The Global Risks Forum (GRF)
Disaster losses are shaped long before the hazard arrives: by where people are allowed to build, how infrastructure is designed, what is spent on prevention and who is responsible for acting. Disaster risk reduction policy is the body of law, strategy, mandate and budget that governs those choices. This page sets out how disaster risk accumulates through governance, how national and local strategies are measured under the Sendai Framework, and which institutions decide.
GRF · Established · service level R0
Disaster risk reduction policy is the body of law, strategy, mandate and budget that governs choices shaping disaster losses long before a hazard arrives: where people may build, how infrastructure is designed, what is spent on prevention and who must act. The Sendai Framework sets the global targets countries report against.
For disaster risk reduction policy, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and night lights with clouds now from NASA GIBS, framed on Africa; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer list.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
Hazards now, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
For disaster risk reduction policy, in GRF's situational-awareness reading, the map opens on population density, flood water and night lights with clouds now from NASA GIBS, framed on Africa; every other NASA layer, live feed and forecast waits in the layer list.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date; indicators, not assessments of any place; claim ceiling INTEGRATED.
Layers and dates
Prevention and national strategies. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Land-use permits, building codes and infrastructure siting decide exposure for decades. When development approval is separated from hazard information, each permit adds a little risk that no single decision appears to own.
Emergency response is visible and funded after each event; prevention competes with every other budget line. Repeated reconstruction rebuilds the same vulnerability unless recovery is tied to risk reduction by rule.
Laws assign duties to local governments that lack the staff, data or funds to carry them out. Responsibility is decentralised while capacity is not, and implementation fails at the level where exposure is decided.
A hazard that disables power, transport or supply chains spreads losses far beyond its footprint. Sector-by-sector plans miss these dependencies unless a coordinating mandate requires them to be assessed together.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Sendai Framework | The UN framework for disaster risk reduction for the period to 2030, with seven global targets and four priorities for action. |
| National platform for DRR | A nationally led multi-stakeholder mechanism that coordinates disaster risk reduction across sectors. |
| Residual risk | The disaster risk that remains after risk reduction measures, for which response and recovery capacity must be kept. |
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| National disaster risk reduction strategy adopted and implemented in line with Sendai | score (Sendai indicator E-1) | annual | Sendai Framework Monitor, national self-report | DECLARED |
| Local governments with disaster risk reduction strategies | percent of local governments (Sendai indicator E-2) | annual | Sendai Framework Monitor, national self-report | DECLARED |
| Legal and institutional mandate for disaster risk management | categorical, by function and level of government | periodic review | National legislation and gazettes | OFFICIAL |
| Public expenditure on disaster risk reduction | share of total budget, as tagged | annual | Budget tagging and public expenditure reviews | OFFICIAL |
| Multi-hazard early warning governance | score (Sendai target G indicators) | annual | Sendai Framework Monitor, national self-report | DECLARED |
| Lack of coping capacity, institutional dimension | index score | annual | INFORM Risk Index | ESTIMATED |
| Recovery framework in place after a major disaster | yes or no, with scope | per event | Post-disaster needs assessments | REPORTED |
The topic as a computational graph: named sources feed the methods, an evidence review gates the outputs, and the decisions stay with the authorities that hold them.
Fig. 02Nodes carry their type, two metric rows and a state; connectors show what feeds what; dashed frames name the owners; the timeline is the cadence. Design of the pipeline, not a record of a run.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Sendai Framework Monitor (UNDRR) | National reporting on the global targets and indicators, including national and local strategies | Public, UN terms of use |
| DesInventar Sendai | National disaster loss databases at sub-national resolution | Free and open, attribution |
| INFORM Risk Index (European Commission JRC) | Composite risk index with a lack of coping capacity dimension | Free and open, attribution |
| UNDRR Global Assessment Report | Periodic review of disaster risk and its governance | Free, UN terms |
| Post-disaster needs assessments (EU, UN and World Bank) | Joint assessments of damage, loss and recovery needs, with governance findings | Public reports, publisher terms |
| IFRC Disaster Law database | Compiled national disaster risk management laws and legal reviews | Free with attribution, publisher terms |
| National legal gazettes | Disaster management acts, regulations and mandates as enacted | Public sector information, national terms |
Policy Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| National legislatures | Whether disaster risk management law assigns clear duties, powers and funding across levels of government | Comparative review of disaster laws; gaps between assigned duties and resourced functions |
| National disaster management authorities | How to structure the national strategy and the national platform that coordinates it | Strategy elements compared with Sendai priorities; self-reported progress with its declared label |
| Ministries of finance and planning | How much to allocate to prevention, and how to tag and track it | Budget tagging approaches; evaluations of prevention programmes with their identification strategy |
| Local governments | Which land-use, building and preparedness measures to adopt and enforce | Local strategy coverage; comparative cases of enforcement and the institutional conditions behind them |
Policy researchers in disaster risk reduction focus on governance and implementation.
Many countries have adopted disaster risk reduction laws, strategies and coordination platforms, often following international frameworks. The persistent challenge is the gap between these arrangements and the decisions that create risk: urban expansion into hazardous areas, weak enforcement of building standards, infrastructure that ignores hazards, and recovery that rebuilds exposure. Disaster agencies frequently have convening roles but limited influence over ministries that control those decisions.
Effective governance tends to combine high-level ownership, legal duties for sector ministries and local government, dedicated funding, accessible risk information and accountability for results. Monitoring that counts plans adopted rather than risk reduced can create an appearance of progress without change.
Comparing laws, mandates and coordination platforms with policy and institutional science. Practice may diverge from formal arrangements.
Assessing what monitoring frameworks measure. Many indicators track inputs rather than outcomes.
Estimating effects of policies with causal inference. Disasters are rare and variable, which limits attribution.
Structured exchange between officials through policy dialogues. Dialogue evidence is experiential and needs triangulation.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.