towards the breakdown of the entire system.

What does that mean for the nature of knowledge? Here is aproblem that needs dealing with and not merely with the objective
reality that is produced as scientists and consumed as scientists.
Or the perceived reality of those we study but the fact that they areperceptions coalescing to something which we can callmanufactured reality. In other words, it might not be true. For
example, conspiracy theories about vaccination- but we still haveto deal with it and in a big way. If it is ignored and think it does notmean anything, then we are missing out on something absolutely
fundamental in society. The risk of that is, if it is not under control
somehow, and hopefully democratically, we will end up with theword resurrected by the French sociologist Emil Durkheim 1893
book on Labour, which is “anomie” which is a form of nihilism. Andabandonment of standards and principles that could be very
profound for disaster governance.

What does it take for the world to change its attitude to disaster,
he asked. The threshold of political and public tolerance ispassed. What would it take for the world economy to reorientate
itself towards the problem of disaster? It actually needs to without
necessarily being existentialist.
Complexity - clearly it has a variety of important ingredients thatneeds looking at- perhaps one at a time or at least some of them.
The trouble with the complexity of disaster risk is that it goes in avariety of different directions.
Perhaps, to take at least five of them. And they are composed of awhole pot full of different ingredients that we somehow got to deal
with. Prof. Alexander stated that thinking about that for a while, hethought, perhaps he can steal a word. And the word he stole wasintersectionality. It, of course, comes from studies of race andgender but actually have somehow to deal with intersectionality
on a variety of different levels. There is the intersection of several
things; different causes; different kinds of disaster. For example:
there were three earthquakes during the bulk of covid. They
required a very different response to that given to the pandemic
disease. Intersection of disaster within its context and many
aspects of the context are connected social to social
circumstances.

Prof. Alexander shared a thought that occurred to him which isthat you cannot make people resilient against disasters if they are
not resilient generally. A very important point, he thought but often
a neglected one. On that basis, he put together the “egghypothesis”.
He stated - we have learned rather painfully and rather slowly andexactly 40 years, that we need to look not merely at the superficial
causes of disasters but at the root causes of them – that is theyoke.
He continued to state that he thinks if we cannot
understand disaster, if we do not understand the context in which
it occurs, which he would define as things that are not in any way
directly related, they might not even be related to the disaster atall. In other words, specific vulnerability to floods or whateveroccurs within the context of general vulnerability, if people are
generally vulnerable, then one cannot stop them from being
specifically vulnerable properly.

We live in an age which really is rather threatening in some ways
said Prof. Alexander. Human rights are in retreat. Covid itself led
to the diminution of human rights. Democracy threatened byauthoritarianism and in some of the cases, the scope of
democracy is narrowing right now. Identity perhaps needs arethink. Sovereignty - what does that actually mean? It is thesource of so much conflict but do we need to redefine it in a
globalized world. Globalization has arrived. Mobility - the cat isout of the bag. It cannot be contained. It will not be contained.
Welfare - easy to define but nobody does it. Nobody wants todefine welfare. They might have to live up to their own definition
but it is fundamental to disaster management reduction, etc.
Legality – it is under threat by anomie (nihilism).

19

Referring to the 1950s Nobel Prize winning economist Herbert
Simon’s idea which divided into the satisficer of the optimizer either you didn't exercise all his options or did but always did thebest. What it does actually mean is as we grapple with a profound
impact of information technology, we should change not really theway people think about things but the way they do things.

Referring to Dr. Tom De Groeve’s earlier presentation,
Prof. Alexander said he is glad that the European Union existed.
He is glad to be a citizen of it too. He is equally glad that it has amechanism that helps to coordinate. He said that many moreresources should be invested in that as the people and theexpertise are there. The needs are going to show up very, very
quickly. One could also say that response is also mitigation
because one of the future key tasks is going to be damaged
limitation.

In conclusion, Prof. Alexander stated that:
Participatory democracy may be in the retreat but it is actually theanswer. It is the magic ingredient. It gives access to informationand the ability to act.
Inequality and inequity often result from poor human rights andmay be diagnostic of inability to act. For example: some actions
might be terribly negative but with guidance and encouragement, it
can be build-back-better etc.

The foundation of rights is shifting as the world goes rapidly
through momentous change. For example: Since 1970 to 1973,
there has been increasing divergence of wealth. The world's
billionaires for example, increased their wealth by 24% in one year
as a result of covid at the expense of the poor. Momentous
changing.
Foresight – it is absolutely necessary to know what the future
outcomes are likely to be. Prof. Alexander’s argument here wasthat we need civil protections that are not slightly bigger than theones we have got now but in an order of magnitude bigger. For
example: in Southern France last summer, 2,000 Fire Fighters
were needed to fight the wildfires in the ground. Next time, they
may need 20,000 not 2,000. It is necessary to get used to thatidea because such are the hazards we are facing. Foresight is the
only way we will get them under control. Of course, we should also
move from response to emphasis on mitigation preparation anddisaster reduction.

20

GADRI Member Breakfast Meeting with Ms. Mami Mizutori, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for
Disaster Risk Reduction, UNDRR, Switzerland at the Hotel Granvia, Kyoto, Japan

21

GADRI Regional Alliances: Showcasing Collaboration, Research Workflow and Opportunities
Chaired by: Prof. Peter Sammonds and Prof. Kaoru Takara, Emeritus Professor, Kyoto University
Activities of Natural Disaster Research Council in Japan, Prof. Makoto Okumura, Natural
Disaster Science Council (NDRC), Japan
Prof. Makoto Okumura,
Director of the Natural
Disaster Science Council(NDRC) of Japan outlined
the structure and purposeof the organization. A
nationwide
Japaneseorganization which aims
to facilitate cooperations
among institutes as wellasresearchers
byencouraging discussion of research plans and academic
information on natural disasters and mitigation. Although it is nota local branch of GADRI, its functions and objectives are similar
to GADRI. NDRC also gathers evidence-based findings fromongoing studies and use the information to plan and propose
future research on natural disasters.

can minimize damage inthe event of a similar case.
Research
resultsareusually
disseminatedthrough published reports
and symposia.
NDRC
strives to improve its
management by carrying
out
self-inspections
including organizational reform for a better research and checkand-review of the study. As of 2009, the Government of Japanestablished the Joint Use Research Center Program at theDisaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University.
Since then, all activities fall within this umbrella.
Further, NDRC strives to contribute to the prevention andreduction of natural disasters around the world and help establish
resilient societies. Along these lines, NDRC is expected todevelop natural disaster research in collaboration with research
institutes of natural disasters in other countries. Prof. Okumura
concluded his presentation by stating that as a representative
body of the community, NDRC is ready to cooperate with GADRI,
and to conduct international collaboration in the world, by
appointment of new division within NDRC to take charge of theseinternational activities. NDRC is eager to find opportunities toshare their findings with a wider audience around the globe.

In the event of a natural disaster occurrence in Japan or abroad,
NDRC goes into action to put forward a nationwide
interdisciplinary research proposal. With NDRC’s academic
significance in the society, together with the cooperation fromother natural disaster research networks and local branches,
research teams are dispatched to such disasters. Such research
activities are aimed to better understand disaster mechanisms,
and to contribute to reduce the risk by proposing strategies that

North American Alliance of Hazards and Disaster Research Institutes (NAAHDRI) Activities: Fostering Interdisciplinary Researchand Community Engagement to Better Confront Increasing Disasters under the Changing Climate - Dr. Guirong (Grace) Yan,
Director, CHM&CR, Missouri University of Science and Technology, USA
Dr. Grace Yan, thecurrent
Chair
of
NAAHDRI, introduced
the regional allianceand its activities onbehalf of Prof. Lori
Peek.
What NAAHDRI has
been doing to foster
interdisciplinary
research and community engagement to better confront increasing
disasters. Currently, NAAHDRI has a membership of 100 research
centers affiliated and located in the US, Canada and the
Caribbean. When it comes to NAAHDRI, one important person Dr.
Yan mentioned was Prof. Lori Peek who sent her regrets for notattending the summit and sends her best wishes for the
conference. She is one of the important persons for creation of
NAAHDRI.
Along with Dr. Peek, there are two other NAAHDRI founders, they
are Prof. Paul Kovacs and Prof. John van de Lindt. Dr. van deLindt is also a former member of the Board of Directors.
With a seven-member Board, NAAHDRI move forward
aggressively within the North American region creating
opportunities for its members to contribute to hazards and disaster
research; and finding ways to innovatively, disseminate theresearch findings to help communities. To accomplish these tasks,
the following five committees were set-up:
22•

Justice, Equity, and Future Leadership Committee, Prof. LoriPeek, University of Corado Boulder•

Membership Relations Committee. Prof. Melanie Gall, ArizonaState University•

Policy Advocacy Committee, Dr. Rachel Orsen, Florida Intl•

Research Committee, Prof. John van de Lindt, and Dr. Jamie
Kruse, Colorado State University•

Strategic Planning Committee, Dr. Karl Cane, University of
Hawaii

There are awards for members, NAAHDRI Engagement Award.
NAAHDRI innovatively disseminate its research findings to thecommunities. One of the most recognized and ongoing initiative is
to ask members to contribute 100 resilience stories within 1000
words.
•The science—what is being delivered•

The trigger—what is the societal problem, what is the hazard•

The approach – what is the approach•

The outcome – what is the outcome.

•Remarks from the community

NAAHDRI look forward to working with all other alliances toachieve disaster risk reduction and to better living of whole world.

African Alliance for Disaster Research Institutes (AADRI) - Prof. Desmond Manatsa, President, AADRI; and Executive Dean, Facultyof Science and Engineering, Bindura University of Science, Zimbabwe
Membership organizations comprise of 10 universities from 5
countries – Botswana, Malawi, Mozambique, Ghana and South
Africa. Also, include governmental, NGOs, private sector anddisaster research PhD students.
AADRI is an independent alliance that is managed by withvoluntary contributions from the Africa’s research community.
Secretariat is hosted by the School of Climate Change andDisaster Research; Bindura University, Zimbabwe.
The
committees within the alliance will be rotating.
AADRI’s main theme are for disaster risk reduction; climate change
adaptation; and sustainable development.
There are various Collaboration & Research projects.
Prof. Desmond Manatsa shared information on the African Alliancefor Disaster Research Institutes (AADRI) - What they are for andwhat they have achieved so far. Rational for AADRI :•The way forward is the plan to hold the first AADRI conferencein October 2023.

•

The first AADRI substantive committee to be elected fromdifferent African countries and institutes– Africa’s disaster research community is fragmented and diverse.
•

No clear collaboration and partnership to inform decisionmaking in African•

Consultations are ongoing to have the conference to be held at
new SHOC centre in Mozambique•

Africa’s disaster research output is less than 1% of global
disaster research•

Shifting focus from Zimbabwe is a strategy for AADRI to have acontinental outlook•

No hub of Africa’s disaster research•

Secretariate to remain at BUSE according to the current AADRI
constitution.

The forum is for advancing disaster risk reduction knowledge
through producing and sharing knowledge, promoting collabotrationand partnerships; and provide a unified message for policy makers
across Africa.

South Asia Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes (SAADRI) - Prof. Mahua Mukherjee, Secretary-General, SAADRI; and Professor,
IIT Roorkee, India

Prof. Mahua Mukherjee, Secretary-General, SAADRI; andProfessor, IIT Roorkee, India said that the South Asia Alliance ofDisaster Research Institutes (SAADRI), is new and started in 2021.
South Asian regions is the most disaster-prone area of the globe.
Whenever looking at a risk report, it is possible to see how theSouth Asia Region is being identified as the most risk prone area.
What we have done – we started with understanding the challenges
with our strengths.
The working groups work on bringing the synergy between SDGs,
Sendai Framework and the Climate Change Agenda.
••

The first working group focuses on earthquake and landslide
early- warning systems.
Second group works on Flood, cyclone and tsunami early
warning systems.

•

Third group on critical infrastructure resilience.

•

Fourth groupresilience;•

While the fifth group is working on nature-based resilience.

•

Recently an additional sixth group is formed to tackle climatechange impact on environment and health.

•In addition, there is a young professionals platform; and a
SAADRI newsletter.

concentrates

onparticipatorycommunity

23

One of the features of the newsletter is, it is available in thevernacular language of the country to reach people easily.
Our initiatives include:•

SAADRI lectures•

Knowledge platform –•Disaster management action frontiers•

Planet bring prosperity – focus on nature-based resilience•

DRR Awareness and Education for young SAADRI members•

Investment related research activities.

•

Partnerships are the starting point and mainstay of SAADRI.

•

Continue efforts towards SFDRR Global Targets

UK Alliance for Disaster Research (UKADR) - Prof. Andrew Collins, Advisor, UKADR; and Disaster and Development Network,
Northumbria University Newcastle, UK
gatekeepers
including the Cabinet Office, Foreign
Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), Go-Science,
Royal Society, UKCDR and ELRHA.
•

Partner for COP26 Adaptation and Resilience Series•

Reference group for UNDRR STAGs including throughreviewing of UK Risk Management•

Regional link for GADRI and International Science Council Cosponsored Programmes such as IRDR•

Open elections for new life as it progresses•

Early Career Research Network

There are UKADR events
Prof. Andrew Collins presented the UK Alliance for Disaster
Research (UKADR) – which is set up with a Steering Committee,
Advisory Board – there are a total of 15 steering committee
members, and a few members of the Steering Committee are also
attending the 6th Global Summit of GADRI..
UKADR is quite widespread in the UK. There are about 24
institutional members and 300 individual members while
maintaining links with other alliances.
Why we need UKADR?
•

Support UK government commitments to the
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030

Sendai•

Enable smart, rapid response to international emergencies•

Inform the wider international development and disaster risk
reduction policy process

Respond to the needs of UK research community•

DRR lacked a coherent advocacy voice to UK government
compared to other specialisms•

To avoid institutional competition that can undermine collective
weight – collaborate rather than competing.

•Make new partnerships easier•

Maintain global links in a more coordinated way

What UKADR has achieved so far•

Strategic Working through an elected UKADR Committee andAdvisory Board•

A solid Constitution that has undergone consultation andupdate during 2022.

•

Called upon by national research representations to steer
content of funding calls, particularly those of the Natural
Environment Research Council (NERC)••

e.g. advising on rapid and agile research.

•

Joint UKADR–DRG Resilience Workshop that steered£20 million Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF)‘Equitable Resilience’ and ‘Systemic Risk’ themes.

Serves as academic point of liaison for UK Disasters ResearchGroup (DRG) – this comprises Government and others policy

24•

Annual UKADR conferences•

UKADR Research priorities as expressed by its membership•

Understanding Risk•

Disaster science methodologies•

Mechanisms of investment and research governance

UKADR ECR Network
To bring young scientists together.
The overarching objectives of the network are to allow networking
with other colleagues; to bring out professionals who are isolated
in their own institutions; allows cross-institutional engagement for
next generation of researchers.
It allows also to develop joint grant initiatives and it is with the
UKADR steering group. There are about 30 members. We workwith networks of researchers.
Work of UKADR ECR Network was presented by Dr. Mark Ashley
Parry.

Outcomes of the 3rd World Bosai Forum, Sendai, Japan from 10 to 13 March 2023 - Prof. Yuichi Ono, Director, IRIDES, Tohoku
University, Japan
9. encourage further involvement of the private sector ininvestments in disaster risk reduction.
10. Specific actions (tangible, measurable, visible, ‘mapable,’ GISbased actions) are needed at the local level. – Global level
agendas should be able to be implementable at local levels.
Since all disasters are affected at the local levels, activities
must be action oriented.
11. Continued investment in disaster risk reduction, including
cooperation and guidance with private investors is necessary
for substantial risk reduction.
12. need to link disaster risk reduction with urban and rural land
use planning.
Prof. Yuichi Ono, Founder and Representative Director, WorldBOSAI Forum, delivered the report of the 3 rd World Bosai Forumat Sendai International Center, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japandem 10 to 13 March 2023. It was held back to back with the
GADRI conference.
At the bosai forum, we talked about
scientists interacting with governmental representatives, NGOs.,
private sector and many others. There were 32 countries
representing more than 5,000 participants gathered in Sendai.
There were 30- sessions of 90-minute durations.
Outcomes of the Bosai forum were:•

December last year, Bosai forum and the risk forum wererelated.
We support the world risk forum in Davos,
Switzerland. Global Risk forum organized a small meeting of
30 people in Santis, Switzerland.

