Data Sharing for Natural Hazards and Vulnerability: Implications for Disaster Diplomacy

Many scientists believe that collecting, processing, and analysing data from the natural environment would and should be politically neutral. Examples, particularly from disaster research, demonstrate this is not the case. Until recently, India would not share real-time hydrological or seismic data. Along the Red River, crossing the Canada-USA border, each country used different methods for parameterising flooding leading to a mismatch in flood management approaches. Vulnerability data can be even more sensitive. Frequently, groups which are made to be vulnerable to natural hazards include indigenous peoples; people with disabilities; and non-heterosexuals. Many jurisdictions, such as Taiwan and Cameroon, dispute the indigenous status of groups; many cultures within Caribbean islands stigmatise cognitive and intellectual disabilities; and homosexuality is still effectively or actually outlawed in places around the world. Consequently, accurate and precise data on these populations will not be shared, even if available. Similarly, some countries would never make data available for some critical infrastructure, citing national security considerations. While scientists often wish to work across borders to overcome these difficulties, and frequently succeed, it is rare that they have positive political influence. That is, the science diplomacy for disaster-related research frequently shows worthwhile impact, but it does not spill over into wider disaster diplomacy or political realms. Data sharing tends to corroborate the disaster diplomacy conclusions that disaster-related work typically does not create new diplomacy, in contrast to some wider successes within sports diplomacy, arts diplomacy, and cultural diplomacy.