the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 15 Sep 2025
Brief Communication: Rejuvenating and strengthening the science-policy interface required to implement the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
Abstract. Here we discuss the health of the science-policy interface required to support implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Reflecting on the 2025 Global Platform for Disaster Reduction, we identify weaknesses in current mechanisms for scientific engagement. While the Sendai Framework highlights science as foundational to effective risk reduction, engagement remains limited by ad hoc structures and unclear processes. This article proposes three steps to revitalise the science-policy interface, emphasising inclusivity, synthesising scholarly contributions to support knowledge sharing, and dedicated thematic forums. Strengthening this science-policy interface is essential to realising the Sendai Framework's objectives through and beyond 2030.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(690 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(690 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3559', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Oct 2025
Dear author,
Thank you very much for your submission as a brief communication to the NHESS journal. I think the paper fits within the scope of the journal; however, I have some questions and remarks.
Firstly, what I find missing is a clear problem statement and an explanation of why we need to re-think and re-start the science-policy interface for the implementation of the Sendai Framework. What is the actual problem? How does it work at the moment, and why does it not work currently? This remains very unclear in the current version. In addition, why are you mainly focusing on the scientific part while largely excluding the non-academic perspective?
Secondly, please reflect on your recommendations: why do we need these recommendations? What is new in them compared to what has already been known for more than a decade? Many of your points are already well known and have been discussed for a long time, both within and outside the scientific community.
Thirdly, why did you choose the concept of the science-policy interface without including more recent discourses? Why is the literature on transdisciplinary research, team science, and science-society interactions not included in your discussion? These areas provide a wide range of very interesting and useful concepts and ideas for changing the relationships and interactions between academia, policymakers, and non-state actors.
Fourthly, your recommendations are very broad and undefined. For example, regarding the point “a clear and independent coordinating mechanism, etc.”: why and who would be responsible for it? How should it be organized and funded? Who provides the resources? Who has the capacity to conduct it? Who is liable for the actions? How do you ensure accountability and legitimacy? These aspects need to be addressed for each of your recommendations.
Fifthly, please reconsider most of your suggested concepts. For example, learning: what do you mean by “learning” (single-, double-, triple-loop learning, or something else)? Regarding the “design and delivery of activities” on page 5: which activities, and how? Or the thematic groups on page 7, such as EWS or risk communication: what exactly should they do, and on which topics?
Lastly, please reflect on your figures. None of them are particularly helpful in clarifying what needs to be changed, what needs to be done, who should do it, or who is responsible for the transformation process.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3559-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Joel Gill, 04 Dec 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3559', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Oct 2025
The brief communication raises very important questions about the science-policy interface (SPI) in global DRR processes. Several examples are given of how this interface seems to be stagnating, and that interest groups other than scientists were more prominent during the last global platform meeting.
The ideas and recommendations presented are relevant and should be seen as input to an important discussion on the topic. The recommendations under 4.2 and 4.3 are more logical and well presented, while those under 4.1 need more elaboration and clarification. For example, are there potential disadvantages of organising a top-level scientific organisation (4.1a), parallel to the policy one? It is stated that this recommendation is not resource-intensive (row 136) – a claim that needs to be justified. The various consultations proposed in Figure 1 would likely require significant resources. While Figure 1 identifies the different actors and bodies, it is difficult to follow how the proposed processes will take place. An alternative would be to exclude 4.1 and Figure 1 from the paper to give more focus to 4.2 and 4.3.
It is clear that the author’s scope is on the global mechanisms of SPI, but it would also be interesting if the author could reflect on top-down versus bottom-up perspectives – whether the global level is an appropriate level for an effective SPI. What could be the reason for the stagnant global SPI? Could SPI be done at other levels and systematically brought to the global level? This would be partly in line with the recommendations under 4.2 and 4.3, as I understand them (to summarize and communicate research in new ways, etc.).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3559-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Joel Gill, 04 Dec 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3559', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Oct 2025
Dear author,
Thank you very much for your submission as a brief communication to the NHESS journal. I think the paper fits within the scope of the journal; however, I have some questions and remarks.
Firstly, what I find missing is a clear problem statement and an explanation of why we need to re-think and re-start the science-policy interface for the implementation of the Sendai Framework. What is the actual problem? How does it work at the moment, and why does it not work currently? This remains very unclear in the current version. In addition, why are you mainly focusing on the scientific part while largely excluding the non-academic perspective?
Secondly, please reflect on your recommendations: why do we need these recommendations? What is new in them compared to what has already been known for more than a decade? Many of your points are already well known and have been discussed for a long time, both within and outside the scientific community.
Thirdly, why did you choose the concept of the science-policy interface without including more recent discourses? Why is the literature on transdisciplinary research, team science, and science-society interactions not included in your discussion? These areas provide a wide range of very interesting and useful concepts and ideas for changing the relationships and interactions between academia, policymakers, and non-state actors.
Fourthly, your recommendations are very broad and undefined. For example, regarding the point “a clear and independent coordinating mechanism, etc.”: why and who would be responsible for it? How should it be organized and funded? Who provides the resources? Who has the capacity to conduct it? Who is liable for the actions? How do you ensure accountability and legitimacy? These aspects need to be addressed for each of your recommendations.
Fifthly, please reconsider most of your suggested concepts. For example, learning: what do you mean by “learning” (single-, double-, triple-loop learning, or something else)? Regarding the “design and delivery of activities” on page 5: which activities, and how? Or the thematic groups on page 7, such as EWS or risk communication: what exactly should they do, and on which topics?
Lastly, please reflect on your figures. None of them are particularly helpful in clarifying what needs to be changed, what needs to be done, who should do it, or who is responsible for the transformation process.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3559-RC1 - AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Joel Gill, 04 Dec 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3559', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Oct 2025
The brief communication raises very important questions about the science-policy interface (SPI) in global DRR processes. Several examples are given of how this interface seems to be stagnating, and that interest groups other than scientists were more prominent during the last global platform meeting.
The ideas and recommendations presented are relevant and should be seen as input to an important discussion on the topic. The recommendations under 4.2 and 4.3 are more logical and well presented, while those under 4.1 need more elaboration and clarification. For example, are there potential disadvantages of organising a top-level scientific organisation (4.1a), parallel to the policy one? It is stated that this recommendation is not resource-intensive (row 136) – a claim that needs to be justified. The various consultations proposed in Figure 1 would likely require significant resources. While Figure 1 identifies the different actors and bodies, it is difficult to follow how the proposed processes will take place. An alternative would be to exclude 4.1 and Figure 1 from the paper to give more focus to 4.2 and 4.3.
It is clear that the author’s scope is on the global mechanisms of SPI, but it would also be interesting if the author could reflect on top-down versus bottom-up perspectives – whether the global level is an appropriate level for an effective SPI. What could be the reason for the stagnant global SPI? Could SPI be done at other levels and systematically brought to the global level? This would be partly in line with the recommendations under 4.2 and 4.3, as I understand them (to summarize and communicate research in new ways, etc.).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3559-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Joel Gill, 04 Dec 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,270 | 73 | 34 | 1,377 | 32 | 23 |
- HTML: 1,270
- PDF: 73
- XML: 34
- Total: 1,377
- BibTeX: 32
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(690 KB) - Metadata XML