When we talk about natural disasters and sustainable development We are not facing two separate worlds, but rather two sides of the same coin. Earthquakes, floods, droughts, or hurricanes do not become catastrophes on their own: what transforms them into tragedies is how we organize ourselves as a society, where we build, the level of poverty we endure, and the type of economic development we have promoted. To put it simply: nature triggers the event, but we largely create the disaster ourselves.
In recent decades, the idea has become increasingly prevalent that “Disasters are not natural”This phrase, widely used in academia, underscores that a disaster is above all a social phenomenon: a profound disruption of a community's normal functioning, paralyzing daily life, causing human and material losses, and demanding an extraordinary response to restore normalcy. From this perspective, the crucial question is how all of this fits with the goal of sustainable development, which, as the World Bank reminds us, must meet present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own.
What is a real disaster and why isn't it so "natural"?
In the field of risk management, it is considered that a disaster is the result from the interaction between three elements: the hazard (the physical phenomenon), vulnerability (how exposed and fragile the society is), and the level of capacity to respond. Authors like Cardona define disaster as a social event triggered by a natural or anthropogenic event that severely disrupts the functioning of a community and prevents it from continuing with its usual activities.
From this perspective, a hurricane in the middle of the ocean is just a natural hazardIt becomes a disaster when it strikes a poorly planned city with precarious housing, lacking early warning systems and resilient infrastructure. The same is true of floods: a river overflowing in a protected area is not the same as a flood in a plain filled with informal settlements built without any planning.
Hence the debate between two major classical approaches. On the one hand, there is the approach more focused on geophysical behavior, which centers on the natural event (an earthquake, an eruption, a cyclone) and on the structural solutions (dams, dikes, walls, building codes) that would allow reduce the physical impactUnder this logic, the population is relegated to a secondary role, and it is assumed that it is enough to follow the technical instructions of experts.
On the other hand, there is the development approach, promoted by authors such as A. Lavell, which argues that disasters are primarily a reflection of unresolved development problemsChronic poverty, lack of social investment, environmental degradation, unequal distribution of wealth, uncontrolled urbanization, and a lack of effective regulation. In this context, disaster is less a punishment from nature and more a symptom of political and economic decisions (or lack thereof).
Ulrich Beck's theory of the global risk society fits well here: we live in a "second modernity" dominated by risks generated by our own actions, from nuclear energy and the chemical industries to genetic manipulation. Risk ceases to be something given by nature and comes to be understood as a social product, built by our technologies, our institutions and our development model.
Key concepts: hazards, vulnerability, and risk
The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and the United Nations have been refining a common terminology for discussing these issues. Understanding it helps to see why the Risk management is a component of sustainable development and not a last-minute addition.
Called natural hazards to phenomena such as earthquakes, volcanoes, TsunamiTropical cyclones and other intense storms, tornadoes, strong winds, river and coastal flooding, forest fires and the smoke they generate, sand and dust storms, or pests are all physical processes that can occur whether people are nearby or not.
La vulnerability It is the degree of fragility or resilience of a socioeconomic system in the face of these dangers. It depends on human factors: where and how we build, the level of poverty or inequality, the quality of infrastructure, how public administration functions, the level of social and community organization, and the level of awareness regarding risks. Poverty consistently appears as one of the fundamental causes of vulnerability in almost every region of the world.
El riskRisk, on the other hand, is the probability that a hazard will cause harm, taking into account both the intensity of the event and the vulnerability of the affected society. Assessing risk involves quantifying that probability, estimating possible impacts, and determining what level of risk we consider acceptable—something that is not only technical but also political and ethical.
When a natural hazard impacts a community with high vulnerability and low response capacity, we speak of natural disaster in a socioeconomic senseA level of damage that society cannot manage with its ordinary means. The UNISDR also includes technological and environmental disasters here when they are linked to a natural hazard (for example, a flood that causes a chemical spill), because in practice the impacts overlap.
