Global Consensus Frameworks, Standards, Guidelines, and Tools: Their Implications in International Development Policy and Practice.

In the present world, International Consensus Frameworks, commonly called global frameworks or global agendas, guide international development policies and practices. They guide the development of all countries and influence the development initiatives by their respective governments. Recent global frameworks, adopted mostly post-2015, include both a group of over-arching frameworks (eg, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [SFDRR]) and a group of frameworks addressing specific issues (eg, the Dhaka Declaration on Disability and Disaster Risk Management). These global frameworks serve twin purposes: first, to set a global development standard, and second, to set policies and approaches to achieve these standards. A companion group of professional standards, guidelines, and tools (ie, Sphere's Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards) guide the implementation and operationalization of these frameworks on the ground.This paper gathers these global frameworks and core professional guidelines in one place, presents an analytical review of their essential features, and highlights the commonalities and differences between and among these frameworks. The aim of this paper is to facilitate understanding of these frameworks and to help in designing development and resilience policy, planning, and implementation, at international and national levels, where these frameworks complement and contribute to each other.This Special Report describes an important and evolving aspect of the discipline and provides core information necessary to progress the science. Additionally, the report will help governments and policy makers to define their priorities and to design policies/strategies/programs to reflect the global commitments. Development practitioners can pre-empt the focus of the international community and the assistance coming from donors to the priority sectors, as identified in the global agenda. This would then help governments and stakeholders to develop and design a realistic plan and program and prepare the instruments and mechanisms to deliver the goals.

Defining disaster resilience: comparisons from key stakeholders involved in emergency management in Victoria, Australia.

Three years after the introduction of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience there remains no unanimously adopted definition of disaster resilience within Australia's emergency management sector. The aim of this study is to determine what the concept means to key stakeholders in the emergency management sector in the Australian State of Victoria, and how these conceptualisations overlap and diverge. Via an online survey, 113 people were asked how they define disaster resilience in their work in the emergency management sector. A data mining software tool, Leximancer, was employed to uncover the relationships between the definitions provided. The findings show that stakeholders see resilience as an 'ability' that encompasses emergency management activities and personal responsibility. However, the findings also highlight some possible points of conflict between stakeholders. In addition, the paper outlines and discusses a number of potential consequences for the implementation and the success of the resilience-based approach in Australia.