Multilevel Governance in Island Developing States: Policy Adaptation Insights and Practices into the Human-Nature Systems

Open Geosciences Multilevel Governance in Island Developing States: Policy Adaptation Insights and Practices into the Human-Nature Systems --Manuscript Draft-- Manuscript Number: OPENGEO-D-21-00156 Full Title: Multilevel Governance in Island Developing States: Policy Adaptation Insights and Practices into the Human-Nature Systems Article Type: Research Article Keywords: Sustainable Development, Policy Analysis, Urban Risk Planning, Small Island Developing States, Africa, Corresponding Author: Carlos Germano Ferreira Costa BRAZIL Corresponding Author Secondary Information: Corresponding Author's Institution: Corresponding Author's Secondary Institution: First Author: Carlos Germano Ferreira Costa First Author Secondary Information: Order of Authors: Carlos Germano Ferreira Costa Order of Authors Secondary Information: Abstract: In the context of fast unplanned urbanization, disasters and natural hazards continue to rise. The IPCC 1.5°C Report (2018), the Sendai Framework, and the New Urban Agenda recognized and identified local capacity as a crucial enabler of multilevel governance to effectively respond to climate change and disasters. This study assesses multilevel governance linkages among political institutions and government effectiveness in its institutional and dimensional contexts. The paper builds on earlier ecological approaches to urban development and more recent thinking in the field of human-nature systems (Plessi, 2018; Preiser et al., 2018; Stenffen et al., 2018; Zepp et al., 2018; Lena Rau et al., 2019; Veselova, 2019). It denotes a steering and coordination process that involves a plurality of actors operating at different institutional levels in Cabo Verde. Cabo Verde is a Small Island Developing State in the Sahelian eco-climate zone of the Western Africa region, disproportionately affected by disasters, fundamentally due to various size and resource restrictions. The use of administrative data provides a costeffective way of capturing insights from practice. It is useful to frame what is considered "hard measures" by addressing and reviewing supra-national and national norms, activities, and performance regarding urban risk governance. Further, the limited capacity of local governments, severe social and economic bottlenecks, and insufficient recognition of disaster risks create handicaps in articulating macro- and micro-level policies, calling for a reassessment of disaster management policies and normative approaches in public policy implementation. Suggested Reviewers: Carlos Gergório Hernández Díaz-Ambrona, Prof. Prof., Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieria Agronomica Alimentaria y de Biosistemas carlosgregorio.hernandez@upm.es Specialist in Sustainable Development Isidro Franciso Aguillo Caño, Prof. Prof. Isidro.aguillo@cchs.csic.es Powered by Edit orial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Syst em s Corporat ion Rubén García Nuevo, Prof. Prof., Universidad Autónoma de Madrid ruben.garcia@uam.es Santiago Alonso Gonzáles, Prof. Prof., Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieria Agronomica Alimentaria y de Biosistemas santiago.gonzaleza@upm.es Opposed Reviewers: Powered by Edit orial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Syst em s Corporat ion Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Main document_SIDS_ADAPTATION_Rev_Clean_II.docx MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE IN ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES: POLICY ADAPTATION INSIGHTS AND PRACTICES INTO THE HUMAN-NATURE SYSTEMS Abstract –In the context of fast unplanned urbanization, disasters and natural hazards continue to rise. The IPCC 1.5°C Report (2018), the Sendai Framework, and the New Urban Agenda recognized and identified local capacity as a crucial enabler of multilevel governance to effectively respond to climate change and disasters. This study assesses multilevel governance linkages among political institutions and government effectiveness in its institutional and dimensional contexts. The paper builds on earlier ecological approaches to urban development and more recent thinking in the field of human-nature systems (Plessi, 2018; Preiser et al., 2018; Stenffen et al., 2018; Zepp et al., 2018; Lena Rau et al., 2019; Veselova, 2019). It denotes a steering and coordination process that involves a plurality of actors operating at different institutional levels in Cabo Verde. Cabo Verde is a Small Island Developing State in the Sahelian eco-climate zone of the Western Africa region, disproportionately affected by disasters, fundamentally due to various size and resource restrictions. The use of administrative data provides a costeffective way of capturing insights from practice. It is useful to frame what is considered "hard measures" by addressing and reviewing supra-national and national norms, activities, and performance regarding urban risk governance. Further, the limited capacity of local governments, severe social and economic bottlenecks, and insufficient recognition of disaster risks create handicaps in articulating macro- and micro-level policies, calling for a reassessment of disaster management policies and normative approaches in public policy implementation. Keywords: Sustainable Development, Policy Analysis, Urban Risk Planning, Small Island Developing States, Africa, 1.INTRODUCTION 1 Small Island Developing States (SIDS) is a distinguished assembly of 58 countries scattered over the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans and the Caribbean, Mediterranean, and South China seas (UN-OHRLLS, 2020) (Figure 1). The United Nations recognizes 38 U.N. Member States –including Least Developed Countries (LDCs) belonging to the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) –, and at least 20 non-UN Members or Associate Members of Regional Commissions (U.N., 1994; 2002; 2005; 2014; UNOHRLLS, 2011; 2013; 2020; AOSIS, 2020;). In this framework, the growing masses of people and economic activities in urban areas overlap with zones of high-risk exposure generating negative externalities (UNISDR, 2015; 2015a; Chilunga, Rodriguez-Lanes, & Guha-Sapir, 2017; Ferreira Costa, 2021) –noting that the population for many SIDS is concentrated in their largest urban agglomeration, often their capital city (Kehew & Mayr, 2015). Human Settlements in SIDS are on the front edge of climate change, being environmentally, socio-economically, and financially unprotected to disasters and climate change events (U.N., 1992; UN-OHRLLS, 2011; 2013; IPCC, 2014; UNDESA, 2014; Kehew & Mayr, 2015; Nagabhatla et al., 2019; Gheuens, Nagabhatla, & Perera, 2019). Coastal systems face many impacts from climate change; they have been endangered by a full spectrum of climate-related uncertainties, including droughts, floods, sea-level rise, storm surges, rising sea temperatures, ocean acidification, and saltwater intrusion (IPCC, 2013; IPCC, 2014; 2014a). By 2050, the urban population exposed to cyclones is foreseen to increase from 310 million to 680 million. In comparison, exposure to significant earthquakes risks is awaited to affect from 370 million to 870 million people (W.B., 2013). SIDS urban areas are experiencing the global trends towards urbanization, regarding the impacts of rising hunger and malnutrition rates, poverty, and vulnerability to the climate, as mentioned earlier, confined within its hard limits of natural resources 2 and limited governance capacity (ICLEI, 2018; 100RC Network, 2019; Ferreira Costa, 2021). Moreover, human settlements in these areas often have limited information about local climate change impacts and lack financial resources, institutional capacity, and the engineering/planning bases to develop appropriate adaptation measures (Kehew & Mayr, 2015; Lehmann et al., 2020). It is expected that the exposure of urban assets to sea level rise and flooding could amount to US$ 1 trillion by mid-century (C40Cities, 2020). In contrast, urban expansion financing is also set to rise from US$7.2 trillion in 2011 to US$12 trillion by 2020 (UNISDR, 2013). Therefore, the understanding and knowledge of needs and priorities of people, communities, and institutions in increasingly complex urban setups are needed (UNISDR, 2015a; Ferreira Costa, 2021), in a setting that places the rising number of disasters and their occurrence in combination with rising inequality. It compels the need for sustainable urban planning and resilience building, in a context where rural areas, compared to urban zones, seize most of the current disaster preparedness and response, recovery methodologies discussions, and available tools (UNISDR, 2015; UNDP, 2017; Zepp et al., 2018; Lena Rau et al., 2019). In this regard, the IPCC 1.5oC Report (2018) identifies local capacity needs as key for enabling multilevel governance to completely respond to climate change and disasters. Thus, against this framework, we can define governance as the political and institutional means through which decisions are taken and performed in a specific subnational geographic region (UCLG, 2018). It draws attention to the urgent need for global support to strengthening the institutional conditions for comprehensive adaptation public policy within the Small Island States context, as climate change impacts are primarily experienced locally (Agarwal et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2012; ICLEI, 2018; IPCC, 2018). Besides, the governance perspective typically argues that the sources of political power – the State's power –is changing. However, states still control considerable power and 3 resources. Still, state-centric models of governance maintain their focus on the role of political and administrative institutions and interactions among these institutions (Torfing et al., 2012). 4 Figure 1. Geographical Distribution of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), according to UN-OHRLLS (http://unohrlls.org/about-sids/country-profiles/) 5 Against this background, the objective of this study is to capture sustainable development and disaster risk reduction (DRR) insights for urban risk policy and planning from practice in Praia, Cabo Verde (Ferreira Costa, 2021). We apply ecological thinking to the urban –as cities remain the most tightly coupled human-nature system and therefore present a particular challenge to research social-ecological systems (Plessis, 2008). From the perspective of an evaluative framework encompassing social, political, human, financial, and environmental criteria, we develop recommendations for policy formulation and articulation to strengthen local governance; to further contribute to the discussions of enabling risk reduction and climate change adaptation (CCA) public policies implementation at the local level. The study conducts an administrative assessment of those DRR global initiatives' illustrative elements that could support SIDS to develop urban risk planning capacities. The chosen elements connect with the SDGs indicators in the 2030 Agenda and the Sendai Framework targets and priorities in the UNDRR's making cities resilient framework (UNDRR, 2012; 2020) and other international and regional sustainable and resilient initiatives in all government levels and local communities for Cabo Verde. When feasible, we attempt to make correlations between macro disaster risk policies in urban risk planning in SIDS and African coastal cities. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Case Study Site Cabo Verde, officially the Republic of Cabo Verde, is a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) spanning an archipelago of 10 volcanic islands in the center of the Atlantic Ocean, in the Sahelian eco-climate zone of the Western Africa region, situated 500 km off Senegal, with 4,033 km2 of surface area, between latitudes 14º 28' N and 17º 12' N and longitudes 22º 40' W and 25º 22' W (UNDATA, 2020; W.B., 2020; UNDAF, 2018- 6 2022). It forms part of the Macaronesia Ecoregion and the Azores, Canary Islands, Madeira, and the Savage Islands. Although, Cabo Verde is grouped in the African, Indian, and South China Seas (AIS), along with Guineas-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Comoros, Seychelles, Mauritius, The Maldives, and Singapore (AOSIS, 2020) (Figure 2). Figure 2. Geographical Localization of Cabo Verde in Africa Cabo Verde is defined by a unitary country, with a single level of sub-national governments composed of 22 municipalities, with an average municipal size of 23,356 inhabitants (OECD, 2016) (Appendix A –Table A.1.). Politics in Cabo Verde have mainly been consensus-oriented, and since its independence from Portugal in 1975, elections are 7 recognized democratic and fair, and parties in power alternate regularly both nationally and at the local level (W.B., 2020). Approximately 88% of the population lives on four islands (56% in Santiago; 15% in São Vicente; 9% in Santo Antão, and 8% in Fogo) (World Bank, 2018, p.11). A little more than half of the population —236,000 inhabitants —lives on Cabo Verde's main island, Santiago (OECD, 2016). The country has a very young population –age distribution of 28.4% (0-14 years old), and 7.3% (60+ years old) (UNDATA, 2020), with an average age of about 28.3 years in 2016 (UNDAF 2018-2020), and a density of 136,5 people per km2, with a total population of 550,000 inhabitants (2019); with an estimated national population growth rate of 1.3% (2015) (UNDATA, 2020). Around 66,2% of the population lives in urban areas (2015) (UNDATA, 2020). In Africa's fast urbanizing regions, the urban population is foreseen to reach 56% (currently at 40%) and 66% worldwide by 2050 (UN-OHRLLS, 2013; UNISDR, 2015a). Its largest city –also the capital city –Praia, has an estimated population of 167,500 inhabitants (2018), and a rapid urban population growth rate of 2% (average annual %) (UNDATA, 2020). Life expectancy at birth accounts for 67.9 years for males, and 75.0 years for females (2015) (Appendix A –Table A.2.). The national currency is named “Cabo Verde Escudo” (CVE), with an exchange rate of 96.3 per USD, in 2018 (UNDATA, 2020). Cabo Verde's monetary policy is closely aligned with Europe, with the local currency pegged to the Euro (W.B., 2020). Cabo Verde's economy is driven by tourism (W.B., 2018; 2020). The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) reached 1,773 million current USD (2017), with a GDP growth rate of 4% (annual % const. 2010 prices) (2017), with a GDP per capita of 3,244.7 current USD (2017) (UNDATA, 2020). Its absolute poverty line embraced 35% of the population in 2015 (W.B., 2018; 2019). Services and related activities account for 71.9% of Gross Value Added (GVA), employing 26.3% of 8 the workforce, followed by Industry (21.1%), employing 6.9% of the population (UNDATA, 2020). Agriculture engages the majority of the population 66.8%, generating only 7% of GVA (according to the World Bank, it employs 15% of the population), although only 10% of its territory is categorized as arable land (UNDATA, 2020; W.B., 2020). The labor force participation ratio (female/male pop. %) reaches an estimated 65.5/73.2, with an estimated unemployment rate of 10.4% in 2019 (UNDATA, 2020). Cabo Verde witnessed spectacular social and economic progress between 1990 and 2008 –exiting the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group in 2007 and attaining the status of a middle-income country –, driven mainly by the accelerated development of inclusive tourism resorts (Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; W.B., 2018; 2020). However, during the 2009-2015 period, economic growth deaccelerated significantly, due to the protracted impacts of the financial crisis; since the LDC graduation coincided with the 2008 global financial crisis, Cabo Verde was engulfed into the middle-income trap, a constraint magnified by vulnerabilities as a SIDS and a Sahelian country (Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; Ferreira Costa, 2020; 2020a). Countercyclical fiscal actions did not recover growth, and instead, it led to an explicit increment in the stock of debt, maintaining the country at a high risk of external debt distress. The accumulation of public debt rose from 126% to 129.1% of GDP in 2018, reflecting increased support to selected state-owned initiatives (W.B., 2020). Like other SIDS, the country is highly dependent on the international community. In this regard, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) accounts for more than 40% of total external resources in Cabo Verde (Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; Ferreira Costa, 2020). Although the current deficit fell to 4.9% of GDP in 2018, in nominal terms, the deficit reached minus 880 million current USD, in International Trade Balance (2018). A deficit of 104 million USD, in its Balance of Payments current account, minus 930 million current USD in International Trade 9 Imports, and only 51 million current USD in International trade Exports in 2019, remains a cause of concern (UNDATA, 2020; W.B., 2020). Cabo Verde's government is clearly under fiscal and budget constraints (Appendix A –Table A.3.). Massive high-impact disaster in Cabo Verde is not frequent. However, as a SIDS and a Sahelian country, it shares disproportionate challenges for sustainable development and heightened vulnerabilities for natural and environmental events, with a substantial financial and economic toll on society and economic sectors (Steffen et al., 2018; Ferreira Costa, 2020; 2020a) (Appendix A –Table A.4.). Many areas of the country remain seismically active –the most recent significant eruption occurred in November 2014 on Fogo's island. Tropical storms seldom affect the islands –hurricane Fred caused extensive damage in 2015 (GFDRR, 2017) (Appendix B –Table B.1.). Due to its geographic localization in the Sahelian eco-climate zone of the Western Africa region, extreme droughts, food insecurity events, and famine have been recurrent in recent decades, and climate change impacts seem to be exacerbating its effects on vulnerable populations, driving economic migrations from rural areas to the capital city (Ferreira Costa, 2020). One-third of the city's population lives below the national poverty line, in informal settlements, in high-risk prone areas (UNDRR, 2020) (Appendix B –Table B.2.). 2.1.1. Municipality of Praia The city of Praia is the capital of the Republic of Cabo Verde (Figure 3). The city is subdivided into eight administrative areas covering both urban and rural areas. More than 95% of the city's 167,500 inhabitants reside in the urban area, which continually increases. It concentrates more than a quarter of the national populace (28,2%) (OECD, 2016; UNDRR, 2019). Since 1990, the capital city of Praia, has seen the number of inhabitants increase by 32%, reaching 132,317 people in 2014 (urban population growth rate of 3% per year) (Lopes et al., 2014), to finally reach 167,500 inhabitants (2018), 10 under an urban population growth rate of 2% (average annual %) (UNDATA, 2020). The city counts with a Basic Law of Spatial Planning and Urban Planning (LBOTPU, in Portuguese), under Legislative Decree No. 1/2006, with changes introduced by Legislative Decree No. 6/2010. The legislation defines the Municipal Master Plan (PDM, 2016), establishing the planning (and management) instruments that govern the spatial organization of the entire municipal territory (PRAIA CITY COUNCIL, 2016; 2016a; MIOTH, 2016). Nevertheless, strict enforcement of environmental planning standards and regulations and urban planning efforts is inefficient (Kehew & Mayr, 2015). In Praia, the lack of urban land regularization and enforcement, and the accelerated pace of population growth —due to internal and international migration have been co-occurred with the lack of effective housing policies and programs. The government is unable and lacks the capacity to responding adequately to housing demand, leading to an exponential increase in neighborhoods and illegal buildings located on the steep slopes and flood plains, which represent a higher risk, especially during the rainy seasons (UNDRR, 2019a). Therefore, the outcome has been the generation of unplanned communities on the outskirts of the capital city. Praia's current urbanization pattern surpasses the world's urban expansion trend (40% of global urban expansion occurs in the form of slums). More than 50% of Praia's city is unplanned (Monteiro et al., 2012 pp.117-119; UNISDR, 2015a; UNDRR, 2019). Although the Spatial Planning and Urban Planning (LBOTPU) identified the location of the most problematic areas and points according to geological, geomorphologic, and hydrological risk areas in the municipality of Praia, the risk map and hazard profile of the city is not available to date, and Law enforcement remains insufficient. As a result, people continue to construct buildings in areas prone to erosion 11 or landslides. Some try to circumvent planning restrictions by building at night to avoid oversight and compliance (UNDRR, 2019). 12 Figure 3. Location of Santiago´s Island, and the Urbanization pattern of the City of Praia 13 2.2. Qualitative Research The paper focuses mainly on multilevel governance for sustainable development and disaster-risk on urban planning in SIDS. We give careful consideration to a middleAtlantic capital city –Praia, in Cabo Verde, by covering sustainable development partnerships. The paper conducted qualitative research based on the local Caboverdian governments and administrative data regarding Disaster Risk Management (DRM) policy implementation, supported by third-party reports, such as case studies, audit reports, and development agency statistics. Our comprehensive analysis consisted of a review of 95 sources, ranging from agencies and government statistics –performance data and information –generated by the Caboverdian government authorities and the international community (12 documents), as well as policy documents (37 documents), and audit and project/program reports (9 documents). We consulted a total of 33 peer-reviewed papers (Table 1). We adopted the Database keyword search approach (DB WKS), as a simple summary of sources, in international journal database content exploration by incorporating ontologies to better capture the object of the study, based on specific keywords focusing on multi-level governance on SIDS, having Cabo Verde as the central object of investigation. We explored multidisciplinary international databases covering material published in the humanities and social sciences such as SCIC (Spanish National Research Council), DOAJ, Scopus, Web of Science, and Scielo Portugal. Regional and international documents and references were included when deemed necessary. We had no intention to identify the number of papers per year, research goals, nor combine summary and synthesis. The first part of the study is based on a literature review of reports, policy documents, published articles, and books. Multiple data sources, ranging from international development organizations and government publications to academic literature, were used to get a comprehensive (although not exhaustive) understanding of 14 disaster-risk and urban management challenges in SIDS. A second phase employed observation of local urban management trends and recommendations that can be extrapolated to other geographies facing similar pressures. In this study, the multilevel governance perspective concerned the scope of verticalization and horizontalization of governance. Several actors share the decisionmaking at varying levels of capacity, in contrast to static and centralized contexts, where a single state, groups, or individuals control the entire process (Schakel, Hooge, & Marks, 2015; Schakel, 2016). It can, somehow, reflect macro policy frameworks having a more significant consideration of local actors as implementers of disaster risk and climate change adaptation strategies because decisions impact locally (Di Gregorio et al., 2019; UNFCCC, 2020). This approach is beneficial for appraising the quality of institutional and administrative Adaptation resources, processes, and performance since the data utilized already closely adheres to existing Caboverdian public-sector risk reduction functions. A desk review and synthesis of existing data, information, open access publications, and third-party reports were carried out to understand the status and sociopolitical and socioeconomic context of Cabo Verde. This research assumes that meaningful local level risk reduction and adaptative climate policy implementation, in urban settings, must consider the normative and administrative dynamics and their linkages with historical processes, socioeconomic vulnerability and risk exposure, poverty reduction goals, and evidence-based decisionmaking. These are critical and interdependent approaches to build and maintain resilience and sustainable socioeconomic transformation (UNDRR, 2012; 2015; 2020; IPCC, 2014). Therefore, we examined representative reports and case studies to illustrate the successes that can be captured and the gaps that need to be addressed for urban risk planning and articulation in SIDS. 15 Table 1. Consulted Documents. Subject Government International Community Policy Documents U.N. (1992; 2002; 2014; 2016; 2019). UN-OHRLLS. (2011). UNISDR. (2013). UNDRR. (2015). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDESA. (2015; 2019). W.B. (2019). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). UNDP. (2017a). LDC Watch. (2020). UN-OHRLLS. (2020). Research Papers Statistics Multilevel Governance Disaster Risk Reduction/Adaptation Climate Policy Local Government Urbanization PEDS. (2017-2021). UNDAF. (2018-2022). GoCV/MEA. (2007). UNDP. (2016; 2017; 2017a). GoCV. (2017). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNFCCC. (2020). UNDRR. (2019a; 2020). GoCV/MEA. (2007). GoCV. (2017). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDAF. (2018-2022). MIOTH. (2016). PDM. (2016). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDRR. (2019; 2020a). MIOTH. (2016). PDM. (2016). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDRR. (2019a; 2020). Torfing et al., (2012). Schakel, Hooghe, & Marks, (2015). Schakel, (2016). Ojwang et al., (2017). Shakya et al., (2018). Di Gregorio et al., (2019). W.B. (2013). UNDP. (2016; 2017a). CRED. (2017). EM-DAT. (2020). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). UNDRR. (2012; 2015). IPCC. (2013). UNDESA. (2014). UNISDR. (2015). UNDP. (2016; 2017; 2017a). GFDRR. (2017). Oliver-Smith, A. (2016). Söjstedt & Povitkina, (2016). Al-Nammari & Alzaghal, (2015). Gheuens, Nagabhatla, & Perera, (2019). Green et al., (2019). Nagabhata et al, (2019). Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2020a, 2021). W.B. (2013). UNDATA. (2020). IPCC. (2013). COP23. (2017). IPCC. (2014; 2018). Agarwal et al., (2012). Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2020). PDM. (2016). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). W.B. (2020). ICLEI. (2018). Baker et al., (2012). Williams et al., (2020). OECD. (2016). PDM. (2016). UNDAF. (2018-2022). 100RC Network. (2019). UNDATA. (2020). UNDRR. (2012). UNISDR. (2015a). U.N. (2015). C40Cities. (2020). UNDAF. (2018-2022). Monteiro et al., (2012). Lopes et al., (2014). Kehew & Mayr, (2015). Chilunga, RodriguezLlanes, & Guha-Sapir, (2017). 16 Williams et al., (2019). Lehmann et al., (2020). Small Island Developing States Human-Nature Systems Methodological Approach UNDAF. (2018-2022). UN-OHRLLS. (2019). UN-OHRLLS. (2013). SPC. (2019). UCLG. (2018). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). UNDAF. (2018-2022). OECD. (2016). W.B. (2018). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). UNISDR. (2017b). QGIS. (2020). UNDATA. (2020). U.N. (1994; 2005; 2014; 2016; 2019). IPCC. (2014a). AOSIS. (2020). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDESA. (2019). UN-OHRLLS. (2020). Kehew & Mayr, (2015). Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, (2019). U.N. (2002). UNDAF. (2018-2022). Plessis (2008). Preiser et al., (2018). Steffen et al., (2018). Zepp et al., (2018) Lena Rau et al., (2019) Veselova, (2019). UNISDR. (2017; 2017a). Upcraft & Schuh, (1996). Bresciani, Gadner, & Hickmott, (2009). Patton, (2014). Ospina, Esteve, & Lee, (2017). Denzin & Lincoln, (2017). Gilad, (2019). 17 2.3. Maps The paper uses maps for the best visualization of essential issues. For this, the QGIS-OSGeo4W-3.10.5-1 (2020) was used. The data source for shapefiles utilized was ArcGIS Hub and OpenStreetMap.org. The reference system employed was the Geographic Coordinate System DATUM EPSG: 4326-WGS84, and Geographic Coordinate System DATUM EPSG: 3857-WGS84; used to compose georeferenced maps of the archipelago, the islands of Cabo Verde, and the city of Praia, to facilitate the identification and observation of the study area. 3. RESULTS In this study, the definitions by Schakel, Hooghe, & Marks (2015), Schakel (2016), Söjstedt & Povitkina (2016), and Shakya et al., (2018) are used to combine the assessment of vertical linkages with political institutions and government effectiveness in its institutional dimensional contexts. They denote a steering and coordination process that involves a plurality of actors operating at different institutional levels. In this context, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) are procedures used by decision-makers to overcome the vulnerability of a country or city to disasters, for instance, by enhancing disaster preparedness and applying more efficient management of natural resources (UNDRR, 2020). Adaptation stratagems are recognized as strategies that help adjust society to changing climatic conditions (Oliver-Smith, 2016; Steffen et al., 2018). Table 2 outlines main frameworks, actions, and policy spheres regarding urban resilience building in the African SIDS context, as discussed above, according to the Sustainable Development Goals –SDGs (see in Appendix C). Table 2. Urban resilience building in the African SIDS context outlined frameworks, actions, and policy spheres. Framework Specific Actions Policy Spheres SGD 11 The urban. 18 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) SDG 13 SDG 16 The climate action1. Governance and strong institutions. The partnerships. SDG 17 The Seven Targets of the Sendai Framework for The Sendai Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 Framework for The Four Priorities for Action of the Sendai MCR2030 DRR in Urban Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 settings The Ten Essential of Making Cities Resilient 2030 Partnerships Under the MCR2030 The New Urban Agenda. The SAMOA Pathways – Talanoa Dialogues Land-use Planning and Regional and Actions of the Project Preparedness for Resilient Housing. Local Recovery Partnership Capacity for preparedness International Recovery Platform – Project Disaster Reduction for disaster Preparedness for Recovery in Africa Initiative (CADRI) tools. recovery Preparedness for Resilient Recovery Project. Detailed Urban Risk initiatives Angola, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Niger, and Assessments (DURA). Rwanda Source: UNDRR, 2012, 2015, 2020; UNDESA, 2015; UNDP, 2016; 2017a; UNFCCC, 2020. 3.1. SIDS: A Complex Network of Actors 3.1.1. International Context of SIDS for Sustainable Development The Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Brussels Programme of Action called attention to nationally owned development strategies. Integrated financing frameworks and policies with economic, social, and environmental priorities underlined the importance of an active and highly visible follow-up mechanism for managing its implementation, articulation, and coordination of multilevel governance frameworks. For Cabo Verde, it is imperative, since its transitioning finance status hampers the national strategy for development agenda, which is based on building capacities in production and service sectors, manage debt, build resilience and avoid socioeconomic reversals (U.N., 2015; UNDAF, 2018-2022; Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; LDC Watch, 2020). In the specific case of SIDS, in 2001, the General Assembly, by resolution 56/227, established the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (U.N., 2002). Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change —UNFCCC —is the first international, intergovernmental forum for arranging the global response to climate change UNFCCC (2020). 1 19 Nonetheless, it was only in 2018 that the UN-OHRLLS convened the inaugural SIDS National Focal Points (NFPs) to enhance the integration of SIDS issues in U.N. processes (SPC, 2019). Even so, SIDS had been first acknowledged in as a particular case both for their environment and development at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Since then, the U.N. has been operating in close partnership with SIDS and their associate organizations such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) to support in fulfilling various Sustainable Development Goals (U.N., 1992; UNDESA, 2014; Kehew & Mayr, 2015; AOSIS, 2020). Since 1994, the UN-OHRLLS has been expediting coordination, information sharing, and planning on the implementation of the SDGs in SIDS, through the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA) (U.N., 1994); and, 2005 onwards, with the Mauritius Strategy for further Implementation of the BPOA, adopted to address remaining gaps in implementation (U.N., 2005). In 2014, the Third International Conference on SIDS took place. The United Nations General Assembly has also nominated 2014 as the International Year of SIDS. The SIDS Action Platform was established —, and United Nations Member States formally ratified the outcome document of the Conference, the Small Island Developing States Accelerated Modalities of Action —or SAMOA Pathway —in which countries acknowledged the need to support and invest in these nations to enhance global, regional, and national coherence to achieve sustainable development (U.N., 2014; UN-OHRLLS, 2020) (Table 3). Table 3. The SAMOA Pathway Objectives     Objectives Support the coordinated follow-up of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Undertake advocacy work in favour of the small island developing States in partnership with the relevant parts of the United Nations as well as with the civil society, media, academia and foundations. Assist in mobilizing international support and resources for the implementation of the Programme of Action. Provide support to group consultations of SIDS. 20  Ensure the mainstreaming of the SAMOA Pathway and SIDS related issues in the work of the UN system and to enhance the coherence of SIDS issues in UN processes. Source: UN-OHRLLS (2020) Since 2016, there is an annual Global Multi-stakeholder Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Partnership Dialogue, on the margins of the U.N. High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. The SIDS Partnership Dialogue is part of the SIDS Partnership Framework, as a follow-up of the SAMOA Pathway, intended to launch new partnerships by sharing best practices, challenges, and successes (U.N., 2016; 2019). Nonetheless, the SAMOA Pathway still requires a formal mechanism for monitoring and review; this gap has added to the lack of data to recognize progress and hollows implementation in many SIDS (UN-OHRLLS, 2019). In light of these challenges, in 2015, the Paris Agreement reinforced the concept of multilevel climate action by recognizing the significance of involving all government levels and different actors. The Talanoa Dialogues, born at COP23, established the frontline cities and islands' initiative to implement a communication channel causally linking local and regional governments' experiences to the international climate negotiation process (COP23, 2017). Following the Third International Conference on SIDS, the U.N. indicates 555 partnerships for SIDS worldwide. At the global level, a majority (52%) are led by the U.N., while regional organizations and governments lead most partnerships with a regional focus. Despite sharing many standard features and challenges for AIS-SIDS, geographical dispersion and cultural diversity represent a unique challenge in coordination and intra-regional cooperation. There is currently no regional body to address cooperation specificities on sustainable development for the entire AIS-SIDS region (Kehew & Mayr, 2015; UNDESA, 2019). 3.1.2. SIDS Context for Urban Risk Reduction 21 The world is increasingly becoming urban; population growth and urbanization are projected to reach more than two-thirds of the world's population. Increasing population density can lead to the creation of risk, especially when urbanization is rapid, poorly planned, and occurring in a context of widespread socioeconomic, fiscal, and economic vulnerability as it is for SIDS (UNISDR, 2015; Chilunga, Rodrigues-Llanes, & Guha-Sapir, 2017; ICLEI, 2018). With urbanization and climate change increasingly among the defining trends worldwide (Kehew & Mayr, 2015), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 emerged as the first significant agreement of the post2015 development agenda, recognizing that the State has the central role in reducing disaster risk, but that responsibility should be administered with other stakeholders, including local government (Table 4; Table 5) (UNDRR, 2015). Table 4. The Seven Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030        The Seven Global Targets Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality rates in the decade 2020-2030 compared to the period 2005-2015. Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 in the decade 2020 -2030 compared to the period 2005-2015. Reduce direct disaster economic loss concerning the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of essential services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030. Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020. Substantially enhance international cooperation in developing countries through adequate and sustainable support to complement their national actions for implementation of this Framework by 2030. Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030. Source: UNDRR, 2015; UNSIDR, 2015 Table 5. The Four Priorities for Action of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. The Four Priorities for Action Disaster risk management should be based on an understanding of disaster Priority 1. Understanding risk in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and disaster risk assets, hazard characteristics, and the environment. Such knowledge can be used for risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response. Priority 2. Strengthening Disaster risk governance at the national, regional, and global levels is vital disaster risk governance to for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation. It fosters collaboration and partnership. manage disaster risk 22 Public and private investment in disaster risk prevention and reduction Priority 3. Investing in through structural and non-structural measures are essential to enhance the disaster risk reduction for economic, social, health, and cultural resilience of persons, communities, resilience countries, and their assets, as well as the environment. Priority 4. Enhancing The growth of disaster risk means there is a need to strengthen disaster disaster preparedness for preparedness for response, act in anticipation of events, and ensure capacities effective response and to are in place for effective response and recovery at all levels. The recovery, "Build Back Better" in rehabilitation, and reconstruction phase are critical opportunities to build recovery, rehabilitation, back better, including through integrating disaster risk reduction into development measures. and reconstruction Source: UNDRR, 2015 The Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient (MCR) was launched, aimed at addressing local risk governance, urban risk, and resilience to expedite the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030) at the local level. Specifically targeting urban planning, in May 2010 –under a time frame of 10 years (Table 6). Table 6. The Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient 23 Essential 1 – Organisation and Coordination Essential 2 –Budget assignment Essential 3 –Prepare risk assessments Essential 4 –Critical infrastructure that reduces risks Essential5 – Assessment of Safety Infrastructure Essential 6 –Building regulations and land use planning Essential 7 – Education and Training Essential 8 – Protection of the environment Essential 9 –Early Warning Systems Essential 10 –PostDisaster Needs Assessments Ten Essentials Put in place organization and coordination to understand and reduce disaster risk based on the participation of citizen groups and civil society. Build local alliances. Ensure that all departments understand their role in disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Assign a budget for disaster risk reduction and provide incentives for homeowners, low-income families, communities, businesses, and the public sector to invest in reducing the risks they face. Maintain up to date data on hazards and vulnerabilities. Prepare risk assessments and use these as the basis for urban development plans and decisions, ensure that this information and the plans for your city’s resilience are readily available to the public and fully discussed with them. Invest in and maintain critical infrastructure that reduces risk, such as flood drainage, adjusted where needed to cope with climate change. Assess the safety of all schools and health facilities and upgrade these as necessary. Apply and enforce realistic, risk compliant building regulations and land use planning principles. Identify safe land for low-income citizens and upgrade informal settlements, wherever feasible. Ensure that education programs and training on disaster risk reduction are in place in schools and local communities. Protect ecosystems and natural buffers from mitigating floods, storm surges, and other hazards to which your city may be vulnerable. Adapt to climate change by building on good risk reduction practices. Install early warning systems and emergency management capacities in your city and hold regular public preparedness drills After any disaster, ensure that the needs of the affected population are placed at the center of a reconstruction initiative, with support for them and their community organizations to design and help implement responses, including rebuilding homes and livelihoods. Source: UNDRR, 2012 The original MCR Campaign was due to end in 2020, and a new phase of the initiative is arising —the Making Cities Resilient 2030 (MCR2030) —, following a series of consultations held between 2018-2019 that brought a broad cross-section of organizations together (UNDRR, 2012; 2015; 2020) (Table 7). Table 7. Making Cities Resilient 2030 (MCR2030) –Initial Proposal Main Strategic Objectives of the MCR2030 Increase city understanding of risk and commitments to disaster risk Strategic Objective 1 reduction and resilience Strategic Objective 2 Strategic Objective 3 Cross-Cutting Objective Increase city capacities to plan for risk reduction and resilience Increase city capacities to implement resilience actions and reduce risks Increase vertical links with the national governments and horizontal links amongst local partners, mainstreaming resilience throughout and 24 between partners, functions and services, partnerships and sharing of experience. Source: UNDRR, 2019 and foster city-to-city Taking the AIS-SIDS region into close observation, the lack of a regional institutional framework has been cited as a reason for infrequent knowledge integration and low policy coherence. Despite these challenges, many sub-regional and national partnerships exist in the region, significantly contributing to its sustainable development (Table 8). However, climate change and disaster risk are less prominently approached by partnerships in this region than other SIDS regions (UNDESA, 2019). Table 8. Partnerships Under the MCR2030       Partners Development partners such as the UN agencies, global and regional non-governmental organizations, bilateral and multilateral donors. National government such as ministries responsible for urban development, local government, climate change adaptation and disaster risk management. National associations of municipalities. Local governments. Private sector entities, consultancies. Academia and research institutes. Source: UNDRR, 2019 3.2. Sustainable Development and DRR policies: Country-Level Institutional and Policy Context The Government of Cabo Verde, in a comprehensive and consultative process, anchored national development strategies in the integrated vision of Agenda 2030, also pursuing the guiding vision of the African Agenda 2063, and the Samoa Pathway acknowledging to the specificities of a Small Island Development States. The country's Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development aims to ensure better alignment and integration of the 2030 Agenda, the SDGs, and the Sendai framework, translating international agendas into the architecture of national objectives (Ferreira Costa, 2021). It seeks to reinforce the interconnections with the global and regional agendas to which 25 Cabo Verde has committed itself, identifying SDG financing gaps and overcoming mounting debt distress while reducing ODA dependency (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; PEDS 2017-2021; GoCV, 2017; Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; UNDAF, 2018-2022). The national development architecture is built around a series of priorities aimed at contributing to the consolidation of the country's development gains, which are articulated around thematic areas, including environmental sustainability and adaptation to climate change (Ferreira Costa, 2021). Before 2012, the government's focus was on emergency preparedness and disaster management only. Preparation, prevention, buildbetter-back, and resilient recovery capacities were frequently low back then. From 2012 onwards, the Caboverdian government started shifting focus from managing disasters to managing disaster risk. Since 2014, with the support of the international community, a new area of work was introduced. Oriented towards reinforcing national capacities to seize the opportunities arising during the disaster recovery phase to reinforce urban resilience and build back better, and assist national authorities in establishing the necessary capabilities to prepare for and manage recovery processes, mainly to undertake a post-disaster needs assessment, and develop, and implement recovery strategies (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; GoCV, 2017). From 2016-17 on, the Government of Cabo Verde, through an inter-ministerial task force –under the leadership of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (MAA), and Ministry of Infrastructure, Land Use Planning and Housing (MIOTH, 2016), and the Cabo Verde’s Civil Protection and Fire Brigade (SNPCB) –under the Ministry of Internal Administration –in collaboration with the international community and development agencies –, have been working towards reinforcing national capacities on public policy implementation and coherence at higher levels (GoCV/MEA, 2007; UNDP, 2016; 2017; GoCV, 2017; PEDS, 2017-2021; UNDAF, 2018-2022; UN-OHRLLS, 2019; UNDRR, 2019; 2019b; W.B., 2020). A new 26 focus on disaster risk assessment was presented as a first step to reinforce national public capacities and strengthen national disaster risk management systems (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; GoCV, 2017; UNDAF, 2018-2022). A combination of initiatives supported the conduction of three Detailed Urban Risk Assessments (DURA) pilot initiatives (led by the National Institute of Geography and Territory (INGT), the Cabo Verde’s Civil Protection and Fire Brigade (SNPCB), the University of Cabo Verde (UniCV), the National Association of Municipalities (ANMCV), in three municipalities: the city of Praia, Mosteiros, and Ribera Brava; to generate evidence on risk information for fostering practice in risk-informed development to promote urban resilience in Cabo Verde (UNDP, 2017; Ferreira Costa, 2021) (Table 9). Table 9. Actions of the Project Preparedness for Resilient Recovery in Cabo Verde DRR Actions in Cabo Verde  Build capacities to use the post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA) methodology and, on this basis, to design disaster recovery frameworks (DRF).  Adapt and institutionalize the PDNA methodology, as necessary.  Based on the evaluation of current needs and gaps, guide and establish institutional mechanisms for managing resilient recovery –including the development of a national policy framework for resilient recovery (pre-event National Disaster Recovery Framework) and promoted policy revisions to integrate resilience aspects into national and local DRM systems and all-sectors development strategies.  Establish capacity for managing recovery processes at the national and the local level.  Assist national authorities in establishing the necessary capabilities to prepare for and manage recovery processes, mainly to undertake a post-disaster needs assessment, develop, and implement recovery strategies. Source: UNDP (2016; 2017) 3.2.1. Urban Risk Planning Cross-Cutting Issues Disaster Risk Reduction cuts across different aspects and sectors of development. There are 25 targets related to disaster risk reduction in 10 of the 17 SDGs, firmly establishing the role of disaster risk reduction as a core development strategy. SDGs 1 (Target 1.5.), 11 (Goal 11.5, and Target 11.b), 13 (Target 13.1) have similar targets on DRR strategies under the Sendai Framework and the MCR2030. It directly addresses priorities of action and its indicators for monitoring disaster risk reduction actions at the 27 local level. Moreover, it guards close correlation with the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, including the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the New Urban Agenda, and the SAMOA Pathway recognizing the critical role cities and local governments play in development (UNDRR, 2012; 2015; 2019; IPCC, 2014) (Appendix C –Table C.8.). The progress SIDS make towards reaching the SDGs Goals and Targets can be a good indicator of the DRR measures and macro policy frameworks in place and shed some light on the role of local actors as implementers of disaster risk and climate change adaptation strategies (Di Gregorio et al., 2019; UNFCCC, 2020). In a nutshell, the success of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and specific program actions for development in Cabo Verde can be, in part, measured by progress in the implementation of disaster risk reduction. In this regard, an effective and well-coordinated public policy environment provides an opportunity to encourage increased political commitment and economic investment to reduce risks and take development action that considers urban disaster resilience critical to poverty reduction and a key enabler of sustainable development (UNISDR, 2015). Understanding Cabo Verde’s sustainable development and DRR institutional and policy context, identifying potential drivers and bottlenecks of public policy implementation, is incremental in creating the desired urban resilience. It is accepted that actors must come together to realize holistic urban development approaches for delivering sustainability and resilience (UNISDR, 2015a). 3.3. Urban Risk Policy and Planning: Insights from Practice in Praia, Cabo Verde Cabo Verde’s Civil Protection and Fire Brigade (SNPCB), headquartered in Praia, is responsible for disaster management in the country and is concerned about coordinating the activities to address the growing impacts of rapid urbanization in the capital city. It is the city’s leading DRR institution, including the Municipal Guard, Department of 28 Infrastructure and Transportation, the Directorate of Planning, the Directorate of Environment and Sanitation, and the Directorate of Social Action and Gender. Moreover, National bodies also participate in this architecture, including the National Institute of Statistics, the National Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, and the Maritime and Port Authority (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; UNDRR, 2020). The government started an initiative to map numerous specialized areas ranging from awareness and strategic planning to effective implementation of the risk-informed urban development plans, where the priority is to develop a risk map and hazard profile of the cities (UNDRR, 2019), aimed at informing the activities of sectors such as urban planning. Also, to help public institutions to regulate the construction and enforcement of zoning restrictions in high-risk areas of the city, at the same time, mainstreaming of DRR and Climate Change Adaptation in urban development planning, so that it is blended across the activities of all sectors of local government (UNDP, 2016; 2017a). Praia's city is on the way to undertake a comprehensive consultative process with the active participation of municipal institutions, civil society organizations, the private sector, and international development partners represented in the country. It seeks to ensure better alignment and integration of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs in the city’s framework to support local authorities in considering risk management solutions and to prioritize them based on economic analysis of their effectiveness and efficiency (based on Cost-Benefit Analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, among others), and integrate DRR and urban resilient recovery considerations into local level strategic development plans as well as land-use plans (UNDP, 2016; 2017a). Multilevel governance can, then, be explored in this context, concerning the analysis of upwards, downwards, and sideways transfers of decision-making authority away from the central government to other (non-) governmental actors (Schekel, Hooghe, & Marks, 2015). The city established an 29 assessment framework based on the Partnership Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative (CADRI) tools for DRR capacity assessments and the UNDP Capacity development framework, informed by the Sendai Framework for Action for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Moreover, the actions established a partnership with the General Directorate of Social Inclusion. It helps developing tools related to the development and application of a Social Vulnerability Index as a measure to inform criteria-setting for different social protection programs, which databases are now to be integrated into a Single Social Registry (CSU, in Portuguese), making it possible correlates physical risks with the social and economic aspects of vulnerability. Decentralization and local development emerged as a groundbreaking achievement to support dialogue and awareness-raising effectively and sustainably at the local level (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; Ojwang et al., 2017). 4. DISCUSSION Human and natural systems co-exist in extensive, complex, multi-layered entanglement (Veselova, 2019). Since we are still improving our understanding of the intricate relationship between human well-being and ecosystem integrity in the face of growing global urban development (Plessis, 2008). We follow the UN-Urbanization and Climate Change interpretation of current trends in urbanization and climate, and its impacts on cities in SIDS (Kehew & Mayr, 2015), to navigate the environmental and societal challenges we experience as humans (Stefen et al., 2018). It further explores the role of political commitment for urban resilience as a tool for addressing these critical issues, according to Söjstedt & Povitkina (2016), and Shakya et al., (2018). In this rapid urbanization scenario, climate change increases poor urban communities' vulnerability to natural hazards, undermining urban resilience (Williams et al., 2019). Therefore, to address these questions, it is crucial overcome silos and articulate a complex system of 30 stakeholders made of an assemblage of smaller actors, government agencies, private organizations, the media, and offices of international organizations –ranging from across and outside city government (Shakel, Hooghe, & Marks, 2015; Schakel, 2016). Notwithstanding, the investigation of these issues usually fall into four categories on a continuum from subjective ("soft") to objective ("hard"): perceptions, experiences, assessments, and administrative data. In this study, the use of administrative data provides a cost-effective way of capturing insights from practice, and it is useful to frame what is considered "hard measures" by addressing and reviewing supra-national and national contexts regarding DRM public policies. Documents are a rich source of learning and contribute an excellent inception point for any assessment project (Bresciani, Gadner, & Hickmott, 2009). Public records and official documents are the two primary documents substantiating outcomes-based evaluations in this investigation. Therefore, the documents' authenticity was determined before using them for the assessment (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996; Patton, 2014). That being the case, the framework hereon described is foreseen to inform additional investigations in this setting. In this way, we can discuss these issues based on evidence. A lack of experiential reckonings inquiring the validity of political institutions and government effectiveness affect adaptive capacities, and their impacts on the urban vulnerability of SIDS in urban contexts persist (Söjstedt & Povitkina, 2016). Most contemporary disaster preparedness, response, and recovery methodologies and tools are promoted for rural areas (UNISDR, 2015a). These embrace the lack of up-to-date data and knowledge to manage climate shifts effectively, a need for better coordination within international, national, and local frameworks, and the imperative to boost national sectoral agencies' capacity to do urban disaster risk planning (Nagabhata, Perera, & Gheuens, 2019; Williams et al., 2020). Improving local governance is vital to guarantee 31 peace, boost economic development, maximize administrative efficiency, and ensure social inclusion and environmental sustainability (UCLG, 2018), and create forward linkages with the local economy and international markets (Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019). The effectiveness of multilevel governance understood as the sharing of power across global and local institutions, supra-national and sub-national actors, and international, national, and sub-national governance frameworks (Schakel, Hooghe, & Marks, 2015), is often impeded in disaster and climate policy processes through insufficiencies in multilevel governance articulation and coordination (Schakel, 2016; Williams et al., 2019; 2020). Therefore, the research fields of vulnerability and resilience need to carefully explore and augment the role of governance systems, decision-making processes, and institutional arrangements to achieve desirable outcomes under the 2030 Development Agenda and climate negotiations (Söjstedt & Povitkina, 2016; Ojwang et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2019; 2020). The relationship between governance, policy, and implementation is complicated, and the inconsistencies of local governance highlight the need for a versatile methodological approach to elucidate operational and administrative challenges at the local level (Williams et al., 2020), since participation is defined by stakes interests, knowledge, resources, and networking capability (Torfing et al., 2012; Ojwang et al., 2017). Therefore, to assess local governance systems' capacity to implement disaster risk and climate change adaptation, we need to identify capacity needs and address needs in recommendations for climate-smart policy formulation and riskinformed strategies (Shakya et al., 2018). The complexity and multi-active climate change context require a robust governance system to handle and solve disputes of interests over multiple scales and among diverse policy actors (Di Gregorio et al., 2019). In the case of African coastal cities, especially in Praia, Cabo Verde, there is a strong need to build up understanding and awareness around disaster risk management, preeminently, at an 32 institutional level in urban management (UNDRR, 2020; 2020a; 2019; 2019a). The limitations are evident, since policy actors mostly interact within levels, and jurisdictional boundaries produce obstacles to cross-level interaction and reinforce mismatches between governance systems and responses (Di Gregorio et al., 2019). The role of urban planning and policies aiming to improve access to water, sanitation, appropriate housing, proper drainage systems, safe land is crucial to prevent risk by guiding settlement in safe areas and reducing vulnerability (UNISDR, 2015a). However, participants must be acting locally, managing to overcome the tendency to cooperate primarily among themselves, and more so than organizations of the same type, joining actors in different governance levels. 4.1. Urban Risk Planning: Garnering Political Commitment in Praia, Cabo Verde Navigating the environmental and societal challenges that mark the complexities and multi-scale nature of the human-natures relations (Preiser et al., 2018), and regarding SIDS, it has been attracting increasing attention to governance analysis (Söjstedt & Povitkina, 2016; Ojwang et al., 2017; Di Gregorio et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2019; 2020). At the International level, government representatives’ members of the SIDS seem to find ways to negotiate to enhance coordination among the United Nations and island governments and harmonize the implementation of internationally agreed sustainable development and DRR goals and action programs at higher levels (UN-OHRLLS, 2019). Although, when looking closely to some regions, for instance to the AIS-SIDS region, where Cabo Verde is situated, there is a need for SIDS to create a set of interrelated local and national conditions that allow stakeholders to fully engage in national, as well as in local development issues and partnerships (UNDESA, 2019). Moreover, at the national level, the government of Cabo Verde verbalize the advantage of bringing in close contact 33 and collaboration the experts and institutions responsible for the implementation of sustainable and risk reduction frameworks, enabling, on the one hand, an increasing coherence in the handling of SIDS issues in United Nations processes, and on the other, providing an essential link between global and national levels, while facilitating coordination, information sharing, lessons learned, and planning activities related to the implementation of SAMOA Pathway and the SDGs (UN-OHRLLS, 2019). However, as observed in this assessment, as per Cabo Verde, multi-stakeholder partnership engagement initiatives have been initiated through international organizations and the international community leading to little or at least minimal national ownership. While the country faces challenges concerning weak legal, institutional, and human capacities, as well as inadequate data and statistics, lack of baseline data and indicators, and weak links between data collection for monitoring, evaluation, and reporting, all arising as a crucial development bottleneck (UNDESA, 2019). Nonetheless, a unitary discourse between the international actors and national government has increased opportunity but hides essential factors –the overall dominant risk reduction network community operates almost exclusively at the national level. Given that national-level actors dominate policy decisions, this could indicate a lack of attention that leads to limiting cross-level collaboration impacting institutional capacity for disaster risk reduction, monitoring, and reporting shortages at the local level (Ojwang et al., 2017; Di Gregorio et al., 2019). Further, it is vital to look at both formal and informal institutions. Perhaps, for the city of Praia, the most important achievement in terms of governance was the establishment of a multi-stakeholder partnership, bringing together 23 actors, representing 21 national and local institutions, besides the media, the civil society, and local authorities, as well as parliamentarians, and the participation of the national municipalities association as key to develop decentralized capacities for 34 DRR. The most considerable insight of all has been that the actors seem to recognize the needs of all individuals, cities, islands, connected through new ways of thinking and doing, empowered by the necessity to respond to emerging challenges. In this regard, literature explores the importance of strengthening knowledge and capacities and sharing information between State and non-state actors to build resilience (Oliver-Smith, 2016; Gheuens, Nagabhatla, & Perera, 2019; 100RC Network, 2019). Whether domestic actors lead or are accelerated by global interests in risk reduction decision-making is an empirical question and may differ by country. Additional investigations to evaluate significant barriers to synergies between national and sub-national governance levels in urban settings in SIDS are needed. The SIDS international community needs to build knowledge and information at an institutional and political commitment level to mainstreaming DRR into urban development planning (UNDRR, 2020). 