Acceso usuarios
Jordi Farré i Coma 
La Agenda 2030 se interpreta como sumatorio de marcos políticos internacionales orientados al desarrollo sostenible, el cambio climático, la reducción de riesgo de desastres (RRD) y la resiliencia urbana, los cuales operan fragmentariamente. La Red de Estudios Sociales en la Prevención de Desastres (La Red), ha configurado una aproximación holística al estudio de los desastres y la práctica de la gestión del riesgo. En el modus pensandi, destaca la necesidad de enfocarse en el riesgo, la vulnerabilidad social, los déficits de desarrollo y los desastres pequeños y cotidianos. En el modus operandi, remarca los niveles locales y de participación comunitaria para comprender cómo la gestión del riesgo se manifiesta sobre el territorio. Se profundiza en la gobernanza territorial por y para Latinoamérica, en la reducción, gestión y creación de riesgo de desastre. Este acercamiento convierte los ODS en factores subyacentes e impulsores del riesgo.
A partir de los ODS 13 y 11, entrelazados como impulsores de riesgo, se identifican formas de resistencia, estructural y cotidiana: epistemológica al fenómeno global de adaptación al cambio climático (ACC); metodológica a las políticas de resiliencia urbana. En ambos casos, se desvía el foco de las vulnerabilidades preexistentes y emergentes, así como la internacionalización, institucionalización y homogeneización de discursos hegemónicos actúan como barreras al cambio. En los marcos internacionales dominantes reforzados por conceptos virales como sostenibilidad, adaptación o resiliencia se ocultan alternativas transformadoras hacia soluciones por y para Latinoamérica. La agencia, conflictividad y poder de resistencia de Latinoamérica, anclado en las experiencias históricas de pertenencia y conocimiento, son soslayadas. El modus vivendi de la región, se silencia, desplazando los marcos de interpretación propios. La imposición y superposición de narrativas foráneas entorpecen la conceptualización y aplicación de las políticas de RRD a la vez que enmascaran y enquistan las formas persistentes de creación de riesgo de desastres (CRD).
El artículo propone una revisión conceptual crítica de la Agenda 2030, desde la RRD y la resiliencia a la CRD y la resistencia. Para la elaboración de este trabajo se ha realizado un análisis temático cualitativo, acotado en los últimos cinco años, tomando en cuenta las contribuciones tras la pandemia y el informe de medio periodo del Marco de Sendai. Se han escudriñado los recientes informes internacionales auspiciados por la ONU, los artículos científicos en revistas especializadas en riesgo de desastres desde el foco latinoamericano, con especial atención a aquellas publicaciones orientadas a la CRD o con referencias explícitas a La Red. Esta selección documental se ha analizado siguiendo la estructura del artículo: primero, se evalúa la comunidad epistémica latinoamericana desde la transversalidad de la RRD; segundo, se analiza el ODS 13 en relación con la COP30 a celebrar en Belém y el ODS 11 como espacios de CRD; tercero, se discute sobre la construcción de múltiples resistencias estructurales y cotidianas; se concluye con la urgencia de incidir, no en la reducción o las resiliencias, sino en las resistencias emergentes frente a la CRD, retornando las viejas y nuevas vulnerabilidades al centro más allá del 2030.
The 2030 Agenda represents an unattainable goal for the Latin American and Caribbean. As a regional shared destiny, it generates expectations and frustrations, lights and shadows, threats and opportuni-ties, all of which translate to strategic communication issues. The multilateral architecture developed since 2015 integrates and converges towards the theoretical unification of the mandates of the SDGs, the Paris Agreement, the Sendai Framework, and the Framework Convention on Biodiversity, among others. This process of thematization on the international agenda has opened intense debates about how to transpose the global governance of emerging systemic risks into national legislation or regional governance, as well as how to apply them into local action. The balkanization of the approaches has presented difficult dilemmas to manage. Since the 1990s, the Latin American academic community, through the extensive history of LA RED (Network of Social Studies on Disaster Prevention), has ac-tively participated in redefining disasters, as socially constructed rather than natural, or in linking of risks with development and inequality, through prioritizing local contexts within the need to address the causes through forensic methodology.Global risk society is undergoing a runaway process of climate change and urbanization. On the one hand, the idea that there is a direct, clear, and unequivocal connection between biodiversity and climate change is gaining ground, addressing a relationship between sustainability and climate crisis; on the other hand, vulnerability and disaster risk are more oriented ss people (migration, borders, poverty, malnutrition, etc.), who inhabit increasingly unsustainable, vulnerable, and exclusionary megacities. Regional governance is pushed to reinvent itself anew for and by Latin America, going within and be-yond academic circles. Although the pitfalls of exacerbated multilateralism, the divisive power of states, and idiosyncratic local contexts persist, regionalism as a resistance to global vulnerability can fracture resistance to change. The separation between the environmental and social spheres is biased and artifi-cial because it does not consider power relations in the modalities of