No abstract

Increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases have led to a global mean surface temperature 1.0°C higher than during the pre-industrial period. We expand on the recent IPCC Special Report on global warming of 1.5°C and review the additional risks associated with higher levels of warming, each having major implications for multiple geographies, climates, and ecosystems. Limiting warming to 1.5°C rather than 2.0°C would be required to maintain substantial proportions of ecosystems and would have clear benefits for human health and economies. These conclusions are relevant for people everywhere, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, where the escalation of climate-related risks may prevent the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.

2020 has become the year of coping with COVID-19. This year was to be the "super year" for sustainability, a year of strengthening global actions to accelerate the transformations required for achieving the 2030 agenda. We argue that 2020 can and must be a year of both. Thus we call for more utilisation of the health-emergency disaster risk management (Health-EDRM) framework to complement current responses to COVID-19 and the patent risk of similar phenomena in the future. To make our case, we examine current responses to COVID-19 and their implications for the SFDRR. We argue that current mechanisms and strategies for disaster resilience, as outlined in the SFDRR, can enhance responses to epidemics or global pandemics such as COVID-19. In this regard, we make several general and DRR-specific recommendations.These recommendations concern knowledge and science provision in understanding disaster and health-related emergency risks, the extension of disaster risk governance to manage both disaster risks and potential health-emergencies, particularly for humanitarian coordination aspects; and the strengthening of community-level preparedness and response.

The increasing frequency, intensity, and severity of natural hazards is one of the most pressing global environmental change problems. From the local to the global level, governments and civil society need to increase resilience to these hazards. Despite what is now a very sizeable literature on designing governance systems to produce resilience, a substantial gap in the natural hazards scholarship remains because most studies have lacked grounding in comparable theories on governing for resilience. This article contributes to interdisciplinary research on the conceptual understanding of the interlinkages of adaptive governance (AG), resilience, and disaster risk reduction (DRR). Through better understanding of diversity of terminology, terms, and characteristics, we take a step forward towards mutual learning and intellectual experimentation between the three concepts. Our review shows that there are four characteristics of AG that are important to help increase resilience to natural hazards. These are polycentric and multilayered institutions, participation and collaboration, self-organization and networks, and learning and innovation. The article examines the development, tradeoffs, and benefits that arise from the implementation of the AG characteristics, and reviews their influence on resilience. Hazard and disaster case studies are then examined to see how each AG characteristic is viewed and implemented in disaster contexts. Based on this analysis, the contributions of AG to the DRR literature are identified, before outlining the implications for theory and further research.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) announced the new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as a pandemic on March 11th, 2020. The pandemic has brought havoc globally as more than 190 countries and territories are affected as of 30 April 2030. COVID-19 crisis suggests that no country can deal with the pandemic alone. International cooperation including regional cooperation is essential for any country to survive COVID-19. We are particularly interested in Association of South East Asian Nation (ASEAN) cooperation and performance under COVID-19 because it has been one of the regions where regional cooperation on health security has been functioning based on lessons from SARS 2003 and H1N1 2009. The “One Vision, One Identity, One Community” of ASEAN has merits under COVID-19 response but remains invisible. The method encompasses analysis of published materials issued by and accessible from the ASEAN website, complemented with analysis for media articles including social media, supported by published academic journal articles. All of the authors have expertise on ASEAN policies in the field of health, disasters, and regional policy and planning. Some authors have also worked from various international organizations working on issues related to the ASEAN region. This paper aims to document and analyse how ASEAN member states respond to COVID-19. It asks how to cooperate under the One-ASEAN-One Response framework in the context of COVID-19. This paper also compares the 10 member states' policy responses to COVID-19 from January to April 2020. We utilise the framework of policy sciences to analyse the responses. We found that the early regional response was slow and lack of unity (January–February 2020). Extensive early measures taken by each member state are the key to the success to curb the spread of the virus. Although, during March and April 2020, ASEAN has reconvened and utilised its existing health regional mechanism to try to have a coherent response to COVID-19 impacts. Strengthening future collaboration should be implemented by recognizing that there is a more coherent, multi sectoral, multi stakeholders and whole-of-ASEAN Community approach in ensuring ASEAN's timely and effective response to the pandemic. Finally, we call for the COVID-19 recovery should allow for healthy, just, resilient and sustainable ASEAN.

Abstract. Disaster impacts are more frequent, deadly and costly. The social and environmental consequences are increasingly complex and intertwined. Systematic as well as innovated strategies are needed to manage the impacts. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is a systematic approach to manage disaster risks while adaptive governance (AG) is suggested as an alternative approach for governing complex problems such as disasters. The author proposes that the AG can be practicalised through a mechanism of multistakeholder platforms (MSPs), interpreted as multiplicity of organisations at different scales of governance working towards more coordinated and integrated actions in DRR. Ten MSPs are selected at the global, regional, national and local level, focussing on the Indonesian MSPs. The literature reviews and in-depth interviews with key respondents in Indonesia show that the international and regional MSPs tend to have more human, technical and financial capacity than national and local MSPs. The author finds that most MSP roles focus on the coordination amongst multitudes of organisations. Only those MSPs that are able to generate new funding have the capacity to implement direct risk reduction activities. The development of the MSP is highly influenced by the UNISDR system operating at different levels. Particularly in Indonesia, MSP are also influenced by the operations of various UN and international organisations. Finally, the paper suggests the need for more provision of technical supports to local MSPs, more linkages with established networks in DRR and broader stakeholders involvement within the MSPs.

No abstract

No abstract