Abstract
The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 recommends several actions for early warning systems (EWSs). However, there is a lack of information about their means of implementation. This article used institutional ethnography to analyze the 2012–2018 implementation of a national warning system in Brazil. The challenges related to daily activities, and the interdisciplinary works in the four axes of EWSs towards multi-hazard and people-centered approaches are discussed. This national experience is then discussed in the light of the global challenges of EWSs considering two main issues: (1) experiences of implementation and barriers related to people-centered warning systems; and (2) types of national/regional warning systems and hazards/threats that are being monitored as an important input for multi-hazard approaches. There are few multi-hazard warning systems in place and EWSs are focused on hydrometeorological hazards, mainly related to floods. The Sendai Framework needs to improve access to data and information, identify views from the frontline, consider political threats and vulnerabilities, and find ways to talk about disaster risk creation processes at a larger scale.
Highlights
Over the past 8 years I have been working at the Brazilian National Early Warning and Monitoring Center of ‘‘Natural’’ Disasters, a warning agency that was created after a catastrophe in Rio de Janeiro State in 2011
Multiple diverse criteria for warning levels were identified, similar to the findings reported by the Global Survey of Early Warning Systems (UNISDR 2006b) and other studies (Villagran de Leon et al 2013)
Three main topics were essential to establish a dialogue with my co-workers: (1) the amplified version of the disaster risk equation (Wisner et al 2012) and the interdisciplinary methods of the Forensic Investigations of Disasters-Forin (Oliver-Smith et al 2016); (2) the discussion of the four axes of warning systems (Basher 2006; Kelman and Glantz 2014) that help us to think about the potential role of each scientist on each axis; and (3) the recommendations of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) (UNISDR 2005) and Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 (SFDRR) (UNISDR 2015) regarding the importance of building people-centered and multi-hazard early warning systems (EWSs)
Summary
Over the past 8 years I have been working at the Brazilian National Early Warning and Monitoring Center of ‘‘Natural’’ Disasters, a warning agency that was created after a catastrophe in Rio de Janeiro State in 2011. In this article I am sharing some findings regarding the implementation of the warning system Moving from this national agency experience analyzed from 2012 to 2018, the second part of this article discusses some global challenges of warning systems. This analysis was based on scientific and grey literature in Spanish and in English (Basher 2006; Kelman 2006; UNISDR 2006a, 2006b; Thomalla and Larsen 2010; Zia and Wagner 2015; Davila 2016; Macherera and Chimbari 2016a; WMO 2018). This section focuses on three dimensions: daily implementation, interdisciplinary projects, and people-centered and multi-hazard approaches
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