Disasters and sustainable development: a two-way relationship
The experience of recent decades demonstrates that disasters are a direct threat to sustainable developmentBetween 1960 and 2000, there was a notable increase in the frequency, severity, and intensity of disasters, particularly during the 1990s. The losses in human lives, infrastructure, and fragile ecosystems have been enormous, and each major disaster reverses or freezes social and economic progress that has taken years to build.
When a major catastrophe occurs, a large portion of public resources is diverted to the emergency response and reconstructionInstead of being allocated to social investment, education, health, or strategic infrastructure, these funds are diverted. If this pattern repeats itself, the capacity of states—rich and poor—to sustain their own development is ultimately exhausted. In countries with high poverty rates, the spiral is even more brutal: disaster exacerbates poverty, poverty increases vulnerability, and therefore, the risk of further disasters grows.
That is why the current approach insists on moving from a model focused on “protecting oneself from danger” to one that integrates the risk management in development policiesIt is not just about having good emergency services, but about ensuring that territorial planning, housing, natural resource management, social policy, and urban regulation take risk reduction as a key objective from the outset.
From the perspective of sustainable development, defined by the World Bank as that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the capabilities of future generations, the risk of disasters is a very real limit: if it is not reduced, we are directly compromising the well-being of future generations and the viability of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) themselves.
Some authors, such as Gallopín, have warned that turning sustainable development into a rigid list of risk management objectives can lead to overly standardized viewsThese approaches, focused on optimization and stabilization, don't always mesh well with the social and political complexities of risk management. Even so, there is broad consensus that without decisive risk reduction policies, there will be no real sustainable development.
International evolution: from Yokohama to Hyogo and Sendai
The international community has been trying for more than three decades to integrate disaster risk reduction into the development agenda. A key milestone was the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDRND, 1990-1999), which served to move from a purely reactive logic to a more preventive and risk management approach.
Based on that experience, the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) was developed, incorporating ideas from the 1994 Yokohama Strategy and the document “A Safer World in the 21st Century: Disaster and Risk Reduction.” The ISDR’s central vision is clear: build societies capable of resisting in the face of natural hazards and technological and environmental disasters, reducing human, economic, social and environmental losses.
To achieve this, the UNISDR relies on four basic pillars: increasing public awareness of risks and solutions; securing firm commitments from authorities; fostering multidisciplinary and intersectoral networks and partnerships; and improving scientific knowledge about the causes and effects of disasters. All of this is done with the aim of integrating risk reduction into sustainable development policies, rather than treating it as an afterthought.
In 2005, the Second World Conference on Disaster Reduction, held in Kobe, Japan, gave rise to Hyogo Framework for ActionThis reinforced this logic and provided a detailed program to help countries strengthen their capacities. Furthermore, it emphasized the need to integrate a gender perspective into all aspects of risk management: assessment, early warning, education, information, and decision-making. This connected with the Beijing Platform for Action and the Millennium Development Goals, particularly the goal of gender equality.
The most recent step is the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030which established seven concrete goals, including substantially reducing global disaster mortality, lowering the number of people affected, decreasing economic losses (in proportion to global GDP) and damage to infrastructure and basic services, increasing the number of countries with national and local risk reduction strategies, improving international cooperation and expanding access to multi-risk early warning systems and risk information.
In parallel, the General Assembly called on the UNISDR to strengthen international cooperation in the face of the El Niño phenomenon and climate variations, as well as strengthen early warning systems as a central focus of disaster reduction, linking this task to global climate change processes. In this sense, initiatives such as investment in satellites for prevention can improve monitoring and early detection of hazards (example of investment in satellites).
SDGs, pandemics and other global risks
The modern concept of sustainable development gained popularity after the Brundtland Commission of 1987, which sought to reconcile economic growth with halting ecological degradation. In 2015, this idea was formalized in the Agenda 2030 and the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, which range from poverty eradication to climate action, including health, education, sustainable cities or equality.