Recommendation and the Sendai Bosai Forum inputs:•

There were 20 points of recommendations which covered
Sendai Priorities

Overarching recommendations.
1. Strengthening of the national platforms and the secretariat.
2. Priority 1 – need sound an reliable evidence on data collection
and analysis.
3. To enhance credibility, utilizing historical disaster loss anddamage data and statistics

4. need consistent and understandable metrics
disaster risk reduction and building resilience.

regarding

5. The Sendai monitoring should be done not only by national
governments but also local governments, including
municipalities, to understand disaster risks at the local level. In
this regard, the Sendai City prepared a report on the Sendai
Midterm Review.
6. need more robust education programs for securing skilledhuman resources dedicated to disaster risk reduction.
7. must strengthen the National Platform for Disaster Risk
Reduction and coordination with national organizations.
Sendai Framework the contact point is the national disastermanagement authority or the office. They are not necessarily
building DRR infrastructure and funds are from the Ministry offinance. It is necessary to convince the ministry of financeabout DRR infrastructure to receive the necessary funding
required to build DRR infrastructure.
8. stress the importance of balance between structural and nonstructural measures to reduce disaster risk.

25

13. need to develop better financial mechanisms for resilient
infrastructure, including insurance of public assets.
14. Pre-disaster investment and DRR actions should be optimized
based on the economic and social development level of thecountries and regions.
15. Pre-disaster recovery planning derived from the Build Back
Better principles learned from the Great East Japan
Earthquake and Tsunami can reduce the recovery time andserve as effective pre-disaster DRR investment.
16. Scientific global collaboration networks should be
strengthened with more involvement of academia to sharesuccessful cases and to improve the accuracy of disaster risk
assessment.
17. The forum identified a need for an intergovernmental venue todiscuss key disaster risk reduction issues from the NDMO’s
perspective.
18. The forum concerned that disaster risk reduction issues
related to climate change are currently discussed and decided
without sufficient involvement of NDMOs in the global processof climate change adaptation under the UNFCCC, especiallyin the COP series.
19. There is a need to bridge the gap and share knowledge
between countries that have long dealt with climate change
and those facing climate change as a new risk. Conventional
disaster risk reduction strategies are also effective for climatechange-induced disasters.
20. These is a need for science-based discussions and evidence
on the linkages between climate change adaptation measuresand disaster risk reduction, based on solid data on disasterlosses and damages at all levels.
Prof. Ono stressed the importance of the early warning systems.
With his experience, he has seen how the early warning systems
have been effective in saving lives but not the infrastructure or
livelihoods. The UN Secretary-General has called for the early
warning systems to be established in the entire world.
A possible approach in the future might need to categorize thecountries, depending on the development of the country status,
developed countries, middle-income countries, LDCs., etc. Early
waning systems can be effective for certain countries. DRR recipe
is different for each country and it should be tailormade to eachcountry depending on the available resources.

Closing Ceremony and the Banquet of the 6th Global Summit of GADRI
Rihga Royal Hotel, Kyoto
MC: Dr. Yuki Matsushi, DPRI, Kyoto University

26Panel Discussion Session I-A :Towards GADRI Objectives of Achieving a Sustainable and Resilient Society Against Disasters
Chairs: Prof. Hirokazu Tatano, Secretary-General, GADRI; DPRI, Kyoto University, Japan; and Dr. Chipo Mudavanhu,
Vice-President, AADRI; and Senior Lecturer, Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe
The global corona virus pandemic and cascading risks havetaught that the conventional approach to disaster risk planningand management is ineffective for the development ofsustainable and resilient communities. A worldwide pandemic
underscores the importance of integrating the following key
areas: - andfold objectives, which include establishing global research
networks, developing research roadmaps and plans, building thecapacities of research institutes, sharing information andengaging in collaborative research, and advocating fororganizations, need to be directed toward the above-mentioned
three key areas for integration in research and development.

i. Disaster risk should not be treated in isolation but should be
integrated with health risks, climate change, andenvironmental risks;

The 6th GADRI Global Summit panel discussion sessions aimed
to systematically identify the processes, techniques, evidence,challenges and opportunities for achieving the GADRI objectives
for a sustainable and resilient society against hazards andworking to keep them from becoming disasters. Program
participants were able to communicate academic science acrossscientific disciplines to policymakers and practitioners.

ii. DRR objectives and vision should be integrated withsustainable development goals to foster a resilient world;
iii. Short-term DRR objectives need to be integrated with a longterm vision and plans for a resilient society.
Towards a sustainable and resilient society, the GADRI's five-

On Day 2, the outcomes and recommendations of the Panel Group Discussion Session I were shared by a rapporteur nominated by eachCommittee.
Panel Session was chaired by Prof. Hirokazu Tatano and Dr.
Chipo Mudavanhu.
I-A: Committee on Networking—Ms. Ritsuko Yamazaki-Honda

I-B: Committee on Science and Technology roadmap—Prof.
Hirokazu Tatano
I-C: Committee on Institutional Capacity Building—Dr. Subhajyoti
SamaddarI-D: Committee on Data and Information Sharing—Dr. Tom De
GroeveI-E: Committee on Advocacy—Prof. Irasema Alacantara-Ayala

27

I-A: Committee on Networking - Fostering Networking to Enhance Global DRR

The session was chaired by Prof. Charles Scawthorn, Chair and Ms. Ritsuko Yamazaki-Honda, Co-Chair
The session committed to explore how networking can be fosteredby GADRI and ways to improve disseminating GADRI's message
for improving global DRR extensively among GADRR community
by encouraging networking among individual researcher and theirinteraction. It also explored ways to extend it to the media,
governments, MDBs, NGOs and local groups .

The Committee Chair and Co-Chair submitted the following reportof achievements and recommendations at the end of the Session.

Four speakers from diverse backgrounds were invited to the panel
discussion session which was held in a “world café” style – which
involved an ad hoc organizing of participants into small groups
and moving around in musical-chairs fashion to deepen
discussions on the presentations by the speakers:•

Would a directory of GADRI institution researchers contribute tothis goal?

•

Would monthly on-line discussion/seminars on specific topics
be of interest?

The speakers were:

Key questions addressed during the session:
1. How can we foster exchange between individual GADRI
researchers?

2. Which stakeholders should GADRI be networking with?
(e.g. international agencies, MDBs, NGOs, etc.)•

Rajib Shaw, Professor, Keio University, Tokyo••

Ronan Sato, Associate, Energy & Environment Investment,
Tokyo

•

Jean-Paul Pinelli, Professor, Florida Institute of Technology

3. How would GADRI approach networking with multitude of
DRR consumers? How can GADRI support/assist its
members in need?

•

Hiroyuki Goto, Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI),
Kyoto University

28

What would be specific goals in doing so?

Results from the discussions:

3. How would GADRI approach networking with multitude of
DRR consumers? How can GADRI support/assist its
members in need?

１．How can we foster exchange between individual GADRI
researchers?
•

Young professionals/researchers to collaborate andexchange in and across region. Online sessions or evenbetter would face-to-face interactions•

accomplished disaster researchers will be nominated as
GADRI Fellows. E.g. GADRI will extend invitation for Fellows
to visit/lecture DRIs on a case-by-case basis (at no financial
burden to GADRI, to be explained). GADRI members support
GADRI fellows in their area (e.g. hosting, sabbatical)•

Use social media or database *as a platform to connect
internally and engage (FB, Instagram.

•Feed all information outcomes of events, researchmeetings, etc. into “GADRI YouTube Channel”•

Storytelling as researchers - a “People-centered GADRI”
activity particularly aimed at vulnerable people fordisaster mitigation measures. GADRI, as an umbrella, tofacilitate storytelling.

•

Creation of a GADRI Fellow Program:•

Young professional program in GADRI members – inviting
young professionals to be hosted in GADRI institutions tostudy and research for three – twelve month period.

•

Creation of a Google Scholar-like of GADRI, Global Disaster
Researcher Directory: voluntary compilation of individuals
engaged in disaster research, channeled through GADRI
member institutes•

Existing common programs to involve different network/
stakeholders

Internal association or regional association* External networking with institutions on DRR

2. Which stakeholders should GADRI be networking with?
Education … students of any school level•

To reach out for instance;•

At global level: UNESCO a good focal point and possible toconnect through online training•

At National level – there are examples from Japan and
Thailand•

Education department at university level which shouldhave connections
Disaster preparedness training for teachers

At Decentralized, local levele.g. (Thai) School safety program

29

The Chair emphasized several points. He stated that theconsensus of the meeting was that GADRI’s presence is not
sufficient. It is not present enough in various people’s ongoing
activities. Networking is essential to increasing the presence of
GADRI in various member research institutes and having an
impact. One suggestion was the use of social media andcreating of a YouTube channel will have a tremendous impact.
Secondly the face-to-face contact such as the GADRI Fellows
with GADRI institutes; and lastly a simple Global Directory of
Researchers using the ORCHID database.

I-B: Committee on S&T Roadmap
The session was chaired by Prof. Hirokazu Tatano and Dr. Selim Günay—Notes were taken by Dr. Maria Camila Suarez Paba
The Science and Technology(S&T)
Roadmapisanimportantcomponentof
GADRI for achieving disaster
resilience. With this important
direction and goal in mind,
this session focused on thepotential contributions of the
S&T Roadmap in advancing
the science of hazards, alongwith technologies that can minimize their harmful effects.
The session invited the following experts to the panel discussion:
1. Prof. Toshio Koike, International Centre for Water Hazard and
Risk Management under the auspices of UNESCO (ICHARM),
Japan
2. Prof. Qunli Han, Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR),
China

Science (IRIDeS), Tohoku University, Japan
4. Prof. Mahua Mukherjee, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)
Roorkee, India
5. Dr. Guirong Grace Yan, Missouri University of Science andTechnology, USA
6. Dr. Selim Günay, Pacific Earthquake Engineering ResearchCenter (PEER), University of California, Berkeley, USA
The session was chaired by Prof. Hirokazu Tatano, Disaster
Prevention Research Institute, Kyoto University on behalf of Prof.
Khalid Mosalam, Taisei Professor of Civil Engineering and Director of
the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) Center; andDr. Selim Günay, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)
Center, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
Questions addressed during the session:•

How to enhance S&T Roadmap?

•

How should we proceed with the S and T roadmap?

3. Prof. Yuicho Ono, International Research Institute of DisasterThe outcomes of the discussion session were presented by Prof. Hirokazu Tatano.
The purpose of session was to create a GADRI S&T Roadmap tomaximize its impact for minimizing the harmful effects of different
hazards.
Although initially it was divided into four hazards, recently there were
multihazards and systemic risk aspects that have come into theforefront. That made the group to re-think about the categorization.
Specific topics discussed during the session:
1. Advancing the science and understanding of various natural
hazard phenomena, including earthquakes, wildfires, volcanic
eruptions, droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes, sea-level rise, floods,
and their relationships to climate change, using theoretical,
numerical, and data-driven approaches.
2. Developing or adopting technologies to use vast amounts ofhazard-related data available in recent years due toreconnaissance activities.

3. Developing tools, technologies, and methods that explore all
hazards from a holistic perspective that considers commonalities
and interactions between them. In addition, reducing theconsequences of each hazard individually and preventing themturning into disasters.
4. Using the experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic, formulating,and preparing for the world-wide consequences of large-scaledisasters from social science perspective (e.g., potential changes
on the social fabric of communities), economic (e.g., worldwide
supply-chain issues), and humanitarian (e.g., physical, andmental health) perspectives.
5. Using the same experiences of COVID-19 (e.g., developing
vaccines in unprecedently short-time frames), formulating
methods to bring available science and advanced engineering
methods together for finding timely solutions for disaster risk
reduction.
6. Promoting and advocating for the development and use of latest
technologies for disaster monitoring, reconnaissance activities(view from the ground), short-term and long-term recovery, andrelated city- and regional-scale simulations, e.g., deep learning,satellite imagery (view from the sky), drone technologies,
computer vision, natural language processing, high performance30

computing, and low cost and accurate sensors.
7. Developing methods to merge advanced engineering
technologies with low-cost solutions that can facilitate the worldwide usage of modern technologies of the fourth (digital)
industrial revolution, both in the developed world andunderdeveloped and developing countries, with a special
emphasis on the most vulnerable populations, for disaster risk
reduction.
8. Working across-board with other committees (Institutional
Capacity Building, Networking, Data Information Sharing, andAdvocacy) for effective implementation and adoption of the S&T
Roadmap.
Key questions raised during the session:
1. How can we structure the S&T Roadmap to enhance the broader
impacts of GADRI activities?
2. How can we maximize the effects of GADRI in shaping disasterrelated policy changes in the world through the S&T Roadmap?
3. What are the tools and methodologies needed for developing
holistic and consistent solutions to multiple hazards (e.g.,
earthquakes and climate change related hazards)?
4. What is the most effective way of establishing supportive
communications between engineering, earth science, social
sciences, and economic disciplines for disaster mitigation?
5. How can the GADRI S&T Roadmap realistically prevent hazards
from becoming disasters?
6. Howcanthevarious advanced
engineering
technologies
bemerged with lowcost solutions toserve the mostvulnerable
populations
tohazards around theworld.

Final conclusions of the session:•

GADRI S&T roadmap will provide:•future vision of directions of S&T activities to be shared among
members of GADRI and hopefully influence policy andsystems transformation towards disaster resilient andsustainable society.

•

Importance ofdiscipline to provide effective, affordable and sense-making
solutions and implementation strategies for DRR policies andsustainable development. There is a need to re-allocate andreshape the S&T Roadmap. This will be the starting point for
the S&T Roadmap.
•

collaborations among different academic

Data collection, analysis and prescription based on the field
activities should be organized to share knowledge reflected inpolicy improvement in the real world.

Following provide a summary report submitted by Dr. Selim Günay and Dr. Maria Camila Suarez Paba.
Opinions shared by the Panelists:•

We need to consider DRR as a development issue, otherwise,
sustainable development will not be achieved.

•

The involvement of communities and behavioral change are
essential for strengthening DRR.

•

Science knowledge/understanding needs to be simplified forthis purpose.

•

GADRI science-policy interface
enhanced society engagement.

•

Open science, open data, data sharing and accessibility areneeded, and GADRI needs to support these.

Panelist Prof. Toshio Koike•

Relationship between disaster resilience and DRR (Disaster
Risk Reduction)•

Evacuation, rescue, build back better are factors that can add
to resilience, and can also facilitate a faster rehabilitation andrecovery.

•

How to support stakeholders (national and local governments,
companies, organizations, residents, communities). We need asystem for better information sharing with these stakeholders,
however confidentiality can be an issue in this process.

•

It is needed to develop an integrated knowledge-open science,from which a quality-oriented society could benefit.

•

Capacity building for stakeholders needs a facilitator to
implement the proposed framework.
-

A facilitator should have the skills to translate, interpret,
and be a mobilizer of data and scientific information to
stakeholders.

-

The target audience for the facilitator to give the message
should be defined.

-

A mechanism for data sharing is also needed to use it
effectively for capacity building and decision-making.

•Accumulated information can be used for planning andtraining, land use planning and management, infrastructure
investment, and disaster prevention.

•

As a consequence, sustainable development and resiliencecan be enhanced or strengthened.

beorganizedforPanelist Prof. Mahua Mukherjee•

Ecosystem-based resilience potentially incorporated to the
Science and Technology Roadmap.

•

Ecosystem restoration, related to Sustainable Development Goals(SDGs) and initiatives by the global community.

Key points of 2018 to analyze the Sendai Framework (SF)roadmap:•

Urban risks are constantly changing, because of anthropogenic
actions, and climate change issues.

-

Problem: we don’t know how the roadmap has been
added to the SF implementation, is it really helping
countries?

•

Urban risk: benefit/cost analysis for nature-based solutions.
Should consider a time frame in the mid or long-term.

•-

We need to think about how to measure the progress of
the SF.

The effectiveness of nature-based solutions is not clearly
understood. So, an evaluation or validation approach is needed(e.g., analysis through scenarios can be a good approach).

-

It is needed to discuss how the GADRI Science andTechnology Roamap can help to accelerate SF
implementation or progress.

•

Data for ecosystem-based urban risk resilience is a resource thatshould be carefully analyzed, and determine its appropriate use.

