The research team, led by Victor Marchezini of Brazil’s National Center for Monitoring and Early Warning of Natural Disasters, CEMADEN, argues that warning systems are not merely technical installations but long-term social processes embedded in public institutions. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the Early Warnings for All initiative have driven measurable progress at the national level: the number of countries reporting multi-hazard early warning systems rose from 56 in 2015 to 119 in 2024. Yet 40 percent of countries, 76 in total, still report having no such systems, and far less is known about how warnings are implemented below the national level, where most disasters actually strike. More than 25 years ago, a United Nations working group concluded that in many countries the institutional capacity to develop local early warning systems simply does not exist. The new study demonstrates that this diagnosis remains painfully accurate.

Scientifically, the innovation lies in treating local early warning systems as public policy that requires two complementary forms of institutional capacity. Technical-administrative capacities cover the internal functioning of local disaster risk management agencies: their human, financial and material resources, risk maps, and access to forecasts and monitoring systems. Political-relational capacities capture governance, including coordination across sectors and levels of government, risk communication strategies, contingency planning, and the engagement of civil society. The ICLEWS framework measures both across seven dimensions: human resources, financial resources, risk mapping, weather and subseasonal forecasting with rainfall monitoring, risk communication, social participation, and local and regional warning system governance. These dimensions map directly onto the four internationally recognized warning subsystems: risk knowledge, monitoring and forecasting, communication and dissemination, and preparedness and response.

The data came from an online survey administered between March and July 2025 in partnership with civil defense units across Brazil’s 26 states. The questionnaire contained 41 questions on disaster preparedness, of which 16 were selected for the ICLEWS analysis. Responses were converted to ordinal values, normalized to a common zero-to-one scale using the min-max method, and aggregated with equal weights into dimension and capacity scores, following an adaptation of the OECD Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators. Kendall’s tau-b rank correlation was then used to explore the relationship between the two capacity types, an approach suited to ordinal data with non-normal distributions and tied values.

The central statistical result is a moderate positive association between technical-administrative and political-relational capacities, with a tau-b coefficient of 0.374. In practical terms, municipalities that score higher on staffing and resources also tend to score higher on communication, participation and governance, but the relationship is far from deterministic, confirming that the two capacities retain distinct analytical identities. The aggregate picture is sobering. Technical-administrative capacity recorded a median of just 0.356, with the middle half of municipalities ranging from 0.165 to 0.477, while political-relational capacity fared slightly better at a median of 0.422.

Beneath the aggregates, the human resource findings are striking. One quarter of local civil protection managers have less than one year of experience, and 8 percent report no prior experience at all. Some 22 percent of municipal civil defense units consist of a single officer, 16 percent have two members, and only about one third have more than five. Across the responding municipalities the survey identified 13,516 civil defense officers, but only one quarter hold permanent public service positions, meaning the rest are exposed to the job turnover that fragments institutional memory and disrupts warning operations. Financial capacity is equally fragile: only one quarter of civil defense units have their own budgets, with most relying on transfers from other municipal departments, federal or state programs, parliamentary amendments or donations. The authors note that similar patterns of fiscal dependence and unstable staffing have been documented in Indonesia, India, Malawi and Zambia, suggesting a global structural problem rather than a Brazilian peculiarity.

Risk mapping emerged as the most developed technical dimension, with 57 percent of civil defense units using municipality-generated risk maps, though one quarter of cities lack such maps entirely and only 14 percent use geotechnical suitability maps that could steer new construction away from hazard zones. Forecasting use is limited: 38 percent of respondents report using weather forecasts, but only 15 percent use subseasonal forecasts covering 10 to 30 day horizons, and 41 percent use rainfall monitoring. Notably, many respondents answered that they did not know whether their municipality used these tools, which the authors interpret as a sign that local officers may be unfamiliar with how to access available forecast products. On the political-relational side, only 32 percent of municipalities report operating a formal alert system, yet 69.5 percent rate their alert-issuing capacity as high or medium, a discrepancy the researchers attribute to reliance on informal channels such as social networks, WhatsApp groups and radio that officers do not count as official systems.

Perhaps most damning for the vision of people-centered early warning are the participation figures. Nearly one quarter of municipalities take no action at all to support people living in at-risk areas, and among those that do, only 11 percent act frequently. Just 6.4 percent of municipalities reported that their populations frequently participate in civil defense activities. Governance scores were the lowest within the political-relational dimension: 30 percent of cities have no contingency plan, and while plans exist for riverine floods in 47.5 percent of cases and droughts in 35.6 percent, only 7.9 percent have plans for heatwaves, an emerging and growing hazard. Even in a country with an extensive coastline, only about a quarter of surveyed coastal cities reported contingency plans for coastal erosion. Intermunicipal coordination, essential when hazards cross jurisdictional boundaries, is maintained by just 61 percent of municipalities.