4.2. Gaps and Challenges for Urban Resilience Building in Praia Disasters endure as one of the main hurdles facing nations of the developing world, as they cause not only high mortality and suffering but also damage local economies that are in the process of formation and towards development achievements (Al-Nammari & Alzaghal, 2015; Chilunga, Rodriguez-Llanes, & Guha-Sapir, 2017; ICLEI, 2018). In Africa, coastal cities lacking urban and environmental management combines with inappropriate urban risk planning under unprecedented levels of rapid urbanization and extreme climate change variability, outing vulnerable communities in precarious situations, and often leaving them in a corrosive cycle of fragility and risk due to the rising number of urban disasters (UNDP, 2017; Williams et al., 2019). Nonetheless, with 60% of what is expected to be urban in 2030 still to be built (UNISDR, 2015a), urban growth represents an unparalleled opportunity to reduce urban disaster risk by reflecting resilience and disaster risk reduction in policy, planning, design, and investment decisions 35 over future urban development, and to avoid past development mistakes (UNISDR, 2015). From insights captured from practice in Praia, Cabo Verde, the study identified critical data gaps in specific areas of the multi-governance of Disaster Risk Reduction into urban resilience, especially concerning the lack of a formal mechanism for monitoring and review institutional coordination and articulation at the local level. Due to insufficient availability and accessibility of data, the Sendai Framework for Cabo Verde monitoring process is not available or accessible (UNISDR, 2017b), making it hard to measure any progress made towards sustainable urban development and risk reduction targets. Furthermore, many initiatives overlap and compete for scarce financial, technical, and human resources. However, existing global frameworks supporting sustainable development and DRR locally, seek increased understanding of risks. Nonetheless, in the AIS-SIDS specific circumstances, it is hampered by the lack of institutional capacity and articulation as a unitary group. Against this background, resilience activities and increasing awareness still must be met locally, amplifying policy challenges. 4.3. Limitations Qualitative study research represents a small percentage of journal publications, and a small range of methodologies is applied, mainly case studies, although, equally to quantitative studies, precision, and uprightness of the logic on examination and describing standards of qualitative research practice in attainable (Ospina, Esteve, & Lee, 2017). Qualitative studies encourage improved academic and administrative practice, accommodating the study of complex policy-meaningful research questions that matter in the real world, underlying real intricacies that policymakers and public organizations face (Gilad, 2019). According to Patton (2014) and Denzin & Lincoln (2017), qualitative research is multimethod in focus, comprising an interpretative, naturalistic method to its 36 subject matter. Data for qualitative analysis commonly result from fieldwork and being multimethod in focus, three types of conclusions often result from this qualitative fieldwork experience: interviews, observations, and documents. Furthermore, qualitative methodology explores the accurate description of circumstances, events, people, interactions, and examined behaviors (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996). It is focused on knowing how actors make sense of involvement in their circumstances (Bresciani, Gadner, & Hickmott, 2009; Patton, 2014). The application of techniques themselves can yield extraordinarily rich findings for outcome-based appraisals, letting the methodology determine whether an intended outcome has been distinguished (Bresciani, Gadner, & Hickmott, 2009). During the assessment, institutional data availability and data reliability arose as challenges. Most data related to institutional authority and capacity is not rigorously collected, and it is scarcely available. Questions about the reliability of selfreported data in DRR government monitoring and evaluation systems remain and should be analyzed in further studies. 4.4. Recommendations Local authorities' empowerment through regulatory and financial frameworks sets interrelated local, national, and international settings that allow stakeholders to engage fully. Supporting mutual learning and experience sharing in vertical (and horizontal) governance frameworks to revise, update, and enforce urban risk regulations and standards make up a critical component of sustainable urban development public policy. 5. CONCLUSIONS This study is deeply rooted in the concepts of system thinking and socialecological systems. It contributes to the growing knowledge of the institutional framework's role in facilitating local adaptation and design-thinking in urbandevelopment planning processes in coastal cities and low-lying areas, mainly in SIDS. 37 Urbanization and climate change adaptation are worldwide defining trends due to complex institutional, financial, and political constraints. Climate change, nature degradation, biodiversity loss, and higher exposure to risks and disasters are complex and interconnected. However, they are not just environmental issues; they are also human problems as they impact people's lives and livelihoods. Coastal areas, especially in SIDS, require that the existing range of partnerships on adaptation –at the international and national levels –become even more effective at the local level. In this regard, it is paramount to efficiently address urbanization needs, considering the intricate relationship between human well-being and ecosystem integrity in the face of fast-growing urban development. We also know that a fair evaluation and assessment of adaptation needs does not imply good performance. The actors involved (at the government level or not) must demonstrate their capacity to execute. In this regard, part of our current questions is closely related to political noise and unreliable management; and, to tackle these constraints, we must ensure adequate enforcement and assistance at the local level. Managing adaptation across multiple scales and policy actors, including understanding significant barriers to cross-level interaction on local practice and policy measures. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author is grateful to the National Institute of Geography and Territory (INGT), the Cabo Verde’s Civil Protection and Fire Brigade (SNPCB), the University of Cabo Verde (UniCV), the National Association of Municipalities (ANMCV) for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript to the present level. Nonetheless, this paper's views are the author's views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the government of Cabo Verde. 7. REFERENCES Al-Nammari, F., & Alzaghal, M. (2015). Towards Local Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries: Challenges from Jordan. International Journal of Disaster 38 Risk Reduction. Vol. 12, June 2015. pp. 34-41. Available on-line at:<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.11.005>. Accessed May 13, 2020. Agarwal, A., Perrin, N., Chatre, A., Benson, C. S., & Kononen, M. (2012). Climate policy processes, local institutions, and adaptation actions: Mechanisms of translation and influence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(6), 565–579. Available at:< https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.193>. Accessed February 06, 2020. Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., & McAlpine, C. (2012). Local government response to the impacts of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(2), 127–136. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.009>. Accessed March 27, 2020. Bresciani, M.J., Gadner, M.M., & Hickmott, J. (2009). Demonstrating Student Success: A Practical Guide to Outcomes-Based Assessment of Learning and Development in Student Affairs. Stylus Publishing, 224p. Virginia, USA. Available at:< https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED531578>. Accessed May 16, 2020. Chilunga, F., Rodriguez-Llanes, J., & Guha-Sapir, D. (2017). Rapid Urbanizations is Linked to Floof Lethality in the Small Island States (SIDS): A Modelling Study. Prehosp. Disaster med. 32, s190. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X17005015>. Accessed May 15, 2020. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2017). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Fifth Edition. 992p. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Paavola, J., Locatelli, B., Pramova, E., Nurrochmat, D. R., May, P. H., Brockhaus, M., Sari, I. M., & Kusumadewi, S.D. (2019). Multilevel Governance and Power in Climate Change Policy Networks. Global Environmental Change, 54, 64–77. Available at:<https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.003>. Accessed May 01, 2020 Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2020). Understanding and Reducing Climate Risks: The Impact of Innovative Policies for Sustainable Drought Response in Cabo Verde. Estudios Geográficos. 81 (288), enero-junio 2020, e033. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.3989/estgeogr.202048.028>. Accessed May 13, 2020. Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2020a). Revisiting Disaster Events in Cabo Verde: A Historical Review of Droughts and Food Insecurity Events to Enable Future Climate Resilience. Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros. No. 255. Issue. 1, 47-76. Available at:<https://www.mapa.gob.es/app/publicaciones/art_datos_art.asp?articuloid=14 80&codrevista=REEAP>. Accessed October 2, 2020. Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2021). Disaster Management and Climate Adaptation Roadmap for Coastal Cities based on UNDRR’S Ten Essentials. Journal of Integrated Coastal Zone Management. Vol. 21. Issue 1. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.5894/rgcin372>. Accessed February 2, 2021. Gheuens, J., Nagabhatla, N., & Perera E.D.P. (2019). Disaster-Risk, Water Security Challenges and Strategies in Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Water, Vol. 11. No. 4. 637. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040637>. Accessed March 03, 2020. Gilad, S. (2019). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Pursuit of Richer Answers to Real-World Questions, Public Performance & Management Review. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1694546>. Accessed February 02, 2020. Green, H.K.; Lysaght, O.; Saulnier, D.D., Blanchard, K., & Humphrey, A. (2019). Challenges with Disaster Mortality Data and Measuring Progress Towards the 39 Implementation of the Sendai Framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science. Vol. 10. Issue. 4. 449-461. 2019. Available at<https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00237-x>. Accessed May 09, 2020. Kehew, R., & Mayr, M. (2015). Urbanization and Climate Change in Small Island Developing States. UN-Habitat Report. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at:<https://urban-leds.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/resources/guidance_and_tools/Integrated_climate_action/ Urbanization%20and%20Climate%20in%20Small%20Island%20Developing%2 0States-SIDS%20-%202015.pdf>. Accessed May 09, 2020. Lehmann, M., Major, D.C., Doust, K., O-Donogue, S., & Fitton, J. (2020). The Unusual Suspects in Climate Change Adaptation – Small Coastal Cities and Towns. Ocean & Coastal Management. Available at:<https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/ocean-and-coastalmanagement/special-issue/10P5TKBPWQZ>. Accessed May 09, 2020. Lena Rau, A., Bickel, MW., Rathgens, J., Schroth T.N., Weiser, A., Hilser, S., Jenkins, S., McCrory, G., Pfefferle, N., Roitsch, D., Stalhmmar, S., Villada, D., Wamsler, C., Krause, T., Wehrden, H. (2019). Linking Concepts of Change and Ecosystem Service Research: A Systematic Review. Change and Adaptation in SocioEcological Systems. Vol. 4. 33-45. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1515/cass2018-0004>. Accessed February 2, 2021. Lopes, A., Correia, E., Nascimento, J.M., & Canário, P. (2014). Urban Bioclimate and Comfort Assessment in the African City of Praia (Cabo Verde). Finisterra – Revista Portuguesa de Geografia, (98), 33-48. Available at:<http://www.scielo.mec.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S043050272014000200004&lng=pt&tlng=en>. Accessed May 12, 2020. Monteiro, S., Veiga, E., Fernandes, E., Fernandes, H., Rodrigues, J., & Cunha, L. (2012). Spontaneous Urban Growth and Natural Risks in Praia (Cabo Verde). Cadernos de Geografia. No. 30/31. Coimbra, FLUC. pp. 117-130. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.14195/0871-1623_31_12>. Accessed May 12, 2020. Morris, R., Cattaneo, O., & Poensgen, K. (2019). Transition Finance in the least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States: Cabo Verde Country Pilot. Development Co-Operation Directorate/Development Assistance Committee (DCD/DAC). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). JT03441604. Available at:<http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=D CD/DAC(2019)4&docLanguage=En>. Accessed May 12, 2020. Nagabhata, N., Perera, D., Gheuens, J., Wale, C., & Devlin, M. (2019). Managing Disaster Risk and Water Security: Strategies for Small Island Developing States. UNU-INWEH Policy Brief, Issue 6. United Nations Institute for Water, Environment, and Health. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Available at:<https://inweh.unu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PolicyBrief_Issue06.pdf>. Accessed May 09, 2020. Ojwang, L., Rosendo, S., Celliers, L., Obura, D., Muiti, A., Kamula, J., & Mwangi, M. (2017). Assessment of Coastal Governance for Climate Change Adaptation in Kenya. Earth’s Future, 5(11), 1119–1132. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000595>. Accessed February 15, 2020. Oliver-Smith, A. (2016). The Concepts of Adaptation, Vulnerability, and resilience in the Anthropology of Climate Change: Considering the Case of Displacement and Migration. In Anthropology and Climate Change: From Actions to Transformations, 2nd ed., Crate, S., Nuttal, M., Eds., Routledge: New York, NY, 40 USA. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315530338>. Accessed March 05, 2020. Ospina, S., Esteve, M., & Lee, S. (2017). Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research. Public Administration Review. 78(4). pp. 593-605. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837>. Accessed April 16, 2020. Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Fourth Edition. 832p. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Plessis, C. (2008). Understanding Cities as Social-Ecological Systems. World Sustainable Building Conference –SB´08, Melbourne, Australia, 21-25 September. 9p. Available at:<http://hdl.handle.net/10204/3306>. Accessed October 02, 2020. Preiser, R. Biggs, R., De VOS, A., & Folke, C. (2018). Social-Ecological Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Organizing Principles for Advancing Research Methods and Approaches. Ecology and Society, 2394):46. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446>. Accessed October 02, 2020. Schakel, A.H. (2016). Applying Multilevel Governance. Chapter 7. Available at:<https://www.arjanschakel.nl/images/pub_chapters/Schakel_2016.pdf>. Accessed May 11, 2020. Schakel, A. H., Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2015). Multilevel Governance and the State. The Oxford handbook of transformations of the State (pp. 269–285). Oxford University Press. Shakya, C., Cooke, K., Gupta, N., Bull, Z., & Greene, S. (2018). Building Institutional Capacity for Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change: An Operational Framework and Insights from Practice. International Institute of Environment and Development. ACT Report. 44p. Available at:<https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/61584>. Accessed May 11, 2020. Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T.M., Folke, C., Liverman, D., Summerhayes, C.P., Barnosky, A.D., Cornell, S.E., Crucifix, M., Donges, J.F., Fetzer, I., Lade, S.J., Scheffer, M., Winkelmann, R., & Schellnhuber. H.J. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(33):8252-8259. Available at:<http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115>. Accessed October 02, 2020 Söjstedt, M., & Povitkina, M. (2016). Vulnerability of Small Island Developing States to Natural Disasters: How Much Difference Can Effective Governments Make? Vol. 26. Issue: 1. The Journal of Environment & Development. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496516682339>. Accessed February 02, 2020. Torfing, J., Peter, B.G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford Scholarship Online. Available at:<https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/978019959675 1.001.0001/acprof-9780199596751-chapter-6>. Accessed February 14, 2020. Upcraft, M.L., & Schuh, J.H. (1996). Assessment in Student Affairs: A Guide for Practitioners. 378p. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Veselova, E. (2019). Design for Sustainable Entangled Human-Nature Systems. NORDES 2019. 6p. Available at:<https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/37107106/Design_for_Sustainable_ Entangled_Human_Nature_Systems.pdf>. Accessed on October 02, 2020. Williams, D.S., Rosend, S., Sadasing, O., & Celliers, L. (2020). Identifying Local Governance Capacity Needs for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation in Mauritius, Climate Policy, 20(5), 548-562. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1745743>. Accessed May 01, 2020. 41 Williams, D. S., Costa M.M., Sutherland, C., Celliers, L., & Scheffran, J. (2019). The Vulnerability of Informal Settlements in the Context of Rapid Urbanization and Climate Change. Environment and Urbanization, 31(1), 157–176. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818819694>. Accessed February 28, 2020. Zepp, H., Inostroza, L., Sutcliffe, R., Ahmed, S., Moebus, S. (2018). Neighbourhood Environmental Contribution and Health. A Novel Indicator Integrating Urban Form and Urban Green. Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological Systems. Vol. 4. 46-51. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1515/cass-2018-0005>. Accessed February 2, 2021. Sources AOSIS. (2020). Alliance of Small Island States: Cabo Verde. Available at:<https://www.aosis.org/home/>. Accessed February 25, 2020. C40Cities. (2020). Staying Afloat: The Urban Response to Sea Level Rise. Cities for Climate. Available at:<https://www.c40.org/other/the-future-we-don-t-wantstaying-afloat-the-urban-response-to-sea-level-rise>. Accessed October 1, 2020. COP23. (2017). Talanoa Dialogue. Available at:<https://cop23.com.fj/talanoadialogue/>. Accessed May 15, 2020. CRED. (2017). The International Disaster Database Explanatory Notes. EM-DAT. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. Available at:<http://www.emdat.be/explanatory-notes>. Accessed May 09, 2020. EM-DAT. (2020). International Disaster Database. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). D. Guha-Sapir. EM-DAT, CRED/UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium. Available at:<https://public.emdat.be>. Accessed May 09, 2020 GFDRR. (2017). Focus Day on Disaster Response and Recovery Frameworks. ACP-EU: Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Program. Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction. ACP House –Brussels, June 09, 2017. 13p. Available at:<https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/CABO%20VERDE%20 -%20ACP-EU%20NDRR%20Focus%20Day%20presentation%20%209%20June%202017.pdf>. Accessed May 13, 2020 GoCV. (2017). Cabo Verde’s Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy. Available at:<https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/policies/v.php?id=6456 3>. Accessed April 15, 2020. GoCV/MEA. (2007). National Adaptation Programs of Action on Climate Change (NAPA-Cabo Verde). The Republic of Cabo Verde. Ministry of Environment and Agriculture. National Meteorology and Geophysics Institute. 40p. Available at:<https://www.adaptation-undp.org/projects/cape-verde-national-adaptationprogramme-action-napa>. Accessed May 12, 2020. ICLEI. (2018). Resilient Cities Report 2018: Tracking Local Progress on the Resilience Targets of SDG 11. Bonn, Germany. 24p. Available at:<https://resilientcities2018.iclei.org/wpcontent/uploads/RC2018_Report.pdf>. Accessed on May 05, 2020. IPCC. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5oC. Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC: Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response. Available at:< https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/#:~:text=An%20IPCC%20special%20report%20on,an d%20efforts%20to%20eradicate%20poverty>. Accessed October 02, 2020 IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Regional Chapters: 42 Small Islands. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Available at:<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/>. Accessed May 01, 2020. IPCC. (2014a). Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Working Group II. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Available at:<https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5Chap5_FINAL.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contributions of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 13: Sea Level Change. Available at:<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/>. Accessed on May 12, 2020. LDC Watch. (2020). Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA). Available at:<https://www.ldcwatch.org/index.php/about-ldcs/brussels-programme-ofaction>. Accessed May 14, 2020. MIOTH. (2016). Ordinance No. 35/2016. Ratifies the Land Use Master Plan of Praia. Official Bulletin I. Series, No. 56, of October 04, 2016. Ministry of Infrastructure, Spatial Planning, and Housing. Available at:<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vHaYAtXSt9b_hBfYVG0DvhOl3bHl9b0G/ view>. Accessed May 12, 2020. OECD. (2016). Cabo Verde Unitary Country. Basic Socioeconomic Indicators. Africa. Organization of Economic Cooperation for Development/United Cities and Local Governments. October 2016. 2p. Available at:<https://www.oecd.org/countries/caboverde/>. Accessed May 12, 2020. PDM. (2016). Plano Diretor Municipal (PDM) –Praia, Cabo Verde. Municipality of Praia. Available at:<https://sites.google.com/site/praiapdm/Home>. Accessed May 12, 2020. PEDS. (2017-2021). Cabo Verde’s Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development 20172021. Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Energy. National Directorate. Resolution No. 13/2019. 13p. Available at:<http://tda-mobility.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/Cabo-Verde-Electric-Mobility-Policy-Chapter.pdf>. Accessed May 14, 2020. QGIS. (2020). QGIS-OSGeo4W-3.10.5-1-ACoruña. Elaboration of Maps. Coordinates System: Geographic (GCS). DATUM: 4326-WGS84, and DATUM EPSG: 3857WGS84. Shapefiles: GADM/ESRI/GOOGLE. Available at:<https://www.openstreetmap.org/>, and Available at:< http://hub.arcgis.com/>, and Available at:<https://qgis.org/en/site/>. Accessed May 17, 2020. SPC. (2019). Meeting of National Focal Points of SIDS. Pacific Community. Statistics for Development Division. 25-26 July 2019. Praia, Cabo Verde. Available at:<https://sdd.spc.int/events/2019/07/meeting-national-focal-points-sids>. Accessed May 14, 2020. UCLG. (2018). Local Governance. United Cities and Local Governments Report. Available at:<https://www.uclg.org/en/action/decentralisation-governance>. Accessed on March 03, 2020 U.N. (1992). The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: Agenda 21. United Nations Sustainable Development. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21>. Accessed May 08, 2020. 43 U.N. (1994). Barbados Programme of Action. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 47/189. Available Accessed at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/conferences/bpoa1994>. May 13, 2020. U.N. (2002). Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries. U.N. General Assembly Resolution a/57/496. Available at:<https://unctad.org/meeting/third-united-nations-conference-least-developedcountries>. Accessed May 13, 2020. U.N. (2005). Mauritius Strategy of Implementation. U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/57/262. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/conferences/msi2005>. Accessed May 13, 2020. U.N. (2014). Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States. SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action –SAMOA. U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/69/15. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sids2014>. Accessed May 13, 2020. U.N. (2015). Addis Ababa Action Agenda. Third International Conference on Financing for Development. United Nations General Assembly 69/313. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 68p. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2051AAAA_Outc ome.pdf>.Accessed May 14, 2020. U.N. (2016). First Annual Global Multi-Stakeholder SIDS Partnership Dialogue. New York. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sids/globalmultistakeholder-sids-partnership-dialogue>. Accessed May 13, 2020. U.N. (2019). 2019 Annual Global Multi-Stakeholder SIDS Partnership Dialogue. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?page=view&nr=3152&type=13&me nu=1634>. Accessed May 13, 2020. UNDAF. (2018-2022). United Nations Development Assistance Framework: Cabo Verde. Executive Summary. 24p. Available at:<https://caboverde.un.org/sites/default/files/202001/UNDAF_summary_EN.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. UNDATA. (2020). United Nations DataBase: Cabo Verde. Available at:<http://data.un.org/en/iso/cv.html>. Accessed May 12, 2020. UNDP. (2017). Fourth UNDP Community of Practice on Disaster Risk Reduction, Resilience Building, and Recovery in Africa. Enhance Prevention and Recovery for Resilient Societies. DRR, Climate Change, and Resilience Cluster of the RSC. Dakar, Senegal. UNDP. (2017a). International Recovery Platform. Project Preparedness for Recovery in Africa (Award 41995-ID 48055). Cabo Verde Country Narrative Final Report. Reporting Period: February 2015 to September 2017. United Nations Development Program/Directorate for Development, Cooperation, and Humanitarian Affairs of Luxembourg/Government of Japan. 17p. Accessed January 22, 2020. UNDP. (2016). Preparedness for Resilient Recovery Project. Angola, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Niger, and Rwanda. Progress Report. October 2015-June 2016. 25p. Available at:<https://info.undp.org/docs/pdc/Documents/H10/UNDP%20Project%20Repor t_Japan_Preparedness%20for%20Recovery_June%20Final.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. 44 UNDESA. (2019). Partnerships for Small Island Developing States. AIMS-SIDS. Division for Sustainable Development Goals Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 113p. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24591SIDS_Partn erships_May_2019_web.pdf>. Accessed May 15, 2020. UNDESA. (2015). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300>. Accessed February 15, 2020. UNDESA. (2014). Climate Change & Disaster Risk Management. U.N. Conference on Small Island Developing States. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 12p. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1344SIDS_BRIEF S_ClimateChange.pdf>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNFCCC. (2020). National Adaptation Plans. Available at:<https://unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/workstreams/nationaladaptation-plans>. Accessed March 15, 2020. UNDRR. (2020). Making Cities Resilient 2020 (MCR2030). Making Cities Resilient. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNDRR. (2020a). Participating Local Government. Making Cities Resilient. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/cities>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNDRR. (2019). Garnering Political Commitment in Praia, Cabo Verde. PreventionWeb Knowledge Base. Available at:<https://www.preventionweb.net/news/view/66432>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNDRR. (2019a). Hazard and Vulnerability Profile: Praia –Cabo Verde. Making Cities Resilient. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/cities/cabo-verde/santiagoisland/praia>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNDRR. (2019b). Making Cities Resilient 2030 –MCR2030. Initial Proposal. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/article/making-citiesresilient-2030-mcr2030-initial-proposal>. Accessed May 13, 2020. UNDRR. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015–2030. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 37p. Available on-line at:<https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf>. Accessed January 01, 2020. UNDRR. (2012). How to Make Cities More Resilient –A Handbook for Mayors and Local Government Leaders. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 100p. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/files/26462_handbookfinalonlineversion.pdf>. Accessed January 20, 2020. UNISDR. (2017). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva. Available at<https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology>. Accessed May 09, 2020. UNISDR. (2017a). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Technical Guidance for Monitoring and Reporting on Progress in Achieving the Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Collection of Technical Notes on Data and Methodology. Available 45 at<https://www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf>. Accessed May 09, 2020. UNISDR. (2017b). Disaster-Related Data for Sustainable Development: Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review 2017. Global Summary Report. 78p. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/files/53080_entrybgpaperglobalsummaryreportdisa.p df>. Accessed May 09, 2020. UNISDR. (2015). Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A Reflection Paper. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 21p. Geneva, Switzerland. October 2015. UNISDR. (2015a). Reducing Disaster Risk in Urban Setting. UNISDR Issue Brief. 4p. Available at:<http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Reducing-Disaster-Risk-in-UrbanSettings.pdf>. Accessed May 14, 2020. UNISDR. (2013). From Shared Risks to Shared Value: The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland. UN-OHRLLS. (2020). About the Small Island Developing States. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and the Small Island Developing States. Available at:<http://unohrlls.org/about-sids/country-profiles/>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UN-OHRLLS. (2019). Cabo Verde Hosts U.N. Meeting on Localizing SAMOA Pathway in Small Island Developing States. Praia, Cabo Verde. Available at:<http://unohrlls.org/news/cabo-verde-hosts-un-meeting-on-localising-samoapathway-in-small-island-developing-states/>. Accessed May 14, 2020. UN-OHRLLS. (2013). The small Island Developing States in Numbers. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and the Small Island Developing States. 36p. Available at:<http://unohrlls.org/customcontent/uploads/2014/04/SIDS_IN_NUMBERS_121813_FA_WEB.pdf>. Accessed May 10, 2020. UN-OHRLLS. (2011). Small Island Developing States: Small Islands Big(ger) Stakes. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and the Small Island Developing States. 32p. Available at:<http://unohrlls.org/customcontent/uploads/2013/08/SIDS-Small-Islands-Bigger-Stakes.pdf>. Accessed May 09, 2020. W.B. (2020). The World Bank in Cabo Verde. Cabo Verde's Overview. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. Available at:<https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/caboverde/overview#1>. Accessed May 1, 2020. W.B. (2019). World Development Indicators: Cabo Verde. Databank. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. Available at:<https://databank.worldbank.org>. Accessed May 1, 2020. W.B. (2018). The Republic of Cabo Verde. Adjusting the Development Model to Revive Growth and Strengthen Social Inclusion. Systematic Country Diagnostic –SCD. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. 109 p. Available at:<https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documentsreports/documentdetail/875821538129394201/adjusting-the-developmentmodel-to-revive-growth-and-strengthen-social-inclusion>. Accessed May 2, 2020. 46 W.B. (2013). Building Resilience: Integrating Climate Disaster Risk Development. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. 100RC Network. (2019). Resilient Cities, Resilient Lives. Learning from the 100RC Network. Rockefeller Foundation. 140p. Available at:<https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable_resources/UR/ResilientCities-Resilient-Lives-Learning-from-the-100RC-Network.pdf>. Accessed May 2, 2020. 47 Supplementary Material Appendix A Table A.1. Cabo Verde’s General Information Region Western Africa 550 Population (000, 2019) 136.5 Pop. Density (per Km2, 2019) Praia Capital City 167.5b Capital City Pop. (000, 2019) 16-Sep-1975 UN Membership Date 4,033a Surface Area (Km2) 100.8 Sex Ratio (male per 100 female) Cabo Verde Escudo (CVE) National Currency 96.3b Exchange Rate (per US$) Source: UNDATA, 2020. Footnotes:a –2017; b –2018; c –Data classified according to ISIC Rev 4; d –Estimate; e –Calculated by the UN Statistics Division from national indices; f –2016; g –Data refers to a 5-year period preceding the reference year; h –2015; I –Data as at the end of December; j –2004; k –Population aged 10 years and over; l –Partial data; m –Higher education only; n –2011; o –2014; p –Non-resident tourists staying in hotels and similar establishments. Table A.2. Cabo Verde’s Social Indicators Indicators Population Growth Rateg (average annual %) Urban Population (% of total population) Urban Population Growth Rateg (average annual %) Fertility Rate, Totalg (live births per woman) Life Expectancy at Birthg (females/males, years) Population Age Distribution (0-14/60+ years old, %) International Migrant Stock (000/% of total pop.) Refugees and Others of Concern to UNHCR (000) Infant Mortality Rateg (per 1000 live births) Health: Current Expenditure (% of GDP) 2005 1.6 2010 1.2 2019 1.3h 57.7 3.3. 61.8 2.5 66.2 2h 3.2 2.7 2.5h 73.3/66.2 74.2/66.7 75.0/67.9h 37.6/7.2 32.3/6.5 28.4/7.3 12.7/2.7 14.4/2.9 15.3/2.8a ~0.0ll - 0.1b 24.5 22.9 20.6h 4.3 4.5 5.3f 48 0.6 0.8h Health: Physicians (per 1000pop.) 7.5l 5.6 5.2a Education: Government Expenditure (% of GDP) 110.1/114.7 99.0/106.1 92.5/99.2a Education: Primary Gross Enrolment Ratio (female/male 100 pop.) 75.3/66.7 94.0/79.1 87.3/79.7a Education: Secondary Gross Enrolment Ratio (female/male 100 pop.) 7.8/7.3 20.2/15.7 25.7/17.7a Education: Tertiary Gross Enrolment Ratio (female/male 100 pop.) 9.3 7.8 11.5f Intentional Homicide Rate (per 100,000 pop.) 11.1 18.1 23.6 Seats Held by Women in National Parliaments (%) Source: UNDATA, 2020. Footnotes:a –2017; b –2018; c –Data classified according to ISIC Rev 4; d –Estimate; e –Calculated by the UN Statistics Division from national indices; f –2016; g –Data refers to a 5-year period preceding the reference year; h –2015; I –Data as at the end of December; j –2004; k –Population aged 10 years and over; l –Partial data; m –Higher education only; n –2011; o –2014; p –Non-resident tourists staying in hotels and similar establishments. Table A.3. Cabo Verde’s Economic Indicators Indicators GDP: Gross Domestic Product (million current USD) GDP Growth Rate (annual %, const. 2010 prices) GDP Per Capita (current US$) Economy: Agriculturec (% of Gross Value Added) Economy:Industryc (% of Gross Vlue Added) Economy: Services and Other Activityc (% of Gross Value Added) Employment: Agricultured (% of employed) Employment: Industryd (% of employed) Employment: Servicesd (% of employed) Unemployment (%of labor force) Labor Force Participationd (female/male pop. %) Consumer Price Indexe (CPI) (2010=100) Agricultural Production Index (20042006=100) 2005 1,105 2010 1,664 2019 1,773a 6.5 1.5 4a 2,329.3 11.7 3,312.8 9.2 3,244.7a 7a 22.8 20.8 21.1a 65.5 70.1 71.9a 73.2 69.7 66.8 6.8 20 11.2d 54.3/75.0 7.3 23 10.7 58.7/74.4 6.9 26.3 10.4d 65.5/73.2 83 99 100 106 109b 97f 49 89 220 51b,d International Trade Exports (million current US$) 438 731 930b,d International Trade Imports (million current US$) -349 -511 -880b International Trade Balance (million current USD) -41 -223 -104b Balance of Payments, Current Account (million USD) Source: UNDATA, 2020. Footnotes:a –2017; b –2018; c –Data classified according to ISIC Rev 4; d –Estimate; e –Calculated by the UN Statistics Division from national indices; f –2016; g –Data refers to a 5-year period preceding the reference year; h –2015; I –Data as at the end of December; j –2004; k –Population aged 10 years and over; l –Partial data; m –Higher education only; n –2011; o –2014; p –Non-resident tourists staying in hotels and similar establishments. Table A.4. Cabo Verde’s Environment and Infrastructure Indicators Indicators 2005 2010 2019 6.1 30d 57.2 a,k Individuals Using the Internet (per 100 inhabitants) 0.1m,n,i Research & Development Expenditure (% of GDP) 23l 31 117 Threatened Species (number) 20.7 21.1 22.5d,f Forest Area (% of land area) 0.4/0.9 0.6/1.1 0.5/1.0o C02 Emission Estimates (million ton/tons per capita) 2 1 2d,f Energy Production Primary (Petajoules) 16 18 17d,f Energy Supply per Capita (Gigajoules) 198 336 668a Tourist/Visitor Arrivals at National Bordersp (000) 15 15 15.1b Important Sites for Terrestrial Biodiversity Protected (5) 17.36 20.55 7.29a Net Official Development Assistance Received (% of GNI) Source: UNDATA, 2020. Footnotes:a –2017; b –2018; c –Data classified according to ISIC Rev 4; d –Estimate; e –Calculated by the UN Statistics Division from national indices; f –2016; g –Data refers to a 5-year period preceding the reference year; h –2015; I –Data as at the end of December; j –2004; k –Population aged 10 years and over; l –Partial data; m –Higher education only; n –2011; o –2014; p –Non-resident tourists staying in hotels and similar establishments. 50 Appendix B Table B.1. Recent Disaster Events in Cabo Verde with Estimated Damages and Affected People (2009-2018) Year 2009 2012 2013 2016 Type of Event Hydrological Hydrological Hydrological Hydrological Hazard Event Flood Flood Flood Flood Location São Nicolau Boa Vista São Miguel Santo Antão Estimated Damages (US$) 2015 Meteorological Storm Countrywide 2.5 Million Affected People 2.6 Million 7 Million 28 Million (75.5% Damage & 24.5% Losses); Productive sector (50%); Housing, social sectors & infrastructure (37%). 2014-15 Geophysical Volcanic Eruption Fogo 2013/2014/2015 Climatological Drought Santo Antão, Santiago, Fogo No assessment conducted to quantify damage and losses. 2017-18 Climatological Drought Countrywide (Santiago, Santo Antão) No assessment conducted to quantify damage and losses. 994 68.810 to 139.000 Source: Ferreira Costa, (2020) 51 Table B.2. Detailed Natural Hazards (Only) Events Death Toll and Affected People in Cabo Verde (1900-2020) Start Year End Year Disaster Disaster Subgroup Associated Disaster Total Deaths2 1900 1900 Drought Climatological Famine 11000 1910 1914 Drought Climatological 1920 1920 Drought Climatological Famine 24000 1940 1944 Drought Climatological Famine 20000 1946 1946 Drought Climatological Famine 30000 1969 1975 Drought Climatological Famine 1980 1985 Drought Climatological 1982 1982 Storm Metereological Tropical Cyclone (Beryl) 3 1984 1984 Storm Metereological Tropical Cyclone (Fran) 1988 1988 Insect Infestation Biological Locust 1992 1992 Drought Climatological 1994 1995 Epidemic Biological Bacterial Desease (Cholera) Total Affected4 Total Damage (000 US$) 2100 2222 3000 29 5500 5500 245 12344 12344 Injured Affected3 122 Homeless 2 Disaster mortality is a critical outcome that can be employed to measure the effectiveness of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) strategies at reducing the impact of disasters. However, while disaster mortality seems to be one of the most straightforward outcomes to monitor, obtaining accurate data is challenging (Green et al., 2019). Due to the absence of historical death registries in many countries, estimation rather than measurement is sometimes used, especially in large scale disasters, which account for a significant proportion of global mortality (UNISDR, 2017a). Mortality is assessed by calculating crude death rates, which requires two types of data: population data and death data. How disaster deaths are defined depends on the definition of a hazard natural (single, sequential or combined; multi-hazard; biological, environmental; geological, hydrometeorological, and technological), a disaster type (small-scale; large-scale; frequent and infrequent; slow-onset; and sudden-onset) (UNISDR, 2017), as well as the definition of a disaster death. In this research, we adopted the EM-DAT definition – "Number of people who lost their lives because the event happened". The mortality definitions range from being very broad in their scope, as per the EM-DAT definition (CRED, 2017). Indicators: (i) Number of deaths and missing persons attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population; (ii) Number of deaths attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population; and, (iii) Number of missing persons attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population (UNISDR, 2017a). 3 People can be affected directly or indirectly. Affected people may experience short-term or long-term consequences to their lives, livelihoods, or health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets.” Directly affected: People who have suffered an injury, illness, or other health effects; who were evacuated, displaced, relocated; or have suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets. Indirectly affected: People who have suffered consequences, other than or in addition to direct effects, over time due to disruption or changes in the economy, critical infrastructures, essential services, commerce, work or social, health, and physiological consequences. Indicators: (i) Number of directly affected people attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population. (ii) The number of injured or ill people attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population; (iii) Number of people whose damaged dwellings were attributed to disasters; (iv) Number of people whose destroyed dwellings were correlated to disasters; and, (v) Number of people whose livelihoods were disrupted or destroyed, attributed to disasters (UNISDR, 2017a). 4 Sum of Affected, Injured, and Homeless totals. 52 1995 1995 Volcanic Eruption Geophysical Ash Fall 6 1300 5000 6306 1998 1998 Drought Climatological Famine 10000 10000 2002 2002 Climatological Food Shortage 30000 30000 2004 2004 2009 2009 Drought Insect Infestation (Locust) Flood Hydrological Riverine Flood (Landslide) 3 150 150 2009 Epidemic5 Biological Viral Desease (Dengue) 6 20147 20147 2014 2015 Volcanic activity Geophysical Lava Flow 2500 2500 2015 2015 Storm Metereological Hurricane (Fred) Biological 9 Source: Ferreira Costa, (2020); Adapted from: EM-DAT, CRED/UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium (2020-04-23). Accessed Sat, 09 May 2020 – 23:444:55 CEST 5 Epidemics: Dengue (2009-2010); and Zika (2014-2015) Around 20,000 affected by the disease and 6 human causalities during dengue outbreak and 560 population affected by Zika and 11 cases of babies born with microcephaly) (GFDRR, 2017). The last event has not been incorporated to the EM-DAT to date. 53 Appendix C Table C.1. Disaster risk reduction, in urban risk planning aspects, as reflected in selected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets, and indicators (UNDESA, 2015). Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) ----SDG 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Targets BY 2030 11.1 By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums. 11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessible, and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons. 11.3 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries. 11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. 11.5 By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. 11.6 Indicators 11.1.1 Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements, or inadequate housing. 11.2.1 Proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport, by sex, age and persons with disabilities. 11.3.1 Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate. 11.3.2 Proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically. 11.4.1 Total expenditure (public and private) per capita spent on the preservation, protection, and conservation of all cultural and natural heritage, by type of heritage (cultural, natural, mixed and World Heritage Centre designation), level of government (national, regional and local/municipal), type of expenditure (operating expenditure/investment) and type of private funding (donations in kind, private non-profit sector and sponsorship). 11.5.1 Number of deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disaster per 100,000 people. 11.5.2 Direct disaster economic loss in relation to global GDP, including disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services. 11.6.1 54 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. 11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities. ***11.A Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning. ***11.B By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels. 11.C Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials. SDG 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.) 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries. Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated, by cities. 11.6.2 Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population weighted). 11.7.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public use for all, by sex, age, and persons with disabilities. 11.7.2 Proportion of persons victim of physical or sexual harassment, by sex, age, disability status and place of occurrence, in the previous 12 months. 11.A.1 Proportion of population living in cities that implement urban and regional development plans integrating population projections and resource needs, by size of city. 11.B.1 Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. 11.B.2 Number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies. 11.C.1 Proportion of financial support to the least developed countries that is allocated to the construction and retrofitting of sustainable, resilient and resource-efficient buildings utilizing local materials. 13.1.3 Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies. 13.1.1 Number of deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disaster per 100,000 people. 13.1.2 Number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies. 55 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. 13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning. 13.A Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible. 13.B Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities. SDG 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide 16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere 13.2.1 Number of countries that have communicated the establishment or operationalization of an integrated policy/strategy/plan which increases their ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development in a manner that does not threaten food production (including a national adaptation plan, nationally determined contribution, national communication, biennial update report or other). 13.3.1 Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula. 13.3.2 Number of countries that have communicated the strengthening of institutional, systemic and individual capacity-building to implement adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer, and development actions. 13.A.1 Mobilized amount of United States dollars per year starting in 2020 accountable towards the $100 billion commitment. 13.B.1 Number of least developed countries and small island developing States that are receiving specialized support, and amount of support, including finance, technology and capacity-building, for mechanisms for raising capacities for effective climate change-related planning and management, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities. 16.1.1 Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, by sex and age. 16.1.2 56 16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and all forms of violence against and torture of children. . 16.3 Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. 16.4 By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery, and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime. 16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. Conflict-related deaths per 100,000 population, by sex, age and cause. 16.1.3 Proportion of population subjected to physical, psychological, or sexual violence in the previous 12 months. 16.1.4 Proportion of population that feel safe walking alone around the area they live. 16.2.1 Proportion of children aged 1-17 years who experienced any physical punishment and/or psychological aggression by caregivers in the past month. 16.2.2 Number of victims of human trafficking per 100,000 population, by sex, age and form of exploitation. 16.2.3 Proportion of young women and men aged 18-29 years who experienced sexual violence by age 18. 16.3.1 Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms. 16.3.2 Unsentenced detainees as a proportion of overall prison population. 16.4.1 Total value of inward and outward illicit financial flows (in current United States dollars). 16.4.2 Proportion of seized, found, or surrendered arms whose illicit origin or context has been traced or established by a competent authority in line with international instruments. 16.5.1 Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months. 16.5.2 Proportion of businesses that had at least one contact with a public official and that paid a bribe to a public official or were 57 16.6 Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels. 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. 16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance 16.9 By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration. 16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. 16.A Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime. 16.B Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. asked for a bribe by those public officials during the previous 12 months. 16.6.1 Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or by budget codes or similar). 16.6.2 Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services. 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels. 16.7.2 Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability, and population group. 16.8.1 Proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizations. 16.9.1 Proportion of children under 5 years of age whose births have been registered with a civil authority, by age. 16.10.1 Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates in the previous 12 months. 16.10.2 Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information. 16.A.1 Existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles. 16.B.1 Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law. 58 SDG 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development Finance 17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection. 17.2 Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries. 17.3 Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources. 17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress. 17.5 Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries. 17.1.1 Total government revenue as a proportion of GDP, by source. 17.1.2 Proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxes. 17.2.1 Net official development assistance, total and to least developed countries, as a proportion of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee donors’ gross national income (GNI). 17.3.1 Foreign direct investments (FDI), official development assistance and South-South Cooperation as a proportion of total domestic budget. 17.3.2 Volume of remittances (in United States dollars) as a proportion of total GDP. 17.4.1 Debt service as a proportion of exports of goods and services. 17.5.1 Number of countries that adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries. Technology 17.6 Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved 17.6.1 Number of science and/or technology cooperation agreements and programmes between countries, by type of cooperation. 17.6.2 59 coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism. 17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed. 17.8 Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology. Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed. 17.7.1 Total amount of approved funding for developing countries to promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies. 17.8.1 Proportion of individuals using the Internet. Capacity-Building 17.9 Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation. 17.9.1 Dollar value of financial and technical assistance (including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation) committed to developing countries. Trade 17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda. 17.11 Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020. 17.12 Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of 17.10.1 Worldwide weighted tariff-average. 17.11.1 Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global exports. 17.12.1 Average tariffs faced by developing countries, least developed countries and small island developing States. 60 origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access. Systemic Issues (Policy and Institutional coherence) 17.13 Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence. 17.14 Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. 17.15 Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development (Multi-stakeholder partnerships) 17.16 Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries. 17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. (Data, monitoring and accountability) 17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, 17.13.1 Macroeconomic Dashboard. 17.14.1 Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of sustainable development. 17.15.1 Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation. 17.16.1 Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the sustainable development goals. 17.17.1 Amount of United States dollars committed to public-private and civil society partnerships. 17.18.1 Proportion of sustainable development indicators produced at the national level with full disaggregation when relevant to the target, in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 17.18.2 61 migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts. 17.19 By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries. Number of countries that have national statistical legislation that complies with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 17.18.3 Number of countries with a national statistical plan that is fully funded and under implementation, by source of funding. 17.19.1 Dollar value of all resources made available to strengthen statistical capacity in developing countries. 17.19.2 Proportion of countries that (a) have conducted at least one population and housing census in the last 10 years; and (b) have achieved 100 per cent birth registration and 80 per cent death registration. Source: UNDESA, 2015 62 Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Track_Version_SIDS_ADAPTATI MULTILEVEL GOVERNANCE IN ISLAND DEVELOPING STATES: POLICY ADAPTATION INSIGHTS AND PRACTICES INTO THE HUMAN-NATURE SYSTEMS Abstract –In the context of fast unplanned urbanization, disasters and natural hazards continue to rise. The IPCC 1.5°C Report (2018), the Sendai Framework, and the New Urban Agenda recognized and identified local capacity as a crucial enabler of multilevel governance to effectively respond to climate change and disasters. This study assesses multilevel governance linkages among political institutions and government effectiveness in its institutional and dimensional contexts. The paper builds on earlier ecological approaches to urban development and more recent thinking in the field of human-nature systems (Plessi, 2018; Preiser et al., 2018; Stenffen et al., 2018; Zepp et al., 2018; Lena Rau et al., 2019; Veselova, 2019). It denotes a steering and coordination process that involves a plurality of actors operating at different institutional levels in Cabo Verde. Cabo Verde is a Small Island Developing State in the Sahelian eco-climate zone of the Western Africa region, disproportionately affected by disasters, fundamentally due to various size and resource restrictions. The use of administrative data provides a costeffective way of capturing insights from practice. It is useful to frame what is considered "hard measures" by addressing and reviewing supra-national and national norms, activities, and performance regarding urban risk governance. Further, the limited capacity of local governments, severe social and economic bottlenecks, and insufficient recognition of disaster risks create handicaps in articulating macro- and micro-level policies, calling for a reassessment of disaster management policies and normative approaches in public policy implementation. Keywords: Sustainable Development, Policy Analysis, Urban Risk Planning, Small Island Developing States, Africa, 1 1.INTRODUCTION Small Island Developing States (SIDS) is a distinguished assembly of 58 countries scattered over the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans and the Caribbean, Mediterranean, and South China seas (UN-OHRLLS, 2020) (Figure 1). The United Nations recognizes 38 U.N. Member States –including Least Developed Countries (LDCs) belonging to the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) –, and at least 20 non-UN Members or Associate Members of Regional Commissions (U.N., 1994; 2002; 2005; 2014; AOSIS, 2020; UN-OHRLLS, 2011; 2013; 2020; AOSIS, 2020;). In this framework, the growing masses of people and economic activities in urban areas overlap with zones of high-risk exposure generating negative externalities (UNISDR, 2015; 2015a; Chilunga, RodriguezLanes, & Guha-Sapir, 2017) –noting that the population for many SIDS is concentrated in their largest urban agglomeration, often their capital city (Kehew & Mayr, 2015). Human Settlements in SIDS are on the front edge of climate change, being environmentally, socio-economically, and financially unprotected to disasters and climate change events (U.N., 1992; UN-OHRLLS, 2011; 2013; IPCC, 2014; UNDESA, 2014; Kehew & Mayr, 2015; Nagabhatla et al., 2019; Gheuens , Nagabhatla, & Perera& Nagabhatla, 2019). Coastal systems face many impacts from climate change; they have been endangered by a full spectrum of climate-related uncertainties, including droughts, floods, sea-level rise, storm surges, rising sea temperatures, ocean acidification, and saltwater intrusion (IPCC, 2013; IPCC, 2014; 2014a). By 2050, the urban population exposed to cyclones is foreseen to increase from 310 million to 680 million. In comparison, exposure to significant earthquakes risks is awaited to affect from 370 million to 870 million people (W.B., 2013). 2 Formatted: English (United States) SIDS urban areas are experiencing the global trends towards urbanization, regarding the impacts of rising hunger and malnutrition rates, poverty, and vulnerability to the climate, as mentioned earlier, confined within its hard limits of natural resources and limited governance capacity (ICLEI, 2018; 100RC Network, 2019). Moreover, human settlements in these areas often have limited information about local climate change impacts and lack financial resources, institutional capacity, and the engineering/planning bases to develop appropriate adaptation measures (Kehew & Mayr, 2015; Lehmann et al., 2020). It is expected that the exposure of urban assets to sea level rise and flooding could amount to US$ 1 trillion by mid-century (C40Cities, 2020). In contrast, urban expansion financing is also set to rise from US$7.2 trillion in 2011 to US$12 trillion by 2020 (UNISDR, 2013). Therefore, the understanding and knowledge of needs and priorities of people, communities, and institutions in increasingly complex urban setups are needed (UNISDR, 2015a), in a setting that places the rising number of disasters and their occurrence in combination with rising inequality. It compels the need for sustainable urban planning and resilience building, in a context where rural areas, compared to urban zones, seize most of the current disaster preparedness and response, recovery methodologies discussions, and available tools (UNISDR, 2015; UNDP, 2017). In this regard, the IPCC 1.5oC Report (2018) identifies local capacity needs as key for enabling multilevel governance to completely respond to climate change and disasters. Thus, against this framework, we can define governance as the political and institutional means through which decisions are taken and performed in a specific subnational geographic region (UCLG, 202018). It draws attention to the urgent need for global support to strengthening the institutional conditions for comprehensive adaptation public policy within the Small Island States context, as climate change impacts are primarily experienced locally (Agarwal et al., 2012; Baker et al., 2012; ICLEI, 2018; 3 IPCC, 2018). Besides, the governance perspective typically argues that the sources of political power –the State's power –is changing. However, states still control considerable power and resources. Still, state-centric models of governance maintain their focus on the role of political and administrative institutions and interactions among these institutions (Torfing et al., 2012). 