Within the SDGs there is already some space for risk mitigation: for example, SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) includes explicit targets for reduce deaths from disasters and reduce urban environmental impact. However, the agenda has tended to focus on environmental risks linked to climate change Environmental degradation has received less quantifiable attention, while other global risks, such as pandemics or certain technological risks, have received less quantifiable attention.
SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) has 13 targets and 28 indicators, but only one—3.d—refers directly to the mitigation of health risksStrengthening the capacity of all countries for early warning, risk reduction, and management of health risks, especially in developing countries. The COVID-19 crisis demonstrated how costly neglecting these types of indicators can be.
The coronavirus pandemic abruptly halted decades of progress: millions of people fell back into extreme poverty, food systems were disrupted, schools closed for more than a billion children, vaccination campaigns were halted in dozens of countries, and health systems were strained. From a development perspective, investing earlier in pandemic prevention It would probably have had a greater impact on education, the economy, and health than many isolated sectoral policies.
As a result of COVID-19, there has been increased talk of a long-term “risk budget”This idea was popularized by the philosopher Toby Ord. The thesis is that the current period of anthropogenic risk—that is, risk generated by humanity itself, including through advanced technologies and globalization—is unsustainable: we may be lucky for a while, but if we maintain the same annual probabilities of global catastrophes, sooner or later one of them will materialize with existential consequences.
In this context, sustainability is not just about conserving ecosystems or stabilizing the climate, but to protect humanity's long-term potentialThis requires better identifying the risks we have overlooked—from new pandemics to risks linked to emerging technologies—, explicitly deciding what level of risk we are willing to accept, and developing policies to reduce it quickly and sustainably.
The UNISDR: vision, priorities and mechanisms
The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction operates as a international platform It coordinates the efforts of governments, UN agencies, civil society, the private sector, and academia. Its vision, as noted, is to equip societies with the capacity to withstand and adapt to natural hazards and technological and environmental disasters.
To realize this vision, the UNISDR identifies four priority areas of work. The first is... public awarenessWithout an informed citizenry that understands the risks and the options for reducing them, it is difficult to generate sufficient political pressure and lasting behavioral changes. This includes information campaigns, incorporating disaster risk reduction into educational programs at all levels, and providing ongoing risk management training for different age groups and professional profiles.
The second axis is the commitment of public authoritiesDeclarations are not enough; concrete decisions are required: reviewing legal and regulatory frameworks, incorporating risk reduction components into all development plans, establishing economic and fiscal incentives for local mitigation, assessing the vulnerability of critical infrastructure, and periodically reviewing progress and setbacks. It also involves better linking disaster reduction strategies with the implementation of Agenda 21 and, by extension, with sustainable development policies.
The third axis is the multidisciplinary and intersectoral alliancesDuring the International Day for the Development of the National System of Human Rights (IDRN), national committees and focal points were created, demonstrating the usefulness of having platforms where different sectors (technical, political, scientific, and community) could converge. Today, with many more actors involved, the emphasis is on strengthening subregional, regional, and international networks, and on integrating governments, businesses, universities, NGOs, and community organizations into stable cooperation frameworks.
The fourth pillar is the scientific and technical knowledgeTechnological changes in recent decades have improved weather forecasting, seismic monitoring, and satellite remote sensingdisaster-resilient engineering, early warning tools, and geographic information systems. The UNISDR is committed to translating these capabilities into more accurate risk assessments, common standards for quantifying losses, consistent databases, and information-sharing mechanisms that facilitate technology transfer, including South-South cooperation.
In addition, the strategy highlights some cross-cutting areas of interest: the specific vulnerability of poor people; food security and health; the ecosystem management; land use planning, particularly in rural, mountainous, coastal areas and in megacities with informal urbanization; and the development of national, regional and international legal frameworks for disaster reduction.
