Reforming for resilience: The US FEMA Reform Act in the context of G20 disaster governance
Article
Shintre, Lata, Issa, Fadi, Hertelendy, Attila J et al. (2026). Reforming for resilience: The US FEMA Reform Act in the context of G20 disaster governance
. Journal of Emergency Management, 999(99), 10.5055/jem.1009
Shintre, Lata, Issa, Fadi, Hertelendy, Attila J et al. (2026). Reforming for resilience: The US FEMA Reform Act in the context of G20 disaster governance
. Journal of Emergency Management, 999(99), 10.5055/jem.1009
Introduction: This study examines disaster risk governance across the Group of Twenty (G20) nations, the European Union, and the African Union, focusing on how countries are adapting their systems to address the challenges of an evolving, increasingly complex risk environment. Disaster management frameworks have traditionally focused on environmental and physical hazards, but the emergence of new risks—such as cyber incidents, artificial intelligence system failures, biosecurity and health-sector cyber threats, space-weather impacts, and large-scale misinformation or disinformation poses additional challenges for national governance systems. This study evaluates how countries are preparing to manage both traditional natural hazards and these emerging threats.Methods: In this study, national legislation, institutional arrangements, and coordination mechanisms were examined to assess how effectively countries are prepared to manage both traditional natural hazards and emerging risks. The analysis draws on three internationally recognized frameworks: the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Framework for the Governance of Critical Risks, and the International Organization for Standardization 22300-22301 standards on Security and Resilience (updated 2023) to evaluate governance structures, policy alignment, and response capability. Results: The findings show that all G20 members have established disaster management frameworks that provide strong capability for managing conventional hazards such as floods, earthquakes, and hurricanes. These systems demonstrate substantial progress in institutional preparedness and intergovernmental coordination. However, most were designed during a period when disaster governance focused primarily on environmental and physical events, so the ability to address emerging risks differs significantly across nations.Discussion: The United States (US)’ experience provides a relevant example of how institutional reform can strengthen this transition. The proposed Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Reform Act of 2025 expands the focus to include systemic and digital risks. It introduces measures to make FEMA an independent agency, improve interagency coordination, and establish an office dedicated to systemic risk preparedness. The reform also integrates digital and information-related threats into disaster planning and enhances transparency in resource allocation and recovery monitoring. This evolution illustrates how updating institutional mandates can expand national preparedness to encompass emerging challenges and strengthen readiness for complex, interdependent risks.Conclusion: Overall, G20 countries have achieved a high degree of preparedness for traditional hazards but differ in how they are addressing the new dimensions of risk. As the nature of disasters becomes increasingly interconnected and rapidly evolving, regular review and modernization of disaster governance will be essential. The US, European Union, and Australia examples demonstrate how adaptive reform and integrated legislation can bridge the gap between preparedness and readiness, offering a model for other nations seeking to align disaster governance with the realities of the modern risk landscape.