The authors conclude that the Early Warnings for All initiative often disregards the profound institutional, territorial and fiscal inequalities among municipalities, particularly in the Global South, where global standards like multi-hazard and people-centered warning systems are formally adopted without the conditions for substantive implementation. Without stable financing, permanent staffing, access to forecasts, intermunicipal coordination and genuine social participation, they warn, local early warning systems will remain fragmented and operate below their potential to reduce losses, strengthen prevention and save lives. Institutional capacity, they argue, should be understood not as a fixed state but as a dynamic process, and international guidelines must be localized, adapted to local social realities and backed by sustained investment, or the universal early warning promise will falter precisely where it matters most: in the communities where disasters actually happen.

Subject of Research: Implementation capacity of local early warning systems and the localization of the Early Warnings for All initiative

Article Title: Implementation Capacity of Local Early Warning Systems: The Need for Localism in the EW4All Initiative

Article References: Marchezini, V., Oda, P. S. S., Ferreira, A. M., da Fonseca, M. N., Cotting, A. L. M., Dias, K. G. C., Sampaio, M. R. P., & Coura, C. M. (2026). Implementation Capacity of Local Early Warning Systems: The Need for Localism in the EW4All Initiative. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-026-00765-3

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s13753-026-00765-3

Keywords: early warning systems, EW4All, disaster risk reduction, ICLEWS framework, institutional capacity, Brazil, municipal civil defense, multi-hazard early warning, risk communication, social participation, Sendai Framework, localism

Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems represent an integrated approach to forecasting, detecting, and conveying imminent risks from multiple natural hazards within a unified framework. Unlike hazard-specific systems, MHEWS aim to address the complex reality that disasters often happen in tandem or in rapid succession, with cascading impacts that exacerbate community vulnerabilities. These systems incorporate advances in meteorology, seismology, hydrology, data analytics, communication technologies, and social mobilization methods to deliver timely, accurate, and actionable warnings to stakeholders ranging from government agencies to local communities.

The Sendai Framework explicitly prioritizes the development and strengthening of early warning systems as a fundamental strategy for reducing disaster risk and enhancing resilience. Its targets underscore the necessity for accessible, multi-hazard, and people-centered warning mechanisms that are integrated into national and local disaster risk management plans. Since its adoption, significant progress has been made in many countries in deploying MHEWS. Nevertheless, notable gaps remain in terms of technological integration, institutional coordination, community engagement, and sustainable funding mechanisms.

From a technical perspective, MHEWS are complex systems involving several interdependent components, including hazard monitoring networks, risk assessment models, communication infrastructures, and response protocols. Modern sensor arrays equipped with remote sensing technologies and real-time data transmission capabilities allow for continuous monitoring of diverse hazards such as tectonic movements, atmospheric changes, and hydrological anomalies. Sophisticated modeling tools process these data to forecast event probability, intensity, and potential impacts, forming the basis for issuing warnings.

The dissemination of warnings must overcome multiple challenges to be effective. Alerts need to be conveyed rapidly and in formats understandable to various demographics, including marginalized and vulnerable groups. Innovations in mobile technology, social media platforms, and traditional communication channels have expanded the reach of warnings but also introduced new complexities related to message standardization, verification, and preventing misinformation. Ensuring that warnings lead to timely and appropriate community responses requires robust education programs, capacity-building initiatives, and clear authorities’ roles.

Institutional integration remains a persistent hurdle in MHEWS implementation. Disaster risk reduction typically involves multiple sectors—meteorological services, civil protection agencies, health departments, and emergency responders. Coordinating data sharing, responsibilities, and decision-making processes can be hindered by bureaucratic silos and resource constraints. Successful MHEWS programs often exhibit strong interagency collaboration frameworks, supported by political will and legal mandates to formalize protocols and resource allocations.

The Sendai Framework’s vision also emphasizes inclusivity and equity within early warning systems. Vulnerable populations, such as women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, and economically disadvantaged communities, often face heightened risks and barriers to accessing timely warnings and response mechanisms. Incorporating traditional knowledge, community participation, and culturally sensitive communication strategies into MHEWS design is essential to ensure that no one is left behind. Examples from regions prone to cyclones and floods show that local involvement in hazard mapping and response planning significantly improves outcomes.

