Majdoulene A.Kerish

Day 2 at the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (GP2025) – From Preparedness to Practice

Tuesday marked another powerful set of discussions at the GPDRR in Geneva — centered not only on early warning systems but also on how we move from policy to people, from survival to sustainable recovery.

The morning plenary featured voices from the Philippines, Bahamas, India, and Mauritania — each offering national perspectives on resilience, recovery, and readiness. One core message stood out: preparedness alone isn’t enough. Without strong social systems, responsive governance, and sustainable financing, recovery remains fragmented — especially in vulnerable settings.

From the Philippines came a strong reminder that disasters are symptoms of deeper systemic issues. Economic resilience, they argued, must be science-based and people-centered. “Information is a basic right,” said one speaker — and resilience is not about merely surviving, but thriving.

Bahamas emphasized not siloing resilience within the DRR sector. Their disaster management act mandates that essential services be either functioning or rapidly restorable — a crucial innovation for effective recovery. India echoed the need to give recovery its own space in planning — not as a subset of preparedness, but as a priority in its own right.

A question I raised in the plenary reflected the need to link costing and financing strategies to recovery plans. What models exist? How sustainable are they? In response, countries like Fiji shared efforts to pre-arrange financing and unlock risk pooling mechanisms — highlighting the growing shift toward anticipatory funding structures.

Later sessions offered technical reflections from Turkey, Canada, China, South Sudan, and others. Canada’s wildfire experience showed that even advanced systems have critical capacity and forecasting gaps — leading to a modernization of their Disaster Financial Management Assistance program after 50 years. China stressed the importance of understanding the cascading effects of disasters — and the urgent need for integrated data systems and institutional infrastructure.

From community-level ingenuity in Tajikistan to intergovernmental water-sharing between South Sudan and Uganda, these sessions reminded us that resilience is not only technical — it’s profoundly relational.

The day concluded with the formal opening ceremony of GP2025, where global leaders reflected on what it takes to build resilience in a world of intersecting crises. For the first time, conflict-affected countries like Gaza, Sudan, and Congo were explicitly mentioned — a subtle but important acknowledgment that not all disasters are natural.

Amina Mohammed’s words still echo: “Mountains may move to cause disaster — but we must also move mountains to be ready.”

As we move into the official conference tomorrow, the message is clear: resilience isn’t a checklist — it’s a continuous process, grounded in equity, innovation, and shared responsibility.

And yet — amid all these examples — a few things remain curiously under-discussed.

Recovery Is Still Framed as a Government Function, Not a Governance Process.
Most sessions focus on what states should do, but far fewer explore how fragmented governance, contested authority (as in conflict settings), or shrinking civic space alter the very possibility of recovery. Where are the discussions on informal systems, local legitimacy, and hybrid models of authority?
Finance Talk Remains Technocratic.
We’ve heard a lot about “pre-arranged financing,” “risk pooling,” and “resilience bonds” — but not enough about who controls financial decision-making in practice. Who sets the priorities? What happens in countries where DRR is entirely donor-driven? Can we talk about political economy, not just financial instruments?
Still Not Enough on Conflict and Fragility.
Day 2 saw an extremely brief mention of Gaza, Sudan, and Congo at the opening ceremony of the GPDRR conference. Despite the growing number of disasters in fragile and conflict-affected states, there’s still no mainstream session unpacking how disaster governance works in contested territories, under occupation, or in states with parallel systems. We speak about localization — but for whom? And at what risk?
Gender and Youth as Add-Ons, Not Core Actors.
Youth and women were mentioned — especially in the early sessions and stakeholder forums — but in many high-level dialogues, their role was symbolic rather than structural. Inclusion is discussed in terms of consultation, not co-decision.

So while Day 2 offered practical insights and reaffirmed the urgency of implementation, it also raised some alarms: DRR remains skewed toward stable governance models and market-aligned financing tools. But disasters don’t wait for good governance — and the world’s most vulnerable communities can’t afford for us to keep treating equity as an afterthought.

As we head into Day 3 — the official start of the Global Platform — I’ll be listening closely for signs of narrative shift: Are we still solving yesterday’s problems with yesterday’s tools? Or are we ready to confront the political, structural, and justice-based dimensions of risk?