4 Figure 1. Geographical Distribution of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), according to UN-OHRLLS (http://unohrlls.org/about-sids/country-profiles/) Field Code Changed 5 Against this background, this study has as its first objectivethe objective of this study is to capture sustainable development and disaster risk reduction (DRR) insights for urban risk policy and planning from practice in Praia, Cabo Verde. We apply ecological thinking to the urban –as cities remain the most tightly coupled human-nature system and therefore present a particular challenge to research social-ecological systems (Plessis, 2008). From the perspective of an evaluative framework encompassing social, political, human, financial, and environmental criteria, we develop recommendations for policy formulation and articulation to strengthen local governance; to further contribute to the discussions of enabling risk reduction and climate change adaptation (CCA) public policies implementation at the local level. The study conducts an administrative assessment of those DRR global initiatives' illustrative elements that could support SIDS to develop urban risk planning capacities. The chosen elements connect with the SDGs indicators in the 2030 Agenda and the Sendai Framework targets and priorities in the UNDRR's making cities resilient framework (2012; 2020) and other international and regional sustainable and resilient initiatives in all government levels and local communities for Cabo Verde. When feasible, we attempt to make correlations between macro disaster risk policies in urban risk planning in SIDS and African coastal cities. 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Case Study Site Cabo Verde, officially the Republic of Cabo Verde, is a Small Island Developing State (SIDS) spanning an archipelago of 10 volcanic islands in the center of the Atlantic Ocean, in the Sahelian eco-climate zone of the Western Africa region, situated 500 km off Senegal, with 4,033 km2 of surface area, between latitudes 14º 28' N and 17º 12' N and longitudes 22º 40' W and 25º 22' W (UNDATA, 2020; W.B., 2020; UNDAF, 20182022). It forms part of the Macaronesia Ecoregion and the Azores, Canary Islands, 6 Madeira, and the Savage Islands. Although, Cabo Verde is grouped in the African, Indian, and South China Seas (AIS), along with Guineas-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Comoros, Seychelles, Mauritius, The Maldives, and Singapore (AOSIS, 2020) (Figure 2). Figure 2. Geographical Localization of Cabo Verde in Africa Cabo Verde is defined by a unitary country, with a single level of sub-national governments composed of 22 municipalities, with an average municipal size of 23,356 inhabitants (OECD/UCLG, 2016) (Appendix A –Table A.1.). Politics in Cabo Verde have mainly been consensus-oriented, and since its independence from Portugal in 1975, elections are recognized democratic and fair, and parties in power alternate regularly both 7 nationally and at the local level (W.B., 2020). Approximately 88% of the population lives on four islands (56% in Santiago; 15% in São Vicente; 9% in Santo Antão, and 8% in Fogo) (World Bank, 2018, p.11). A little more than half of the population —236,000 inhabitants —lives on Cabo Verde's main island, Santiago (OECD/UCLG, 2016). The country has a very young population –age distribution of 28.4% (0-14 years old), and 7.3% (60+ years old) (UNDATA, 2020), with an average age of about 28.3 years in 2016 (UNDAF 2018-2020), and a density of 136,5 people per km2, with a total population of 550,000 inhabitants (2019); with an estimated national population growth rate of 1.3% (2015) (UNDATA, 2020). Around 66,2% of the population lives in urban areas (2015) (UNDATA, 2020). In Africa's fast urbanizing regions, the urban population is foreseen to reach 56% (currently at 40%) and 66% worldwide by 2050 (UN-OHRLLS, 2013; UNISDR, 2015a). Its largest city –also the capital city –Praia, has an estimated population of 167,500 inhabitants (2018), and a rapid urban population growth rate of 2% (average annual %) (UNDATA, 2020). Life expectancy at birth accounts for 67.9 years for males, and 75.0 years for females (2015) (Appendix A –Table A.2.). The national currency is named “Cabo Verde Escudo” (CVE), with an exchange rate of 96.3 per USD, in 2018 (UNDATA, 2020). Cabo Verde's monetary policy is closely aligned with Europe, with the local currency pegged to the Euro (W.B., 2020). Cabo Verde's economy is driven by tourism (W.B., 2018; 2020). The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) reached 1,773 million current USD (2017), with a GDP growth rate of 4% (annual % const. 2010 prices) (2017), with a GDP per capita of 3,244.7 current USD (2017) (UNDATA, 2020). Its absolute poverty line embraced 35% of the population in 2015 (W.B., 2018; 2019). Services and related activities account for 71.9% of Gross Value Added (GVA), employing 26.3% of the workforce, followed by Industry (21.1%), employing 6.9% of the population 8 (UNDATA, 2020). Agriculture engages the majority of the population 66.8%, generating only 7% of GVA (according to the World Bank, it employs 15% of the population), although only 10% of its territory is categorized as arable land (UNDATA, 2020; W.B., 2020). The labor force participation ratio (female/male pop. %) reaches an estimated 65.5/73.2, with an estimated unemployment rate of 10.4% in 2019 (UNDATA, 2020). Cabo Verde witnessed spectacular social and economic progress between 1990 and 2008 –exiting the Least Developed Countries (LDC) group in 2007 and attaining the status of a middle-income country –, driven mainly by the accelerated development of inclusive tourism resorts (Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; W.B., 2018; 2020). However, during the 2009-2015 period, economic growth deaccelerated significantly, due to the protracted impacts of the financial crisis; since the LDC graduation coincided with the 2008 global financial crisis, Cabo Verde was engulfed into the middle-income trap, a constraint magnified by vulnerabilities as a SIDS and a Sahelian country (Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; Ferreira Costa, 2020; 2020a). Countercyclical fiscal actions did not recover growth, and instead, it led to an explicit increment in the stock of debt, maintaining the country at a high risk of external debt distress. The accumulation of public debt rose from 126% to 129.1% of GDP in 2018, reflecting increased support to selected state-owned initiatives (W.B., 2020). Like other SIDS, the country is highly dependent on the international community. In this regard, the Official Development Assistance (ODA) accounts for more than 40% of total external resources in Cabo Verde (Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; Ferreira Costa, 2020). Although the current deficit fell to 4.9% of GDP in 2018, in nominal terms, the deficit reached minus 880 million current USD, in International Trade Balance (2018). A deficit of 104 million USD, in its Balance of Payments current account, minus 930 million current USD in International Trade Imports, and only 51 million current USD in International trade Exports in 2019, remains 9 a cause of concern (UNDATA, 2020; W.B., 2020). Cabo Verde's government is clearly under fiscal and budget constraints (Appendix A –Table A.3.). Massive high-impact disaster in Cabo Verde is not frequent. However, as a SIDS and a Sahelian country, it shares disproportionate challenges for sustainable development and heightened vulnerabilities for natural and environmental events, with a substantial financial and economic toll on society and economic sectors (Steffen et al., 2018; Ferreira Costa, 2020; 2020a) (Appendix A –Table A.4.). Many areas of the country remain seismically active –the most recent significant eruption occurred in November 2014 on Fogo's island. Tropical storms seldom affect the islands –hurricane Fred caused extensive damage in 2015 (GFDRR, 2017) (Appendix B –Table B.1.). Due to its geographic localization in the Sahelian eco-climate zone of the Western Africa region, extreme droughts, food insecurity events, and famine have been recurrent in recent decades, and climate change impacts seem to be exacerbating its effects on vulnerable populations, driving economic migrations from rural areas to the capital city (Ferreira Costa, 2020). One-third of the city's population lives below the national poverty line, in informal settlements, in high-risk prone areas (UNDRR, 2020) (Appendix B –Table B.2.). 2.1.1. Municipality of Praia The city of Praia is the capital of the Republic of Cabo Verde (Figure 3). The city is subdivided into eight administrative areas covering both urban and rural areas. More than 95% of the city's 167,500 inhabitants reside in the urban area, which continually increases.. It concentrates more than a quarter of the national populace (28,2%) (OECD/UCLG, 2016; UNDRR, 2019). Since 1990, the capital city of Praia, has seen the number of inhabitants increase by 32%, reaching 132,317 people in 2014 (urban population growth rate of 3% per year) (Lopes et al., 2014), to finally reach 167,500 inhabitants (2018), under an urban population growth rate of 2% (average annual %) 10 (UNDATA, 2020). The city counts with a Basic Law of Spatial Planning and Urban Planning (LBOTPU, in Portuguese), under Legislative Decree No. 1/2006, with changes introduced by Legislative Decree No. 6/2010. The legislation defines the Municipal Master Plan (PDM, 2016), establishing the planning (and management) instruments that govern the spatial organization of the entire municipal territory (PRAIA CITY COUNCIL, 2016; 2016a; MIOTH, 2016). Nevertheless, strict enforcement of environmental planning standards and regulations and urban planning efforts is inefficient (Kehew & Mayr, 2015). In Praia, the lack of urban land regularization and enforcement, and the accelerated pace of population growth —due to internal and international migration have been co-occurred with the lack of effective housing policies and programs. The government is unable and lacks the capacity to responding adequately to housing demand, leading to an exponential increase in neighborhoods and illegal buildings located on the steep slopes and flood plains, which represent a higher risk, especially during the rainy seasons (UNDRR, 2019a). Therefore, the outcome has been the generation of unplanned communities on the outskirts of the capital city. Praia's current urbanization pattern surpasses the world's urban expansion trend (40% of global urban expansion occurs in the form of slums). More than 50% of Praia's city is unplanned (Monteiro et al., 2012 pp.117-119; UNISDR, 2015a; UNDRR, 2019). Although the Spatial Planning and Urban Planning (LBOTPU) identified the location of the most problematic areas and points according to geological, geomorphologic, and hydrological risk areas in the municipality of Praia, the risk map and hazard profile of the city is not available to date, and Law enforcement remains insufficient. As a result, people continue to construct buildings in areas prone to erosion or landslides. Some try to circumvent planning restrictions by building at night to avoid oversight and compliance (UNDRR, 2019). 11 Figure 3. Location of Santiago´s Island, and the Urbanization pattern of the City of Praia 12 2.2. Qualitative Research The paper focuses mainly on multilevel governance ofor sustainable development and disaster-risk on urban planning in SIDS. We give careful consideration to a middleAtlantic capital city –Praia, in Cabo Verde, by covering sustainable development partnerships. The paper conducted qualitative research based on the local Caboverdian governments and administrative data regarding Disaster Risk Management (DRM) policy implementation, supported by third-party reports, such as case studies, audit reports, and development agency statistics. Our comprehensive analysis consisted of a review of 95 sources, ranging from agencies and government statistics –performance data and information –generated by the Caboverdian government authorities and the international community (12 documents), as well as policy documents (37 documents), and audit and project/program reports (9 documents). We consulted a total of 33 peer-reviewed papers (Table 1). We adopted the Database keyword search approach (DB WKS), as a simple summary of sources, in international journal database content exploration by incorporating ontologies to better capture the object of the study, based on specific keywords focusing on multi-level governance on SIDS, having Cabo Verde as the central object of investigation. We explored multidisciplinary international databases covering material published in the humanities and social sciences such as SCIC (Spanish National Research Council), DOAJ, Scopus, Web of Science, and Scielo Portugal. Regional and international documents and references were included when deemed necessary. We had no intention to identify the number of papers per year, research goals, nor combine summary and synthesis. The first part of the study is based on a literature review of reports, policy documents, published articles, and books. Multiple data sources, ranging from international development organizations and government publications to academic 13 Formatted: show, Indent: First line: 0.49", Pattern: Clear (White) literature, were used to get a comprehensive (although not exhaustive) understanding of disaster-risk and urban management challenges in SIDS. A second phase employed observation of local urban management trends and recommendations that can be extrapolated to other geographies facing similar pressures. In this study, we adopt athe multilevel governance perspective concerning concerned the scope of verticalization and horizontalization of governance. Several actors share the decision-making at varying levels of capacity, in contrast to static and centralized contexts, where a single state, groups, or individuals control the entire process (Schakel, Hooge, & Marks, 2015; Schakel, 2016). It can, somehow, reflect macro policy frameworks having a more significant consideration of local actors as implementers of disaster risk and climate change adaptation strategies because decisions impact locally (Di Gregorio et al., 2019; UNFCCC, 2020). This approach is beneficial for appraising the quality of institutional and administrative Adaptation resources, processes, and performance since the data utilized already closely adheres to existing Caboverdian public-sector risk reduction functions. A desk review and synthesis of existing data, information, open access publications, and third-party reports were carried out to understand the status and socio-political and socioeconomic context of Cabo Verde. This research assumes that meaningful local level risk reduction and adaptative climate policy implementation, in urban settings, must consider the normative and administrative dynamics and their linkages with historical processes, socioeconomic vulnerability and risk exposure, poverty reduction goals, and evidence-based decisionmaking. These are critical and interdependent approaches to build and maintain resilience and sustainable socioeconomic transformation (UNDRR, 2012; 2015; 2020; IPCC, 2014). Therefore, we examined representative reports and case studies to illustrate the successes 14 that can be captured and the gaps that need to be addressed for urban risk planning and articulation in SIDS. 15 Table 1. Consulted Documents. Subject Multilevel Governance Disaster Risk Reduction/Adaptation Climate Policy Local Government Urbanization Government PEDS. (2017-2021). UNDAF. (2018-2022). GoCV/MEA. (2007). UNDP. (2016; 2017; 2017a). GoCV. (2017). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNFCCC. (2020). UNDRR. (2019a; 2020). GoCV/MEA. (2007). GoCV. (2017). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDAF. (2018-2022). MIOTH. (2016). PDM. (2016). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDRR. (2019; 2020a). MIOTH. (2016). PDM. (2016). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDRR. (2019a; 2020). International Community Statistics Policy Documents U.N. (1992; 2002; 2014; 2016; 2019). UN-OHRLLS. (2011). UNISDR. (2013). UNDRR. (2015). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDESA. (2015; 2019). W.B. (2019). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). UNDP. (2017a). LDC Watch. (2020). UN-OHRLLS. (2020). W.B. (2013). UNDP. (2016; 2017a). CRED. (2017). EM-DAT. (2020). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). W.B. (2013). UNDATA. (2020). PDM. (2016). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). W.B. (2020). OECD. (2016). PDM. (2016). UNDAF. (2018-2022). 100RC Network. (2019). UNDATA. (2020). UNDRR. (2012; 2015). IPCC. (2013). UNDESA. (2014). UNISDR. (2015). UNDP. (2016; 2017; 2017a). GFDRR. (2017). IPCC. (2013). COP23. (2017). IPCC. (2014; 2018). ICLEI. (2018). UNDRR. (2012). UNISDR. (2015a). U.N. (2015). C40Cities. (2020). UNDAF. (2018-2022). Research Papers Torfing et al., (2012). Schakel, Hooghe, & Marks, (2015). Schakel, (2016). Ojwang et al., (2017). Shakya et al., (2018). Di Gregorio et al., (2019). Oliver-Smith, A. (2016). Söjstedt & Povitkina, (2016). Al-Nammari & Alzaghal, (2015). Gheuens, Nagabhatla, & Perera, (2019). Green et al., (2019). Nagabhata et al, (2019). Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2020a, 2021). Agarwal et al., (2012). Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2020). Baker et al., (2012). Williams et al., (2020). Monteiro et al., (2012). Lopes et al., (2014). Kehew & Mayr, (2015). Chilunga, RodriguezLlanes, & Guha-Sapir, (2017). 16 Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted Williams et al., (2019). Lehmann et al., (2020). Small Island Developing States Human-Nature Systems Methodological Approach UNDAF. (2018-2022). UN-OHRLLS. (2019). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UN-OHRLLS. (2013). SPC. (2019). UCLG. (2018). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). OECD. (2016). W.B. (2018). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDATA. (2020). UNISDR. (2017b). QGIS. (2020). UNDATA. (2020). U.N. (1994; 2005; 2014; 2016; 2019). IPCC. (2014a). AOSIS. (2020). UNDAF. (2018-2022). UNDESA. (2019). UN-OHRLLS. (2020). Kehew & Mayr, (2015). Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, (2019). U.N. (2002). UNDAF. (2018-2022). Plessis, C. (2008). Preiser et al., (2018). Steffen et al., (2018). Zepp et al., (2018) Lena Rau et al., (2019) Veselova, E. (2019). UNISDR. (2017; 2017a). Formatted ... Formatted: Font: 10 pt, English (United States) Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt, English (United States) Formatted: Font: 10 pt Upcraft & Schuh, (1996). Bresciani, Gadner, & Hickmott, (2009). Patton, (2014). Ospina, Esteve, & Lee, (2017). Denzin & Lincoln, (2017). Gilad, (2019). Formatted ... Formatted ... Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt, English (United States) Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt 17 2.3. Maps The paper uses maps for the best visualization of essential issues. For this, the QGIS-OSGeo4W-3.10.5-1 (2020) was used. The data source for shapefiles utilized was ArcGIS Hub and OpenStreetMap.org. The reference system employed was the Geographic Coordinate System DATUM EPSG: 4326-WGS84, and Geographic Coordinate System DATUM EPSG: 3857-WGS84; used to compose georeferenced maps of the archipelago, the islands of Cabo Verde, and the city of Praia, to facilitate the identification and observation of the study area. 3. RESULTS In this study, the definitions by Schakel, Hooghe, & Marks (2015), Schakel (2016), Söjstedt & Povitkina (2016), and Shakya et al., (2018) are used to combine the assessment of vertical linkages with political institutions and government effectiveness in its institutional dimensional contexts. They denote a steering and coordination process that involves a plurality of actors operating at different institutional levels. In this context, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) are procedures used by decision-makers to overcome the vulnerability of a country or city to disasters, for instance, by enhancing disaster preparedness and applying more efficient management of natural resources (UNDRR, 2020). Adaptation stratagems are recognized as strategies that help adjust society to changing climatic conditions (Oliver-Smith, 2016; Steffen et al., 2018). Table 21 outlines the targets and indicatorsmain frameworks, actions, and policy spheres of regarding urban resilience building in the African SIDS context, as discussed above, and detailedaccording to the Sustainable Development Goals –SDGs ( see in Appendix C). 18 Formatted: Font: 12 pt Table 21. Urban resilience building in the African SIDS context outlined targets and indicatorsframeworks, actions, and policy spheres. Framework Specific Actions Policy Spheres SGD 11 The urban. SDG 13 The climate action1. Sustainable Governance and strong Development SDG 16 institutions. Goals (SDGs) SDG 17 The partnerships. The Seven Targets of the Sendai Framework for The Sendai Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 Framework for The Four Priorities for Action of the Sendai MCR2030 DRR in Urban Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 settings The Ten Essential of Making Cities Resilient 2030 Partnerships Under the MCR2030 The New Urban Agenda. The SAMOA Pathways – Talanoa Dialogues Land-use Planning and Regional and Actions of the Project Preparedness for Resilient Housing. Local Recovery Partnership Capacity for preparedness Disaster Reduction International Recovery Platform – Project for disaster Initiative (CADRI) tools. Preparedness for Recovery in Africa recovery Detailed Urban Risk Preparedness for Resilient Recovery Project. initiatives Assessments (DURA). Angola, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Niger, and Rwanda Source: UNDRR, 2012, 2015, 2020; UNDESA, 2015; UNDP, 2016; 2017a; UNFCCC, 2020. 3.1. SIDS: A Complex Network of Actors 3.1.1. International Context of SIDS for Sustainable Development The Addis Ababa Action Agenda and the Brussels Programme of Action called attention to nationally owned development strategies. Integrated financing frameworks and policies with economic, social, and environmental priorities underlined the importance of an active and highly visible follow-up mechanism for managing its implementation, articulation, and coordination of multilevel governance frameworks. For Cabo Verde, it is imperative, since its transitioning finance status hampers the national strategy for development agenda, which is based on building capacities in production and service sectors, manage debt, build resilience and avoid socioeconomic reversals (U.N., 2015; UNDAF, 2018-2022; Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; LDC Watch, 2020). In 1 Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change —UNFCCC —is the first international, intergovernmental forum for arranging the global response to climate change UNFCCC (2020). 19 the specific case of SIDS, in 2001, the General Assembly, by resolution 56/227, established the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States (U.N., 2002). Nonetheless, it was only in 2018 that the UN-OHRLLS convened the inaugural SIDS National Focal Points (NFPs) to enhance the integration of SIDS issues in U.N. processes (SPC, 2019). Even so, SIDS had been first acknowledged in as a particular case both for their environment and development at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Since then, the U.N. has been operating in close partnership with SIDS and their associate organizations such as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) to support in fulfilling various Sustainable Development Goals (U.N., 1992; UNDESA, 2014; Kehew & Mayr, 2015; AOSIS, 2020). Since 1994, the UN-OHRLLS has been expediting coordination, information sharing, and planning on the implementation of the SDGs in SIDS, through the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA) (U.N., 1994); and, 2005 onwards, with the Mauritius Strategy for further Implementation of the BPOA, adopted to address remaining gaps in implementation (U.N., 2005). In 2014, the Third International Conference on SIDS took place. The United Nations General Assembly has also nominated 2014 as the International Year of SIDS. The SIDS Action Platform was established —, and United Nations Member States formally ratified the outcome document of the Conference, the Small Island Developing States Accelerated Modalities of Action —or SAMOA Pathway —in which countries acknowledged the need to support and invest in these nations to enhance global, regional, and national coherence to achieve sustainable development (U.N., 2014; UN-OHRLLS, 2020) (Appendix C –Table 3C.1.). Table 3. The SAMOA Pathway Objectives Objectives Formatted: Font: 10 pt 20      Support the coordinated follow-up of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Undertake advocacy work in favour of the small island developing States in partnership with the relevant parts of the United Nations as well as with the civil society, media, academia and foundations. Assist in mobilizing international support and resources for the implementation of the Programme of Action. Provide support to group consultations of SIDS. Ensure the mainstreaming of the SAMOA Pathway and SIDS related issues in the work of the UN system and to enhance the coherence of SIDS issues in UN processes. Source: UN-OHRLLS (2020) Since 2016, there is an annual Global Multi-stakeholder Small Island Developing States (SIDS) Partnership Dialogue, on the margins of the U.N. High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development. The SIDS Partnership Dialogue is part of the SIDS Partnership Framework, as a follow-up of the SAMOA Pathway, intended to launch new partnerships by sharing best practices, challenges, and successes (U.N., 2016; 2019). Nonetheless, the SAMOA Pathway still requires a formal mechanism for monitoring and review; this gap has added to the lack of data to recognize progress and hollows implementation in many SIDS (UN-OHRLLS, 2019). In light of these challenges, in 2015, the Paris Agreement reinforced the concept of multilevel climate action by recognizing the significance of involving all government levels and different actors. The Talanoa Dialogues, born at COP23, established the frontline cities and islands' initiative to implement a communication channel directly linkingcausally linking local and regional governments' experiences to the international climate negotiation process (COP23, 2017). Following the Third International Conference on SIDS, the U.N. indicates 555 partnerships for SIDS worldwide. At the global level, a majority (52%) are led by the U.N., while regional organizations and governments lead most partnerships with a regional focus. Despite sharing many standard features and challenges for AISSIDS, geographical dispersion and cultural diversity represent a unique challenge in coordination and intra-regional cooperation. There is currently no regional body to 21 Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt address cooperation specificities on sustainable development for the entire AIS-SIDS region (Kehew & Mayr, 2015; UNDESA, 2019). 3.1.2. SIDS Context for Urban Risk Reduction The world is increasingly becoming urban; population growth and urbanization are projected to reach more than two-thirds of the world's population. Increasing population density can lead to the creation of risk, especially when urbanization is rapid, poorly planned, and occurring in a context of widespread socioeconomic, fiscal, and economic vulnerability as it is for SIDS (UNISDR, 2015; Chilunga, Rodrigues-Llanes, & Guha-Sapir, 2017; ICLEI, 2018). With urbanization and climate change increasingly among the defining trends worldwide (Kehew & Mayr, 2015), the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 emerged as the first significant agreement of the post2015 development agenda, recognizing that the State has the central role in reducing disaster risk, but that responsibility should be administered with other stakeholders, including local government (Table 4; Table 5) (UNDRR, 2015). Specifically targeting urban planning, in May 2010 –under a time frame of 10 years (Appendix C –Table C.2.; Table C.3.) Table 4. The Seven Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030        The Seven Global Targets Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality rates in the decade 2020-2030 compared to the period 2005-2015. Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 in the decade 2020 -2030 compared to the period 2005-2015. Reduce direct disaster economic loss concerning the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of essential services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030. Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020. Substantially enhance international cooperation in developing countries through adequate and sustainable support to complement their national actions for implementation of this Framework by 2030. Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030. 