Disaster risk reduction takes center stage in talks on global disaster treaty

As UN Member States prepare for negotiations on a proposed international convention on the Protection of Persons in the Event of Disasters (PPED), the need for disaster prevention is emerging as a significant part of the discussion.

An analysis by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), presented during a side event on 1 September at the meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the proposed treaty, showed that 30 of 41 Member States and groups that submitted proposals on the draft articles addressed elements related to disaster risk reduction (DRR). Of these, 29 either recognize that the future instrument should address prevention and preparedness alongside response and recovery, or propose specific provisions related to disaster risk reduction. 

The draft articles developed by the International Law Commission, a UN body of legal experts on international law, include explicit mentions of disaster risk reduction, most notably under Article 2, on the purpose of the instrument, and Article 9, which would require States to take appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate and prepare for disasters.

Several Member States have proposed broadening the purpose or scope of the future convention to make it clearer that it addresses not only response, but the full disaster cycle, including efforts to reduce the likelihood of disasters and long-term recovery.

Speaking on behalf of the Group of Friends of Disaster Risk Reduction, which comprises more than 40 Member States, Mr. Idar Instefjord, Counsellor at the Permanent Mission of Norway to the United Nations in New York said: “It is important that disaster risk reduction remains front of mind.” The Group reaffirmed the continued relevance of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and called for any new instrument to complement existing disaster risk reduction frameworks and contribute to a coherent international approach to preparedness, response and recovery.

Bangladesh also stressed the importance of prevention, drawing on its experience of significantly reducing disaster mortality through decades of investment in enhancing preparedness, early warning systems, and resilience.

“Disaster impacts are not inevitable,” said Ms. Shanchita Haque, Bangladesh’s Deputy Permanent Representative. She underscored the role of end-to-end early warning systems, preparedness and anticipatory action in protecting lives and livelihoods.

Academics participating in the event argued that including disaster risk reduction in the future convention would strengthen, rather than duplicate, existing international frameworks.

Professor Kirsten Bookmiller of Millersville University, in the United States, said that while the Sendai Framework provides a roadmap for disaster risk reduction, a future convention could establish DRR as a legal responsibility.

“Sendai provides a roadmap […] on the how-to of DRR, while PPED will underscore that DRR is a legal responsibility.”

She argued that excluding risk reduction from the future agreement would separate disaster response from the conditions that make response more effective.

“What a community does before a disaster significantly shapes its capacity to respond when a disaster strikes.”

Professor Marie Aronsson-Storrier of the University College Cork, in Ireland, said Article 9 should be understood by States as an “obligation of conduct” rather than “an obligation of result”, and emphasized that the use of the word "appropriate" in the article gives States flexibility in the measures they take according to their risk profiles and capacities. 

How should “disaster” be defined?

Another issue that is expected to receive significant attention during the negotiations is the definition of a “disaster,” which has generated more amendment proposals than any other part of the draft articles.

Thirty-one of the 41 submissions analyzed the definition. Twelve called for alignment with internationally agreed terminology, including ten that specifically referred to the terminology adopted by the UN General Assembly following the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on Indicators and Terminology.

Professor Giulio Bartolini of Roma Tre University, in Italy, said the definition matters because it could determine how widely the disaster risk reduction obligation applies, including whether smaller-scale and recurrent disasters are adequately covered.

Several Member States also proposed removing references to “natural disasters” from the preamble. Eight submissions proposed deleting the term and/or aligning the text with evolving understandings of disasters, while one suggested explicitly explaining that disasters are not natural. The proposals reflect a broader shift reflected in the Sendai Framework to shift away from seeing disasters as unavoidable “natural” events to understanding that disasters are caused by hazards when they impact exposed and vulnerable populations.

During the Preparatory Committee, Member States accepted Thailand's offer to hold the diplomatic conference to negotiate and conclude the treaty in Bangkok, Thailand, from 25 January to 12 February 2027.

As preparations for the conference move forward, the debate is increasingly focused not on whether disaster risk reduction is relevant to protecting people from disasters, but on how clearly and strongly it should be reflected in the final treaty.