Progress in Disaster Science 11 (2021) 100188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Progress in Disaster Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pdisas

Invited view point

Knowledge exchange through science diplomacy to assist disaster

risk reduction
⁎
Yekaterina Y. Kontar a, Alik Ismail-Zadeh b,c,d, , Paul Arthur Berkman e,f,g, Patrizia I. Duda h,i, Sir Peter Gluckman d,j,
Ilan Kelman h,i,k, Virginia Murray l
a
U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington D.C., USA
b
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Applied Geoscience, Germany
c
Russian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Earthquake Prediction Theory and Mathematical Geophysics, Moscow, Russia
d
International Science Council (ISC), Paris, France
e
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR), Geneva, Switzerland
f
Program on Negotiation at the Harvard Law School, Harvard University, Cambridge, USA
g
Science Diplomacy Center MIEP, MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia
h
Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, University College London, London, UK
i
University of Agder, Kristiansand, Norway
j
Koi Tū; The Centre for Informed Futures, University of Auckland, New Zealand
k
Institute for Global Health, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
l
Global Disaster Risk Reduction, Public Health England, London, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: This paper analyses science diplomacy efforts to reduce disaster risks and proposes establishing national knowledge
Received 1 June 2021 exchange centers (KECs) to help individual states adhere to their Sendai Framework goals. KECs are considered to
Received in revised form 5 July 2021 be interconnected globally and work together to promote resilience efforts by facilitating sharing of information and
Accepted 11 July 2021
strategies in risk monitoring, assessment, and ultimately reduction across the globe. KECs can provide high-quality sci-
Available online 15 July 2021
entific evidence for informed decisionmaking along with a component related to disaster science media to ensure that
appropriate knowledge reaches a variety of people who need it in different forms tailored for them. KECs can promote
Keywords: transdisciplinary education in disaster-related science diplomacy (i.e., disaster diplomacy). The United Nations Office
Knowledge exchange for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) and the International Science Council (ISC) can provide assistance to KECs
Science diplomacy through UNDRR National Platforms and ISC Members.
Science advice
Interdisciplinarity
Informed decisionmaking
Disaster risk reduction

1. Introduction Efforts of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction
(UNDRR) in overseeing the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction
Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a universal imperative, which requires 2015–2030 (Sendai Framework), supporting countries in its implementa-
continuous collaboration between all levels of society tasked with ad- tion, monitoring and sharing what works in reducing existing risk and
vancing our understanding of risks (i.e., research), managing risks preventing the creation of new risks exemplify disaster-related science
(i.e., policymaking and implementation), financing DRR (i.e., government, diplomacy (hereafter disaster diplomacy), whether formal through govern-
industry, and non-profits), communicating risks (i.e., media, the public, ments or more informal through NGOs, civil society and scientific organiza-
government and many others), and listening to those adversely impacted tions. UNDRR has been implementing disaster diplomacy by bringing
(i.e., everyone). Since drivers and impacts of disasters frequently cross together governments, intergovernmental organizations (e.g., UNESCO,
geopolitical borders, continuous collaboration and knowledge exchange the World Meteorological Organization, the World Health Organization),
between international counterparts is essential. and non-governmental scientific organizations (e.g., the International Sci-
ence Council (ISC)). In doing so, UNDRR has created synergies among

⁎ Corresponding author at: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Applied Geoscience, Germany.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Ismail-Zadeh).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2021.100188
2590-0617/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.
0/).
Y.Y. Kontar et al. Progress in Disaster Science 11 (2021) 100188