22 Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Source: UNDRR, 2015; UNSIDR, 2015 Table 5. The Four Priorities for Action of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. The Four Priorities for Action Disaster risk management should be based on an understanding of disaster Priority 1. Understanding risk in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacity, exposure of persons and disaster risk assets, hazard characteristics, and the environment. Such knowledge can be used for risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response. Priority 2. Strengthening Disaster risk governance at the national, regional, and global levels is vital disaster risk governance to for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation. It fosters collaboration and partnership. manage disaster risk Public and private investment in disaster risk prevention and reduction Priority 3. Investing in through structural and non-structural measures are essential to enhance the disaster risk reduction for economic, social, health, and cultural resilience of persons, communities, resilience countries, and their assets, as well as the environment. Priority 4. Enhancing The growth of disaster risk means there is a need to strengthen disaster disaster preparedness for preparedness for response, act in anticipation of events, and ensure capacities effective response and to are in place for effective response and recovery at all levels. The recovery, "Build Back Better" in rehabilitation, and reconstruction phase are critical opportunities to build recovery, rehabilitation, back better, including through integrating disaster risk reduction into development measures. and reconstruction Source: UNDRR, 2015 The Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient (MCR) was launched, aimed at addressing local risk governance, urban risk, and resilience to expedite the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030) at the local level. Specifically targeting urban planning, in May 2010 –under a time frame of 10 years (Table 6). Table 6. The Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient 23 Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Essential 1 – Organisation and Coordination Essential 2 –Budget assignment Essential 3 –Prepare risk assessments Essential 4 –Critical infrastructure that reduces risks Essential5 – Assessment of Safety Infrastructure Essential 6 –Building regulations and land use planning Essential 7 – Education and Training Essential 8 – Protection of the environment Essential 9 –Early Warning Systems Essential 10 –PostDisaster Needs Assessments Ten Essentials Put in place organization and coordination to understand and reduce disaster risk based on the participation of citizen groups and civil society. Build local alliances. Ensure that all departments understand their role in disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Assign a budget for disaster risk reduction and provide incentives for homeowners, low-income families, communities, businesses, and the public sector to invest in reducing the risks they face. Maintain up to date data on hazards and vulnerabilities. Prepare risk assessments and use these as the basis for urban development plans and decisions, ensure that this information and the plans for your city’s resilience are readily available to the public and fully discussed with them. Formatted: Font: 10 pt Invest in and maintain critical infrastructure that reduces risk, such as flood drainage, adjusted where needed to cope with climate change. Formatted: Font: 10 pt Assess the safety of all schools and health facilities and upgrade these as necessary. Formatted: Font: 10 pt Apply and enforce realistic, risk compliant building regulations and land use planning principles. Identify safe land for low-income citizens and upgrade informal settlements, wherever feasible. Formatted: Font: 10 pt Ensure that education programs and training on disaster risk reduction are in place in schools and local communities. Formatted: Font: 10 pt Protect ecosystems and natural buffers from mitigating floods, storm surges, and other hazards to which your city may be vulnerable. Adapt to climate change by building on good risk reduction practices. Install early warning systems and emergency management capacities in your city and hold regular public preparedness drills After any disaster, ensure that the needs of the affected population are placed at the center of a reconstruction initiative, with support for them and their community organizations to design and help implement responses, including rebuilding homes and livelihoods. Source: UNDRR, 2012 Formatted: Font: 10 pt —, the Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient (MCR) was launched, aimed at addressing local risk governance, urban risk, and resilience to expedite the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030) at the local level (Appendix C –Table C.4.). With thThee original MCR Campaign was duedue to end in 2020, and a new phase of the initiative is arising —the Making Cities Resilient 2030 (MCR2030) —, following a series of consultations held between 2018-2019 that brought a broad cross-section of organizations together (UNDRR, 2012; 2015; 2020) (Appendix C –Table 7C.5.). Table 7. Making Cities Resilient 2030 (MCR2030) –Initial Proposal 24 Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Strategic Objective 1 Strategic Objective 2 Strategic Objective 3 Cross-Cutting Objective Main Strategic Objectives of the MCR2030 Increase city understanding of risk and commitments to disaster risk reduction and resilience Formatted: Font: 10 pt Increase city capacities to plan for risk reduction and resilience Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Increase city capacities to implement resilience actions and reduce risks Increase vertical links with the national governments and horizontal links amongst local partners, mainstreaming resilience throughout and between partners, functions and services, and foster city-to-city partnerships and sharing of experience. Source: UNDRR, 2019 Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Centered Taking the AIS-SIDS region into close observation, the lack of a regional institutional framework has been cited as a reason for infrequent knowledge integration and low policy coherence. Despite these challenges, many sub-regional and national partnerships exist in the region, significantly contributing to its sustainable development (Appendix C –Table 8C.6.). However, climate change and disaster risk are less prominently approached by partnerships in this region than other SIDS regions (UNDESA, 2019). Table 8. Partnerships Under the MCR2030       Partners Development partners such as the UN agencies, global and regional non-governmental organizations, bilateral and multilateral donors. National government such as ministries responsible for urban development, local government, climate change adaptation and disaster risk management. National associations of municipalities. Local governments. Private sector entities, consultancies. Academia and research institutes. Source: UNDRR, 2019 3.2. Sustainable Development and DRR policies: Country-Level Institutional and Policy Context The Government of Cabo Verde, in a comprehensive and consultative process, anchored national development strategies in the integrated vision of Agenda 2030, also pursuing the guiding vision of the African Agenda 2063, and the Samoa Pathway 25 Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt acknowledging to the specificities of a Small Island Development States. The country's Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development aims to ensure better alignment and integration of the 2030 Agenda, the SDGs, and the Sendai framework, translating international agendas into the architecture of national objectives. It seeks to reinforce the interconnections with the global and regional agendas to which Cabo Verde has committed itself, identifying SDG financing gaps and overcoming mounting debt distress while reducing ODA dependency (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; PEDS 2017-2021; GoCV, 2017; Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019; UNDAF, 2018-2022). The national development architecture is built around a series of priorities aimed at contributing to the consolidation of the country's development gains, which are articulated around thematic areas, including environmental sustainability and adaptation to climate change. Before 2012, the government's focus was on emergency preparedness and disaster management only. Preparation, prevention, build-better-back, and resilient recovery capacities were frequently low back then. From 2012 onwards, the Caboverdian government started shifting focus from managing disasters to managing disaster risk. Since 2014, with the support of the international community, a new area of work was introduced. Oriented towards reinforcing national capacities to seize the opportunities arising during the disaster recovery phase to reinforce urban resilience and build back better, and assist national authorities in establishing the necessary capabilities to prepare for and manage recovery processes, mainly to undertake a post-disaster needs assessment, and develop, and implement recovery strategies (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; GoCV, 2017). From 2016-17 on, the Government of Cabo Verde, through an inter-ministerial task force –under the leadership of the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment (MAA), and Ministry of Infrastructure, Land Use Planning and Housing (MIOTH, 2016), and the Cabo Verde’s Civil Protection and Fire Brigade (SNPCB) –under the Ministry of Internal 26 Administration –in collaboration with the international community and development agencies –, have been working towards reinforcing national capacities on public policy implementation and coherence at higher levels (GoCV/MEA, 2007; UNDP, 2016; 2017; GoCV, 2017; PEDS, 2017-2021; UNDAF, 2018-2022; UN-OHRLLS, 2019; UNDRR, 2019; 2019b; W.B., 2020). A new focus on disaster risk assessment was presented as a first step to reinforce national public capacities and strengthen national disaster risk management systems (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; GoCV, 2017; UNDAF, 2018-2022). A combination of initiatives supported the conduction of three Detailed Urban Risk Assessments (DURA) pilot initiatives (led by the National Institute of Geography and Territory (INGT), the Cabo Verde’s Civil Protection and Fire Brigade (SNPCB), the University of Cabo Verde (UniCV), the National Association of Municipalities (ANMCV), in three municipalities: the city of Praia, Mosteiros, and Ribera Brava; to generate evidence on risk information for fostering practice in risk-informed development to promote urban resilience in Cabo Verde (UNDP, 2017) (Appendix C –Table 9C.7.). Table 9. Actions of the Project Preparedness for Resilient Recovery in Cabo Verde DRR Actions in Cabo Verde  Build capacities to use the post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA) methodology and, on this basis, to design disaster recovery frameworks (DRF).  Adapt and institutionalize the PDNA methodology, as necessary.  Based on the evaluation of current needs and gaps, guide and establish institutional mechanisms for managing resilient recovery –including the development of a national policy framework for resilient recovery (pre-event National Disaster Recovery Framework) and promoted policy revisions to integrate resilience aspects into national and local DRM systems and all-sectors development strategies.  Establish capacity for managing recovery processes at the national and the local level.  Assist national authorities in establishing the necessary capabilities to prepare for and manage recovery processes, mainly to undertake a post-disaster needs assessment, develop, and implement recovery strategies. Source: UNDP (2016; 2017) 3.2.1. Urban Risk Planning Cross-Cutting Issues Disaster Risk Reduction cuts across different aspects and sectors of development. There are 25 targets related to disaster risk reduction in 10 of the 17 SDGs, firmly 27 Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt Formatted: Font: 10 pt establishing the role of disaster risk reduction as a core development strategy. SDGs 1 (Target 1.5.), 11 (Goal 11.5, and Target 11.b), 13 (Target 13.1) have similar targets on DRR strategies under the Sendai Framework and the MCR2030. It directly addresses priorities of action and its indicators for monitoring disaster risk reduction actions at the local level. Moreover, it guards close correlation with the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda, including the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the New Urban Agenda, and the SAMOA Pathway recognizing the critical role cities and local governments play in development (UNDRR, 2012; 2015; 2019; IPCC, 2014) (Appendix C –Table C.8.). The progress SIDS make towards reaching the SDGs Goals and Targets can be a good indicator of the DRR measures and macro policy frameworks in place, and shed some light on the role of local actors as implementers of disaster risk and climate change adaptation strategies (Di Gregorio et al., 2019; UNFCCC, 2020). In a nutshell, the success of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and specific program actions for development in Cabo Verde can be, in part, measured by progress in the implementation of disaster risk reduction. In this regard, an effective and well-coordinated public policy environment provides an opportunity to encourage increased political commitment and economic investment to reduce risks and take development action that considers urban disaster resilience critical to poverty reduction and a key enabler of sustainable development (UNISDR, 2015). Understanding Cabo Verde’s sustainable development and DRR institutional and policy context, identifying potential drivers and bottlenecks of public policy implementation, is incremental in creating the desired urban resilience. It is accepted that actors must come together to realize holistic urban development approaches for delivering sustainability and resilience (UNISDR, 2015a). 3.3. Urban Risk Policy and Planning: Insights from Practice in Praia, Cabo Verde 28 Cabo Verde’s Civil Protection and Fire Brigade (SNPCB), headquartered in Praia, is responsible for disaster management in the country and is concerned about coordinating the activities to address the growing impacts of rapid urbanization in the capital city. It is the city’s leading DRR institution, including the Municipal Guard, Department of Infrastructure and Transportation, the Directorate of Planning, the Directorate of Environment and Sanitation, and the Directorate of Social Action and Gender. Moreover, National bodies also participate in this architecture, including the National Institute of Statistics, the National Institute of Meteorology and Geophysics, and the Maritime and Port Authority (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; UNDRR, 2020). The government started an initiative to map numerous specialized areas ranging from awareness and strategic planning to effective implementation of the risk-informed urban development plans, where the priority is to develop a risk map and hazard profile of the cities (UNDRR, 2019), aimed at informing the activities of sectors such as urban planning. Also, to help public institutions to regulate the construction and enforcement of zoning restrictions in high-risk areas of the city, at the same time, mainstreaming of DRR and Climate Change Adaptation in urban development planning, so that it is blended across the activities of all sectors of local government (UNDP, 2016; 2017a). Praia's city is on the way to undertake a comprehensive consultative process with the active participation of municipal institutions, civil society organizations, the private sector, and international development partners represented in the country. It seeks to ensure better alignment and integration of the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs in the city’s framework to support local authorities in considering risk management solutions and to prioritize them based on economic analysis of their effectiveness and efficiency (based on Cost-Benefit Analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, among others), and integrate DRR and urban resilient recovery considerations into local level strategic development plans 29 as well as land-use plans (UNDP, 2016; 2017a). Multilevel governance can, then, be explored in this context, concerning the analysis of upwards, downwards, and sideways transfers of decision-making authority away from the central government to other (non-) governmental actors (Schekel, Hooghe, & Marks, 2015). The city established an assessment framework based on the Partnership Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative (CADRI) tools for DRR capacity assessments and the UNDP Capacity development framework, informed by the Sendai Framework for Action for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Moreover, the actions established a partnership with the General Directorate of Social Inclusion. It helps developing tools related to the development and application of a Social Vulnerability Index as a measure to inform criteria-setting for different social protection programs, which databases are now to be integrated into a Single Social Registry (CSU, in Portuguese), making it possible correlates physical risks with the social and economic aspects of vulnerability. Decentralization and local development emerged as a groundbreaking achievement to support dialogue and awareness-raising effectively and sustainably at the local level (UNDP, 2016; 2017a; Ojwang et al., 2017). 4. DISCUSSION Human and natural systems co-exist in extensive, complex, multi-layered entanglement (Veselova, 2019). Since we are still improving our understanding of the intricate relationship between human well-being and ecosystem integrity in the face of growing global urban development (Plessis, 2008). We follow the UN-Urbanization and Climate Change interpretation of current trends in urbanization and climate, and its impacts on cities in SIDS (Kehew & Mayr, 2015), to navigate the environmental and societal challenges we experience as humans (Stefen et al., 2018). It further explores the role of political commitment for urban resilience as a tool for addressing these critical 30 issues, according to Söjstedt & Povitkina (2016), and Shakya et al., (2018). In this rapid urbanization scenario, climate change increases poor urban communities' vulnerability to natural hazards, undermining urban resilience (Williams et al., 2019). Therefore, to address these questions, it is crucial overcome silos and articulate a complex system of stakeholders made of an assemblage of smaller actors, government agencies, private organizations, the media, and offices of international organizations –ranging from across and outside city government (Shakel, Hooghe, & Marks, 2015; Schakel, 2016). Notwithstanding, the investigation of these issues usually fall into four categories on a continuum from subjective ("soft") to objective ("hard"): perceptions, experiences, assessments, and administrative data. In this study, the use of administrative data provides a cost-effective way of capturing insights from practice, and it is useful to frame what is considered "hard measures" by addressing and reviewing supra-national and national contexts regarding DRM public policies. Documents are a rich source of learning and contribute an excellent inception point for any assessment project (Bresciani, Gadner, & Hickmott, 2009). Public records and official documents are the two primary documents substantiating outcomes-based evaluations in this investigation. Therefore, the documents' authenticity was determined before using them for the assessment (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996; Patton, 2014). That being the case, the framework hereon described is foreseen to inform additional investigations in this setting. In this way, we can discuss these issues based on evidence. A lack of experiential reckonings inquiring the validity of political institutions and government effectiveness affect adaptive capacities, and their impacts on the urban vulnerability of SIDS in urban contexts persist (Söjstedt & Povitkina, 2016). Most contemporary disaster preparedness, response, and recovery methodologies and tools are promoted for rural areas (UNISDR, 2015a). These embrace the lack of up-to-date data 31 and knowledge to manage climate shifts effectively, a need for better coordination within international, national, and local frameworks, and the imperative to boost national sectoral agencies' capacity to do urban disaster risk planning (Nagabhata , Perera, & Gheuenset al., 2019; Williams et al., 2020). Improving local governance is vital to guarantee peace, boost economic development, maximize administrative efficiency, and ensure social inclusion and environmental sustainability (UCLG, 2018), and create forward linkages with the local economy and international markets (Morris, Cattaneo, & Poensgen, 2019). The effectiveness of multilevel governance understood as the sharing of power across global and local institutions, supra-national and sub-national actors, and international, national, and sub-national governance frameworks (Schakel, Hooghe, & Marks, 2015), is often impeded in disaster and climate policy processes through insufficiencies in multilevel governance articulation and coordination (Schakel, 2016; Williams et al., 2019; 2020). Therefore, the research fields of vulnerability and resilience need to carefully explore and augment the role of governance systems, decision-making processes, and institutional arrangements to achieve desirable outcomes under the 2030 Development Agenda and climate negotiations (Söjstedt & Povitkina, 2016; Ojwang et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2019; 2020). The relationship between governance, policy, and implementation is complicated, and the inconsistencies of local governance highlight the need for a versatile methodological approach to elucidate operational and administrative challenges at the local level (Williams et al., 2020), since participation is defined by stakes interests, knowledge, resources and networking capability (Torfing et al., 2012; Ojwang et al., 2017). Therefore, to assess local governance systems' capacity to implement disaster risk and climate change adaptation, we need to identify capacity needs and address needs in recommendations for climate-smart policy formulation and riskinformed strategies (Shakya et al., 2018). The complexity and multi-active climate change 32 context require a robust governance system to handle and solve disputes of interests over multiple scales and among diverse policy actors (Di Gregorio et al., 2019). In the case of African coastal cities, especially in Praia, Cabo Verde, there is a strong need to build up understanding and awareness around disaster risk management, preeminently, at an institutional level in urban management (UNDRR, 2020; 2020a; 2019; 2019a). The limitations are evident, since policy actors mostly interact within levels, and jurisdictional boundaries produce obstacles to cross-level interaction and reinforce mismatches between governance systems and responses (Di Gregorio et al., 2019). The role of urban planning and policies aiming to improve access to water, sanitation, appropriate housing, proper drainage systems, safe land is crucial to prevent risk by guiding settlement in safe areas and reducing vulnerability (UNISDR, 2015a). However, participants must be acting locally, managing to overcome the tendency to cooperate primarily among themselves, and more so than organizations of the same type, joining actors in different governance levels. 4.1. Urban Risk Planning: Garnering Political Commitment in Praia, Cabo Verde Navigating the environmental and societal challenges that mark the complexities and multi-scale nature of the human-natures relations (Preiser et al., 2018), and regarding SIDS, it has been attracting increasing attention to governance analysis (Söjstedt & Povitkina, 2016; Ojwang et al., 2017; Di Gregorio et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2019; 2020). At the International level, government representatives’ members of the SIDS seem to find ways to negotiate to enhance coordination among the United Nations and island governments and harmonize the implementation of internationally agreed sustainable development and DRR goals and action programs at higher levels (UN-OHRLLS, 2019). Although, when looking closely to some regions, for instance to the AIS-SIDS region, 33 where Cabo Verde is situated, there is a need for SIDS to create a set of interrelated local and national conditions that allow stakeholders to fully engage in national, as well as in local development issues and partnerships (UNDESA, 2019). Moreover, at the national level, the government of Cabo Verde verbalize the advantage of bringing in close contact and collaboration the experts and institutions responsible for the implementation of sustainable and risk reduction frameworks, enabling, on the one hand, an increasing coherence in the handling of SIDS issues in United Nations processes, and on the other, providing an essential link between global and national levels, while facilitating coordination, information sharing, lessons learned, and planning activities related to the implementation of SAMOA Pathway and the SDGs (UN-OHRLLS, 2019). However, as observed in this assessment, as per Cabo Verde, multi-stakeholder partnership engagement initiatives have been initiated through international organizations and the international community leading to little or at least minimal national ownership. At the same time that the country faces challenges concerning weak legal, institutional, and human capacities, as well as inadequate data and statistics, lack of baseline data and indicators, and weak links between data collection for monitoring, evaluation, and reporting, all arising as a crucial development bottleneck (UNDESA, 2019). Nonetheless, a unitary discourse between the international actors and national government has increased opportunity but hides essential factors –the overall dominant risk reduction network community operates almost exclusively at the national level. Given that national-level actors dominate policy decisions, this could indicate a lack of attention that leads to limiting cross-level collaboration impacting institutional capacity for disaster risk reduction, monitoring, and reporting shortages at the local level (Ojwang et al., 2017; Di Gregorio et al., 2019). Further, it is vital to look at both formal and informal institutions. Perhaps, for the city of Praia, the most important achievement in 34 terms of governance was the establishment of a multi-stakeholder partnership, bringing together 23 actors, representing 21 national and local institutions, besides the media, the civil society, and local authorities, as well as parliamentarians, and the participation of the national municipalities association as key to develop decentralized capacities for DRR. The most considerable insight of all has been that the actors seem to recognize the needs of all individuals, cities, islands, connected through new ways of thinking and doing, empowered by the necessity to respond to emerging challenges. In this regard, literature explores the importance of strengthening knowledge and capacities and sharing information between State and non-state actors to build resilience (Oliver-Smith, 2016; Gheuens, Nagabhatla, & Perera& Nagabhatla, 2019; 100RC Network, 2019). Whether domestic actors lead or are accelerated by global interests in risk reduction decisionmaking is an empirical question and may differ by country. Additional investigations to evaluate significant barriers to synergies between national and sub-national governance levels in urban settings in SIDS are needed. The SIDS international community needs to build knowledge and information at an institutional and political commitment level to mainstreaming DRR into urban development planning (UNDRR, 2020). 4.2. Gaps and Challenges for Urban Resilience Building in Praia Disasters endure as one of the main hurdles facing nations of the developing world, as they cause not only high mortality and suffering but also damage local economies that are in the process of formation and towards development achievements (Al-Nammari & Alzaghal, 2015; Chilunga, Rodriguez-Llanes, & Guha-Sapir, 2017; ICLEI, 2018). In Africa, coastal cities lacking urban and environmental management combines with inappropriate urban risk planning under unprecedented levels of rapid urbanization and extreme climate change variability, outing vulnerable communities in precarious situations, and often leaving them in a corrosive cycle of fragility and risk due 35 Formatted: English (United States) to the rising number of urban disasters (UNDP, 2017; Williams et al., 2019). Nonetheless, with 60% of what is expected to be urban in 2030 still to be built (UNISDR, 2015a), urban growth represents an unparalleled opportunity to reduce urban disaster risk by reflecting resilience and disaster risk reduction in policy, planning, design, and investment decisions over future urban development, and to avoid past development mistakes (UNISDR, 2015). From insights captured from practice in Praia, Cabo Verde, the study identified critical data gaps in specific areas of the multi-governance of Disaster Risk Reduction into urban resilience, especially concerning the lack of a formal mechanism for monitoring and review institutional coordination and articulation at the local level. Due to insufficient availability and accessibility of data, the Sendai Framework for Cabo Verde monitoring process is not available or accessible (UNISDR, 2017b), making it hard to measure any progress made towards sustainable urban development and risk reduction targets. Furthermore, many initiatives overlap and compete for scarce financial, technical, and human resources. However, existing global frameworks supporting sustainable development and DRR locally, seek increased understanding of risks. Nonetheless, in the AIS-SIDS specific circumstances, it is hampered by the lack of institutional capacity and articulation as a unitary group. Against this background, resilience activities and increasing awareness still must be met locally, amplifying policy challenges. 4.3. Limitations Qualitative study research represents a small percentage of journal publications, and a small range of methodologies is applied, mainly case studies , although, equally to quantitative studies, precision, and uprightness of the logic on examination and describing standards of qualitative research practice in attainable (Ospina, Esteve, & Lee, 2017). Qualitative studies encourage improved academic and administrative practice, 36 accommodating the study of complex policy-meaningful research questions that matter in the real world, underlying real intricacies that policymakers and public organizations face (Gilad, 2019). According to Patton (2014) and Denzin & Lincoln (2017), qualitative research is multimethod in focus, comprising an interpretative, naturalistic method to its subject matter. Data for qualitative analysis commonly result from fieldwork and being multimethod in focus, three types of conclusions often result from this qualitative fieldwork experience: interviews, observations, and documents. Furthermore, qualitative methodology explores the accurate description of circumstances, events, people, interactions, and examined behaviors (Upcraft & Schuh, 1996). It is focused on knowing how actors make sense of involvement in their circumstances (Bresciani, Gadner, & Hickmott, 2009; Patton, 2014). The application of techniques themselves can yield very rich findings for outcome-based appraisals, letting the methodology determine whether an intended outcome has been distinguished (Bresciani, Gadner, & Hickmott, 2009). During the assessment, institutional data availability and data reliability arose as challenges. Most data related to institutional authority and capacity is not rigorously collected, and it is scarcely available. Questions about the reliability of self-reported data in DRR government monitoring and evaluation systems remain and should be analyzed in further studies. 4.4. Recommendations Local authorities' empowerment through regulatory and financial frameworks sets interrelated local, national, and international settings that allow stakeholders to engage fully. Supporting mutual learning and experience sharing in vertical (and horizontal) governance frameworks to revise, update, and enforce urban risk regulations and standards make up a critical component of sustainable urban development public policy. 5. CONCLUSIONS 37 This study is deeply rooted in the concepts of system thinking and socialecological systems. It contributes to the growing knowledge of the institutional framework's role in facilitating local adaptation and design-thinking in urbandevelopment planning processes in coastal cities and low-lying areas, mainly in SIDS. Urbanization and climate change adaptation are worldwide defining trends due to complex institutional, financial, and political constraints. Climate change, nature degradation, biodiversity loss, and higher exposure to risks and disasters are complex and interconnected. However, they are not just environmental issues; they are also human problems as they impact people's lives and livelihoods. Coastal areas, especially in SIDS, require that the existing range of partnerships on adaptation –at the international and national levels –become even more effective at the local level. In this regard, it is paramount to efficiently address urbanization needs, taking into account the intricate relationship between human well-being and ecosystem integrity in the face of fastgrowing urban development. We also know that a fair evaluation and assessment of adaptation needs does not imply good performance. The actors involved (at the government level or not) must demonstrate their capacity to execute. In this regard, part of our current questions problems are closely related to political noise and unreliable management; and, to tackle these constraints, we have tomust ensure adequate enforcement and assistance at the local level. Managing adaptation across multiple scales and policy actors, including understanding significant barriers to cross-level interaction on local practice and policy measures. 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The author is very grateful to the National Institute of Geography and Territory (INGT), the Cabo Verde’s Civil Protection and Fire Brigade (SNPCB), the University of Cabo Verde (UniCV), the National Association of Municipalities (ANMCV) for their 38 valuable comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript to the present level. Nonetheless, this paper's views are the author's views and do not necessarily reflect the views of the government of Cabo Verde. 7. REFERENCES Al-Nammari, F.,; & Alzaghal, M. (2015). Towards Local Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries: Challenges from Jordan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. Vol. 12, June 2015. pp. 34-41. Available on-line at:<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.11.005>. Accessed May 13, 2020. Agarwal, A., Perrin, N., Chatre, A., Benson, C. S., & Kononen, M. (2012). Climate policy processes, local institutions, and adaptation actions: Mechanisms of translation and influence. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(6), 565–579. Available at:< https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.193>. Accessed February 06, 2020. Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., & McAlpine, C. (2012). Local government response to the impacts of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans. Landscape and Urban Planning, 107(2), 127–136. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.05.009>. Accessed March 27, 2020. Bresciani, M.J., Gadner, M.M., & Hickmott, J. (2009). Demonstrating Student Success: A Practical GuidePractical Guide to Outcomes-Based Assessment of Learning and Development in Student Affairs. Stylus Publishing, 224p. Virginia, USA. Available at:< https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED531578>. Accessed May 16, 2020. Chilunga, F., Rodriguez-Llanes, J., & Guha-Sapir, D. (2017). Rapid Urbanizations is Linked to Floof Lethality in the Small Island States (SIDS): A Modelling Study. Prehosp. Disaster med. 32, s190. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X17005015>. Accessed May 15, 2020. Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2017). The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. Fifth Edition. 992p. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Paavola, J., Locatelli, B., Pramova, E., Nurrochmat, D. R., May, P. H., Brockhaus, M., Sari, I. M., & Kusumadewi, S.D. (2019). Multilevel Governance and Power in Climate Change Policy Networks. Global Environmental Change, 54, 64–77. Available at:<https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.003>. Accessed May 01, 2020 Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2020). Understanding and Reducing Climate Risks: The Impact of Innovative Policies for Sustainable Drought Response in Cabo Verde. Estudios Geográficos. 81 (288), enero-junio 2020, e033. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.3989/estgeogr.202048.028>. Accessed May 13, 2020. Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2020a). Revisiting Disaster Events in Cabo Verde: A Historical Review of Droughts and Food Insecurity Events to Enable Future Climate Resilience. Revista Española de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros. No. 255. Issue:. 1, 47-76. Available at:<https://www.mapa.gob.es/app/publicaciones/art_datos_art.asp?articuloid=14 80&codrevista=REEAP https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ministerio/servicios/publicaciones/pdf_reeap_r255_ 47_76_tcm30-540737.pdf>. Accessed October 2, 2020. Ferreira Costa, C.G. (2021). Disaster Management and Climate Adaptation Roadmap for Coastal Cities based on UNDRR’S Ten Essentials. Journal of Integrated Coastal 39 Formatted: Italian (Italy) Formatted: Italian (Italy) Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Formatted: English (United States) Formatted: Spanish (Spain) Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Formatted: English (United States) Zone Management. Vol. 21. Issue 1. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.5894/rgcin372>. Accessed February 2, 2021. Formatted: English (United States) Gheuens, J., & Nagabhatla, N., & Perera E.D.P. (2019). Disaster-Risk, Water Security Challenges and Strategies in Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Water, Vol. 11. No. 4. 637. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040637>. Accessed March 03, 2020. Gilad, S. (2019). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Pursuit of Richer Answers to Real-World Questions, Public Performance & Management Review. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1694546>. Accessed February 02, 2020. Green, H.K.; Lysaght, O.; Saulnier, D.D., Blanchard, K., & Humphrey, A. (2019). Challenges with Disaster Mortality Data and Measuring Progress Towards the Implementation of the Sendai Framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk 4. Pp 449-461. 2019. Available Science. Vol. 10. Issue. at<https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-019-00237-x>. Accessed May 09, 2020. Kehew, R., & Mayr, M. (2015). Urbanization and Climate Change in Small Island Developing States. UN-Habitat Report. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. Nairobi, Kenya. Available at:<https://urban-leds.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/resources/guidance_and_tools/Integrated_climate_action/ Urbanization%20and%20Climate%20in%20Small%20Island%20Developing%2 0States-SIDS%20-%202015.pdf>. Accessed May 09, 2020. Lehmann, M., Major, D.C., Doust, K., O-Donogue, S., & Fitton, J. (2020). The Unusual Suspects in Climate Change Adaptation – Small Coastal Cities and Towns. Ocean & Coastal Management. Available at:<https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/ocean-and-coastalmanagement/special-issue/10P5TKBPWQZ>. Accessed May 09, 2020. Lena Rau, A., Bickel, MW., Rathgens, J., Schroth T.N., Weiser, A., Hilser, S., Jenkins, S., McCrory, G., Pfefferle, N., Roitsch, D., Stalhmmar, S., Villada, D., Wamsler, C., Krause, T., Wehrden, H. (2019). Linking Concepts of Change and Ecosystem Service Research: A Systematic Review. Change and Adaptation in SocioEcological Systems. Vol. 4. 33-45. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1515/cass2018-0004>. Accessed February 2, 2021. Formatted: English (United States) Lopes, A., Correia, E., Nascimento, J.M., & Canário, P. (2014). Urban Bioclimate and Comfort Assessment in the African City of Praia (Cabo Verde). Finisterra – Revista Portuguesa de Geografia, (98), 33-48. Available at:<http://www.scielo.mec.pt/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S043050272014000200004&lng=pt&tlng=en>. Accessed May 12, 2020. Monteiro, S., Veiga, E., Fernandes, E., Fernandes, H., Rodrigues, J., & Cunha, L. (2012). Spontaneous Urban Growth and Natural Risks in Praia (Cabo Verde). Cadernos de Geografia. No. 30/31. Coimbra, FLUC. pp. 117-130. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.14195/0871-1623_31_12http://dx.doi.org/10.14195/08711623_31_11>. Accessed May 12, 2020. Morris, R., Cattaneo, O., & Poensgen, K. (2019). Transition Finance in the least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States: Cabo Verde Country Pilot. Development Co-Operation Directorate/Development Assistance Committee (DCD/DAC). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). JT03441604. Available 40 Field Code Changed Formatted: Portuguese (Brazil) Formatted: Portuguese (Brazil) Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Formatted: Font color: Text 1, English (United States) Formatted: Italian (Italy) at:<http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=D CD/DAC(2019)4&docLanguage=En>. Accessed May 12, 2020. Nagabhata, N., Perera, D., Gheuens, J., Wale, C., & Devlin, M. (2019). Managing Disaster Risk and Water Security: Strategies for Small Island Developing States. UNU-INWEH Policy Brief, Issue 6. United Nations Institute for Water, Environment, and Health. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Available at:<https://inweh.unu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/PolicyBrief_Issue06.pdf>. Accessed May 09, 2020. Ojwang, L., Rosendo, S., Celliers, L., Obura, D., Muiti, A., Kamula, J., & Mwangi, M. (2017). Assessment of Coastal Governance for Climate Change Adaptation in Kenya. Earth’s Future, 5(11), 1119–1132. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000595>. Accessed February 15, 2020. Oliver-Smith, A. (2016). The Concepts of Adaptation, Vulnerability, and resilience in the Anthropology of Climate Change: Considering the Case of Displacement and Migration. In Anthropology and Climate Change: From Actions to Transformations, 2nd ed., Crate, S., Nuttal, M., Eds., Routledge: New York, NY, USA. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315530338>. Accessed March 05, 2020. Ospina, S., Esteve, M., & Lee, S. (2017). Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research. Public Administration Review. 78(4). pp. 593-605. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837>. Accessed April 16, 2020. Patton, M.Q. (2014). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. Fourth Edition. 832p. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Plessis, C. (2008). Understanding Cities as Social-Ecological Systems. World Sustainable Building Conference –SB´08, Melbourne, Australia, 21-25 September. 9p. Available at:<http://hdl.handle.net/10204/3306>. Accessed October 02, 2020. Preiser, R. Biggs, R., De VOS, A., & Folke, C. (2018). Social-Ecological Systems as Complex Adaptive Systems: Organizing Principles for Advancing Research Methods and Approaches. Ecology and Society, 2394):46. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10558-230446>. Accessed October 02, 2020. Schakel, A.H. (2016). Applying Multilevel Governance. Chapter 7. Available at:<https://www.arjanschakel.nl/images/pub_chapters/Schakel_2016.pdf>. Accessed May 11, 2020. Schakel, A. H., Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2015). Multilevel Governance and the State. The Oxford handbook of transformations of the State (pp. 269–285). Oxford University Press. Shakya, C., Cooke, K., Gupta, N., Bull, Z., & Greene, S. (2018). Building Institutional Capacity for Enhancing Resilience to Climate Change: An Operational Framework and Insights from Practice. International Institute of Environment and Development. ACT Report. 44p. Available at:<https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/61584>. Accessed May 11, 2020. Steffen, W., J. Rockström, J., K. Richardson, K., T. M. Lenton, T.M., C. Folke, C., D. Liverman, D., C. P. Summerhayes, C.P., A. D. Barnosky, A.D., S. E. Cornell, S.E., M. Crucifix, M., J. F. Donges, J.F., I. Fetzer, I., S. J. Lade, S.J., M. Scheffer, M., R. Winkelmann, R., & and H. J. Schellnhuber. H. J. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth system in the Anthropocene. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115(33):8252-8259. Available at:<http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115>. Accessed October 02, 2020 41 Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Formatted: Italian (Italy) Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt, English (United States), Pattern: Clear Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Söjstedt, M., & Povitkina, M. (2016). Vulnerability of Small Island Developing States to Natural Disasters: How Much Difference Can Effective Governments Make? Vol. 26. Issue: 1. The Journal of Environment & Development. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496516682339>. Accessed February 02, 2020. Torfing, J., Peter, B.G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm. Oxford Scholarship Online. Available at:<https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/978019959675 1.001.0001/acprof-9780199596751-chapter-6>. Accessed February 14, 2020. Upcraft, M.L., & Schuh, J.H. (1996). Assessment in Student Affairs: A Guide for Practitioners. 378p. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Veselova, E. (2019). Design for Sustainable Entangled Human-Nature Systems. NORDES 2019. 6p. Available at:<https://acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/37107106/Design_for_Sustainable_ Entangled_Human_Nature_Systems.pdf>. Accessed on October 02, 2020. Williams, D.S., Rosend, S., Sadasing, O., & Celliers, L. (2020). Identifying Local Governance Capacity Needs for Implementing Climate Change Adaptation in Mauritius, Climate Policy, 20(5), 548-562. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1745743>. Accessed May 01, 2020. Williams, D. S., Costa M.M., Sutherland, C., Celliers, L., & Scheffran, J. (2019). The Vulnerability of Informal Settlements in the Context of Rapid Urbanization and Climate Change. Environment and Urbanization, 31(1), 157–176. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247818819694>. Accessed February 28, 2020. Zepp, H., Inostroza, L., Sutcliffe, R., Ahmed, S., Moebus, S. (2018). Neighbourhood Environmental Contribution and Health. A Novel Indicator Integrating Urban Form and Urban Green. Change and Adaptation in Socio-Ecological Systems. Vol. 4. 46-51. Available at:<https://doi.org/10.1515/cass-2018-0005>. Accessed February 2, 2021. Sources AOSIS. (2020). Alliance of Small Island States: Cabo Verde. Available at:<https://www.aosis.org/home/>. Accessed February 25, 2020. C40Cities. (2020). Staying Afloat: The Urban Response to Sea Level Rise. Cities for Climate. Available at:<https://www.c40.org/other/the-future-we-don-t-wantstaying-afloat-the-urban-response-to-sea-level-rise>. Accessed October 1, 2020. COP23. (2017). Talanoa Dialogue. Available at:<https://cop23.com.fj/talanoadialogue/>. Accessed May 15, 2020. CRED. (2017). The International Disaster Database Explanatory Notes. EM-DAT. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. Available at:<http://www.emdat.be/explanatory-notes>. Accessed May 09, 2020. EM-DAT. (2020). International Disaster Database. Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). D. Guha-Sapir. EM-DAT, CRED/UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium. Available at:<https://public.emdat.bewww.emdat.be>. Accessed May 09, 2020 GFDRR. (2017). Focus Day on Disaster Response and Recovery Frameworks. ACP-EU: Natural Disaster Risk Reduction Program. Global Facility for Disaster Risk Reduction. ACP House –Brussels, June 09, 2017. 13p. Available at:<https://www.gfdrr.org/sites/default/files/publication/CABO%20VERDE%20 -%20ACP-EU%20NDRR%20Focus%20Day%20presentation%20%209%20June%202017.pdf>. Accessed May 13, 2020 42 Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Formatted: English (United States) Field Code Changed Field Code Changed GoCV. (2017). Cabo Verde’s Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy. Available at:< https://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/policies/v.php?id=64563>. Accessed April 15, 2020. GoCV/MEA. (2007). National Adaptation Programs of Action on Climate Change (NAPA-Cabo Verde). The Republic of Cabo Verde. Ministry of Environment and Agriculture. National Meteorology and Geophysics Institute. 40p. Available at:<https://www.adaptation-undp.org/projects/cape-verde-national-adaptationprogramme-action-napa>. Accessed May 12, 2020. ICLEI. (2018). Resilient Cities Report 2018: Tracking Local Progress on the Resilience Targets of SDG 11. Bonn, Germany. 24p. Available at:<https://resilientcities2018.iclei.org/wpcontent/uploads/RC2018_Report.pdf>. Accessed on May 05, 2020. IPCC. (2018). Global Warming of 1.5oC . Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC: Strengthening and Implementing the Global Response. Available at:< https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/#:~:text=An%20IPCC%20special%20report%20on,an d%20efforts%20to%20eradicate%20poverty>. Accessed October 02, 2020 IPCC. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Regional Chapters: Small Islands. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Available at:<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/>. Accessed May 01, 2020. IPCC. (2014a). Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Working Group II. The Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). Available at:<https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WGIIAR5Chap5_FINAL.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. IPCC. (2013). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contributions of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 13: Sea Level Change. Available at:<https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/>. Accessed on May 12, 2020. LDC Watch. (2020). Brussels Programme of Action (BPoA). Available at:<https://www.ldcwatch.org/index.php/about-ldcs/brussels-programme-ofaction>. Accessed May 14, 2020. MIOTH. (2016). Ordinance No. 35/2016. Ratifies the Land Use Master Plan of Praia. Official Bulletin I. Series, No. 56, of October 04, 2016. Ministry of Infrastructure, Spatial Planning, and Housing. Available at:<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vHaYAtXSt9b_hBfYVG0DvhOl3bHl9b0G/ view>. Accessed May 12, 2020. OECD/UCLG. (2016). Cabo Verde Unitary Country. Basic Socioeconomic Indicators. Africa. Organization of Economic Cooperation for Development/United Cities and Local Governments. October 2016. 2p. Available at:<https://www.oecd.org/countries/caboverde/https://www.oecd.org/regional/re gional-policy/profile-Cape-Verde.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. PDM. (2016). Plano Diretor Municipal (PDM) –Praia, Cabo Verde. Municipality of Praia. Available at:<https://sites.google.com/site/praiapdm/Home>. Accessed May 12, 2020. PEDS. (2017-2021). Cabo Verde’s Strategic Plan for Sustainable Development 20172021. Ministry of Industry, Commerce, and Energy. National Directorate. Resolution No. 13/2019. 13p. Available at:<http://tda-mobility.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/04/Cabo-Verde-Electric-Mobility-Policy-Chapter.pdf>. Accessed May 14, 2020. 43 Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed PRAIA CITY COUNCIL. (2016). Plan and Regulation Proposals Report. Final Project (V4-November, 2016). Ratification. Praia City Council. Santiago Island – Cabo Verde. 220p. Available at:<file:///C:/Users/carlo/Downloads/VOL-IIPDMPR_completo_V4-201611_RATIFICA%C3%87%C3%83O.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. PRAIA CITY COUNCIL. (2016a). Characterization and Diagnosis Report. Vol. I. Municipal Master Plan. Final Project (V4-November, 2016). Ratification. Praia City Council. Santiago Island – Cabo Verde. 401p. Available on-line at:<ffile:///C:/Users/carlo/Downloads/VOL-I-PDMPR_Caracterizacao-eDiagnostico_V4-201611_RATIFICA%C3%87%C3%83O.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. QGIS. (2020). QGIS-OSGeo4W-3.10.5-1-ACoruña. Elaboration of Maps. Coordinates System: Geographic (GCS). DATUM: 4326-WGS84, and DATUM EPSG: 3857WGS84. Shapefiles: GADM/ESRI/GOOGLE. Available at:<https://www.openstreetmap.org/>, and Available at:< http://hub.arcgis.com/>, and Available at:< https://qgis.org/en/site/>. Accessed May 17, 2020. SPC. (2019). Meeting of National Focal Points of SIDS. Pacific Community. Statistics for Development Division. 25-26 July 2019. Praia, Cabo Verde. Available at:<https://sdd.spc.int/events/2019/07/meeting-national-focal-points-sids>. Accessed May 14, 2020. UCLG. (2018). Local Governance. United Cities and Local Governments Report. Available at:<https://www.uclg.org/en/action/decentralisation-governance>. Accessed on March 03, 2020 U.N. (1992). The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: Agenda 21. United Nations Sustainable Development. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21>. Accessed May 08, 2020. U.N. (1994). Barbados Programme of Action. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 47/189. Available Accessed at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/conferences/bpoa1994>. May 13, 2020. U.N. (2002). Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries. U.N. General Assembly Resolution a/57/496. Available at:<https://unctad.org/meeting/third-united-nations-conference-least-developedcountriesfile:///C:/Users/carlo/Downloads/A_57_496-EN.pdf>. Accessed May 13, 2020. U.N. (2005). Mauritius Strategy of Implementation. U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/57/262. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/conferences/msi2005>. Accessed May 13, 2020. U.N. (2014). Third International Conference on Small Island Developing States. SIDS Accelerated Modalities of Action –SAMOA. U.N. General Assembly Resolution A/RES/69/15. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sids2014>. Accessed May 13, 2020. U.N. (2015). Addis Ababa Action Agenda. Third International Conference on Financing for Development. United Nations General Assembly 69/313. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 68p. Available 44 Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/2051AAAA_Outc ome.pdf>.Accessed May 14, 2020. U.N. (2016). First Annual Global Multi-Stakeholder SIDS Partnership Dialogue. New York. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/topics/sids/globalmultistakeholder-sids-partnership-dialogue>. Accessed May 13, 2020. U.N. (2019). 2019 Annual Global Multi-Stakeholder SIDS Partnership Dialogue. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?page=view&nr=3152&type=13&me nu=1634>. Accessed May 13, 2020. UNDAF. (2018-2022). United Nations Development Assistance Framework: Cabo Verde. Executive Summary. 24p. Available at:<https://caboverde.un.org/sites/default/files/202001/UNDAF_summary_EN.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. UNDATA. (2020). United Nations DataBase: Cabo Verde. Available at:<http://data.un.org/en/iso/cv.html>. Accessed May 12, 2020. UNDP. (2017). Fourth UNDP Community of Practice on Disaster Risk Reduction, Resilience Building, and Recovery in Africa. Enhance Prevention and Recovery for Resilient Societies. DRR, Climate Change, and Resilience Cluster of the RSC. Dakar, Senegal. UNDP. (2017a). International Recovery Platform. Project Preparedness for Recovery in Africa (Award 41995-ID 48055). Cabo Verde Country Narrative Final Report. Reporting Period: February 2015 to September 2017. United Nations Development Program/Directorate for Development, Cooperation, and Humanitarian Affairs of Luxembourg/Government of Japan. 17p. Accessed January 22, 2020. UNDP. (2016). Preparedness for Resilient Recovery Project. Angola, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Niger, and Rwanda. Progress Report. October 2015-June 2016. 25p. Available at:<https://info.undp.org/docs/pdc/Documents/H10/UNDP%20Project%20Repor t_Japan_Preparedness%20for%20Recovery_June%20Final.pdf>. Accessed May 12, 2020. UNDESA. (2019). Partnerships for Small Island Developing States. AIMS-SIDS. Division for Sustainable Development Goals Department of Economic and Social Affairs United Nations 113p. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24591SIDS_Partn erships_May_2019_web.pdf>. Accessed May 15, 2020. UNDESA. (2015). Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300>. Accessed February 15, 2020. UNDESA. (2014). Climate Change & Disaster Risk Management. U.N. Conference on Small Island Developing States. United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 12p. Available at:<https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/1344SIDS_BRIEF S_ClimateChange.pdf>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNFCCC. (2020). National Adaptation Plans. Available at:<https://unfccc.int/topics/adaptation-and-resilience/workstreams/nationaladaptation-plans>. Accessed March 15, 2020. 45 Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed UNDRR. (2020). Making Cities Resilient 2020 (MCR2030). Making Cities Resilient. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNDRR. (2020a). Participating Local Government. Making Cities Resilient. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/cities>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNDRR. (2019). Garnering Political Commitment in Praia, Cabo Verde. PreventionWeb Knowledge Base. Available at:<https://www.preventionweb.net/news/view/66432>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNDRR. (2019a). Hazard and Vulnerability Profile: Praia –Cabo Verde. Making Cities Resilient. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/cities/cabo-verde/santiagoisland/praia>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UNDRR. (2019b). Making Cities Resilient 2030 –MCR2030. Initial Proposal. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/campaign/resilientcities/home/article/making-citiesresilient-2030-mcr2030-initial-proposal>. Accessed May 13, 2020. UNDRR. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, 2015–2030. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. 37p. Available on-line at:<https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf>. Accessed January 01, 2020. UNDRR. (2012). How to Make Cities More Resilient –A Handbook for Mayors and Local Government Leaders. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 100p. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/files/26462_handbookfinalonlineversion.pdf>. Accessed January 20, 2020. UNISDR. (2017). Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva. Available at<https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology>. Accessed May 09, 2020. UNISDR. (2017a). United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Technical Guidance for Monitoring and Reporting on Progress in Achieving the Global Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. Collection of Technical Notes on Data and Methodology. Available at<https://www.unisdr.org/files/54970_techguidancefdigitalhr.pdf>. Accessed May 09, 2020. UNISDR. (2017b). Disaster-Related Data for Sustainable Development: Sendai Framework Data Readiness Review 2017. Global Summary Report. 78p. Available at:<https://www.unisdr.org/files/53080_entrybgpaperglobalsummaryreportdisa.p df>. Accessed May 09, 2020. UNISDR. (2015). Disaster Risk Reduction and Resilience in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A Reflection Paper. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 21p. Geneva, Switzerland. October 2015. UNISDR. (2015a). Reducing Disaster Risk in Urban Setting. UNISDR Issue Brief. 4p. Available at:<http://www.wcdrr.org/uploads/Reducing-Disaster-Risk-in-UrbanSettings.pdf>. Accessed May 14, 2020. UNISDR. (2013). From Shared Risks to Shared Value: The Business Case for Disaster Risk Reduction. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, Switzerland. UN-OHRLLS. (2020). About the Small Island Developing States. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked 46 Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Developing Countries, and the Small Island Developing States. Available at:<http://unohrlls.org/about-sids/country-profiles/>. Accessed May 11, 2020. UN-OHRLLS. (2019). Cabo Verde Hosts U.N. Meeting on Localizing SAMOA Pathway in Small Island Developing States. Praia, Cabo Verde. Available at:<http://unohrlls.org/news/cabo-verde-hosts-un-meeting-on-localising-samoapathway-in-small-island-developing-states/>. Accessed May 14, 2020. UN-OHRLLS. (2013). The small Island Developing States in Numbers. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and the Small Island Developing States. 36p. Available at:<http://unohrlls.org/customcontent/uploads/2014/04/SIDS_IN_NUMBERS_121813_FA_WEB.pdf>. Accessed May 10, 2020. UN-OHRLLS. (2011). Small Island Developing States: Small Islands Big(ger) Stakes. The United Nations Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries, and the Small Island Developing States. 32p. Available at:<http://unohrlls.org/customcontent/uploads/2013/08/SIDS-Small-Islands-Bigger-Stakes.pdf>. Accessed May 09, 2020. W.B. (2020). The World Bank in Cabo Verde. Cabo Verde's Overview. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. Available at:<https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/caboverde/overview#1>. Accessed May 1, 2020. W.B. (2019). World Development Indicators: Cabo Verde. Databank. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. Available at:<https://databank.worldbank.org>. Accessed May 1, 2020. W.B. (2018). The Republic of Cabo Verde. Adjusting the Development Model to Revive Growth and Strengthen Social Inclusion. Systematic Country Diagnostic –SCD. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. 109 p. Available at:<hhttps://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documentsreports/documentdetail/875821538129394201/adjusting-the-developmentmodel-to-revive-growth-and-strengthen-socialinclusionttp://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/875821538129394201/pdf/1 30289-REVISED-SCD-P159323-PUBLIC.pdf>. Accessed May 2, 2020. W.B. (2013). Building Resilience: Integrating Climate Disaster Risk Development. The World Bank. Washington DC, USA. 100RC Network. (2019). Resilient Cities, Resilient Lives. Learning from the 100RC Network. Rockefeller Foundation. 140p. Available at:<https://resilientcitiesnetwork.org/downloadable_resources/UR/ResilientCities-Resilient-Lives-Learning-from-the-100RCNetwork.pdfhttp://www.100resilientcities.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/07/100RC-Report-Capstone-PDF.pdf>. Accessed May 2, 2020. 47 Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Field Code Changed Formatted: Font color: Text 1 Field Code Changed Formatted: Default Paragraph Font, Font color: Auto, Portuguese (Brazil) Field Code Changed 48 Formatted: Left: 0.98", Right: 0.98", Top: 1.18", Bottom: 1.18", Width: 11.69", Height: 8.27" 49 Supplementary Material Appendix A Table A.1. Cabo Verde’s General Information Region Western Africa 550 Population (000, 2019) 2 136.5 Pop. Density (per Km , 2019) Praia Capital City 167.5b Capital City Pop. (000, 2019) 16-Sep-1975 UN Membership Date 4,033a Surface Area (Km2) 100.8 Sex Ratio (male per 100 female) Cabo Verde Escudo (CVE) National Currency 96.3b Exchange Rate (per US$) Source: UNDATA, 2020. Footnotes:a –2017; b –2018; c –Data classified according to ISIC Rev 4; d –Estimate; e –Calculated by the UN Statistics Division from national indices; f –2016; g –Data refers to a 5-year period preceding the reference year; h –2015; I –Data as at the end of December; j –2004; k –Population aged 10 years and over; l –Partial data; m –Higher education only; n –2011; o –2014; p –Non-resident tourists staying in hotels and similar establishments. Table A.2. Cabo Verde’s Social Indicators Indicators Population Growth Rateg (average annual %) Urban Population (% of total population) Urban Population Growth Rate g (average annual %) Fertility Rate, Totalg (live births per woman) Life Expectancy at Birthg (females/males, years) Population Age Distribution (0-14/60+ years old, %) International Migrant Stock (000/% of total pop.) Refugees and Others of Concern to UNHCR (000) Infant Mortality Rateg (per 1000 live births) Health: Current Expenditure (% of GDP) 2005 1.6 2010 1.2 2019 1.3h 57.7 3.3. 61.8 2.5 66.2 2h 3.2 2.7 2.5h 73.3/66.2 74.2/66.7 75.0/67.9h 37.6/7.2 32.3/6.5 28.4/7.3 12.7/2.7 14.4/2.9 15.3/2.8a ~0.0ll - 0.1b 24.5 22.9 20.6h 4.3 4.5 5.3f 50 0.6 0.8h Health: Physicians (per 1000pop.) 7.5l 5.6 5.2a Education: Government Expenditure (% of GDP) 110.1/114.7 99.0/106.1 92.5/99.2a Education: Primary Gross Enrolment Ratio (female/male 100 pop.) 75.3/66.7 94.0/79.1 87.3/79.7a Education: Secondary Gross Enrolment Ratio (female/male 100 pop.) 7.8/7.3 20.2/15.7 25.7/17.7a Education: Tertiary Gross Enrolment Ratio (female/male 100 pop.) 9.3 7.8 11.5f Intentional Homicide Rate (per 100,000 pop.) 11.1 18.1 23.6 Seats Held by Women in National Parliaments (%) Source: UNDATA, 2020. Footnotes:a –2017; b –2018; c –Data classified according to ISIC Rev 4; d –Estimate; e –Calculated by the UN Statistics Division from national indices; f –2016; g –Data refers to a 5-year period preceding the reference year; h –2015; I –Data as at the end of December; j –2004; k –Population aged 10 years and over; l –Partial data; m –Higher education only; n –2011; o –2014; p –Non-resident tourists staying in hotels and similar establishments. Table A.3. Cabo Verde’s Economic Indicators Indicators GDP: Gross Domestic Product (million current USD) GDP Growth Rate (annual %, const. 