In the decade since the landmark adoption of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the humanitarian landscape has experienced profound shifts, transformations, and enduring challenges. R. Mena’s comprehensive review, “Humanitarianism and the Sendai Framework: A 10-Year Review of Converging and Diverging Paths,” published in the International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, undertakes a critical evaluation of how humanitarian efforts and disaster risk reduction policies have both aligned and diverged over this pivotal period. This analysis offers a technically nuanced, insightful, and timely reflection on the intersection of global humanitarianism and disaster risk governance, highlighting key advancements, shortcomings, and future directions that demand urgent attention.
The Sendai Framework, endorsed during the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction in 2015, marked a paradigm shift from reactive disaster response to proactive risk reduction. This framework emphasizes anticipating disasters rather than merely reacting to their aftermath, with an ambitious goal to substantially reduce disaster mortality, economic loss, and damage to critical infrastructure by 2030. Mena’s review meticulously traces the efforts to embed humanitarianism—primarily concerned with immediate relief and protection of vulnerable populations—within this evolving risk reduction paradigm, revealing that while there is convergence in overarching objectives, fundamental operational and philosophical divergences persist.
A central theme of the review is the tension between the traditionally reactive nature of humanitarianism and the proactive mandate of the Sendai Framework. Humanitarian actors continue to prioritize emergency response, driven by urgent needs on the ground, whereas disaster risk reduction requires long-term investments, systemic change, and cross-sectoral coordination. This ambivalence is compounded by institutional inertia and funding cycles favoring immediate crisis interventions over preventive measures. Mena’s analysis highlights that bridging this gap requires recalibrating humanitarian strategies to incorporate risk anticipation without compromising lifesaving operations.
Within the scope of technical integration, Mena discusses the increasing incorporation of advanced risk modeling, geographic information systems (GIS), and real-time data analytics in disaster preparedness and response planning. These innovations have enhanced situational awareness and resource allocation efficiency. However, the review points out that the uptake of such technologies across humanitarian organizations is uneven, often limited by capacity constraints, insufficient training, and resource disparities in low- and middle-income countries. This technological divide poses a risk of entrenching inequalities and diminishing the effectiveness of early warning systems that are crucial for both risk reduction and humanitarian action.
Furthermore, the review explores the institutional dynamics between international humanitarian agencies, national governments, and local communities. A key insight is that while the Sendai Framework endorses inclusive, community-based approaches, humanitarian frameworks have historically operated with top-down delivery models. Efforts to harmonize policies have met with mixed success, as local knowledge and participation remain underutilized in disaster risk governance. Mena argues that genuine convergence requires empowering local actors not merely as beneficiaries but as active agents in risk characterization, planning, and response—a shift that challenges entrenched power hierarchies within both humanitarian and development spheres.
Importantly, Mena underscores the influence of climate change as a factor exacerbating disaster frequency, intensity, and complexity over the past decade. Climate-induced hazards have strained humanitarian systems worldwide, pushing the boundaries of traditional disaster management frameworks. The review examines how the Sendai Framework’s emphasis on multisectoral coordination and systemic resilience intersects with climate adaptation efforts. However, operationalizing these intersections remains fraught with challenges, including mismatched mandates, fragmented funding streams, and competing priorities between disaster risk reduction and climate resilience initiatives.
The financial architecture underpinning humanitarianism and disaster risk reduction is another critical area scrutinized. Mena highlights inconsistencies in funding flows, with a disproportionate share allocated toward disaster response rather than preventative risk mitigation. This fiscal imbalance perpetuates short-termism and limits the scalability of sustainable interventions endorsed by the Sendai Framework. The review calls for innovative financing mechanisms, including risk pooling, contingency funds, and private sector engagement, to mobilize sufficient and flexible resources aligned with both disaster preparedness and emergency response imperatives.
Legal and normative frameworks feature prominently in Mena’s analysis, particularly examining how international humanitarian law, disaster risk reduction policies, and human rights obligations intersect. The Sendai Framework’s holistic approach advocates protecting the most vulnerable populations and ensuring equity in disaster risk management. Yet, in practice, gaps remain in translating these principles into enforceable standards or operational mandates guiding humanitarian actors. The review identifies a need for enhanced legal coherence and strengthened accountability mechanisms to prevent rights violations and ensure respect for humanitarian principles during complex emergencies.