Financing remains a central bottleneck in advancing MHEWS, especially in developing countries. Building and maintaining sophisticated sensor networks, data-processing centers, and communication infrastructures require substantial investments alongside ongoing operational costs. International cooperation and partnerships have facilitated capacity-building and funding mechanisms, yet sustainable financing models are imperative for long-term system resilience and technological evolution. The Sendai Framework encourages member states to integrate disaster risk reduction funding into broader development and climate adaptation budgets.

Evaluating the effectiveness of existing MHEWS is an ongoing challenge. While some systems have demonstrably reduced casualties and economic losses during major events, others struggle with false alarms, delayed warnings, or community distrust. Continuous monitoring and assessment frameworks are needed to refine hazard detection algorithms, improve communication strategies, and adapt to changing risk landscapes influenced by climate change and urbanization. Advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning offer promising avenues to enhance predictive accuracy and contextualize warnings based on dynamic social factors.

Technology alone cannot guarantee successful early warning. Social factors such as trust in authorities, previous disaster experiences, and local governance structures play crucial roles in the reception and implementation of warnings. Studies reveal that community-based disaster preparedness programs integrated with MHEWS boost resilience by promoting awareness, evacuation planning, and resource mobilization. The future of MHEWS thus requires an interdisciplinary approach that bridges natural sciences, social sciences, and policy-making.

Looking forward, the improvement of Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems under the Sendai Framework hinges on addressing identified gaps. Enhancing data interoperability among different monitoring agencies can streamline risk assessments for complex, multi-hazard scenarios. Developing standardized yet flexible communication protocols can ensure warnings are universally comprehensible yet regionally tailored. Embedding gender-responsive and culturally relevant strategies will foster inclusivity. Furthermore, fostering innovation through partnerships with the private sector and academia can drive technological breakthroughs for next-generation warning systems.

Climate change is expected to intensify existing hazards and introduce new forms of risk, underscoring the urgency of resilient early warning infrastructures. Extreme weather patterns, sea-level rise, and ecological degradation will require adaptive MHEWS capable of real-time integration of multi-source data and risk modeling. The convergence of digital technologies, such as blockchain and Internet of Things (IoT), promises novel opportunities for secure, transparent, and efficient early warning dissemination.

The Sendai Framework provides a vital global mandate and roadmap to transform early warning from an often fragmented and hazard-specific function into a holistic, proactive system for disaster risk reduction. As nations strive to meet the framework’s targets by 2030, lessons learned from current achievements and gaps must inform evidence-based policies and investments. Embracing complexity, fostering cross-sectoral collaboration, and prioritizing vulnerable populations will be key to realizing the full potential of Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems.

In conclusion, Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems stand at the forefront of disaster resilience strategies. Their evolution from isolated monitoring systems into integrated, people-centered platforms embodies the spirit of the Sendai Framework’s call for a safer, more resilient future. Continued efforts in technological advancements, institutional strengthening, community engagement, and sustainable financing are imperative to harness the full capabilities of MHEWS, thereby saving lives and mitigating losses amid the growing global threat of natural hazards.

—

Subject of Research: Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems within the framework of disaster risk reduction, focusing on achievements, existing gaps, and future directions under the Sendai Framework.

Article Title: Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Achievements, Gaps, and Future Directions

Article References:

Rokhideh, M., Fearnley, C. & Budimir, M. Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems in the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction: Achievements, Gaps, and Future Directions.
Int J Disaster Risk Sci 16, 103–116 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-025-00622-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

Central to the Sendai Framework is its paradigm shift from reactive disaster management to proactive risk reduction. It recognizes that disasters are not isolated events but products of intertwined social, environmental, and political vulnerabilities. The framework established seven global targets ranging from reducing mortality and economic losses to enhancing international cooperation and access to multi-hazard early warning systems. Over the past decade, these benchmarks have served as a global compass guiding policies, funding, and research. However, the realization of these targets has been uneven across regions and sectors, underscoring the complex interplay of governance, social equity, and scientific advancement.

The editorial underscores the inherent complexity of disaster risk, highlighting that technical solutions alone cannot suffice. Instead, disaster risk reduction (DRR) requires systemic approaches that integrate science, policy, and community engagement. The Sendai Framework has catalyzed multi-disciplinary research linking climate change adaptation, sustainable development, and disaster ethics, emphasizing the human dimensions alongside physical hazards. Consequently, the conversation transcends traditional emergency responses, calling for transformative change in urban planning, infrastructure design, and socio-economic systems vulnerable to natural and anthropogenic hazards.

The editorial also draws attention to progress made in early warning systems and data analytics, which have ushered in a new era of disaster preparedness. Earth observation technologies, artificial intelligence, and real-time sensor networks have enhanced the capacity to predict and respond to hazards. Yet, the integration of cutting-edge science into local contexts remains a persistent challenge. Effective DRR necessitates translating technical data into actionable information for vulnerable communities, demanding inclusive governance structures and investments in education and capacity-building at grassroots levels.