Actors and alliances: from the United Nations to the World Bank
Implementing this agenda requires coordinating many actors. Within the United Nations ecosystem, the Inter-institutional Task Force It serves as the primary forum for formulating disaster risk reduction strategies and policies. It is chaired by the Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and includes UN agencies, representatives of civil society, and regional organizations, with periodic rotation of non-UN members to ensure diversity and continuity.
Its functions include identifying gaps in policies and programs, proposing corrective actions, ensuring complementarity among agencies, providing strategic advice to the UNISDR secretariat, and convening ad hoc working groups on specific issues. From there, it promotes operational initiatives that are implemented under the leadership of member organizations, always seeking synergies.
La ISDR secretariatThe UN Office, for its part, acts as the administrative and technical focal point, with a small team funded by voluntary contributions. It coordinates strategies and programs within the United Nations system, promotes global awareness campaigns, manages the collection and dissemination of information, and supports national committees in their advocacy and policymaking efforts. To organize its work, it develops annual strategic action plans.
Outside of the UN, the World Bank plays a central role. Through the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRRThe Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction (GFDRR) has positioned itself as a driving force in integrating disaster risk and climate risk into the development and finance agenda. For example, the GFDRR promotes the global "Understanding Risk" community, a network of experts focused on innovation in risk assessment and management.
The World Bank and the GFDRR collaborate with organizations such as the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), the World Meteorological Organization, UNDP, UN Women, and UNEP. These partnerships combine comparative advantagesTechnical capabilities, on-the-ground presence, funding power, or political influence. Together they develop projects for climate change adaptation, strengthening early warning systems, improving risk governance, and promoting nature-based solutions.
Cooperation also extends to other international institutions and the private sector. The GFDRR works with the European Space Agency to accelerate the use of Earth observation in risk management, and with financial and insurance entities through the Resilient Cities Programme and initiatives such as the Insurance Development Forum, the Global Risk Modeling Alliance, and the Global Resilience Index Initiative. The goal is to channel private financing towards resilience investments and transfer technical knowledge from the reinsurance industry to governments.
Universities and civil society organizations are also key players. Academic centers contribute applied research—such as studies on fire safety in built environments—while NGOs and community networks work on the ground to strengthen local resilience, promote nature-based solutions, and support participatory planning processes. All of this anchors risk management in the daily realities of the most vulnerable communities.
Environment, science and ethics in the era of major disasters
Public interest in the environment and disasters has skyrocketed in the 21st century. The combination of extreme events, visible ecological degradation, and the immediate dissemination of shocking images has generated a greater collective awareness on the effects of the industrial development model of recent decades.
Researchers like Joaquín Tintoré have underscored the enormous complexity of the planet's environmental system, of which we are only beginning to understand some fundamental processes. In this context, asking "what is natural about a natural disaster" is not merely a play on words, but a way of questioning our role as a society in generating and amplifying these events and in protecting the well-being of future generations.
The role of science has also changed. It is no longer limited to describing phenomena; it is asked to anticipate risks, propose solutionsCollaborate with communities and policymakers, and contribute to building an ethical framework for sustainable development. Risk science—climatic, technological, and health-related—thus becomes an essential tool for designing policies that not only seek economic growth, but also keep humanity's future open under conditions of reasonable security.
This ethical dimension connects with the very core of sustainable development: enjoying a decent standard of living today without jeopardizing that of future generations. In the context of disasters, this implies to recognize that inaction has a moral costEvery time entire communities are allowed to remain settled on unstable hillsides, floodplains, or precarious neighborhoods without basic services, a level of risk is being accepted that, sooner or later, will take its toll.
Ultimately, disaster management and sustainable development are part of the same conversation about how we want to organize our societies on a finite planet, subject to powerful natural forces but also to human decisions that can amplify or reduce tragedy. The challenge lies in honestly and ambitiously integrating risk reduction into all development policies, broadening the focus beyond climate to include pandemics and technological risks, strengthening cooperation between institutions and communities, and recognizing that true sustainability also implies to responsibly manage the risk we are willing to take as humanity.