-

Systematic and cascading risks were not understood welleven in 2019, but they became evident after Covid-19.

•

Collecting data is not the end of the task, but it is the starting point
for researchers to develop nature-based solutions.

-

Urban areas under different risks are not necessarily
highlighted in the SF agenda.

•

In countries with mega populations, e.g., India, policies have a
gap because they are not properly addressing the current
environmental issues.

•

Science and Technology roadmap should consider researchinnovation, policy, and planning, pilot projects, capacity building,and collaboration. Therefore, it is essential to understand themitigation, resilience, and their interaction.

Panelist Prof. Qunli Han
•

can

•

We need to include systematic, cascading, and compound risk
in GADRI’s network.

•

Facilitator’s role in DRR, mentioned by Prof. Koike, is crucial
for interaction among stakeholders and understanding of risks.

31

Panelist Dr. Grace Yan

aims at collaboration among research, practice, and policy•

Pathways to transfer science and engineering into climate
actions

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Focus on collaboration with research (research integrationadvance science and engineering), industry, government,
education (bottom-up approach)

StEER aims at finding solutions for our challenges as a society
in mitigating natural hazards by focusing on 1) affected
communities, 2) field observations, 3) research anddevelopment, 4) regulatory mechanisms•

Interdisciplinary research, downscaling
modeling (resolution is too low)

StEER facilities learning from earthquakes and enhance
resilience through reconnaissance apps•

In a recent application, a joint report is prepared for the Turkiye
earthquake together with EERI

climatechangeMechanisms for researchers to collaborate to do high-impact
research (higher grants/funding)-Multi-hazard
risk
assessment
characterization of hazards

Several buildings with well-known structural weaknesses
collapsed-

Immediate action plans are needed for retrofitting this kind ofbuilding not only in Turkiye but worldwide-

Earthquake severity of 2475 years return period (Maximum
Considered Earthquake, MCE) was exceeded-

The instrumentation of structures should be promoted andincreased-

The seismic response of code-designed structures should
be explored when subjected to such extreme shaking withrealistic shaking table tests or other testing methods that arecloser to reality-

Increased usage of protective systems should be promoted
all around the world. The feasibility of using cost-effective
protective systems should be explored for the reconstructionof the largely impacted cities

approaches

for

the

Impacts of hazards on people (social science), solutions to
reduce the impacts of hazards (engineering and social science)

Collaboration among stakeholders is needed among countries,
and governments, and no country should be left behind. Whatkind of approach is needed for collaborating with governments?
Top-down or bottom-up?

•

Resilience related points-

Education gap: resilience science and engineering-

The facilitator should take a resilience science and engineeringclass (proposed) and a broader perspective of DRR-related
courses.


Natural hazards

Hazard impacts on built environment and society

Discussion

Hazard mitigation and adaptation•Overcoming barriers to resilience implementing

Ideas on creating context networks for natural hazards
analyses•Innovative resilience projects are needed (where to invest themoney)•

Tools, techniques, and items for research. Which solutions canwe achieve with these?

•

Improvement of resilience should be a target of the investment(insurance companies are a profitable business).

•

If focused on hazard, the roadmap will be different for each of
the hazards•

Insurance companies are changing their focus to look more at
a community level (resilience bond)•If not focused on the hazards, but on the SDGs, it can be amore holistic approach•

FEMA is likely to change their cost-benefit analyses••

We need to encourage people to have a wider scope to choosea place to live different from that of a cheaper place even if
they are located in a risky area

Resilience is independent of the natural hazard and one
approach is to focus directly on resilience•

Question: What is needed for achieving this solutions toprovide strategies focused on DRR? Answer: GADRI can be afacilitator to integrate knowledge and data in terms of DRR
efforts (strategy)•

A global perspective is needed to share experiences andenhance disaster prevention and mitigation policies•

We need international collaboration to address hazards thathave impacts worldwide (a global approach). Global aspects
make an impact at the local level as well.

•Local context and knowledge are also very important andshould be included in the global perspective of GADRI.
Therefore, the global-local interrelation is helpful.

Panelist Dr. Selim Günay•

Learning from natural disasters through reconnaissanceprovides opportunities for rebuilding and building back better•

Extreme events research and reconnaissance are crucial for
DRR and need an interdisciplinary approach for hazard (e.g.,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, PEER),
geotechnical (e.g., Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering
Reconnaissance Network, GEER), building and lifelines (e.g.,
Structural Extreme Events Reconnaissance Network, StEER),
and socioeconomic (e.g., Social Science Extreme Events
Research, SSEER)•This approach is completed by enable agencies in the US, e.g.,
RAPID NHERI-Natural Hazards Reconnaissance Facility (openaccess), and DesignSafe-CI (open access)- Web interface of
the NHERI that provides the data and software tools•

Under the NHERI umbrella---StEER: Structural extreme eventsreconnaissance (www.steer.network). Builds societal resilienceby generating new knowledge on the performance of the built
environment through impactful post-disaster reconnaissancedisseminated to affected communities. This is a network that32

Closing Ceremony and the Banquet of the 6th Global Summit of GADRI
Rihga Royal Hotel, Kyoto

33I-C: Committee on Institutional Capacity Building

The session was chaired by Prof. Wei-Sen Li Wei-Sen Li, National Science and Technology Center for Disaster
Reduction (NCDR), Chinese Taipei with the Co-chairs Prof. Gretchen Kalonji, IRDR, Sichuan University, China;
and Prof. Desmond Manatsa, Chair; African Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes (AADRI), Bindura
University of Science Education, Zimbabwe

The Committee on Institutional Capacity Building of the Global
Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes (“the Committee”) is aimed
at leveraging networking, capabilities and resources among all
partners under GADRI for capacity building. The committee
focuses its functions and operations on sharing knowledge,
management, opportunities, good practices, and training on
enhancing disaster research, resilience and risk reduction.
The session invited the following panelists:•

Keynote address by Prof. Reini Wirahadikusumah, the Rector of
the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Indonesia•

Mr. Bill Ho, the Director of the Asia Disaster Preparedness
Center (ADPC) in Bangkok, Thailand•

Prof. Geoffrey Mukwada, from the University of the Free State inSouth Africa•

Prof. Dimeter Velev, from the University of National and World
Economy of Bulgaria•Prof. Ailsa Holloway, of the Auckland University of Technology,
New Zealand; and•Prof. Krishna Pribadi, from the Bandung Institute of Technology(ITB), Indonesia

Key questions addressed during the session:
1. How to engage GADRI Member Institutes to share theirexpertise and demands of disaster risk management andresilience by surveys under GADRI to depict the opportunities
and direction for regional or global efforts on topics addressedby GADRI.
2. To define scope of “Institutional Capacity Building”, which could
include both intra-GADRI and with entities external to GADRI
ranging from international agencies, organizations (including

34

non-governmental organizations) to sovereign national
governments and agencies, press and media, leading thinkers
and policymakers and the general population.
3. To make a roadmap for GADRI “Institutional Capacity Building”
activities that could encourage both physical or virtual exchange
on inter- and trans-disciplinary, that is, inclusive of involvementfrom research disciplines, practical implementations, educations
for under-graduate students, graduate students, NGO
practitioners and all-levels governmental officers to better
facilitate how to better built social capital and capacity fordisaster risk management.
4. To identify possible and diverse channels to fulfill GADRI“Institutional Capacity Building” for creating “opportunities forexchange and learning”.
A. At the GADRI Member Institution level – “Institutional Capacity
Building” at the GADRI Member Institution level may take many
forms, for example cooperative research programs, joint
research, exchange of individual researchers, webinars or othertraining involving GADRI Member Institutes, and so on.
B. At the society level – this involves facilitating dialogues,
exchanging ideas and identifying gaps related to disaster
resilience of the whole society.
C. Via outreach to international public/private
sectors,
development, humanitarian, and similar organizations, tostrengthen rapid implementation of knowledge into applicableknow-how.

Summary of the discussion session prepared by Prof.
Gretchen Kalonji.

The Institutional Capacity Building session gathered participantsfrom a wide variety of experiences and perspectives. The central
goal of our session was to address the broad question of how we
can strengthen the capacity of our research institutes to more
effectively contribute to research, education and service to society
on disaster risk reduction and response. We learned frominstitutions with a wide geographic distribution, and with diverse
institutional perspectives.

Some key points:•

The need to develop clear plans which connect the local andnational DRR-related human resources needs to the programs at
our research universities and other training institutes.

•

The value of creating new interdisciplinary programs in our
universities which break down silos between disciplines•

The need make stronger connections with local communities –linking our research directly to local communities

The speakers included:•

The Rector of the Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Prof.
Reini Wirahadikusumah, who gave a keynote speech about her
efforts to build the capacity of a premiere research university inIndonesia to focus yet more strategically on research andeducation on disaster science.

The vital importance of including the social perspective inwhatever we do; our solutions can never only be engineeringsolutions•

The strategic importance of building alliance, and the national
and international levels.

Her speech was followed by short contributions from five panelists,
including:
1) Mr. Bill Ho, the Director of the Asia Disaster Preparedness
Center (ADPC) in Bangkok who spoke about the challenges andsuccessful strategies for ADPC’s training programs, primarily in
SE Asia;2) Prof. Geoffrey Mukwada, from the University of the Free State inSouth Africa, who spoke about the data infrastructure needs for
DRR in Africa;
3) Prof. Dimeter Velev, from the University of National and World
Economy of Bulgaria, who spoke on the needs and strategies fordeveloping capacity in artificial intelligence for DRR;
4) Prof.Ailsa Holloway, of the Auckland University of Technology,
who spoke about her many years of involvement with the PeriPeri University, a network of 12 universities in Africa focusing on
institutional capacity development for DRR, and;
5) Prof. Krishna Pribadi, from the Bandung Institute of Technology(ITB), Indonesia, who described their efforts to bring together
100 universities in Indonesia in a nationwide forum to address
DRR challenges, and to connect to local communities and policy
makers.

35

I-D: Committee on Data and Information Sharing

The session was chaired by Prof. Andrew Collins, DDN, Northumbria University, UK; and Co-chair Dr. Tom De
Groeve, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Italy

Based on the concept note of the Committee, the session aimed toadvance a significant part of the agenda on data and information
sharing on the understanding that greater emphasis on data foraction orientated knowledge impact requires varied data providers,managers and users at all levels. The principles for greater usabilityof data are well reflected in FAIR principles, and much will be
required moving forward to apply these to disaster prevention andresponse research more effectively and equitably – especiallyconsidering that disasters continue to be most prevalent and severe
for marginalized communities.

The following highlights are fromThe session invited the following members to the panel discussion:•

Prof. Andrew Collins, Chair•

Dr. Tom de Groeve, Co-chair•

Prof. Norio Maki, DPRI, Kyoto University, Japan•

Dr. Hiroyuki Goto, DPRI, Kyoto University, Japan•

Prof. Jean-Paul Pinelli, University of Florida, USA

てぇ summary report presentation by Dr. Tom De Groeve:

The objective of the session: promote exchange and sharing ofdata and information for scientific research across the globe.

•

Data policy and ethics of GADRI members – there is a lackfor open data policy due to commercial/security/otherconstraints. It would be better to establish data principles intime of crises and especially data principles during the crisis.
As during a crisis things change; and it is difficult to accessdata. One good recent example was the Turkish government
opening up an archive of aerial imagery right after the recent
earthquakes.
And it was very useful, as the science
community had minimum access to the area and the data
released were useful and was able to use the data in time
too. When the data is released, at later points after the event,
it is too late to be used. In this sense, perhaps GADRI could
play a role to think about fair principles and policies and help
the UN to take this further.

•Technology is important and there is plenty and evolving fast.
Sustainable systems need to buy in from ICT scientists.

•

Accessibility: Members from developing countries can haveserious hurdles to access data if it is commercial. Some data
is sold at cheaper prices. Sometimes even that can be too
expensive for researchers in developing countries due scarceresearch funds. Would GADRI be able to help in thisrespect?

Over the years, GADRI promoted "action data", "bridging gaps toknowledge sharing", developing an "active database" and, in the
MTR, comprehensive array of gaps in progress on data underpriority one (understanding risk). The GADRI Committee
continues in many ways the work of the Global STAG.
Dr. De Groeve stated by referring to the go-fair.org: a strategic
view on data is that it should be findable, accessible,
interoperable and reusable. It is not sufficient to have data put it
on a website and hope that it will be used. But it takes effort tomake it work. All four presenters of the session emphasized on
this vision as well.
•

FAIR principles - common taxonomy and ontology - hazard
definitions•

Data governance: what policies are recommended for GADRI
research organisations? Some public organisations do nothave an open data policy to protect their interests, to sell theirdata, or for security reasons. Therefore, the data is not open.
From the research point of view, it would be good to have apolicy to publish data so that it can be used.

36

The following summary was prepared by the Chair and the Co-chair of the Committee:

A session of the Data and Information Sharing Committee
reiterated its orientation to its earlier concept note that identifies theneed for “data informed and action orientated knowledge
partnerships that steer progress in disaster reduction worldwide”.

•

The Committee emphasised the importance of the various
elements of FAIR data: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable andReusable.

•

Inputs at the Summit brought influential examples of; databases
and their sustainability and the use of big data and highperformance computing (DesignSafe) supporting engineeringresearch and publishing workflows; the GADRI database projectthat intends to regularly scrape URLs from members andanalyse the pages with keywords, so the data becomessearchable; local level data from narratives on risk from local,
marginalized communities in particular children, which responds
to the Sendai objective to understand the risk for the mostvulnerable people. New action-oriented collection methods fordata through drawings, art, stories, which works well for healthrelated risks and impact of wellbeing.

This includes the ambition to:i. Promote exchange and sharing of data and information for
scientific research globallyii. Promote the flow and application of active data for disaster
reduction impact(Committee Concept Note, 2022)
Influential discussions on the orientation of the Committee notably
included via the former UNDRR STAG Data Working Group (2020)
that concluded the need for more active data, the previous GADRI
Summit 2021 on bridging gaps to knowledge sharing, the DPRI
active database approach, and most recently the Mid Term Reviewof the Sendai Framework (Jan 2023). The Mid Term Review has
highlighted an array of gaps in progress on disaster risk data under
the Sendai Framework Priority One: Understanding Risk.
A focus of the Committee for the coming years would therefore
include working to bring about “GADRI Data Sharing, Action Data
and Active Data Base” together with further items from theoutcomes of the session at the GADRI 6th Summit as summarised
also for GADRI Outcomes and Resolutions and including in relation
to GADRI suggested revisions to the UNDRR Mid Term Review.
The GADRI session on 15th March included an introduction to theCommittee rationale, a series of presentations as follows below andan open discussion amongst all participants in attendance, some ofwhom expressed an interest in joining it:

Priorities the GADRI committee include:•

Good implementation of the FAIR principles by all its members,
thinking of the sustainability of databases.

•

Identification of platforms or databases that can help makeGADRI data FAIR. However, existing initiatives should beconsidered for their fitness for purpose. In particular, the
UNDRR's own initiative on Risk Information Exchange. The
design of the GADRI database must be flexible, able to collectquantitative and qualitative data, and developed by data
scientists in collaboration with domain experts.

•

Collecting microdata from its members is an opportunity todevelop a database of narratives about the most vulnerable
people. There are issues of accessibility and a need for curationof a data policy and governance of its members, andrecommendations to all DRR actors, including on data principles
in times of crises.
Reusable data means that Members are encouraged to monitor
the ongoing use of data that supports the purpose of DRR.

•

Andrew Collins (Chair)(University of Northumbria, UK) – Why
have a Data and Information Sharing Committee?

•

Tom de Groeve (Co-Chair) Acting Head of Unit at European
Commission Joint Research Centre, EC) – EC leadership andcontributions in data and information sharing.

••

Hiroyuki Goto (DPRI, Kyoto University) – GADRI Database
Project – Disaster Collection Database and Case Study
Database.

The following statement was provided to UNDRR for its
consideration in the context of its Mid Term Review of the Sendai
Framework:•

Norio Maki (DPRI, Kyoto University) – Good practices in DRR
database development.

•

Jean-Paul Pinelli (University of Florida, USA) – Enabling Data
Analytics and High-Performance Computing in Natural Hazard
Engineering.

•

Becky Richardson (Northumbria University, UK) - Listening tochildren’s perspectives on risk to understand the narrative of
those living in extreme environments.