The role of urbanization trends emerges as another focal point, with the review detailing how rapid urban growth has introduced new vulnerabilities and complexities to disaster risk profiles. The Sendai Framework prioritizes urban resilience, recognizing cities as both hotspots of risk and hubs for innovation in disaster risk management. Humanitarian organizations, traditionally focused on rural or conflict-affected zones, have had to adapt rapidly to urban contexts characterized by dense populations, informal settlements, and infrastructure fragility. Mena delineates how integrating urban planning, social protection, and disaster risk reduction into humanitarian programming is essential yet remains insufficiently advanced.
A salient revelation in the review is the differential impact and integration of gender considerations within disaster risk governance and humanitarian response. The Sendai Framework explicitly calls for gender-sensitive risk assessments and interventions, aiming to address systemic inequalities that exacerbate disaster impacts on women and marginalized groups. While progress has been made in mainstreaming gender perspectives in policies, Mena notes persistent gaps in operational practice, monitoring, and evaluation. The review advocates for enhanced gender-responsive capacity building and accountability to ensure equitable outcomes in disaster management.
In terms of technological frontiers, the review elaborates on the increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning algorithms in predictive analytics for disaster scenarios. These advances promise to transform early warning systems, resource deployment, and damage assessments. However, Mena cautions that algorithmic biases, data privacy concerns, and a lack of transparent governance frameworks could undermine the ethical and effective use of AI in humanitarian and disaster risk contexts. The humanitarian sector’s cautious engagement with emerging technologies reflects the need for robust ethical guidelines and participatory design involving affected communities.
The review also addresses the evolving nature of conflict-related disasters and their implications for the Sendai Framework and humanitarianism. Complex emergencies, blending natural hazards with armed conflict, challenge the traditional boundaries of disaster risk management and humanitarian intervention. Mena explores how political instability hampers disaster preparedness and response capacities, while humanitarian actors grapple with access constraints, security risks, and politicization of aid. The review highlights the need to integrate conflict sensitivity into disaster risk strategies to avoid exacerbating vulnerabilities and to promote stability.
A decade into the Sendai Framework’s implementation, Mena presents compelling evidence that despite the framing of shared goals, institutional silos and divergent mandates continue to hamper integrated approaches. The review argues for transformative governance reforms that foster interdisciplinary collaboration, streamline institutional coordination, and embed disaster risk reduction at all governance levels. This entails shifting from fragmented programming to holistic strategies encompassing health systems, infrastructure resilience, social protection, and environmental stewardship, aligned with humanitarian objectives.
In concluding, Mena emphasizes the imperative to reposition humanitarianism within a risk-informed development paradigm. Effectively aligning humanitarian response with the Sendai Framework’s vision demands a reorientation toward sustainability, resilience, and empowerment, transcending crisis-driven mindsets. The review articulates that such alignment is not merely desirable but critical in a world facing escalating disaster risks fueled by environmental, social, and political shifts. It calls on policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and funders to commit to sustained collaboration, innovation, and inclusive approaches.
In sum, R. Mena’s decade review illuminates both promising trajectories and persistent fault lines in the entwinement of humanitarianism and the Sendai Framework. It serves as a clarion call to accelerate integration efforts, harness technological and social innovation, and embed equity and resilience at the heart of disaster risk governance. For the global community navigating escalating crisis landscapes, these insights offer crucial guidance to shape future policies and practices that protect lives and livelihoods more effectively and justly.
Subject of Research: Humanitarianism and Disaster Risk Reduction through the Sendai Framework
Article Title: Humanitarianism and the Sendai Framework: A 10-Year Review of Converging and Diverging Paths
Article References:
Mena, R. Humanitarianism and the Sendai Framework: A 10-Year Review of Converging and Diverging Paths. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 16, 20–32 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-024-00595-1
Image Credits: AI Generated