One of the key technical themes explored involves the incorporation of risk assessments that account for cascading disasters and compound risks. Traditional risk models often treat hazards in isolation, but recent events have demonstrated the interconnected nature of disasters—such as how a major earthquake can trigger tsunamis, infrastructure failures, and even pandemics. The Sendai Framework promotes holistic risk modeling to inform resilient infrastructure and community preparedness. However, sophisticated modeling requires comprehensive data collection, interdisciplinary collaboration, and political will to influence decision-making.

Ilan Kelman’s editorial also reflects critically on equity issues within disaster risk reduction. Vulnerable populations frequently bear the brunt of disasters due to systemic inequalities in access to resources, information, and governance. The Sendai Framework explicitly acknowledges these disparities but translating commitments into tangible outcomes reveals significant gaps. The editorial argues for embedding social justice principles at the heart of DRR, leveraging community knowledge and participatory approaches to ensure that policies do not marginalize but empower those most at risk.

International cooperation emerges as an essential enabler but not a panacea. While the Sendai Framework has fostered unprecedented global partnerships among states, NGOs, academia, and the private sector, differing priorities and capacities among stakeholders complicate implementation. The editorial outlines the necessity for coordinated funding mechanisms and knowledge sharing platforms that transcend political boundaries, particularly in addressing cross-border risks such as pandemics and climate-induced disasters.

Climate change looms large over the Sendai agenda and its future trajectory. The editorial emphasizes that the increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events intensify disaster risks, reinforcing the urgency for integrated adaptation and mitigation strategies. The scientific community’s growing understanding of climate dynamics must be harnessed to refine risk projections and guide resilience investments. Moreover, recognizing the feedback loops between disaster impacts and environmental degradation is vital to avoid catastrophic tipping points.

Technological innovation holds both promise and peril in the evolving DRR landscape. Advances in remote sensing, unmanned aerial vehicles, and big data have opened frontiers for enhanced disaster monitoring and response. At the same time, reliance on technology can exacerbate vulnerabilities if not accessible or understood by local populations. The editorial calls for ethical frameworks to govern technology deployment, ensuring inclusivity, data privacy, and safeguarding against misinformation during crises.

Another salient point concerns urbanization trends and the expansion of informal settlements, often located in high-risk zones. The Sendai Framework’s urban resilience component emphasizes land-use planning and upgrading infrastructure to mitigate risk. However, rapid and unplanned urban growth, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, presents complexities for DRR strategies. Enhancing urban resilience requires cross-sectoral coordination, innovative financing models, and empowering local governance to manage hazards without displacing marginalized communities.

The editorial further addresses the importance of education and culture in embedding disaster resilience. Disaster risk reduction cannot be realized solely through technical interventions but requires cultivating risk awareness, adaptive behaviors, and community solidarity. Integrating DRR concepts into formal and informal education systems, as well as leveraging cultural expressions and indigenous knowledge, serves to strengthen societal preparedness and social cohesion against potential shocks.

Looking ahead, the five remaining years to 2030 outlined in the Sendai Framework demand accelerated action and adaptive learning. The editorial argues for robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks, employing both quantitative metrics and qualitative narratives to capture progress and setbacks. Embracing uncertainty and fostering flexibility in DRR policies will be paramount in responding to the dynamic nature of hazards and vulnerabilities amplified by global change.

Ilan Kelman’s introduction serves not only as a retrospective but as a clarion call to reinvigorate commitment and innovation in reducing disaster risk. The urgency is clearer than ever: as hazards grow in complexity and scale, so too must our collective capacity to understand, prepare for, and mitigate their impacts. Bridging science, policy, equity, and technology remains an ongoing challenge but is essential to fulfilling the promise of the Sendai Framework.

In conclusion, this editorial provides a sophisticated overview of the Sendai Framework’s first decade and the pressing opportunities and challenges for its implementation in the upcoming years. It highlights that disaster risk reduction is an evolving field, necessitating interdisciplinary collaboration, inclusive governance, and continuous innovation. The path forward will demand not only scientific and technical excellence but also resilience of social systems, equity in risk distribution, and unwavering political will to safeguard lives and development gains worldwide.

Subject of Research: Disaster risk reduction and the Sendai Framework

Article Title: Editorial Introduction: 10 Years After and 5 Years to Go for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction

Article References:
Kelman, I. Editorial Introduction: 10 Years After and 5 Years to Go for the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 16, 1–3 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-025-00617-6

Image Credits: AI Generated