The GADRI session helped in elaborating the following
conclusions, that were formulated for the GADRI Outcomes andResolutions (2023):••

GADRI is committed to promoting "action data", "bridging gaps
to knowledge sharing", developing an "active database".
The GADRI Committee is acutely aware of data issues flaggedin the Sendai Framework MTR under priority one(understanding risk). The GADRI Committee is committed tocontinuing in many ways the work of the Global STAG working
group.

37“Sound and reliable evidence based on data collection andanalysis, including risk assessment, must be used to further
enhance the connection between risk information and DRR
decisions and actions and this should be supported by scientificand academic partnerships. Whilst good data is a basis for
improved decision making towards achieving Global Targets for
Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainability, there is a need toanalyse how it is contributing at all levels. Understanding what data
works requires guidance for data providers and users regards its
authenticity and impact in diverse contexts so that it is active as avoice and enabler of disaster risk reduction, particularly in
marginalised at-risk locations.” (GADRI Summary Comments on
the Sendai Framework Midterm Review, 2023)

Further opportunities to develop work contributing to the focalinterest areas of the committee are being explored by committee
members and will be presented as soon as these are more fully
elaborated.

I-E: Committee on Advocacy

Science Technology and Innovation linked to Advocacy
The session was chaired by Prof. Rajib Shaw, Keio University, Japan; and Co-chair Prof. Irasema AlcántaraAyala, UNAM, Mexico
The Science and Technology Roadmap to support the
Implementation of Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
2015-2030 aims to “foster collaboration among science
communities and other stakeholders across global and regional
mechanisms and institutions for the implementation and coherenceof
instruments
and
tools
relevanttodisasterrisk
reduction" (UNDRR, 2019). It focuses on four expected outcomesand 58 actions structured around the four Priorities for Action of the
Sendai Framework. The recent regional reports of Asia Pacific and
the Americas, and the Caribbean strongly suggest the need forscience-based advocacy, where science and technology
communities need to be engaged in sustained work with different
stakeholders from policymakers to grassroots communities.

The discussion session aimed to:

Need of critical advocacy and identification of obstacles:
National government perspectives: Dr. Antonia Loyzaga,
Secretary, DENR, Philippines•

Science advocacy: lessons from IPCC: Prof. Joy Pereira,
UKM, Malaysia•

Need of critical advocacy and identification of obstacles: Grassroots perspectives: Mr. Takeshi Komino, ADRRN, and CWSJapan; and••Identify the key needs of “critical advocacy” from stakeholder
perspectives•

Learn from science-based advocacy in the climate change
sector•Identify good practices of national and /or local science-based
advocacy in disaster risk reduction

Topics discussed covered:
Keeping the above in mind, the session aimed to identify key
challenges and potentials of science-based advocacy processes
and identify the roles of different stakeholders. The session was
divided into two parts.

The session invited four speakers from both the government andgrass-roots perspectives:••

Soon after the opening remarks, the first part focused on key needsof critical advocacy from national, local governments andgrassroots perspectives; and the second session was followed by
key lessons from IPCC science-based advocacy and how thoselessons can be incorporated into disaster risk reduction
perspectives (through a 15-minute discussion session). The role ofmedia in science-based advocacy was also discussed.
Key questions addressed included:

Science advocacy: role of Media and identification of challenges
for science communication: Prof. Sayaka Irie, Matsumoto
University (ex NHK)Specific comments were provided by Prof. Paul Kovacs andProf. Irasema Alcántara-Ayala•

What are the key barriers to science-based advocacy?

•

What is the need for “critical advocacy” at different levels, fromnational to local governments to grassroots?

•

What lessons can be drawn from climate sectors?

•

How can media play a critical role in science-based advocacy?

Discussion summary was presented by the Co-Chair, Prof.
Irasema Alcántara-Ayala.

Science advocacy: lessons from IPCC: Prof. Joy Pereira, UKM,
Malaysia

Through the PPT, Prof. Irasema Alcántara-Ayala gave a detailed
description of the session and shared the following key points
highlighted by each panelist:

IPCC: Science policy advocacy

Need of critical advocacy and identification of obstacles:
National government perspectives: Dr. Antonia Loyzaga,
Secretary, DENR, Philippines
A national government perspective:•

The government needs specific science-based advice at thenational and local levels with practical application.

•

Some critical areas include climate change, biodiversity, and oil
spills (new risks).

•

Diverse disciplines need to come together for customized
information and advice at the local level.

As a scientist, she was able to bring a community perspective into
the policy domain. There was also the establishment of theSecretariat which integrated science for policy making. It was very
important to have such a platform of integrated science right within
the structure of the government.

38•

Policy advocacy needs a clear purpose and constructive
partnership.

•

Institutionalization is very critical.

•

The standard interface is essential.

•

Advocacy messages need to be peer-reviewed to bringlegitimacy.

•

High-level dialogue, outreach events, and media communication
are essential.

•

Grooming and recognizing young scientists are essential.

This is the case of IPCC which has recently included the participationof young scientists in the chapters.

Need of critical advocacy and identification of obstacles:
Grass-roots perspectives: Mr. Takeshi Komino, ADRRN, and
CWS Japan•

Media literacy is essential, and scientists need to work closelywith media. – a very interesting point. Prof. Irie explained how
there is a network of the media people in Japan, that build theinteraction between scientists, the government, the community
and the media. This is not only during a disaster. But before adisaster takes place. Also, there are some programs andjournals which are devoted to disaster prevention. This groupof network go to the field during and after a disaster. They
work with the government. After a disaster, they visit theactual disaster site. Prof. Irasema Alcántara-Ayala stated that
it is a very good practice that the media people are well awareof what disaster risk reduction and disaster prevention
involves from a very early stages, and not only after a disasterhas taken place.

•

Learning from established / successful cases the importance,
implication, and value of science-based media advocacy forcommunities and learning from them. Prof. Irasema AlcántaraAyala stated that it is a continuous process of not only
information exchange but also learning, and information
sharing which is very significant if we are to have a goodcommunication in disaster risk reduction.

Civil society perspective:•

Disaster management with localization perspectives needs
strong advocacy and a science–grassroots interface.

•

An ecosystem for community-centered innovation helps
science-based advocacy.

He conveyed a different perspective about how the actions andthe understanding of the community and why disasters take place,
why disaster risk is constructed – and moving into transformationby acting on local demands.

Science advocacy: role of Media and identification ofchallenges for science communication: Prof. Sayaka Irie,
Matsumoto University (ex NHK)Media Perspective:•

Communicating scientific knowledge in an easy-to-understandmanner is vital for disaster prevention.

•

Needs both ways of communication and co-creation:

The following synthesis report was submitted by the Chair and the Co-chair of the Committee:

•

•

•

Media plays an essential role in science advocacy, where risk
communication can be done effectively to the people,
communities, and decision-makers.
Customized science advocacy can be effective using diverse
media (from conventional broadcasting to social media tocommunity radio) and key change agents (who can plan theinterface of researchers and communities).
Science advocacy needs to be cross-cutting, from grass-roots topolicy formulation. To do that, researchers need to co-design
solutions along with civil society, other stakeholders, and top
policymakers. The process of co-design, co-develop, and codelivery of advocacy messages is essential.

39•

Commitment to produce GADRI Policy briefs in collaboration withother initiatives and programmes such as IDRD.

•

Discuss in the future the possibility to support the creation of a
Periodic Disaster Risk Assessment to make science policy
relevant.

•

Learning to do more advocacy to do more for society.

Closing Ceremony and the Banquet of the 6th Global Summit of GADRI
Rihga Royal Hotel, Kyoto

40Presentations on Panel Discussion Session II :New Challenges for Action by GADRI
Chairs: Prof. John van de Lindt, Harold H. Short Endowed Chair Professor, Co-Director, Center for Risk-Based Community
Resilience Planning, Colorado State University, USA; and Dr. Kaushal Keraminiyage, Centre for Disaster Resilience, School of
Science, Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Manchester, United Kingdom
The following brief wrap-up report on the session was shared by Dr. Kaushal Keraminiyage and Prof. John van de Lindt:
agree fundamentally on the issue of the tackling inequalities at theroot should be a priority for implementing the Sendai Framework for
Action.
Panel at Track D discussed the timely issue of putting health in to
DRR and recovery. The UNDRR publications “Hazard Classification
and Definition review” and “Hazard information profiles” have beenbrought to the attention during the discussions, and it has been
agreed that information in such publications can be used to engage
policymakers and scientists in evidence-based national risk
assessment processes, disaster risk reduction and risk-informed
sustainable development. One of the key highlights of thisoutcomes of this track was the agreement on the need of addresscascading and complex hazards and risks.
During the 2nd day of the 6th GADRI summit, the evening session
was dedicated for the panel discussion 2 – “New Challenges for
Action” by GADRI. The summaries of this discussion were
presented before the wrap-up session of the summit on the 3rd day.
Track A of the panel discussion II was on “Big Science for DRR –Large scale experiments”. Challenges related to large scale
experimental facilities to facilitate DRR research were discussed by
the panel members. As the outcomes, issues related to sharing
facilities and data, development of new instruments, digital twins,
and disaster education were noted.

The role of youth in DRR was the theme of Track E. Paneldiscussed in detail, the issue of insufficient recognition of DRR
as career, specially from the point of view of youth. This led to thediscussion on lack of attractive platforms to attract YYPs to join
DRR society and lack of independent access to resources,
including funding, data, technical information, etc.
Overall, the panel discussion II provided a valuable platform for theparticipants of the 6th GADRI summit to discuss the way forward for
GADRI, in particular, the direction that the GADRI can take toaddress the new challenges in DRR.

The theme of the Track B was sustainable DRR, with special
emphasis on SDGs and data sharing. The panel members
discussed the about the importance of long-term observations fordata accumulation, and impact-based forecasting. One of the key
outcomes of this Track was the agreement on importance of
Alignments of targets of different Frameworks (SDG, SFDRR, CC).

Rapporteurs for each of the panel discussion session were:

Track C was focusing on gender and inclusivity in DRR. 6
presenters presented their ideas within this track, and after a richand insightful discussion, panellists and the members of audience

II-D: Prof. Virginia Murray, UK Health Security Agency

41

II-A: Prof. Nobuhito Mori, DPRI, Kyoto University
II-B: Prof. Tetsuya Takemi, DPRI, Kyoto University
II-C: Dr. Punam Yadav, Institute for Risk & Disaster Reduction,
University College London

II-E: Dr. Mizan Bisri, Kobe University, and U-INSPIREII-A: Big Science for DRR Large-Scale Experiments

The session was Chaired by Prof. Nobuhito Mori, and Prof. Shinichi Matsushima, DPRI, Kyoto University, JapanThe session discussed on large scale experimental apparatuses,
instruments,
observational
facilities,
andcomputational
environment to promote research and development on disasterprevention. Discussion also focused on what kind of experimental
instruments and facilities are necessary for future disasterprevention research and science, and how to utilize them.

2.

Vision and demands for future developments

3.

The utilization of these large-scale facilities, such as joint use,
was discussed from the perspective of the disaster researchcommunity.

The session in particular discussed the next steps of large-scale
research facilities supported by research communities.

i.

Dr. Nelson PULIDO, National Research Institute for Earth
Science and Disaster Resilience, (NIED) - Observation
Network for Earthquake, Tsunami and Volcano

ii.

Dr. Kentaro TABATA, (National Research Institute for Earth
Science and Disaster Resilience, (NIED) - Achievement andfuture perspective of research on earthquake-disaster risk
reduction with E-Defense shake table•

Review of current status of large-scale research facilities indifferent hazards•

Recommendations arising from the discussion session should
be considered by the GADRI board.

Topics discussed:1.

Current status and aims of large-scale research facilities fornatural hazards•

Earthquakes•

Tsunamis•

Hydraulics•

Strong winds; and others

The following speakers were invited as panelists:

iii. Dr. Kojiro SUZUKI, Port and Airport Research Institute - Super
Large Experiments on Coastal Structures using Large Hydro
GEO FLUME
iv. Prof. Nobuhito MORI, DPRI, Kyoto University - Large coastal
wave flumes
Prof. Shinichi MATSUSHIMA, DPRI, Kyoto University - Largescale experimental facilities of DPRI and collaborative use

Session discussion observations and outcomes were presented by the Chair of the Session Prof. Nobuhito Mori.
Presentations by the Panelists:•

Nelson Pulido - introduced a very comprehensive observation
network, including seismic signals, strong motion, volcanic
activities and tsunamies in Japan. It is kind of a state-of-the-art
network in Japan.

•

Kojiro Suzuki - introduced the super-tank for tsunamis- a very
high-tech, high-cost equipment.

•

Kentaro Tabata - he talked about large scale strong shaking
table and e-defense.

•

Nobuhito Mori – introduced the large coastal wave flumes in
the world.

•

Shinichi Matsushima – presented an introduction to DPRI
collaborative research facilities.

Challenges of large-scale experimental facilities for DRR:
1. Sharing facilities is important – large-scale experimental
facilities are very expensive. Sharing of facilities to conduct
experiments were widely discussed and recommended. The
US based, NEES founded by National Science Foundation
supports such facilities.
DPRI also support sharing ofexperimental facilities.
42

2. Sharing dataset with systematical format-– each facility hashistorical experimental datasets. It is not easy to use thisoutside of the facilities. / Digital foundation to experimental
dataset is also important to share.
3. Development of new instruments and sensors – use different
types of sensors from economical to sophisticated /Digital twins
using large-scale experiments.
4. Benchmark test for numerical models including structure
modelling or tsunami modelling – there are many different
numerical models but lack knowledge of the performance of theindividual numerical models. Through large facilities, it ispossible to test the performance of numerical models using
benchmark-test type of research.
5. Hybrid physical-numerical modeling – this part has beendeveloped in structural engineering. It would be good to
expand to hybrid, physical and numerical experiment to otherfields such as structure, soil or tsunami soil interaction.
6. There was recommendations about disaster education as well.

Observations and recommendations submitted by the Chairs to the Board of Directors of GADRI:•

Seismic and Tsunami monitoring to improve accuracy andspeed for Early Warning System.

•

Detection of earthquakes in ocean regions by sea floor
observation.

•

Use of new technologies such as Distributed Acoustic Sensing(DAS) to lower the cost of observation.

•

Utilize ocean optic fiber lines to observe seismic motion in thesea.

•

Extend from experiments using full scale single structure toexperiments of a system with multiple structures including
structure-structure or soil-structure interaction.

•

Provide existing experimental data together with meta data sothat the users can fully understand the conditions of the data.

•

Large-scale experiments are expensive and the number ofexperiments conducted will be limited. Therefore, establishinga method to combine numerical simulation and large-scale
experiments will be essential.

•

Collaboration between institutes with large-scale experimental
facilities such as PARI and institutes capable of numericalsimulations is necessary.

•

Data obtained by experiments at DPRI is not collected, but if it
can be available to the community, it would be beneficial to thecommunity, although an environment to share the data needs
to be fostered.

•

It would be ideal if the observed data of buildings andinfrastructure are shared among the community to understandthe safety of existing structures.

•

A new facility to consider the coupling effect for compound
hazards (multi-hazard) needs to be developed, but it would bevery expensive and it is will be difficult to consider many
combinations of hazards. Hence the proposal thatenvironments such as Digital Twin should be utilized toconsider multi-hazard effects.

•

A protective system such as base-isolation systems with lesscost should be developed to be utilized in earthquake prone
countries all over the world.

•

The effect to soil-structure interaction should be consideredmore to understand the response at sites where soil-structureinteraction can have a large impact.

•

Cost-effective instruments can be used for system monitoring.

•

Blind prediction exercise of large-scale experiments will bebeneficial to the community to understand the capability ofnumerical simulation codes and updating them.

•

The use of large-scale experiments should not be limited toresearchers but it would also be effective to educate students
and general public. Because the real sound, pressure, smellthat can be felt by the senses has much impact compared tothose of virtual reality.

Dr. Selim Gunay as a participant at the session.

