Day One of the Global ‘Early Warnings for All’ Multi-Stakeholder Forum, Geneva 2025
- Sally Potter
- Jun 3
- 5 min read
One of the preparatory events of the 8th Session of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2025 is the Global ‘Early Warnings for All’ Multi-Stakeholder Forum. This two-day event is being held at the World Meteorological Organization building in Geneva, Switzerland.
After a very long trip to Geneva from New Zealand over the weekend, I was pleased to be at Day One of this event today. Here is my hot take on the key points discussed and takeaways for further action.
Context for the Early Warnings for All forum
In setting the scene this morning, we were reminded that we are ten years into the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, with five years remaining. The UN Early Warnings for All by 2027 initiative is the key driver of this forum.
Speakers highlighted how there are still many countries without early warning systems (EWSs), especially in Small Island Developing States and Least Developed Countries.
National ownership was emphasised as being important in implementing EWS, and taking a multi-stakeholder partnership approach. Ongoing investments are critical to keep systems updated, for example ensuring old technology sirens are replaced with cell broadcast technology.
“The facts are clear. Early warnings save lives and deliver vast financial benefits. I urge all governments, financial institutions and civil society to support this effort.” – UN Secretary-General António Guterres
Several people throughout the day recommended “keeping it simple” when implementing multi-hazard EWS, rather than getting too caught up in the complexities that inevitably come up.
Inclusive warnings
An unsurprising key message is ensuring no-one is left behind. With over a billion people worldwide having a disability, it is critical to ensure that these people are treated as partners and allies in the design of warnings, not just recipients. It was pointed out that they are not ‘vulnerable’ and they can help others – it is their environment, systems and processes that cause the vulnerability. Disability communities need to be engaged to help design the warning systems.
“Nothing for us, without us”
It was recommended to use existing structures in communities to make warnings more inclusive – such as church structures, traditional, and government structures. A tangible example of increasing inclusivity is auditing schools and other community structures that serve as evacuation centres for how accessible they are. Running exercises with a diverse range of people also helps to ensure they know what to do when they receive a warning, before disaster strikes.
Young people were also advocated for to bring in their knowledge, experiences and skills, including with technology. Women in remote areas of Sudan were given as an example of having responsibilities for families, planning and resilience-related decisions, yet were often the last to receive warnings. Ensuring they can help design the warning messages to ensure they are meaningful and working in with their daily routines were suggested as the types of solutions to increase inclusivity.
We were asked the resonating question of:
“What are you personally doing to make sure your warnings are accessible and actionable?”
It was recommended to reach out to groups that can help, if you’re not sure.
Anticipatory actions
The importance of acting on a warning, rather than waiting for the event and responding to it, is a shared value by all people here. An Anticipatory Action Framework was described by one speaker as important, and it made me wonder why New Zealand doesn’t have one. Not just response plans, but action plans that are triggered by warnings, so everyone is clear about what to do across the various agencies. I believe some regional CDEM response plans may include actions relating to warnings, but I think there are vast improvements we can make to define and agree on various stakeholder actions.
It was also raised to think beyond the initial warning phase – looking at how to maintain trust in long-term events, such as volcanic unrest or when a landslide warning has been given but the landslide hasn’t happened yet. This also reflects the often-lengthy recovery phase and relocation-related housing issues.
Innovation
A virtual poster platform was shared. It has submissions on innovation for EWS people might find useful, but I thought the platform itself was interesting and could be looked into further for anyone organising virtual conferences. Downside: I couldn’t get the posters into high enough resolution to clearly ready them. Tip: click on the posters to bring them front on and easier to read, and use the up arrow to zoom in.
CommunityMappers is an example of a community group involved in an innovative mapping project. One community near Nairobi collaboratively designed a project and mapped information relating to heat. They collected air temperature data that informed heat exposure information. Air temperature could then be predicted for the villages. This approach combines low technology with on the ground measurements with high tech modelling, and could be replicated in other areas.
Gaps for future research
Dr. Animesh Kumar, the head of the Bonn Office, UNDRR recommends everyone improves disaster and risk data collection and collation, something we have been grappling with in New Zealand for quite a while.
A challenge identified by one of the panelists is when the anticipatory actions themselves cause a negative impact, which is felt more keenly when the event doesn’t occur or is not as severe as forecast. This results in economic impacts that otherwise would not have occurred. An example is someone closing their shop due to a cyclone/hurricane warning, but then the storm hits further away.
Who is at the forum?
A Slido poll filled in by over 180 people on day one showed that the attendees come from mainly NGOs and Civil Society (24%), National Governments (20%), Academic and Research Institutes (19%) and UN Agency and Special Agencies (11%), and the private sector (10%). They are based all over the world, with the most prominent being 30% from Europe & Central Asia, 29% from Asia-Pacific, and 21% from Americas & Caribbean.
The opening session had talks in person from Prof Celeste Saulo, the Secretary-General of the WMO; Mr Kamal Kishore, the UN Secretary General for Disaster Risk Reduction, Ambassador Julien Thoni from Switzerland. There are government representatives, director generals of hydrometeorological institutes and geological monitoring agencies, and large financial institutions.
Quick takeaways
We need to have better inclusion of people with disabilities, youth, and other groups in designing and implementing our warning systems – while this is an often-discussed topic, we need to up our game across the board.
We should explore producing anticipatory action plans, or ensure these are explicitly in response plans.
Support research on reducing unintended impacts of warnings, or how to balance the potential positive impacts with the more certain negative impacts.
These were my key points for today - I'll endeavor to share some more thoughts throughout the week.
Comments