CSS-ETH at the Global Platform DRR; Day 3

Authors Jurgena Kamberaj & Simon Aebi from the Center for Security Studies | ETH Zürich

Dear readers,

Welcome to this special reporting series from the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction 2025 (GP2025), coming to Geneva from 2-6 June. If you have not yet read about this blog, you will find here a short description. It is Day 3 of the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction (GP2025).

How can we improve our understanding of systemic risk in the age of polycrisis?

The Technical Session on Understanding systemic risk in the age of polycrisis explored this question by unpacking the nature of systemic risk. These risks do not stem from a single hazard. They emerge from interlinked vulnerabilities across communities, sectors, and geographies. Whether in coastal regions, metropolitan centers, or among mobile populations, what connects them is the underlying and often persistent social and economic conditions that determine exposure and shape resilience. The 2024 UNDRR Briefing Note on Systemic Risk was referenced as a foundational step to bridge science, policy, and practice.

“The defining feature of a polycrisis is not just risk, but the uncertainty that surrounds how to respond.” @Ruth Richardson, Executive Director, Accelerating systemic risk assessment (@Accelerator for Systemic Risk Assessment (ASRA))

Systemic risk refers to the underlying patterns that make certain groups or systems vulnerable to disruption. The concept of polycrisis, in contrast, describes a situation where these risks interact, often simultaneously, creating cascading impacts across institutional, social, and environmental systems. Navigating such conditions is particularly difficult under conditions of uncertainty, that is, when data, knowledge, and governance mechanisms are fragmented or incomplete.

What is needed is an overarching system that enables action amid uncertainty and brings together different forms of knowledge: technical, scientific, and traditional.

“We believe blending science and traditional knowledge is essential for meaningful preparedness and resilience…” (H.E. Mr. Surangel Samuel Whipps Jr., President, Republic of Palau (@Surangel Whipps))

The high-level dialogue examined how enhanced risk understanding translates into informed policy and investment decisions. The foundation is knowledge, both scientific and traditional, and what it reveals about the diverse actors affected by disasters. Next to cultural and psychological factors that shape how people perceive risk, accessible, timely, and understandable data are crucial. The discussion reinforced that trans- and interdisciplinary science must inform policy to create meaningful action. But it is also imperative that science accounts for policy and community aspects to align with the actual needs and establish relevant indicators. A tool that captures and bridges these interdependencies is investments in disaster risk reduction. Effective investments combine data-driven planning with action and follow-up through impact assessment.

An example of how this integration can work in practice was presented in a side event organized by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC (@Direktion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit and @Pierre-Yves Pitteloud). The event presented an ongoing project on Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF) Hazard Modelling and Risk Management in the Indian Himalayas and the Tian Shan Region. The efforts serve as an example of how science, policy, and practice can come together collaboratively and contribute to innovative actions, policy development, and knowledge management.

The Learning Lab on Early Warning Systems offered a grounded perspective on one of the most actionable tools in disaster risk reduction. Most disasters in the Andean region, including those in Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, are hydrometeorological in nature. These events, such as floods, droughts, and landslides, can often be anticipated through systematic monitoring and forecasting. The discussion highlighted the evolution from single-hazard systems, designed for one specific type of risk, to multi-hazard systems that can capture and integrate multiple overlapping threats. This transition requires adapted technologies, coordinated institutional frameworks, and a clear understanding of local vulnerabilities.

Provocateur: Who is provoking whom?

The day ended with Science, Innovation & Technology Mixer hosted by @United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) (@Adam Fysh) and @Geneva Science-Policy Interface (GSPI) (@Nicolas Seidler). The goal was to move beyond surface-level networking and stimulate deeper exchanges among participants. To achieve this, the event introduced “Provocateurs”: individuals tasked with challenging assumptions, asking uncomfortable questions, and sparking discussions across sectors. The idea was not to disrupt for the sake of disruption, but to test ideas, sharpen positions, and bring hidden tensions to the surface. This approach— using provocation as a constructive force —prompted the two think tankers, Jurgena and Simon, to reflect on what it means for resilience.

To become more resilient, academia should provoke governments. Society should provoke academia and governments. The government should provoke the private sector. Ultimately, every domain should provoke and be open to being provoked. In the context of disaster risk reduction, this should not be seen as a negative trait, but as a constructive approach. One that makes discussions more meaningful, decisions more grounded, and approaches more inclusive.

Therefore, irrespective of the domain one comes from, to enhance disaster risk reduction, we must all challenge each other by being a positive provocateur and embracing provocation as an opportunity.