43

II-B: Sustainable DRR: Integrating climate action, SDGs and Field DRR & Data (experience) Sharing

New Challenges for Actions by GADRI
The session was Chaired by Prof. Tetsuya Takemi, DPRI, Kyoto University, Japan; and Co-chaired by Prof.
John van de Lindt, Colorado State University, USA
current status of activities on studies related to climate change andtheir impact assessments from the GADRI institutes werediscussed. Some experiences on linkages among the researchcommunity, policy makers, and practitioners were also shared.
The following speakers were invited as panellists:

The discussion group focused on action against climate change,
and to understand the state-of-the-art concepts, methodologies, andapproaches from scientific, engineering, and implementation
viewpoints from the past research and practical experiences. The
session continued to discuss SDGs, and climate change andadaptation. Under the IPCC framework, a number of GADRI
institutes are conducting studies on climate change and their impact
assessments from various points of view. During the session,•

Prof. Weiqiang Ma, ITP, Chinese Academy of Science, China,•

Dr. Fatima Akter, Department of Meteorology, University of
Dhaka, Bangladesh•

Prof. Mahua Mukherjee, Professor, Department of Architecture
and Planning, and Joint Faculty and Ex-Head of Centre of
Excellence in Disaster Mitigation and Management (CoEDMM),
IIT Roorkee, India•

Mr. Novvria Sagita, PhD Program, DPRI, Kyoto University, Japan

Key questions addressed:•

How the GADRI community influence policy makers forachieving SDGs and climate change adaption?

•

How can we make best use of existing data from fieldmeasurements and monitoring for climate change assessment?

Outcomes of the session were presented by the Chair, Prof. Tetsuya Takemi.
The session shared current activities on studies related to climatechange and their impact assessments from the GADRI member
institutes.
•

Highlight experiences on the linkages among the researchcommunity, policy makers, and practitioners.

•

Try to understand of the importance of data and/or experiencesfrom field measurements for a sustained period of time in orderto monitor environmental and long-term climate change effects.

•

Prof. Fatima Akter, University of Dhaka•

Shared the research progress on cyclone disasters in
Bangladesh.

•

Demonstrated the impact of SSTs on cyclones, intensity andtracks, and how those cyclones are felt in the local scale
hazards.

•

On Disaster management in Bangladesh:

Discussions continued along the lines with the objective to share
current understanding on climate change assessment from scientificand engineering viewpoints. Further, promoted discussion on
adaptation strategy for climate change as well as experiences onfield measurements among the participating institutes.
The session also discussed the significance of data sharing.

•Some specific points shared by the panelists:•

Prof. Weiqiang Ma, Chinese Academy of Sciences

Moving from reactive humanitarian relief to proactive
disaster risk reductionEstablishment of early warning systems



Number of Institutional commitments: technicalmonitoring, capacity building, preparedness & responses.

Shared efforts by Bangladesh government on strategy on
DRRMonitoring/observation, forecasting, warning, information
dissemination•

Experiences of field observations in the Tibetan Plateau
region for long periods of time.

•Emphasized on the importance of observations especially, in
data-sparse regions in order to monitor long-term climatechange and the impacts of extreme weather.

As an example, she demonstrated the establishment ofmulti-purpose cyclone shelters, coastal greenbelt; and

Mass awareness and educational programmes.

•

Emphasized that generating long-term datasets requires
continuous effort.

44•Prof. Mahua Mukherjee (IIT Roorkee)
Emphasizedinterconnectedness
Agreement), Sendai FW, SDGs

(Paris•

Demonstrated the Understanding of urban risk: urban heatisland, air pollution

Emphasized the importance of impact-based forecast – notonly forecasting weather phenomena themselves, and how
those extreme weather impacts the society

Demonstrated the importance of geospatial mapping of
natural ecosystem

Special event weather forecasts for tourism, sports events,and other important functions



Early warning information: sent no later than 30 minutes
before a severe weather event

•

•

COP21

High-resolution weather prediction

•



of



•

Identify hotspots at risk at local scales•

Use of GIS platforms to identify such urban risks•

Emphasised on how to incorporate SFDRR at local and urban
scales.


Understanding risk

Strengthening disaster risk governance

Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilienceEnhancing disaster preparedness for effective response



•

•

He demonstrated the weather forecasting in Indonesia onhydro-meteorological hazards such as thunderstorm,
landslides, and floods
BMKG early warning services provides:

activities

topromotebuilding

community

Climate field schools, fishing weather schools, aviation
weather schools

Analysis of climate trend of risk score in order to identifying
risk zones

Dr. Vibha Vaishnav, Sardar Patel University was given an
opportunity to:

Mr. Novvria Sagita, BMKG/DPRI•

Introduced
awareness•

Introduce activities at Sardar Patel University•

Green practice at Sardar Patel University•

Education, multidisciplinary approach, community awareness,sustainability initiative, eco-system restoration; and•Share experiences of Sardar Patel University establishingcommunity science center.

Multi-hazard early warning systems

Outcomes and recommendations submitted by the Chairs of the Session to the Board of Directors of GADRI:•

Recognize the importance of long-term in-situ field observations
and data accumulation for climate change monitoring in achanging climate especially for vulnerable regions.

•Sharing such observational data will be useful not only for climatechange research purposes but also for regional collaborations andcooperation.

•

Impact-based forecasting and future projection is important tobuild community resilience to be aware of disaster mitigation andclimate change adaptation.

•

Future projections for hazard, vulnerability and exposure will help
societies for sustainable risk financing.

•

Alignments of targets of different Frameworks (SDG, SFDRR, CC)will help to address real world problems with same strategicinterventions.

45•

Recognize the importance of multi-disciplinary approach.
eg. Connection between environmental analysis or climate
research and solid-earth analysis.

II-C: Gender and Inclusivity in DRR Policy and PracticeThe session was Chaired by Prof. Peter Sammonds, Gender and Intersectionality Ambassador for the UKRIGRRIPP (Gender Responsive Resilience in Policy and Practice) network+; and supported by Co-chairsProf. Ana Maria Cruz, and Dr. Guirong Grace Yan.
The 2022 Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Bali was
criticized for not providing a space where pervasive issues ofgender inequality were engaged with seriously and addressed by
all parties and participants (Gender in DRR - Mainstreamed into
Invisibility by Sara Bradshaw et al. (2022). Gender inequality anddiscrimination against marginalised groups needs to be addressedwith urgency if DRR policy and practice is to meet the needs of all.
But how should this be done? Which voices should be heard?
Whose interests should be considered? In a session, which aims
to put gender back onto the agenda, we have assembled anexpert panel including:for Disaster Management.

Panelists of the session were:•

Dr. Punam Yadav, Associate Professor, Co-Director of the
IRDR Centre for Gender and Disaster, UCL, U.K., and CoInvestigator of the GRRIPP project. Dr Yadav works on
Gender, DRR and Conflict.

•

Dr. Miwako Kitamura, Assistant Professor, works ininternational collaborative researchat IRIDeS, Tohoku
University, Japan.

•

Prof. Shigeo Tatsuki, Sociology Department at Doshisha
University, Kyoto, Japan, has conducted participatory researchon societal and community responses to people with functional
needs. He was awarded the Charles E. Fritz Award for Career
Achievements and an award from the Japan Ministry of State•

Prof. Ana Maria Cruz, Disaster Prevention Research Institute(DPRI). Kyoto University, Japan. Ana is President of theSociety for Integrated Disaster Risk Management (IDRiM
Society) and Editor In-Chief of the Journal of Integrated
Disaster Risk Management.

Key questions addressed:•

Gender in DRR – why does it matter? What is the real
problem?

•What should be measured, and which data collected to support
an intersectional approach?

•

What are the key opportunities for change?

Outcomes and observations were presented by Dr. Punam Yadav:
Dr. Yadav started her presentation by stating that “disaster is notnatural. It is socially constructed.” Hence, the outcomes based on
that.
Papers presented at the session related to gender. And, themajority of the audience were women. But we wondered, “where
were the men”?

clubbed together with various identities. Each of us carry
multiple identifies. All of those intersecting identities have an
impact on how we are going to experience disaster. Therefore,
the discussions also focussed on the importance ofintersectionality in disaster discourse.
•

Sex disaggregated data has been emphasised even by the
Sendai Framework. Actually, when one looks at it, in practice,
the data collection is very binary. Data is collected of
casualties based on sex, for men and women. Children wereclubbed together. The mid-term review includes women, age
and disability.

She provided a brief introduction.
•

Behind every disaster, there are people.

•

People are related to one another through gendered power
relations.

•

Gender norms and unequal, social, institutional and culture
structures actually has impact on how one is going toexperience disaster. Our experiences are constructed byunequal social, institutional and cultural structures.

•

In recent years, disability has been part of the conversation
when talking about DRR, especially since 2015. Often, genderis not mentioned there. All the disabled people are talked
about as if they have no gender.

•

Men are also impacted although this is not talked about by
these gendered structures.

•

Another important point discussed was the Portrayal ofwomen in DRR discourse. If you look at the DRR frameworks,
women are imagined as victims, not as agents of change.

•

When women are talked about as agents or agents ofchange or leaders, they are also looked at victimhood
framework. Women needs to be empowered. Women needs
to be included. It is looked at within the victimhood framework.
Whereas when we talk about men, we take men as resilient
beings. As somebody who do not need a special category to
that.

•

Vulnerability is not a fixed category. It is not static but it is a
dynamic process. One could be resilient at some instances
and then maybe there are situations where one feels
vulnerable. Categorizing some group of women as vulnerable
at all times is not productive and do not reflect the reality on
the ground and lived experiences of people in disaster context.

She stated that the panel discussed gender inequalities andinclusivity in DRR policy and practice.
On behalf of the panel members, Dr. Yadav shared the following
key insights from the discussion:•

Despite gender being considered in current DRR practices, it
is often added at the end of a planning process. Gender is
included but not mainstreamed even though gendermainstreaming has been in the discussant’s conversation andin practices for a very long time.

•

Although gendered social structures affected everyone inany society, gender often equals women most of the time,often leaving men and sexual and gender minorities outside of
the gender discourse.

•

Women are not a homogeneous category - often they are46

•Disaster is often seen as a technical fix – a material condition.
Often objective structures are taken into consideration. But
subjective structures are not. Discussions also focussed onbringing both material conditions as well as structuralinequality into the conversation of disaster.

•

There is a need to rethinking and question our own
understanding of resilience – resilience is often taken as
something as very positive, even though we know that in someof our own cultural context, there is no exact translation ofresilience. People try to make sense of it. We need torethink— what do we mean by resilience? What does it look if
we look at it through a gender lense? Being a gender scholar,
when I think about resilience, I wonder, can one be resilient todomestic violence or gender-based violence?

•

Siloization of (or separation of) normal and disaster came out
quite a lot. Especially when we talked about disability indisaster, what do we mean by that? When we talked about
siloed approach, we talk about institutions, academic,
research, and policies. Also, siloization of the normal from thedisaster has actually have negative impacts. Prof. David
Alexander was stressing it too. If you are resilient in normal
society, you can be resilient during disaster as well.

•

Separation of usual from emergencies. Emergencies are seen
as something unique. It is removed from the usual. If theusual is better, the emergency situations will also be managed
well.

•

Pre-existing conditions affect not only post-disaster experiencebut also recovery efforts. Taking into consideration existing
unequal social structure is important.

Other topics:•

is not about man and woman. It is also not only about women.
It is not only about women as a homogeneous category. We
need to include all gender into the conversation of genderincluding men, women, and gender and sexual minorities andall of these categories have multiple identities.
•

Intersectionality is extremely important to consider. People
have different experiences depending on the different
identities that they carry. It is necessary to consider all of those
identities and their intersecting impacts when thinking about
DRR.

Following this session, discussions were also held to talk about
how to engage with the Sendai Framework for Action within ourown context.
Recommendations arising from that discussion session are as
follows:•

Tackling inequalities at the root should be a priority for
implementation of the Sendai Framework for Action.

•

In order to build back better, it is important to understandstructural inequality. A gender perspective helps us
understand the everyday experiences of people and their lived
reality.

•

Gender should be understood as relational. Why do we say
that? We are related to one another through relation and thoserelations are gender. If you understand gender as a relational
category, we can understand the fluidity, and we canunderstand that men are also impacted by these genderconstructions and not just women.

•

Adopting an intersectional approach to DRR policy will ensure
inclusivity and equity in DRR practices.

Moving beyond gender binary: when we talk about gender, it

Outcomes report was submitted by the Chair of the Session Prof. Peter Sammonds to the Board of Directors of GADRI:
Outcomes:

Resolutions:

1. The session provided a space where gender inequalities andinclusivity in DRR policy and practice were discussed.

1. Tackling inequalities at the root should be a priority for
implementing the Sendai Framework for Action and gendershould be understood as relational, impacting all, including men,
women, children and gender and sexual minorities.

2. Gender does not mean just women. It includes men, women,
and gender and sexual minorities and all of these categories
have multiple identities. Intersectionality helps us understandintersecting identities of people in disaster setting and, with their
participation, helps us identify appropriate interventions.
Following this session participants were asked to engage theirhome disaster research institutes on the need to listen, researchand lead on the implementation of the Sendai Framework for
Action.
Recommendations arising from the discussion session were
proposed for consideration by the GADRI Board and the UNDRR
Sendai Framework mid-term review.
47

2. Adopting an intersectional approach to DRR policy will ensure
inclusivity and equity in practice.

3. In order to build back better, it is important to understandstructural inequality. A gender perspective helps us understandthe everyday experiences of people and their lived reality.

II-D: Putting Health into Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Recovery

The session was Chaired by Prof. Virginia Murray, Head, Global Disaster Risk Reduction, UK Health Security
Agency, UK; and Co-chairs Prof. Andrew Collins, DDN, Northumbria University, UK; and Dr. Ryoma Kayano,
WHO Kobe Office, JapanThe Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction marked a
step change in the way health is recognized as core to managing
disasters effectively. The recent COVID 19 global emergency
further sensitized governments, societies and the researchcommunity of the need to build prevention into the recovery
process. The World Health Organization (WHO) published the
Health and Disaster Risk Management Framework in 2019. Thisis part of an approach that includes multiple aspects of the now
established health and disasters agenda.
From this the WHO Health Emergency and Disaster Risk
Management Research Network, launched in 2018, hasdeveloped opportunities to drive progress in its increasingly
people-centered and impact orientated research agenda.
The session explored action on preparedness, response andrecovery for future health and well-being, cognizant that healthand wellbeing within disaster research is pivotal to multiple, if notall, of the objectives aimed at achieving a sustainable disasterresilient world.

the WHO Guidance on Research Methods for Health
Emergency and Disaster Risk Management, revised 2022 -:What additional actions might engage health and wellbeing toreach wider disaster risk reduction action?
• The WHO, UNDRR and other key representations of the United

Nations recognize and promote an all of society orientation todisaster risk reduction. What are the opportunities to respond toand incorporate youth and the elderly into health disasterrecovery processes?
• WHO

has supported the development of a common
understanding of how hazards via engaging with the UNDRR/
ISC Hazard definitions and classification and the UNDRR/ISC
Hazard Information Profiles. What approaches can contribute toimproving early warning systems and early action?

The session aimed to advance the agenda of putting health into
disaster risk reduction and recovery through short interventions
and a facilitated discussion.
Speakers of the panel session were:•

Dr. Ryoma Kayano, WHO Kobe, Japan•

Dr. Genta Nakano, DPRI, Kyoto University, Japan•

Prof. Virginia Murray, UKHSA, UK

Key questions to be addressed:• WHO Health and Disaster Risk Management Framework andOutcomes and observations from the discussion session were presented by the Chair, Prof. Virginia Murray.
Prof. Virginia Murray expressed her delight to see an actual
session on Health included in the programme of the 6 th Global
Summit of GADRI. Referring to the pre-conference survey
undertaken by GADRI, Prof. Murray stated that there was a verysmall 1% of institutions who are working on health disaster related
activities. Having attended quite a few GADRI meetings, she statedthat it was timelier that health was incorporated to the GADRI
conference agenda.
Objectives of the session:
The session discussed putting health into disaster risk reduction
and recovery. This is within the context of COVID-19 and some of
the impacts were reflected on.
Discussions centred around the Sendai Framework itself; and how
to engage with WHO.
WHO has been committed to trying to supporting UNDRR and thehealth domains of the Sendai Framework by delivering the WHO
Health and Disaster Risk Management Framework in 2019; andtrying to bring that approach across a wider domain of all hazards.
Also looked at research networks. Just like GADRI, young
scientists are critical and how we can develop these into the future.
For us in health, it is just as critical.
Reflected on how preparedness, response and recovery for future
health and well-being, areas might be of importance. But also to48

find some sustainable disaster resilience in a world that is socomplex.
It is about putting health into disaster risk reduction and recovery.

