The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction was adopted on March 18, 2015 in Sendai, Japan at the Third United Nations World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction. This framework allowed all participating countries 5 opportunities relating to disaster risk reduction according to the Framework’s Preamble:

1. To adopt a concise, focused, forward-looking and action-oriented post 2015 framework for disaster risk reduction
2. To complete the assessment and review of the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters
3. To consider the experience gained through the regional and national strategies/institutions and plans for disaster risk reduction and their recommendations, as well as relevant regional agreements for the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action
4. To identify modalities of cooperation based on commitments to implement a post 2015 framework for disaster risk reduction
5. To determine modalities for the periodic review of the implementation of post 2015 framework for disaster risk reduction

This World Conference also gave the participating countries an opportunity to restate their dedication of disaster risk reduction efforts and initiatives.

This World Conference addressed common accessibility issues in a manner of ways regarding the Sendai Framework. These included International Sign Language Interpretation, Remote Participation, Webconferencing, Remote Hubs, Remote Participation via Telepresence Robot, Accessible documentation options, and the option to request accessible transport. These address General Assembly resolutions regarding accessibility for those who require sign language or are in areas that prove difficult to travel. While these steps are important, they do not reach nearly every community. Unfortunately, these communities and populations that may not have access to information that comes from the Sendai Framework are those communities and populations who are most likely to see heavy effects of disasters. For instance, there is only some access to the information at hand for those who live in small villages. The Remote Hubs were only located in four major cities, making them inconducive to include those in rural areas.