2010 prices) GDP Per Capita (current US$) Economy: Agriculturec (% of Gross Value Added) Economy:Industryc (% of Gross Vlue Added) Economy: Services and Other Activity c (% of Gross Value Added) Employment: Agricultured (% of employed) Employment: Industryd (% of employed) Employment: Servicesd (% of employed) Unemployment (%of labor force) Labor Force Participationd (female/male pop. %) Consumer Price Indexe (CPI) (2010=100) Agricultural Production Index (20042006=100) 2005 1,105 2010 1,664 2019 1,773a 6.5 1.5 4a 2,329.3 11.7 3,312.8 9.2 3,244.7a 7a 22.8 20.8 21.1a 65.5 70.1 71.9a 73.2 69.7 66.8 6.8 20 11.2d 54.3/75.0 7.3 23 10.7 58.7/74.4 6.9 26.3 10.4d 65.5/73.2 83 99 100 106 109b 97f 51 89 220 51b,d International Trade Exports (million current US$) 438 731 930b,d International Trade Imports (million current US$) -349 -511 -880b International Trade Balance (million current USD) -41 -223 -104b Balance of Payments, Current Account (million USD) Source: UNDATA, 2020. Footnotes:a –2017; b –2018; c –Data classified according to ISIC Rev 4; d –Estimate; e –Calculated by the UN Statistics Division from national indices; f –2016; g –Data refers to a 5-year period preceding the reference year; h –2015; I –Data as at the end of December; j –2004; k –Population aged 10 years and over; l –Partial data; m –Higher education only; n –2011; o –2014; p –Non-resident tourists staying in hotels and similar establishments. Table A.4. Cabo Verde’s Environment and Infrastructure Indicators Indicators 2005 2010 2019 6.1 30d 57.2 a,k Individuals Using the Internet (per 100 inhabitants) 0.1m,n,i Research & Development Expenditure (% of GDP) 23l 31 117 Threatened Species (number) 20.7 21.1 22.5d,f Forest Area (% of land area) 0.4/0.9 0.6/1.1 0.5/1.0o C02 Emission Estimates (million ton/tons per capita) 2 1 2d,f Energy Production Primary (Petajoules) 16 18 17d,f Energy Supply per Capita (Gigajoules) 198 336 668a Tourist/Visitor Arrivals at National Bordersp (000) 15 15 15.1b Important Sites for Terrestrial Biodiversity Protected (5) 17.36 20.55 7.29a Net Official Development Assistance Received (% of GNI) Source: UNDATA, 2020. Footnotes:a –2017; b –2018; c –Data classified according to ISIC Rev 4; d –Estimate; e –Calculated by the UN Statistics Division from national indices; f –2016; g –Data refers to a 5-year period preceding the reference year; h –2015; I –Data as at the end of December; j –2004; k –Population aged 10 years and over; l –Partial data; m –Higher education only; n –2011; o –2014; p –Non-resident tourists staying in hotels and similar establishments. 52 Appendix B Table B.1. Recent Disaster Events in Cabo Verde with Estimated Damages and Affected People (2009-2018) Year 2009 2012 2013 2016 Type of Event Hydrological Hydrological Hydrological Hydrological Hazard Event Flood Flood Flood Flood Location São Nicolau Boa Vista São Miguel Santo Antão Estimated Damages (US$) 2015 Meteorological Storm Countrywide 2.5 Million Affected People 2.6 Million 7 Million 28 Million (75.5% Damage & 24.5% Losses); Productive sector (50%); Housing, social sectors & infrastructure (37%). 2014-15 Geophysical Volcanic Eruption Fogo 2013/2014/2015 Climatological Drought Santo Antão, Santiago, Fogo No assessment conducted to quantify damage and losses. 2017-18 Climatological Drought Countrywide (Santiago, Santo Antão) No assessment conducted to quantify damage and losses. 994 68.810 to 139.000 Source: Ferreira Costa, (2020) 53 Table B.2. Detailed Natural Hazards (Only) Events Death Toll and Affected People in Cabo Verde (1900-2020) Start Year End Year Disaster Disaster Subgroup Associated Disaster Total Deaths2 1900 1900 Drought Climatological Famine 11000 1910 1914 Drought Climatological 1920 1920 Drought Climatological Famine 24000 1940 1944 Drought Climatological Famine 20000 1946 1946 Drought Climatological Famine 30000 1969 1975 Drought Climatological Famine 1980 1985 Drought Climatological 1982 1982 Storm Metereological Tropical Cyclone (Beryl) 3 1984 1984 Storm Metereological Tropical Cyclone (Fran) 29 1988 1988 Insect Infestation Biological Locust 1992 1992 Drought Climatological 1994 1995 Epidemic Biological 245 Bacterial Desease (Cholera) Total Affected4 Total Damage (000 US$) 2100 2222 3000 5500 5500 12344 12344 Injured Affected3 122 Homeless 2 Disaster mortality is a critical outcome that can be employed to measure the effectiveness of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) strategies at reducing the impact of disasters. However, while disaster mortality seems to be one of the most straightforward outcomes to monitor, obtaining accurate data is challenging (Green et al., 2019). Due to the absence of historical death registries in many countries, estimation rather than measurement is sometimes used, especially in large scale disasters, which account for a significant proportion of global mortality (UNISDR, 2017a). Mortality is assessed by calculating crude death rates, which requires two types of data: population data and death data. How disaster deaths are defined depends on the definition of a hazard natural (single, sequential or combined; multi-hazard; biological, environmental; geological, hydrometeorological, and technological), a disaster type (small-scale; large-scale; frequent and infrequent; slow-onset; and sudden-onset) (UNISDR, 2017), as well as the definition of a disaster death. In this research, we adopted the EM -DAT definition – "Number of people who lost their lives because the event happened". The mortality definitions range from being very broad in their scope, as per the EM-DAT definition (CRED, 2017). Indicators: (i) Number of deaths and missing persons attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population; (ii) Number of deaths attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population; and, (iii) Number of missing persons attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population (UNISDR, 2017a). 3 People can be affected directly or indirectly. Affected people may experience short-term or long-term consequences to their lives, livelihoods, or health and in the economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets.” Directly affected: People who have suffered an injury, illness, or other health effects; who were evacuated, displaced, relocated; or have suffered direct damage to their livelihoods, economic, physical, social, cultural, and environmental assets. Indirectly affected: People who have suffered consequences, other than or in addition to direct effects, over time due to disruption or changes in the economy, critical infrastructures, essential services, commerce, work or social, health, and physiological consequences. Indicators: (i) Number of directly affected people attributed to disasters, per 100,000 population. (ii) The number of injured or ill people attributed to disas ters, per 100,000 population; (iii) Number of people whose damaged dwellings were attributed to disasters; (iv) Number of people whose destroyed dwellings were correlated to disasters; and, (v) Number of people whose livelihoods w ere disrupted or destroyed, attributed to disasters (UNISDR, 2017a). 4 Sum of Affected, Injured, and Homeless totals. 54 Formatted: Font: Not Italic 1995 1995 Volcanic Eruption Geophysical Ash Fall 1998 1998 Drought Climatological Famine 6 10000 1300 5000 10000 6306 2002 2002 Food Shortage 30000 30000 2004 2009 2009 Drought Insect Infestation (Locust) Flood Climatological 2004 Hydrological Riverine Flood (Landslide) 3 150 150 2009 Epidemic5 Biological Viral Desease (Dengue) 6 20147 20147 2014 2015 Volcanic activity Geophysical Lava Flow 2500 2500 2015 2015 Storm Metereological Hurricane (Fred) Biological 9 Source: Ferreira Costa, (2020); Adapted from: EM-DAT, CRED/UCLouvain, Brussels, Belgium (2020-04-23). Accessed Sat, 09 May 2020 – 23:444:55 CEST 5 Epidemics: Dengue (2009-2010); and Zika (2014-2015) Around 20,000 affected by the disease and 6 human causalities during dengue outbreak and 560 population affected by Zika and 11 cases of babies born with microcephaly) (GFDRR, 2017). The last event has not been incorporated to the EM-DAT to date. 55 Appendix C Table C.1. The SAMOA Pathway Objectives      Objectives Support the coordinated follow-up of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Undertake advocacy work in favour of the small island developing States in partnership with the relevant parts of the United Nations as well as with the civil society, media, academia and foundations. Assist in mobilizing international support and resources for the implementation of the Programme of Action. Provide support to group consultations of SIDS. Ensure the mainstreaming of the SAMOA Pathway and SIDS related issues in the work of the UN system and to enhance the coherence of SIDS issues in UN processes. Source: UN-OHRLLS (2020) Table C.2. The Seven Targets of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (UNDRR, 2015).        The Seven Global Targets Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality rates in the decade 2020-2030 compared to the period 2005-2015. Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower the average global figure per 100,000 in the decade 2020 -2030 compared to the period 2005-2015. Reduce direct disaster economic loss concerning the global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030. Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of essential services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030. Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020. Substantially enhance international cooperation in developing countries through adequate and sustainable support to complemen t their national actions for implementation of this Framework by 2030. Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030. Source: UNSIDR, 2015 Table C.3. The Four Priorities for Action of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (UNDRR, 2015). The Four Priorities for Action Disaster risk management should be based on an understanding of disaster risk in all its dimensions of vulnerability, capacit y, exposure of persons and assets, hazard characteristics, and the environment. Such knowledge can be used for risk assessment, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and response. Priority 2. Strengthening disaster risk governance Disaster risk governance at the national, regional, and global levels is vital for prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery, and rehabilitation. It fosters collaboration and partnership. to manage disaster risk Priority 3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for Public and private investment in disaster risk prevention and reduction through structural and non-structural measures are essential to enhance the economic, social, health, and cultural resilience of persons, communities, countries, and their assets, as well as the environment. resilience Priority 1. Understanding disaster risk 56 Priority 4. Enhancing disaster preparedness forThe growth of disaster risk means there is a need to strengthen disaster preparedness for response, act in anticipation of events, and ensure effective response and to "Build Back Better" in capacities are in place for effective response and recovery at all levels. The recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction p hase is a critical opportunity to build back better, including through integrating disaster risk reduction into development measures. recovery, rehabilitation, and reconstruction Source: UNDRR, 2015 Table C.4. The Ten Essentials for Making Cities Resilient Ten Essentials Essential 1 –Organisation and Coordination Essential 2 –Budget assignment Essential 3 –Prepare risk assessments Essential 4 –Critical infrastructure that reduces risks Essential5 –Assessment of Safety Infrastructure Essential 6 –Building regulations and land use planning Essential 7 –Education and Training Essential 8 –Protection of the environment Essential 9 –Early Warning Systems Essential 10 –Post-Disaster Needs Assessments Put in place organization and coordination to understand and reduce disaster risk based on the participation of citizen groups and civil society. Build local alliances. Ensure that all departments understand their role in disaster risk reduction and preparedness. Assign a budget for disaster risk reduction and provide incentives for homeowners, low-income families, communities, businesses, and the public sector to invest in reducing the risks they face. Maintain up to date data on hazards and vulnerabilities. Prepare risk assessments and use these as the basis for urban development plans and decisions, ensure that this information and the plans for your city’s resilience are readily available to the public and fully discussed with them. Invest in and maintain critical infrastructure that reduces risk, such as flood drainage, adjusted where needed to cope with climate change. Assess the safety of all schools and health facilities and upgrade these as necessary. Apply and enforce realistic, risk compliant building regulations and land use planning principles. Identify safe land for low -income citizens and upgrade informal settlements, wherever feasible. Ensure that education programs and training on disaster risk reduction are in place in schools and local communities. Protect ecosystems and natural buffers from mitigating floods, storm surges, and other hazards to which your city may be vuln erable. Adapt to climate change by building on good risk reduction practices. Install early warning systems and emergency management capacities in your city and hold regular public preparedness drills After any disaster, ensure that the needs of the affected population are placed at the center of a reconstruction initiative, with support for them and their community organizations to design and help implement responses, including rebuilding homes and livelihoods. Source: UNDRR, 2012 Table C.5. Making Cities Resilient 2030 (MCR2030) –Initial Proposal Main Strategic Objectives of the MCR2030 Strategic Objective 1 Strategic Objective 2 Strategic Objective 3 Cross-Cutting Objective Increase city understanding of risk and commitments to disaster risk reduction and resilience Increase city capacities to plan for risk reduction and resilience Increase city capacities to implement resilience actions and reduce risks Increase vertical links with the national governments and horizontal links amongst local partners, mainstreaming resilience throughout and between partners, functions and services, and foster city-to-city partnerships and sharing of experience. Source: UNDRR, 2019 57 Table C.6. Partnerships Under the MCR2030       Partners Development partners such as the UN agencies, global and regional non-governmental organizations, bilateral and multilateral donors. National government such as ministries responsible for urban development, local government, climate change adaptation and dis aster risk management. National associations of municipalities. Local governments. Private sector entities, consultancies. Academia and research institutes. Source: UNDRR, 2019 Table C.7. Actions of the Project Preparedness for Resilient Recovery in Cabo Verde      DRR Actions in Cabo Verde Build capacities to use the post-disaster needs assessment (PDNA) methodology and, on this basis, to design disaster recovery frameworks (DRF). Adapt and institutionalize the PDNA methodology, as necessary. Based on the evaluation of current needs and gaps, guide and establish institutional mechanisms for managing resilient recovery –including the development of a national policy framework for resilient recovery (pre-event National Disaster Recovery Framework) and promoted policy revisions to integrate resilience aspects into national and local DRM systems and allsectors development strategies. Establish capacity for managing recovery processes at the national and the local level. Assist national authorities in establishing the necessary capabilities to prepare for and manage recovery processes, mainly to undertake a post-disaster needs assessment, develop, and implement recovery strategies. Source: UNDP (2016; 2017) Table C.18. Disaster risk reduction, in urban risk planning aspects, as reflected in selected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), targets, and indicators (UNDESA, 2015). Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) ----SDG 11 Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainablesustainable. Targets BY 2030 11.1 By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums. 11.2 By 2030, provide access to safe, affordable, accessibleaccessible, and sustainable transport systems for all, improving road safety, notably by expanding public transport, with special attention to the needs of those in vulnerable situations, women, children, persons with disabilities and older persons. 11.3 Indicators 11.1.1 Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlementssettlements, or inadequate housing. 11.2.1 Proportion of population that has convenient access to public transport, by sex, age and persons with disabilities. 11.3.1 Ratio of land consumption rate to population growth rate. 58 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integratedintegrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries. 11.3.2 Proportion of cities with a direct participation structure of civil society in urban planning and management that operate regularly and democratically. 11.4 Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage. 11.4.1 Total expenditure (public and private) per capita spent on the preservation, protectionprotection, and conservation of all cultural and natural heritage, by type of heritage (cultural, natural, mixed and World Heritage Centre designation), level of government (national, regional and local/municipal), type of expenditure (operating expenditure/investment) and type of private funding (donations in kind, private non-profit sector and sponsorship). 11.5.1 Number of deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disaster per 100,000 people. 11.5 By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. 11.6 By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality and municipal and other waste management. 11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities. ***11.A Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning. 11.5.2 Direct disaster economic loss in relation to global GDP, including disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services. 11.6.1 Proportion of urban solid waste regularly collected and with adequate final discharge out of total urban solid waste generated, by cities. 11.6.2 Annual mean levels of fine particulate matter (e.g. PM2.5 and PM10) in cities (population weighted). 11.7.1 Average share of the built-up area of cities that is open space for public use for all, by sex, age, and persons with disabilities. 11.7.2 Proportion of persons victim of physical or sexual harassment, by sex, age, disability status and place of occurrence, in the previous 12 months. 11.A.1 Proportion of population living in cities that implement urban and regional development plans integrating population projections and resource needs, by size of city. 59 ***11.B By 2020, substantially increase the number of cities and human settlements adopting and implementing integrated policies and plans towards inclusion, resource efficiency, mitigation and adaptation to climate change, resilience to disasters, and develop and implement, in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, holistic disaster risk management at all levels. 11.C Support least developed countries, including through financial and technical assistance, in building sustainable and resilient buildings utilizing local materials. SDG 13 Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (Acknowledging that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change.) 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries. 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning. 13.3 Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning. 11.B.1 Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. 11.B.2 Number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies. 11.C.1 Proportion of financial support to the least developed countries that is allocated to the construction and retrofitting of sustainable, resilient and resource-efficient buildings utilizing local materials. 13.1.3 Proportion of local governments that adopt and implement local disaster risk reduction strategies in line with national disaster risk reduction strategies. 13.1.1 Number of deaths, missing persons and persons affected by disaster per 100,000 people. 13.1.2 Number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies. 13.2.1 Number of countries that have communicated the establishment or operationalization of an integrated policy/strategy/plan which increases their ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change, and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development in a manner that does not threaten food production (including a national adaptation plan, nationally determined contribution, national communication, biennial update report or other). 13.3.1 Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning into primary, secondary and tertiary curricula. 60 13.A Implement the commitment undertaken by developed-country parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to a goal of mobilizing jointly $100 billion annually by 2020 from all sources to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation and fully operationalize the Green Climate Fund through its capitalization as soon as possible. 13.B Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management in least developed countries and small island developing States, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities. SDG 16 Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide 16.1 Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere 16.2 End abuse, exploitation, trafficking, and all forms of violence against and torture of children. . 13.3.2 Number of countries that have communicated the strengthening of institutional, systemic and individual capacity-building to implement adaptation, mitigation and technology transfer, and development actions. 13.A.1 Mobilized amount of United States dollars per year starting in 2020 accountable towards the $100 billion commitment. 13.B.1 Number of least developed countries and small island developing States that are receiving specialized support, and amount of support, including finance, technology and capacity-building, for mechanisms for raising capacities for effective climate change-related planning and management, including focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities. 16.1.1 Number of victims of intentional homicide per 100,000 population, by sex and age. 16.1.2 Conflict-related deaths per 100,000 population, by sex, age and cause. 16.1.3 Proportion of population subjected to physical, psychological, or sexual violence in the previous 12 months. 16.1.4 Proportion of population that feel safe walking alone around the area they live. 16.2.1 Proportion of children aged 1-17 years who experienced any physical punishment and/or psychological aggression by caregivers in the past month. 16.2.2 61 16.3 Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. 16.4 By 2030, significantly reduce illicit financial and arms flows, strengthen the recovery, and return of stolen assets and combat all forms of organized crime. 16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms. 16.6 Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels. 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. Number of victims of human trafficking per 100,000 population, by sex, age and form of exploitation. 16.2.3 Proportion of young women and men aged 18-29 years who experienced sexual violence by age 18. 16.3.1 Proportion of victims of violence in the previous 12 months who reported their victimization to competent authorities or other officially recognized conflict resolution mechanisms. 16.3.2 Unsentenced detainees as a proportion of overall prison population. 16.4.1 Total value of inward and outward illicit financial flows (in current United States dollars). 16.4.2 Proportion of seized, found, or surrendered arms whose illicit origin or context has been traced or established by a competent authority in line with international instruments. 16.5.1 Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months. 16.5.2 Proportion of businesses that had at least one contact with a public official and that paid a bribe to a public official or were asked for a bribe by those public officials during the previous 12 months. 16.6.1 Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector (or by budget codes or similar). 16.6.2 Proportion of the population satisfied with their last experience of public services. 16.7 Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory, and representative decision-making at all levels. 16.7.2 62 16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance 16.9 By 2030, provide legal identity for all, including birth registration. 16.10 Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements. 16.A Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime. 16.B Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. SDG 17 Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive, by sex, age, disability, and population group. 16.8.1 Proportion of members and voting rights of developing countries in international organizations. 16.9.1 Proportion of children under 5 years of age whose births have been registered with a civil authority, by age. 16.10.1 Number of verified cases of killing, kidnapping, enforced disappearance, arbitrary detention and torture of journalists, associated media personnel, trade unionists and human rights advocates in the previous 12 months. 16.10.2 Number of countries that adopt and implement constitutional, statutory and/or policy guarantees for public access to information. 16.A.1 Existence of independent national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles. 16.B.1 Proportion of population reporting having personally felt discriminated against or harassed in the previous 12 months on the basis of a ground of discrimination prohibited under international human rights law. Finance 17.1 Strengthen domestic resource mobilization, including through international support to developing countries, to improve domestic capacity for tax and other revenue collection. 17.2 Developed countries to implement fully their official development assistance commitments, including the commitment by many developed countries to achieve the target of 0.7 per cent of ODA/GNI to developing countries and 17.1.1 Total government revenue as a proportion of GDP, by source. 17.1.2 Proportion of domestic budget funded by domestic taxes. 17.2.1 Net official development assistance, total and to least developed countries, as a proportion of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) 63 0.15 to 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries; ODA providers are encouraged to consider setting a target to provide at least 0.20 per cent of ODA/GNI to least developed countries. 17.3 Mobilize additional financial resources for developing countries from multiple sources. 17.4 Assist developing countries in attaining long-term debt sustainability through coordinated policies aimed at fostering debt financing, debt relief and debt restructuring, as appropriate, and address the external debt of highly indebted poor countries to reduce debt distress. 17.5 Adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries. Development Assistance Committee donors’ gross national income (GNI). 17.3.1 Foreign direct investments (FDI), official development assistance and South-South Cooperation as a proportion of total domestic budget. 17.3.2 Volume of remittances (in United States dollars) as a proportion of total GDP. 17.4.1 Debt service as a proportion of exports of goods and services. 17.5.1 Number of countries that adopt and implement investment promotion regimes for least developed countries. Technology 17.6 Enhance North-South, South-South and triangular regional and international cooperation on and access to science, technology and innovation and enhance knowledge sharing on mutually agreed terms, including through improved coordination among existing mechanisms, in particular at the United Nations level, and through a global technology facilitation mechanism. 17.7 Promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed. 17.8 Fully operationalize the technology bank and science, technology and innovation capacity-building mechanism for least developed countries by 2017 and enhance the use of 17.6.1 Number of science and/or technology cooperation agreements and programmes between countries, by type of cooperation. 17.6.2 Fixed Internet broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants, by speed. 17.7.1 Total amount of approved funding for developing countries to promote the development, transfer, dissemination and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies. 17.8.1 Proportion of individuals using the Internet. 64 enabling technology, in particular communications technology. information and Capacity-Building 17.9 Enhance international support for implementing effective and targeted capacity-building in developing countries to support national plans to implement all the sustainable development goals, including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation. 17.9.1 Dollar value of financial and technical assistance (including through North-South, South-South and triangular cooperation) committed to developing countries. Trade 17.10 Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the World Trade Organization, including through the conclusion of negotiations under its Doha Development Agenda. 17.11 Significantly increase the exports of developing countries, in particular with a view to doubling the least developed countries’ share of global exports by 2020. 17.12 Realize timely implementation of duty-free and quota-free market access on a lasting basis for all least developed countries, consistent with World Trade Organization decisions, including by ensuring that preferential rules of origin applicable to imports from least developed countries are transparent and simple, and contribute to facilitating market access. 17.10.1 Worldwide weighted tariff-average. 17.11.1 Developing countries’ and least developed countries’ share of global exports. 17.12.1 Average tariffs faced by developing countries, least developed countries and small island developing States. Systemic Issues (Policy and Institutional coherence) 17.13 Enhance global macroeconomic stability, including through policy coordination and policy coherence. 17.14 Enhance policy coherence for sustainable development. 17.13.1 Macroeconomic Dashboard. 17.14.1 65 17.15 Respect each country’s policy space and leadership to establish and implement policies for poverty eradication and sustainable development (Multi-stakeholder partnerships) 17.16 Enhance the global partnership for sustainable development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals in all countries, in particular developing countries. 17.17 Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships. (Data, monitoring and accountability) 17.18 By 2020, enhance capacity-building support to developing countries, including for least developed countries and small island developing States, to increase significantly the availability of high-quality, timely and reliable data disaggregated by income, gender, age, race, ethnicity, migratory status, disability, geographic location and other characteristics relevant in national contexts. 17.19 By 2030, build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement gross domestic product, and support statistical capacity-building in developing countries. Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of sustainable development. 17.15.1 Extent of use of country-owned results frameworks and planning tools by providers of development cooperation. 17.16.1 Number of countries reporting progress in multi-stakeholder development effectiveness monitoring frameworks that support the achievement of the sustainable development goals. 17.17.1 Amount of United States dollars committed to public-private and civil society partnerships. 17.18.1 Proportion of sustainable development indicators produced at the national level with full disaggregation when relevant to the target, in accordance with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 17.18.2 Number of countries that have national statistical legislation that complies with the Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics. 17.18.3 Number of countries with a national statistical plan that is fully funded and under implementation, by source of funding. 17.19.1 Dollar value of all resources made available to strengthen statistical capacity in developing countries. 17.19.2 Proportion of countries that (a) have conducted at least one population and housing census in the last 10 years; and (b) 66 have achieved 100 per cent birth registration and 80 per cent death registration. Source: UNDESA, 2015 67