Thoughts from panel presenters:
1.First of all an introduction to the WHO Kobe Centre. In the heartof the WHO Kobe Centre, which is an incredible resource, WHO
Health Emergencies and Disaster Risk Management team has a
research network. And Dr. Ryoma Kayano talked about the
research network and how all people can be participants of it. Also
shared some of the outputs that have come out which are very
important.
2.He presented a small book that represents Japan’s incredible
knowledge.
WHO Guidance on Research Methods for Health
Emergency and Disaster Risk Management, revised 2022. There isa whole chapter specifically on what Japan had to face during
COVID-19. But this is the guidance for research methods for healthemergency and disaster risk management which was initiallypublished in 2021, and a supplement on COVID epidemic added in
2022, and will be updated in 2024.
3.We normally do not print out. But a copy was specifically printed
out for Prof. Tatano.

4.

Why does it matter? Because what we found out was that
health emergency disaster risk management is something thatfrightened people. People have never been quite sure about
how they can investigate real time events. Not even prepared
to investigate them in time. To do this, we have built a whole
series of chapters, webinars, videos, podcasts, to try to make it
as accessible as possible.

5. The aim is, through WHO and the regional networks, this will
be launched across the world soon. One of the things I was sokeen was, this should be linked to GADRI directly, particularly
in its capacity development initiative.
6. It is a very exciting engagement. To complement that, there
was a very wonderful presentation by Dr. Genta Nakano on“Community-based disaster risk reduction in an ageing society– shifting from social welfare to health maintenance-“

7. We were proud of that presentation and want to celebrate
Dr. Nakano as a totally valuable young scientist. Bringing into
our world, what you were doing, which is totally related to thehealth and wellbeing.
8. What Dr. Nakano explained through his presentation was, that
there is a real concern about how the elderly can walk in theevent of a tsunami or other event and move to an evacuation
center. It talked about self-help. Not just getting mutual aid.
And specifically highlighted some of the principles; and how tomanage the evacuation centers.

9. What Dr. Nakano talked about was what we in our healthdomain, knowingly regarded as our business. But what was
showed as a scientist working within GADRI, is that it is apartnership. It is a shared business. It is working together.
10. I have requested Dr. Nakano, that whatever he publishes on
the important work he is conducting, to ensure that it goes into
the health journals as well. So that everyone can celebrate andunderstand how to link with the work he and the country are
doing on elderly here in Japan. We know that the rest of theworld will be catching up with Japan in the future. What you
showed was that science within GADRI links to our healthdomain.
11. Prof. Murray, once again, thanked Dr. Nakano for atremendous presentation.
12. Prof. Murray also stated there was discussion on the work thatthey have been doing on ”Hazard Definitions” and the work thatis going on and the need to know that hazards definitions will
work. Will they be useful? Will they deliver what is needed tomake sure we talk the same language? We addressed thesecascading and complex hazards and risks we discussed somuch. Then moved toward regular review and update perhaps
in time for 2025 Global Platform as was mentioned by Ms.
Mami Mizutori.

Key questions submitted by the Chair, Prof. Virginia Murray to the Board of Directors of GADRI:•

WHO Health and Disaster Risk Management Framework andthe WHO Guidance on Research Methods for Health
Emergency and Disaster Risk Management, revised 2022 -:What additional actions that might engage health and wellbeing
to reach wider disaster risk reduction action that we need?

•

It was already shown how WHO Health Emergency andDisaster Risk Management link to GADRI community. We cando something valuable.

•

One opportunity, would be the meeting in November 2023,
between GADRI and between WHO Kobe Centre and our
research network; and can start planning for this to really work
together.

•

What are the opportunities to respond to, and incorporate youth
and the elderly into health disaster recovery processes?

•

We also have shown that by linking together, we might be able
to incorporate more on youth and elderly. Through Dr.
Nakano’s presentation, we understand that the elderly work49

was really important. We have worried about how to support
WHO Kobe with this area. Partnership working is absolutely
critical.
•There was also a good discussion on behavioural science. For
us, in the health domain, behavoural science is critical. COVID19 has shown that we all have to change our behaviours. What
was wonderful was that those who were in the audience, werereally anxious to see how their skills in behavioural science
within GADRI, could be brought to share with WHO. That was
truly exciting.

•

We looked at the Hazard Definitions to try and see how we canbring these together to enrich our mutual work together. Thereis a real opportunity, that if UNDRR, and the International
Science Council, want to go to a Phase Two, we will have aprocess by which we can all share the best practices and best
knowledge between us and try and take this forward.

II-E: Young Scientists Session on Youth and DRR

The Role of Youth and Young Professionals in data and knowledge sharing in disaster risk management
Session was Chaired by Prof. Gretchen Kalonji, IRDR, Sichuan University, China; and Co-Chaired by Prof. Wei-Sen Li, NCDR, Chinese Taipei; and supported by Dr. Mizan Bisri, Kobe University, Japan/U-INSPIRE
To resolve intergenerational
challenges
broughtbydisaster risks andclimate impact as
well
as
the
existing
digitaltransformation,
youth and young
professionals(YYPs)
shouldand already havethe capabilities to lead the processes within society. Therefore, thissession will highlight the three roles of YYPs across the globe indata and knowledge sharing in multi-hazards disaster risk
management, namely as producer, broker, and synthesizer. First,
data and knowledge producers devoted themselves solely tocapturing natural and social phenomena essential for understanding
the landscape of disaster risk. Second, brokers provide challenging
services to ensure stakeholders can access the most relevant
disaster-related data and knowledge based on their needs. Third,
synthesizers access and craft the available disaster-related data

and knowledge by consolidating, combining, and providing meaningmaking that could inspire or trigger societal changes, such as topolicy-making or implementation, program ideation, and capacitybuilding, among others. The session showcases country-specificexamples that exhibit each of the roles and explore challenges andfuture joint works of YYPs from diverse backgrounds, including, but
not limited to, earth scientists, social scientists, engineers, policymakers, and emergency management professionals.
The session had a talk show – sharing experiences of YYPs in data
& knowledge sharing for disaster-risk management. Panelists were:•

Dr. Mizan B. F. Bisri, Kobe University / U-INSPIRE Indonesia•

Mr. Ryo Tsuchida, Ph.D. Student Kyoto University / U-INSPIRE,
Japan

•

Dr. Ranit Chatterjee, RIKA, U-INSPIRE, India•

Dr. Maria Camila Suarez-Pablo, UNGRD, Colombia•

Dr. Chipo Mudavanhu, Bindura University of Science and
Education, Zimbabwe•

Dr. Nuraini Rama Hanifa, U-INSPIRE, Indonesia•

Dr. Mark Ashley Parry, European Youth Perspective, UKADR

Discussion Session Challenges and Ideas shared by Dr. Mizan Bisri
This session explored and tested the propositions of the three rolesof Youth and Young professionals based on the panelists insights.
Half of the panellists were GADRI members with exposure to the
U-INSPIRE movement and were attending in-person.

Inclusion of youth as Agent of Change is not sufficient. There is aneed to push the young professionals, young scientists and also
young politicians and young entrepreneurs, and get theirinvolvement in the discussion of disaster risk management.

Dr. Bisri also acknowledged Dr. Mark Ashley Parry from UK whobrought in the European perspective to the session.

The discussions focussed on what would be the best formulation of
the roles of Youth and Young professionals.

Dr. Bisri stated that youth and young professionals can play roles asdata information and knowledge producer, broker or synthesizer,
through their activities in education and research, to bring input of
data, not only to natural science, but also to social sciences.
Through their research activities, they generate information andknowledge with outcomes, hopefully for resilient-development.

He shared a gist of the panellists’ statements as follows:

He also mentioned about his own personal involvement with the
UNMGCY which is a major group for Children and Youth, and also
as a youth advisor for SFDRR article 36.2A - to include the sentence- children and youth as Agent of Change.

50•

Ryo Tsuchida talked and showcased the local and national
collaboration and various roles of Youth and Young Professionals
within UINSPIRE Japan.

•

To highlight the essence of his presentation Ryo Tsuchida statedthat the Japanese youth clearly can shift at the time of disaster.
They play roles as volunteers. But once disasters are over and it
is time for the recovery phase, and risk reduction, they play therole within the labour market and that is the key to theirinvolvement.

••Nuraini Rahma Hanifa who is also the UNDRR rising award
recipient and also Secretary-General of U-INSPIRE, showed
the history, the model, the movement, of U-INSPIRE. After thelaunch of the Sendai Framework, it quickly emerged in 14 Asia
Pacific countries with over 1,000 young professionals. She
highlighted that it is not only scientists, but also politicians,
innovators, and also entrepreneurs.

decent jobs and they should be integrated in political decisions.
It was also noted that there is a changing landscape within
institutions before and after COVID pandemic, to provide better
opportunities for youth and young professionals.
•

Ranit Chatterjee highlighted the importance of ecosystemcreations. Not only as a volunteering work, not only as capacity
building for students and for early career researcher, butgenuinely for job creation. He showed that U-INSPIRE India
model RIKA, which is also applicable in the context ofIndonesia and Nepal.

•

Maria Camila Suarez Paba highlighted the experiences from
Colombia; prospects and needs to create a critical mass ofengagement by Youth and Young professionals. Not only to
become future leaders but also to become present leaders.

•

Chipo Mudavanhu brought in the experiences of Zimbabwe
and stressed why youth is important. Also mentioned an
important question- to mitigate brain drain, and ensure that thebiggest contribution should be made at country and local
levels.

What is Young? Discussion on this led to being young at heart
for advancing DRM which is essentially a multidisciplinary andinterdisciplinary field.

Outcomes of the session and recommendations for the Boardof Directors of GADRI Secretariat:
Youth and Young Professionals’ role is validated as not
limited to timely knowledge sharing. It is extended and not
limited to data information producers but it is also to provide
opportunities to be improved and become efficientcollectors of data information. For example – the models in
Asia Pacific countries can be used - which through theengagement and deployment of youth having businesses indrone and ariel observation, crowdsource application andnumerator, AI based scrolling engine, that was highlighted
earlier.

knowledge brokers and facilitators are also catalytic beings
in Youth and Young Professional as demonstrated in
U-INSPIRE which also showed agility to advocate forpolitical decision making at country level, as well as withinregional and international domains.



It is about knowledge base synthesizer and implementers.
The areas of Youth and Young Professionals falls within the
GADRI Committees on Institutional Capacity Building, Dataand Information Sharing, and Advocacy.

Where does U-INSPIRE and GADRI fits in this synthesis?
It is about ecosystem creation. There were three models that has
worked well over the years:
In India it - RIKA— works as a social Venture and social entity
which has a closer engagement with U-INSPIRE India and at
Regional and Global level through U-INSPIRE Alliancemechanism.

Through the discussion it was proven that the models for youth andyoung professional engagements are in the field of DRM, they areproven their usefulness; and ability to take action to mitigate
disaster and disaster risk management. Now it is time to put it in toaction beyond the Asia Pacific region.

In Indonesia, including I myself as diaspora Indonesian abroad, it
demonstrate the engagement between volunteers, young
businesses, and young scientists through U-INSPIRE Indonesia
mechanism and also U-INSPIRE Alliance.
In Indonesia, there are many young entrepreneurs with drone
companies and their services are being widely used to conduct
real-time ariel observations for plantations, for mining, etc. Once adisaster happens, they become volunteers. They send their drones
to collect emergency related observations that the government
really needs. There are also AI companies, CARI, that shows thedisaster knowledge in Indonesia. At country level, they arecompeting but at the same time cooperating for showing thepotential of Youth and Young professional.
There are similar models in Nepal. There are youth Innovation
Labs and other social ventures interacting with U-INSPIRE
Network in Nepal as the umbrella at country level and leveraging
from the network of U-INSPIRE Alliance.
Where does GADRI fits in all this?
It is expected to have closer ties and more productive collaboration
with GADRI Secretariat and GADRI members to highlight andconnect science and research with job creation, entrepreneurshipand also policy advocacy by Youth and Young Professionals.
It is about pushing for early adopters in science and technology
and also to diffuse Asia-Pacific experience and models for wider
outreach.
Similar demands and trends are also followed in Africa,
America and also in Europe, to continuously prepare and produce
present and future science, political, business young leaders for asustainable disaster resilient world.
Dr. Bisri, in particular, highlighted the following three points:•

Youth and Young Professionals in DRM should shift beyond
volunteering. There should be more opportunities for providing
51

Poster Session: Contributions to the Science and Technology Roadmap for the implementation of thePriority Areas of the Sendai Framework
Through the poster session, institutions were given an opportunity to
showcase each institute’s research work and their contributions to
the targets of the Science and Technology Roadmap for the
implementation of the priority areas of the Sendai Framework
Agenda and to indicate the Priority area targeted by the research
work; and/or the agenda of COP28. In addition, the presenters wererequested to align their contributions to be relevant to policy makers
and directed towards global disaster risk assessment – not only
hazards – dimensions to assess the risks. Posters could also bereporting on research challenges, contributions, achievements, etc.
and stressed the importance of frameworking the data in terms of -whether it is global, national, or local. For example, with hazards, it
is important to mention whether it is technological, natural or otheraspects, is it on exposure, or vulnerability, or hazards which will bea good way to summarize the current status of science andresearch targets.
Out of the 47 abstracts approved by the Poster
Selection
Committee, 34 of the posters were presented during the summit.
Six of the presenters received the GADRI Scholarship for best
abstracts.
All authors of the 47 abstracts will be invited to submit their full
paper towards the Proceedings of the 6th Global Summit of GADRI.

Effects of Climate Change and Hydrometeorological Hazards
Quantitative Evaluation of Reduction of Flood Damage to
Residential Households by Adaptation Options in the Bengawan
Solo River Basin of Indonesia

Badri Bhakta Shrestha, Mohamed Rasmy, and Takafumi Shinya

P11

Urban Flood Risk Assessment at Catchment Scale: case study
Chaktai Khal, Chattogram, Bangladesh.

Archita Saha 1) *, Atul Kumar 2) *P16

Yusrin Wahab, Eliza Alias, Aznah Anuar

P10

Lo-Yi Chen, Tsung-Yi Pan, Yi-Huan Hsieh, Jihn-Sung Lai, HsinHsing Chia, and Yih-Chi Tan

P17

Assessing Taipei City's resilience for Natural Disasters through theimplementation of the UNDRR's Disaster Resilience Scorecard.