organization and decision-making.After the pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, globalisation turns, and climate emergency, a new paradigm for systemic risk governance is emerging with strengthening resilience, extreme events, interconnected impacts, and the privatization of gains. However, the threats could become new opportunities to give space to prospective and better management and reduction of the socialized risks to increase under-lying and preexisting patterns of vulnerability, and exposure. The major change to be reached is the recognition that the systemic nature of socially constructed risk is endogenous to how development is pursued (UNDRR, 2019, 2022, 2024).The pressing nature of the emergency of climate change is a factor in emissions and carbon footprints, but it should not distract us from the root of the problem: the reproduction of social inequality in terms of vulnerability. Adaptation should not be understood as adjustment but as transformation oriented towards the common good, prevention, and forward-looking management. A key insight into this dom-inant cli-mentality shapes the space of thinkable solutions and assigns responsibilities (Steig y Oels, 2025; Lewis y Kelman, 2012). We urgently need to focus not on reduction or resilience, but on emerg-ing resistance to the creation of disaster risk. Perhaps the innovative approach lies in denaturalizing climate change to renaturalise urban environments.This text follows a critical reinterpretation of the four priorities of the Sendai Framework in relation to the horizons of the 2030 Agenda, focusing on SDGs 11 and 13. From a Latin American regional per-spective, it discusses the resistance to the conceptual relationships established around the understand-ing of risk and disasters, governance and management, investments in disaster risk reduction, and disaster preparedness. Against the backdrop of these priorities, resilience emerges as a cross-cutting concept, appearing sixty times, compared to seven times in the SDGs. However, the vagueness of its meaning leads to misunderstandings (Graveline y Germain, 2022), as it is difficult to discern whether it is a condition or a goal in the process of strengthening resilience. Resilience’s favourable connotation is also associated with sustainability and CCA. Latin American scholars resist this dominant view from a vulnerability perspective, questioning resilient cities (SDG 11) and climate adaptation (SDG 13), as they are addressed by the 2030 Agenda, or climate summits (Lavell, 2023). International diplomacy has institutionalized the naturalization of concepts and measures related to climate mitigation and adaptation, or urban resilience. It is proposed to incorporate the shift towards disaster risk creation and socio-environmental justice (Jerolleman, 2019) to understand climate change and urban sustainability in a transformative way, reconfigured as two sides of the same coin.The objective of this article is to critically analyze the multilateral approach and academic research on risk reduction from a Latin American perspective. In the post-2030 Agenda, debates to identify gaps and barriers are crucial to drawing lessons from the directions to be taken. In this process of reinvention, the epistemic community of LA RED emphasizes shifting adaptation and resilience towards emerging resistances; because DRR is not enough without impacting the mechanisms that create disaster risk.Raising the voices of LAC, in its specificity as a regional community, and the voices of the weak and excluded, implies questioning the limits that the approach of global governance, climate change adap-tation, and the local implementation of urban resilience impose on the containment of regional agency, as structural resistance, and the power of the weak, as everyday resistance; aborting alternative sce-narios. Instead of promoting, making visible, and learning from resistance to change, multilateralism and academic research act as resistance to change. The great remaining challenge is to delve deeper into those transformative resistances that point the way to opposing disaster risk creation mechanisms. As already occurred with the inclusion of DRR on the international agenda, the Latin American epistemic community meets the conditions to once again take center stage in the setting around which the post-2030 priority agenda should be configured. This approach must be necessarily articulated beyond DRR, focusing not on adaptation and resilience but on the multiple emerging resistances (Lewis y Kelman, 2012; Wisner y Lavell, 2017).This article is divided into three sections that address the main pending epistemological dilemmas when addressing the new paradigm of DDR in LAC. It starts with the modus pensandi in which disasters are a social construct, unnatural, and respond to root causes that connect the SDG, CCA, and DRR, under the common underlying factors of vulnerability that explain them. Secondly, it analyses the modus ope-randi of SDGs 13 and 11, questioning the modes of scientific production and political implementation of CCA (Mills-Novoa and Mikulewicz, 2025; Shah et al., 2025), and confronts the dilemmas and expec-tations of COP30, to be held in the Amazonian city of Belém. Thirdly, the modus vivendi in the region and in resilient cities is discussed as conflictive cultural spaces, expressions of power and reproduction of vulnerability, to emphasise the invisible structural and everyday resistances. It concludes with some forward-looking reflections, beyond the 2030 Agenda for and according to Latin America.
