Coronavirus (COVID-19) is a humanitarian emergency, which started in Wuhan in China in early December 2019, brought into the notice of the authorities in late December, early January 2020, and, after investigation, was declared as an emergency in the third week of January 2020. The WHO declared this as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) on 31th of January 2020, and finally a pandemic on 11th March 2020. As of March 24th, 2020, the virus has caused a casualty of over 16,600 people worldwide with more than 380,000 people confirmed as infected by it, of which more than 10,000 cases are serious. Mainly based on Chinese newspapers, social media and other digital platform data, this paper analyzes the timeline of the key actions taken by the government and people over three months in five different phases. It found that although there was an initial delay in responding, a unique combination of strong governance, strict regulation, strong community vigilance and citizen participation, and wise use of big data and digital technologies, were some of the key factors in China’s efforts to combat this virus. Being inviable and non-measurable (unlike radioactive exposure), appropriate and timely information is very important to form the basic foundation of mitigation and curative measures. Infodemic, as it is termed by WHO, is a key word, where different stakeholder’s participation, along with stricter regulation, is required to reduce the impact of fake news in this information age and social media. Although different countries will need different approaches, focusing on its humanitarian nature and addressing infodemic issues are the two critical factors for future global mitigation efforts.

Corona Virus (CODID-19) was first reported in Wuhan in December 2019, then spread in different parts of China, and gradually became a global pandemic in March 2020. While the death toll is still increasing, the epicenter of casualty has shifted from Asia to Europe, and that of the affected people has shifted to USA. This paper analyzes the responses in East Asian countries, in China, Japan and South Korea, and provides some commonalities and lessons. While countries have different governance mechanism, it was found that a few governance decisions in respective countries made a difference, along with strong community solidarity and community behavior. Extensive use of emerging technologies is made along with medical/health care treatment to make the response more effective and reduce the risk of the spread of the disease. Although the pandemic was a global one, its responses were local, depending on the local governance, socio-economic and cultural context.

The important role that local knowledge and practices can play in reducing risk and improving disaster preparedness is now acknowledged by disaster risk reduction specialists, especially since the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. However, they have yet to be commonly used by communities, scientists, practitioners and policy-makers. We believe that local and indigenous knowledge needs to be integrated with science before it can be used in policies, education, and actions related to disaster risk reduction and climate change. This paper presents a process for integrating local and indigenous knowledge related to hydro-meteorological hazards and climate change with science, developed through a project implemented among coastal and small island communities in Indonesia, the Philippines and Timor-Leste. The process involves observation, documentation, validation, and categorization of local and indigenous knowledge, which can then be selected for integration with science. This process is unique in that it allows communities to (1) identify knowledge that can be integrated with science, which could then be further disseminated for use by scientists, practitioners and policy-makers, and (2) safeguard and valorize those that cannot be scientifically explained. By introducing a process that can be used in other communities and countries, we hope to promote the use of local and indigenous knowledge to enable communities to increase their resilience against the impacts of climate change and disasters

To understand the impact of earthquake experience and education on awareness, a survey was conducted with 1,065 high school first grade students from five prefectures of Japan. Results showed that earthquake experience is not the prime factor to enhance awareness. Education, when it is confined to school education, can provide useful information as the knowledge base for earthquake. However, in the gradual path of knowing, realizing, deepening, decision and action, family, community, and self education are found to be more prominent. While, self education is important for realizing and deepening, family and community education play the most vital role for decision and actions. In school education, more active ways of disaster education through conversation, experiencing, and visual aids are found to be more effective. It is believed that school education, coupled with self, family and community education can help a student to develop a “culture of disaster preparedness”, which, in turn, will urge them to take right decisions and actions as an adult.

2020 has become the year of coping with COVID-19. This year was to be the “super year” for sustainability, a year of strengthening global actions to accelerate the transformations required for achieving the 2030 agenda. We argue that 2020 can and must be a year of both. Thus we call for more utilisation of the health-emergency disaster risk management (Health-EDRM) framework to complement current responses to COVID-19 and the patent risk of similar phenomena in the future. To make our case, we examine current responses to COVID-19 and their implications for the SFDRR. We argue that current mechanisms and strategies for disaster resilience, as outlined in the SFDRR, can enhance responses to epidemics or global pandemics such as COVID-19. In this regard, we make several general and DRR-specific recommendations. These recommendations concern knowledge and science provision in understanding disaster and health-related emergency risks, the extension of disaster risk governance to manage both disaster risks and potential health-emergencies, particularly for humanitarian coordination aspects; and the strengthening of community-level preparedness and response.