Tsung-Yi Pan, Jing-Ting Wang, Cheng-Chi Cheng, Jihn-Sung Lai,
and Hung-Chi Kuo

P18

New challenges, how could human beings could cope with disasterthreats in the future

Xiao HAN

P19*The Development of Flood Risk Analysis for Critical Infrastructurein Pinang River Basin Malaysia
Exploring the Impact of Wind Field on Intense Rainfall in Taipei
Metropolitan Area Using Self-Organizing Maps and Radar
Reflectivity Data

The use of remote sensing to understand drought risk and its
consequences for biomass productivity in the Eastern-Sahel region
Developing a Disaster Risk Reduction System to meet the
Sustainable Development Goals
Using the UNDRR/ISC Hazard Information Profiles to manage risk
and implement the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
Green practices for Sustainable Development at Sardar Patel
University, India and proposed Inclusive Climate Action
Programmes

Gergely Tóth1, Solomon Tesfamichael2, Yeganew Shiferaw2,
Tamás Hermann1 and Elhadi Adam2
Maciej Pawlik, Soma Nomoto, Ravindra Jayaratne, Hideyuki
Shiroshita & Kaori Kitagawa
Virginia Murray Chair of the UNDRR-ISC Hazard Definition andClassification Technical Working Group and the many authors,
reviewers and contributors

P20
P21
P22

Vibha S Vaishnav

P23

Yaoming Ma

P24

Fatima Akter and Saurav Dey Shuvo

P25

British Cognizance of Climate ChangeMark Ashley Parry

P26

Introduction to the observational system of land-air interaction on
the Tibetan Plateau and its related results

Weiqiang Ma, Yaoming Ma

P28

Challenges in integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change
adaptation in household level management in Vietnam context

Bui Phan Quoc Nghia, Indrajit Pal, Nuwong Chollacoop

P29*Decision-making model supported by multi-stakeholders ensureseffective flood management

Minhaz Farid Ahmed¹, & Mazlin Bin Mokhtar¹,²

P12*Spring Disappearance in the Himalayas: An appraisal on climatechange perspective

Netrananda Sahu

P27

*Long-term variability and future projections of Tropical
Cyclogenesis over the Bay of Bengal

Towhida Rashid

P40*Vulnerability of the Food Security Sector to Climate Change andClimate-induced Disasters in Sri Lanka

Sisira Madurapperuma

P41

Gulsan Ara Parvin, 2. Md. Anwarul Abedin and 3. Nina Takashino

P30

Lan Li; Ava Sullivan

P31

Thushara Kamalrathne, Lahiru Kodituwakku, Dilanthi Amaratunga,
Richard Haigh

P45

Thushara Kamalrathne

P46

Comprehensive study of energy and water exchange process over
the Tibetan Plateau: A review and perspective
Analyzing Thermodynamic Condition of different Atmospheric
Hazards that affect Lives and Livelihoods of the People in
Bangladesh

Healthcare, Covid-19 pandemic

Cyclonic Disaster Resilience of Coastal Healthcare Infrastructure of
Bangladesh: Evaluation Approach for Action Planning
Resilience during lockdown: Changes in behaviour and attitudes
among UK population during COVID-19 lockdown in the UK*Hearing the voices that matter: community engagement in multihazard preparedness planning amid of COVID-19 pandemic in Sri
Lanka*Community participation as a versatile approach for mitigating
disaster risks among vulnerable communities: The case of the
COVID-19 pandemic52Volcanic Hazards
Risk Communication with a Long-Term Perspective: Collaborative
Activities with Local Communities to Prepare for a Large-Scale
Sakurajima Eruption

Masamitsu ONISHI・Shunsuke SUZUKI・Katsuya YAMORI・

Masato IGUCHI・Yoshiyuki YAMA・Genta NAKANO・Kensuke

P05

TAKENOUCHI

Geohazards
Source processes associated with the 2021 glacier collapse in the
Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon, southeastern Tibetan Plateau

Ling Bai

P06

Veronica Tofani, Nicola Casagli

P07

Nicola Casagli, Kyoji Sassa, Veronica Tofani

P08

José Maria dos Santos Rodrigues Neto; Netra Prakash Bhandary

P39

Framework design of fire safety behavior model for residentialbuilding

Aishwarya Narang, Shivani Chouhan, Ravi Kumar, Amit Dhiman

P01

Experimental investigation of elevated pool fire toxicity in acompartment

Aishwarya Narang, Ravi Kumar, Amit Dhiman

P02

Shiomi Yumi

P03

Lessons from 2021 South Kalimantan Flood: What Triggers People
to Evacuate?

Khonsa Indana Zulfa

P13

Study of IoT-Community Observation System utilizing Flood Crisis
Management Water Level Gauge

Kensuke Takenouchi

P14

Map-making for enhancing awareness of disaster preparedness andimproving community resilience among citizens: Reports on theChildren’s Map Contest for Community Safety

Kazumasa HANAOKA, Akio MURANAKA

P15

Strengthening health system resilience: the potential of behaviouraltheory-based social media interventions in addressing vaccine
hesitancy

Lan Li

P32

Exercise design for inter-agency collaboration training: The case ofmaritime nuclear emergency management tabletop exercises

Natalia Andreassen and Rune Elvegård

P33

Perceptions of Disaster Preparedness: a holistic multi-cultural study

Irene Petraroli, Roger C. Baars

P34*The Significance of Using Models in Emergency Management

Naif Rashed Alrehaili
Prof. David Alexander
Dr. Gianluca Pescaroli

P35

A Disaster Education Framework and Discrepancy from Protective
Motivation Components for Behavioral Responses: A Systematic
Review

Kullanan Sukwanchai (1), Indrajit Pal (1), Takuji W. Tsusaka (2),Takashi Oda (3)P36

Lessons from recent disasters caused by natural hazards in Brazil

Masato Kobiyama, João Gabriel Fontes Maciel, Emanuel Fusinato,
Alessandro Gustavo Franck

P37

Experiences and challenges of emergency management volunteers.

Akhilesh Surjan

P38

New approaches in education in disaster management using modern
technologies

Katarina Holla

P09

National landslide quantitative risk assessment in Italy
The activity of the International Consortium on Landslides fordisaster risk reduction*A comparison of frequency ratio and machine learning methods forlandslide susceptibility assessment
Integrated Art and Sciences for Disaster Risk Reduction
Fire Disasters

Disaster Information Database
Disaster data linkages: application of GLIDE
Evacuation

Emergency Preparedness, Risk Management

Disaster Risk Reduction Education

BCP (Business Continuity Planning), Housing, Seismic resilience, Economic*Business Continuity Level of Quezon City in the Advent ofEnvironmental Catastrophe towards Business Sustainability
Development

Tabassam Raza1,2; Indrajit Pal1,3; Jose F. Peralta1; Thess Khaz
S. Raza2,4; and Erick Onde1

P04*Integrated system modelling for desirable housing

Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany, Amir Shahmohammadian

P42*Introducing a hybrid simulation approach to evaluate industrial plant
resistance to earthquakes: from modeling to application

Mohammadreza Hamadi , Mohsen Ghafory-Ashtiany

P43*In-GIVE: Informing Green Infrastructure Value and Eco-Services toCommunity

Atul Kumar

P44* Poster abstract was approved. Poster not presented due to unavoidable circumstances

53

54

55

Seeds and Needs: Networking with Institutions
This session provided institutes with opportunities to network andconnect with other institutes, and showcase each institute’s
resources; and to find potential partners among GADRI members
to collaborate, engage and enhance ongoing or new research
project activities. For instance, some institutes may have their own
methodologies, datasets, experimental equipment, computerresources, etc., but lack users, application fields, in-situ data for
Title

validation, etc. Other institutes may have enough human resources(researchers) but many unsolved issues and in need of scientificknowledge, experience, experimental and observation equipment,
and technological supports and vice versa. The session,
particularly, explored research seeds and needs to realize theeffective/active collaboration among GADRI members.

Presenter

Report of activities developed at the Hydraulic Research Institute (IPH),
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Brazil

Masato Kobiyama, João Gabriel Fontes Maciel, Emanuel Fusinato, Alessandro
Gustavo Franck, Hydraulic Research Institute, Federal University of Rio Grande
do Sul, Brazil

Bridging governments and academia through research

Sandra Sotomonte, National Unit for Disaster Risk Management, Unidad
Nacional para la Gestión del Riesgo de Desastres, Colombia

Green practices for Sustainable Development at Sardar Patel University,
India and proposed Inclusive Climate Action Programmes

Vibha S Vaishnav, Electronics and Community Science Centre, Sardar Patel
University, India

Assessment of Spatiotemporal Trends of Winter Warming in India using
Global Climate
ModelsSupporting Emerging Disaster Risk Reduction Practitioners for a Smarterand Stronger DRR Workforce in Digital Public Health

Netrananda SAHU, Department of Geography, Delhi School of Economics,
University of Delhi, India
Veronica Tofani, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Florence, Italy

International Training Course (ITC) on Disaster Risk Management (DRM) of
Cultural Heritage (CH): Our Progress and Challenges Towards New Normal

Lata Shakya, Ritsumeikan University, Institute of Disaster Mitigation for Urban
Cultural Heritage (DMUCH), Japan

Collaboration Сomplexity in Nuclear Emergency Preparedness in the
Maritime Arctic

Natalia Andreassen, Rune Elvegaard, Emmi Ikonen, Andrey Kazakov, Associate
Professor in Organization and Management, Program responsible for Master in
Preparedness and Emergency Management, Nord University Business School,
NorwaySediment Transport Modelling

Presented by Prof. Vahid Nourani on behalf of Prof. Ekkehard Holzbecher,German University of Technology in Oman, Oman

Can we do the training more immersive for the students in emergency
services?

Katarína Hollá and Jozef Ristvej, University of Žilina, Faculty of Security
Engineering, Department of Crisis Management, Slovakia

Supporting Emerging Disaster Risk Reduction Practitioners for a Smarterand Stronger DRR Workforce

Ava Sullivan and Lan Li, University College London, Centre for Digital Public
Health in Emergencies (dPHE), United Kingdom
Andrew Collins, Disaster and Development Network (DDN), Northumbria
University, United Kingdom

Action Orientated Data Impact in At Risk Marginalised Settings
The ARRC’s mission is to create a confluence of science and engineering inradar and applied electromagnetics that empowers research, enhancescollaboration, inspires discovery, and improves lives

Robert Palmer and Tian-You Yu, Advanced Radar Research Center, University ofOklahoma, USA
Kishor C. Mehta(1), Delong Zuo(1), Ioannis Zisis(2), Jean-Paul Pinelli(3)Wind Hazard and Infrastructure Performance Center(1)Texas Tech University, (2)Florida International University, (3)Florida Tech, USA

56

Wrap-up and the Closing Session
Chair: Ryosuke Uzuoka, Vice-Director, DPRI, Kyoto University
The final Wrap-up Session was chaired by Prof. Paul
Kovacs and the Closing Ceremony was chaired by Prof.
Ryosuke Uzuoka, Vice-Director, Disaster Prevention
Research Institute (DPRI), Kyoto University. Closing
remarks were delivered by Prof. Eiichi Nakakita who
thanked the participants for joining the 6th Global
Summit of GADRI in person at the DPRI, Kyoto
University; and for the successful completion of theSummit.

Outcomes and Resolutions of the 6th Global Summit of the Global Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes
1.9 Enhanced situational awareness for crisis management
requires better early warning for crises based on anticipation of
their impacts. Science needs to enable acting on those risks byproviding local, regional and national authorities with ourknowledge, data and tools to help them act on resilience building,risk reduction and climate change adaptation.

The member institutes of the Global Alliance of Disaster ResearchInstitutes (GADRI) fully recognise the importance of the United
Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) Sendai
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 Mid Term
Review.
1.

The Summit affirms that:

1.10 Theory is our 'road map' in disaster risk reduction but, as themodern world is changing very rapidly, we need to update theory
to take account of very dynamic conditions.

1.1 Traditional approaches to risk management are being
overwhelmed by the increasing complexity of systemic risk and its
cascading impacts. The findings of the Midterm Review of the
Sendai Framework, Global Assessment Report 2022 and thework of various GADRI members points to the need for radical
changes to strengthen risk-informed decision-making.

1.11 In order to save more lives and reduce damage in disasters,
we need to adopt a more rigorous, scientific approach to
emergency planning and management.

1.2 The intensity and impact of the recent earthquakes in Turkey
are a reminder of unresolved high levels of exposure andvulnerability to large scale rapid onset hazards occurring against a
backdrop of global instability.

1.12 Even in larger research institutes, it is difficult to gather
sufficient researchers to cope with various type of disaster events,
but cooperative system over several institutes greatly helps tosolve this problem.

1.3 Climate change is projected to increase and intensify extreme
weather events and associated disasters. Climate change isadversely impacting the health of humans, animals and entire
ecosystems; the climate crisis is a health crisis. Meanwhile, thepotential to adapt to climate change is not limitless.

1.13 Pathways for multiple nations to work together to confront
climate related hazard exposure and vulnerability through cofunded projects that facilitate mechanisms for researchers toshare experiences would expand research impact.
2. The GADRI Committees on Networking, Science andTechnology Roadmap, Institutional Capacity Building, Dataand Information Sharing and Advocacy report the following:

1.4 Disaster research, policy and practice should be inclusive andequitable. Adopting an intersectional approach will ensure
inclusivity and equity in practice. Gender should be understood as
relational. Research into gender inequalities and inclusivity need
to be central concerns of forums such as GADRI and researchers
should strive to collect and analyse gender disaggregated data.

2.1 Networking:2.1.1 GADRI should create a Global Disaster Researcher
Directory: voluntary compilation of individuals engaged in disaster
research, channeled through GADRI member institutes, perhaps
building on Orcid IDs.

1.5 To be able to provide resilience-informed decision support thatprovides socially equitable solutions whole city models need to
combine approaches from different disciplines crossing traditionalboundaries; essentially combining physics-based and data-driven
models.

2.1.2 GADRI should develop a strong social media presence(Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Linked-in, YouTube). Eachplatform requires different approach. YouTube allows the use of
GADRI lectures and more detailed lengthier presentations
appropriate to academic audiences and can be foundational for all
5 platforms.

1.6 Science should provide information to support policy planning
for avoiding extreme short- and long-term emergencies including
through further investment in and interpretation of the role of early
warning and action.

2.1.3 GADRI should create GADRI Fellow and Young Researcher
Programs: This would be based on (a) Nominations ofaccomplished senior disaster researchers, from which GADRI
Fellows will be selected. GADRI will extend invitation for Fellows
to visit/lecture DRIs on a case-by-case basis at no financial
burden to GADRI. (b) A Young Researcher program to foster
exchange of early career researchers.

1.7 In recovery there is political will and financial support for bold
action to address awareness, incentives, and change inregulations. Recovery planning is essential to achievetransformative DRR.
1.8 The emergence of polycrisis demands a more coherent,
integrated, inter-disciplinary and inclusive strategy to deal withmultiple hazards at the same time. The disaster management
agencies need better decision-making tools to deal with conflicting
values, multiple trade-offs and complex causal structures. To belegitimate and socially accepted these judgments must be madein a transparent und inclusive manner.

2.2 Science and Technology Roadmap:
2.2.1 The future vision and directions of S&T activities should beshared among members of GADRI and hopefully influence policy
and systems transformation towards disaster resilient andsustainable societies.

57

2.2.2 The science and technology community will develop andstrengthen three key functions, including knowledge integration,
capacity integration and process integration.

of a data policy and governance ofits members, and recommendations
to all DRR actors, including on data
principles in times of crises.

Knowledge integration can be promoted by integrating theknowledge of natural and social sciences and humanities using
well-organized observation, modelling, and data and information
systems based on the Open Science policy.

2.4.7 Reusable data means that
Members are encouraged tomonitor the ongoing use of data that
supports the purpose of DRR

Capacity integration can be fostered by integrating "facilitators" towork as catalysts capable of providing expert advice based on abroad range of scientific and indigenous knowledge in the local
context.

2.5 Advocacy:
2.5.1 The Committee emphasises that science advocacy needs
to be cross-cutting, from grassroots to policy formulation. To dothat, researchers need to co-design solutions along with civilsociety as well as top policy makers. The process of co-design,
co-develop, and co-delivery of advocacy messages is important.

Process integration can be operated by establishing crosssectoral frameworks at local, national, regional, and global levels
to link cutting-edge science beyond disciplines with on-site
decision-making and action using an "end-to-end approach".

2.5.2 Media plays an important role in science advocacy, whererisk communication to the people and communities as well as tothe decision makers can be done effectively. Using diverse
media (from conventional broadcasting to social media tocommunity radio), and key change agent (who can plan theinterface of researcher and communities) customized scienceadvocacy can be effective.

2.3 Institutional Capacity Building:
2.3.1 GADRI should place enhanced focus on assisting member
institutions with sharing approaches to overcoming challenges toinstitutional capacity building, focusing on some targeted andconcrete challenges that many or most of us face. These include,
for our higher education institutes, overcoming the challenges of
disciplinary silos and creating new opportunities for faculty andstudents for interdisciplinary research, educational and service
activities.

3. Panel discussions on challenges for action by GADRI
report the following:
3.1 Big Science for DRR: Large-scale Experiments

2.4 Data and Information Sharing:

There are significant challenges of large-scale experimental
facilities for DRR.

2.4.1 GADRI is committed to promoting "action data", "bridging
gaps to knowledge sharing", developing an "active database".

The panel identified the following key aspects for ongoing
attention:

2.4.2 The GADRI Committee is acutely aware of data issues
flagged in the Sendai Framework MTR under priority one(understanding risk). The GADRI Committee is committed tocontinuing in many ways the work of the Global STAG working
group.

3.1.1 Acknowledge the importance of sharing facilities andexisting experimental datasets with a systematic format / digitalfoundation.
3.1.2 Emphasise that benchmark tests using results of largescale experiments will be beneficial to the community tounderstand the capability of numerical models/simulation codes.

2.4.3 The Committee emphasised the importance of the various
elements of FAIR data: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable andReusable.

3.1.3 Strengthen the tie between large-scale experiments andnumerical modelling.

2.4.4 Inputs at the Summit brought influential examples of;databases and their sustainability and the use of big data andhighperformancecomputing(DesignSafe)
supporting
engineering research and publishing workflows; the GADRI
database project that intends to regularly scrape URLs frommembers and analyse the pages with keywords, so the data
becomes searchable; local level data from narratives on risk fromlocal, marginalized communities in particular children, which
responds to the Sendai objective to understand the risk for themost vulnerable people. New action-oriented collection methods
for data through drawings, art, stories, which works well for
health-related risks and impact of wellbeing.

3.1.4 Enhance the use of new technologies to lower the cost ofobservation in the field and structures as well as experimental
facilities.

3.1.5 Explore the use of large-scale experiments for disastereducation to students and public, and not limit to scientific use.
3.2 Sustainable DRR integrating Climate Action, SDGs, Field
DRR; and Data Sharing Experience
The panel emphasised:
3.2.1 The importance of long-term in-situ field observations anddata accumulation for climate change monitoring in climatechange vulnerable regions. Sharing such observational data will
be useful not only for climate change research but also forregional collaborations and cooperation.

2.4.5 Priorities for the GADRI committee to consider include:
Good implementation of the FAIR principles by all its members,
thinking of the sustainability of databases.
Identification of platforms or databases that can help makeGADRI data FAIR. However, existing initiatives should beconsidered for their fitness for purpose. In particular, the
UNDRR's own initiative on Risk Information Exchange. The
design of the GADRI database must be flexible, able to collectquantitative and qualitative data, and developed by data
scientists in collaboration with domain experts.

3.2.2 That impact-based forecasting and projection is importantto build community awareness of disaster mitigation and climatechange adaptation.
3.2.3 That future projections for hazard, vulnerability andexposure will help societies for sustainable risk financing.
3.2.4 That alignments of targets of different frameworks (SDG,
SFDRR, CC) will help to address real world problems withstrategic interventions.

2.4.6 Collecting microdata from its members is an opportunity todevelop a database of narratives about the most vulnerable
people. There are issues of accessibility and a need for curation

3.2.5 The importance of a multi-disciplinary approach.

58

3.3 Gender and Inclusivity in
DRR Policy and Practice:

3.4 Putting Health into Disaster Risk Reduction and Recovery
3.4.1 The session affirmed the broad and critical scope of putting
health into DRR and recovery, including through a Japan based
case study presented in the session that emphasised local levelself-help.

The session provided a space
where gender inequalities andinclusivity in DRR policy andpractice
were
discussed
emphasising the following:

3.4.2 GADRI members with these interests are encouraged toconsider joining the WHO Health Emergency and Disaster Risk
Management Research Network.

3.3.1 Gender does not mean
just women. It includes men,
women, and gender and sexual minorities and all of thesecategories have multiple identities. Intersectionality helps us
understand intersecting identities of people in disaster setting
and, with their participation, helps us identify appropriate
interventions.

3.4.3 In the interests of developing opportunities for ongoinginteractions in the health emergency and disaster risk
management domains, a joint meeting between GADRI and
WHO Kobe H-EDRM will be forthcoming reflecting an
understanding that GADRI will incorporate an increased focus on
health and well-being.

3.3.2 That following this session participants are asked toengage their home disaster research institutes on the need tolisten, research and lead on the implementation of the Sendai
Framework for Action.

3.5 Youth and DRR

The session emphasised that:
3.5.1 Increasing the engagement of youth and young
professionals, and the networks they have created, is of vital
importance to enhancing the concrete impact of our DRR work.

3.3.3 That recommendations arising from the discussion session
are proposed for consideration by the GADRI Board and the
UNDRR Sendai Framework mid-term review.

3.5.2 This engagement can and should be linked to innovations
in our higher education programs, through placing a greater
emphasis on multidisciplinary, multisectoral, multinational models
of integrating concrete DRR-related projects into our curriculum,
across the majors.

The group resolved that:
3.3.4 Tackling inequalities at the root should be a priority for
implementing the Sendai Framework for Action and gendershould be understood as relational, impacting all, including men,
women, children and gender and sexual minorities.

3.5.3 Funding agencies and the private sector, at local, nationaland multinational levels, should prioritize providing support toexisting and emerging youth organizations.

3.3.5 Adopting an intersectional approach to DRR policy will
ensure inclusivity and equity in practice.

4. In response to these points recorded from the Summit,
GADRI resolves to:

3.3.6 In order to build back better, it is important to understandstructural inequality. A gender perspective helps us understandthe everyday experiences of people and their lived reality.

Bring all the above affirmations, findings and outcomes to its
Board of Directors as GADRI resolutions.

It is not always possible to remember the full schedule of a 3-day conference. The three MCs, kept
participants well informed of the agenda well in advance with timely announcements.
From L: Day 1 MC Dr. Masamitsu Onishi; Day 2 MC Dr. Yuki Matsushi; and Day 3 MC; Dr. Subhajyoti
Samaddar—all three members are from DPRI, Kyoto University.

59

It also requires quite a lot of
logistical support during theactual event; keeping everythingon track, time management,
managing the interns and otherstaff recruited to assist with thethree-day conference, and zillion
other hidden tasks. All thesewere efficiently and successfully
managed by Dr. Toshio Fujimi,
DPRI, Kyoto University.

Closing Banquet
Rihga Royal Hotel, Kyoto
MC: Dr. Yuki Matsushi, DPRI, Kyoto University
The closing Banquet was held at the Rihga Royal Hotel-2F –Shunju Hall with cherry blossom seasonal tapestries, fitting
background for the 6th Global Summit of GADRI banquet.

also welcomed the participants to Kyoto. He expressed his
profound gratitude for the Kyoto University, Disaster Prevention
Research Institute (DPRI), for organizing the 6th Global Summit of
GADRI.

The ceremony was opened to the sounds of Taiko Drum
performance by the students of the Kyoto Tachibana High School
in Fushimi, Kyoto. In their message, they stated that the TaikoClub consists of junior and senior high school students under theslogan of “one heart” and their “hope for a peaceful future”.

Following the greetings, the “Kagami-biraki”, (kagami refers to thelid of the barrel and “biraki” means to break-open) a traditional
Japanese ceremony performed at celebratory occasions where
the lid of the “sake” barrel is broken with wooden hammers given
to the members to perform the task. Then the “sake” was served
to everyone present. All participants enjoyed the ceremony andthe sake.

Opening Greetings were delivered by Prof. Kyoko Inagaki, Vice
President, Kyoto University.
The Mayor of Kyoto City,
Mr. Daisaku Kadokawa, congratulated all participants for the
successful completion of the 6th Global Summit of GADRI, and60

GADRI Side Event—Sendai Midterm Review – MTR-SF
Viewpoints and Discussion for the Next Seven Years of the Sendai Framework
Kihada Hall, Oubaku Plaza, DPRI, Kyoto University, Uji Campus, Kyoto, Japan
14 March 2023 from 13:00 to 17:00h
MC: Dr. Kazuyoshi Nishijima, DPRI, Kyoto University, JapanGADRI Secretariat organized the Side Event on Sendai Midterm
Review to review the contributions by its members on 14 March
2023. The event took place one day prior to the 6 th Global
Summit of GADRI at the DPRI, Kyoto University, Uji Campus,
Kyoto, Japan. The session looked into viewpoints and discuss
actions needed by GADRI members and from disaster researchcommunity in general.

Framework. What therefore is the current status of the MTRSF?

The meeting took stock of the implementation of the SF to dateby various stakeholders, fields, outcome reports, and focus on
the next seven years.
In addition, considered the current progress towards
accomplishing the seven global targets of the Sendai
Framework, and discussed:••

Whether there is still something that can be done to improve
contributions to the remaining seven years of the Sendai
Framework.

•

From a researchers’ point of view, what needs to beprioritised in the S&T Roadmap and within the Sendai
Midterm Review?

•

In what way GADRI can encourage members to create aframework of activity in relation to Sendai Framework,
SDGs, and IPCC, IPBES for the next seven years?

•

How can GADRI make knowledge and development of DRR
be understood and accessible in civil society and amongst
multi-stakeholders based on the all-of-society approach of
the SF. How can the related science and technology be
understood not only by the government or scientists but also
by civil society, private sectors, academicians, and others?

The summary note of recommendations was shared among theparticipants during the 6th Global Summit of GADRI. The
finalized summary recommendations was submitted to UNDRR
Office in Geneva.

The seven global targets of the SF show critically that there
is still more work that needs to be done and to come up witha feasible roadmap for the full implementation of the Sendai

Dr. Yuki Matsuoka, Head, UNDRR Kobe
Office61

GADRI SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE SENDAI FRAMEWORK MIDTERM
REVIEW -MTR SF
Beyond the above summary comments, we have the following specific comments on the text:
GADRI finds the Midterm Review summary statement too generaland non-specific and recommends the Summary provides specifics
re midterm status and progress toward the Sendai Framework’s
outcomes or goals.
For specific paragraphs, we comment or recommend the following
edits (in red):
1. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030
represents a shift from managing disasters to an approach of understanding and managing disaster risks inherent to the decisions
and actions within social, economic, political and environmental
systems in all geographies and at all scales. GADRI applauds thisshift toward integrating disaster risk reduction into normal operations.
3. While progress has been made toward realizing Sendai Framework priorities, it is not consistent across countries. The uniquechallenges faced by the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States continue tohinder realization of the Framework outcome and goal. GADRI
concurs progress has been made, and finds the candor throughout
the Midterm Review refreshing.
4. (a). The average annual mortality during 2015–2021 is 42,833
people. A decrease per 100,000 people from 1.77 in 2005–2014 to
0.84 in 2012–2021, this represents an improvement in the averageannual number of deaths and missing persons in the event of a disaster. However, the COVID-19 pandemic offset this improvement,
causing 599,239 deaths in 2020 and 237,518 deaths in 2021, as
reported by 37 countries in the Sendai Framework monitor. Thesefigures are likely a significant underestimation: the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates 1.9 million deaths in 2020 and 3.5 million deaths in 2021 as a result of the pandemic. In fact, as of 12
April 2023 there have been 762,791,152 confirmed cases of
COVID-19, including 6,897,025 deaths, reported to WHO. As of 9
April 2023, a total of 13,337,964,733 vaccine doses have been administered (https://covid19.who.int/ ).

4. (g). Of 120 countries reporting via the Sendai Framework monitor, 95 reported the existence ofmulti-hazard early warning systems.
All of the above trends are based on relatively short periods of observation, so that the absolute numbers reported most likely require
normalizing (for natural hazards frequency, population changes andother factors) to provide a more accurate understanding of the progress being made.
9. Gaps remain in data collection and analysis at the subnationaland national levels, with very few countries reporting sex, age anddisability disaggregated data to the Sendai Framework monitor.
This challenge is not restricted to developing economies. Disaggregation of how hazards and risks, as well as disaster impacts, affectdifferent groups within communities and nations is essential to understand the vulnerabilities and risks that need to be addressed.
Gender inequalities and inclusivity need to be central to analyses.
Gender should be understood as relational. Adopting an intersectional approach will ensure inclusivity and equity in practice.
15. The number of risk models and risk assessment studies has
increased. However, fewer than half of the countries reporting
62

against Sendai Framework targets indicate having fit-for-purpose,
accessible and actionable risk information. States in the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS) recognize thatthe absence of data limits understanding and ability to address
the systemic nature of risk. Data ecosystems, including for disaggregated data, need to be strengthened, including through enhanced interoperability across systems, as well as the inclusionof local, traditional and Indigenous knowledge, feedback and expert opinion. Too many of the risk models are proprietary or haveother obstacles to widespread use and access. GADRI recommends a set of open-source global models be developed for majordisaster agents of damage (earthquake, wind, flood, volcanism,drought, fire etc.) which are freely available to anyone. In developing these models, consideration must be given to the variety of users and their needs, in order to maintain accuracy and currency yetremove obstacles of technical requirements. In other words, themodels must be layered or multi-tiered to serve a variety of users.
The models should be developed by international teams, and sharecommon platforms of exposure, risk engines, user interfaces, etc.
17. There are a growing number of useful indices advancing understanding of systemic risks, combining natural hazard-related datawith data on pandemic threats, protracted crises, violence andarmed conflict, economic insecurity and other measures. The multidimensional vulnerability index measures a country’s vulnerability
to shocks so that those most in need can define apposite andcontext - specific solutions to risk information and management.
The multiplication of indices is two-edged and can lead to confusion. A paradigm should be established that all indices are reducible to basic human, social and environmental impacts.
19. Efforts to better understand disaster risk increasingly encompass aspects of justice, social cohesion and human rights. Consistent with the Sendai Framework guiding principles, efforts continue to operationalize rights-based approaches to disaster risk reduction at the national or international levels. Public trust and pub
lic engagement of socially vulnerable groups and an “all-ofsociety” approach are considered essential. Challenges remain regarding participation, including in data collection, with significant data gaps on women, gender, the elderly, persons with disabilities
and children. Without such data, “problems remain invisible andthus are not solved within the policy framework”.11 The Commission
on the Status of Women raised such concerns, recalling that disaster risk reduction requires “inclusive risk-informed decision-making
based on the open exchange and dissemination of disaggregateddata, including by sex, age and disability”.12 Member States called
for the creation of centralized bodies with adequate budgets andthe capacity to conduct consultations with various stakeholders
and improved accountabilities.
113.
84

3rd General Assembly
Global Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes (GADRI)
Campus Plaza Kyoto, Kyoto Station, Japan
17 March 2023
The 3rd General Assembly of GADRI was held at the Campus
Plaza Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan on the last day of the 6 th Global
Summit of GADRI. Participation was limited to member institutesof GADRI. Nearly 40 members from 33 GADRI Member
Institutes joined the 3rd General Assembly of GADRI held at theCampus Plaza Kyoto, Kyoto Station, Japan on 17 March 2023
from 16:00 to 17:00h.

A brief discussion took place on the outcomes of the 6th Global
Summit of GADRI; and member contributions.
•

The meeting was chaired by Prof. Paul Kovacs, Chair, Board of
Directors of GADRI; and Prof. Hirokazu Tatano, SecretaryGeneral, GADRI.

Final outcomes and resolution document of the 6th Global
Summit will be prepared by Prof. Andrew Collins with thesupport of Prof. Paul Kovacs and Prof. Hirokazu Tatano.

•

The document will be shared among all members for theircomments and inputs.

Agenda items covered the following:•

Disaster and Risk Research: GADRI Book Series•of GADRI to introduce themselves. There were 10 members
from 9 institutes of the Board the of Directors of GADRI.

The Chair requested the Members of the Board of Directors

63

GADRI Members
Established in March 2015, the Global Alliance ofDisaster
Research
Institutes
supporttheimplementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (SFDRR) and the work of
the Scientific and Technical Advisory Group of theUnited Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction(UNDRR).
In line with its vision, GADRI strives to deepen theunderstanding of disasters and find implementable
solutions to achieve disaster resilience; i.e. human,
technical system and infrastructure resilience,survivability and well-being, by integrating knowledge

and technologies from around the world. Over 200
institutions have joined GADRI.GADRI membership isfree; and completely voluntary and non-binding.
GADRI Secretariat is currently headquartered andhosted by the Disaster Prevention Research Institute(DPRI), Kyoto University, Japan.
To join GADRI, please contact the GADRI Secretariat:
secretariat-gadri@dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Geographical Distribution of Members of GADRI as of 31 March 2023

Area

Members

Economies

Africa12

7

Americas

37

8

Asia
(Excluding Japan)

83

23

Europe

37

13

Japan

33

1

Oceania

10

2

Total

212

54
54 economies

Global Alliance of Disaster Research Institutes(GADRI) Secretariat
Disaster Prevention Research Institute (DPRI)
Kyoto University, Uji Campus, Gokasho, Uji-shi
Kyoto 611-0011, JAPAN
Tel: +81-774-38-4651
Fax: +81-774-38-4654
E-mail: secretariat-gadri@dpri.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Web: https://www.gadri.net

All rights reserved. GADRI ACTIONS is the property of GADRI Secretariat, and protected by the international copyright laws.
GADRI ACTIONS contents may not be reprinted, copied, and distributed without the copyright holder's prior written permission.

64