partners and communities in view of their common interests, noting that in- COVID-19, while seen for a short-time as a Chinese-only concern, rapidly
ternational cooperation “has proven to be key to reducing disaster risk” as became a global concern. And the outbreaks of the disease quickly became
elaborated in the Sendai Framework. conflated with great power interests, and national interests were deemed to
Over the five years since the Sendai Framework adoption, its ambitious be at stake. Scientists are having to navigate geopolitical issues, which will
objectives are far from being achieved, and assessment, monitoring, and be compounded in the case of COVID-19 by growing concerns regarding
overall understanding of risks remain challenging. At least 80 states (for vaccine nationalism and the use of vaccine availability as a form of soft
2015–2019; https://sendaimonitor.undrr.org) have failed to provide infor- power. While slow burning, tensions between science and nationalism are
mation related to their efforts in reaching the Sendai global targets. Reasons prominent in global responses to climate change. The Intergovernmental
range from individual states struggling with adequate risk assessment and Panel on Climate Change attempts to manage that interface but despite
monitoring to non-compliance with or even neglecting to abide to their strong scientific consensus, progress at an individual member state level
reporting commitments. is generally slow or negligible.
Disaster science integrates multiple domains of natural and social Human losses due to floods have been significantly reduced in several
sciences. There is a great value in having national units of disaster evidence Asian countries (e.g., Bangladesh, China, and Japan), mainly because the
synthesis to integrate knowledge in forms appropriate for the risk profile of countries developed a cross-border cooperation and knowledge transfer
a country. Already several countries have established centers of excellence using integrated approaches to disaster response co-evolved with kno-
under the umbrella of the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) wledge from geoscience, engineering, land use and urban planning,
program co-sponsored by UNDRR and ISC. These are primarily units of psychology, and political science, as well as the local knowledge about or-
evidence synthesis but built on local disaster risk research activities. This ganizational and institutional schemes, political leadership, budget,
concept could be extended to facilitate disaster diplomacy efforts policymaking, and news media [11]. Another example of the challenges re-
(e.g., [1–3]) through the development of national knowledge exchange cen- quiring collaborative solutions is the Arctic region. Although diplomatic
ters (KECs). The disaster diplomacy efforts could assist individual states ad- channels among the nations surrounding the Arctic region can fluctuate,
here to their Sendai Framework goals by sharing expertise, supporting each science diplomacy efforts led to promotion of scientific cooperation in the
other in the tasks, and providing templates to make reporting easier. Na- region, including DRR research (e.g., [12]). International collaboration on
tional KECs that are globally interconnected could help advance resilience Arctic disaster-related activities (e.g., [13]) provides a strong baseline for
efforts by facilitating sharing of information and strategies in risk monitor- Arctic science and disaster diplomacy. Kontar et al. [3] detail Arctic disaster
ing, assessment, and ultimately reduction in an ethical and efficient diplomacy with a basis in science, while informal approaches for Svalbard
manner. are covered by Grydehøj [14], who provides examples involving risks and
disasters. International research cooperation with emergency response
2. Global challenges require collaborative solutions capacities in the Arctic is seen more broadly in view of building common
interests with global inclusion [15].
Disasters are complex phenomena which are driven by multiplex ties
between political and socio-economical factors. The macro- and micro- 3. Knowledge exchange centers to facilitate risk reduction through di-
scale social processes are producing vulnerabilities that are unsustainable, saster diplomacy
degrading social and infrastructural services, social inequities, and
wealth/livelihood disparities [4]. Disaster risk will continue to increase if Disaster diplomacy incorporates collaboration across all sorts of bound-
vulnerability is not reduced, and the economic impact will far exceed the aries: regional, institutional, cultural, and disciplinary. KECs for DRR will
cost of mitigation and preparedness [5,6]. National efforts to support help traverse these boundaries. The KECs' mission will be to help experts
DRR through a combination of research and resilience building can en- work together and support each other, even through differences of opinion,
hance sustainable development efforts. UNDRR Global Assessment Reports in order to overcome any limitations by building on strengths. Connecting a
and responses from a consortium of non-governmental organizations pro- large number of disciplines from social, physical and medical sciences, en-
vide a comprehensive description of global risks and measures needed to re- gineering, law, social work, arts, humanities, indigenous knowledge and
duce these risks [7]. There are a number of factors, especially related to professions, the KECs will support advances in all relevant disciplines and
cognitive biases and accountabilities, that can inhibit expert assessment disciplinary approaches, so that the scientific knowledge would include
of disaster risk being converted into policy actions and investment [8]. theory, empirics, and application, melding quantitative, qualitative, and
Greater efforts are needed to communicate the risk assessments, their conceptual. Mechanisms necessary to support knowledge exchange include
socio-economic impacts, evaluations of mechanisms for risk reduction, knowledge hubs designed to inform DRR policy and practices through the
and options for translating scientific findings to practice [9]. production, storage, and communication of the meta-analyses of data
Disaster diplomacy can assist in promoting science-based risk assess- such as: PreventionWeb; RiskKAN; European Commission Disaster Risk
ments and responses among nations. Continuing to link DRR to the broader Management Knowledge Centre; Global Health Network; and the UK Gov-
Sustainable Development Goals requires proactive and community-based ernment What Works Network.
resilience efforts. This would become possible with the knowledge ex- We propose the KECs to be linked to UNDRR via its National Platforms
change generated through international, inclusive, holistic and convergent providing participating countries with adequate knowledge related to di-
research on and periodic and systematic assessments of disaster risks that saster risks and recommendations on the risk reduction, as well as mecha-
are effectively communicated to society and governments [9]. Mechanisms nisms and channels to foster cross-border cooperation (Fig. 1). The KECs
and tools to support knowledge exchange are critical to provide guidance will deal with several challenging issues, including (V) volatility of vulner-
for the provision of scientific advice in pandemic and other global disasters. ability, that is, the nature and dynamics of vulnerability change;
To ensure efficient and effective policies, advice should be based on inter- (U) uncertainties in predictability of extreme events, in risk assessments,
and trans-disciplinary collaborations [10,11] of DRR's stakeholders includ- and in public awareness and understanding of extreme hazard events;
ing policymakers. (C) complexities of disasters (e.g., associated with multi, compound or
Although many disasters are local or nation-wide, some are immedi- concatenated hazard events) and of risk reduction at all levels from local/
ately seen as transnational and transboundary. For example, the 2004 national to regional/global; and (A) ambiguity in governance in disaster
Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami affected many countries around risk reduction strategies and in national coordination for disaster response,
the ocean; the 2010 volcanic eruption in Iceland interrupted European rehabilitation and reconstruction, and preparedness. Resolving the four
flights for several days; and peat fires of Southeast Asia contributed to the
air pollution. Others, such as many viral outbreaks, including Ebola, Zika 1
VUCA elements reflecting on the volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity of gen-
or the African Swine Fever, take longer to cause transnational impact. eral conditions and situations were drawn on the leadership theory by Bennis and Nanus [16]

2
Y.Y. Kontar et al. Progress in Disaster Science 11 (2021) 100188

Kontar [19] uses Russia-USA diplomacy in the Arctic as an example of

scientists fostering links, progressing knowledge, and collaborating.
KECs could highlight similar agendas more broadly for disaster-related
science and science diplomacy, building on this approach to have
scientist-diplomat cooperation in creating and pursuing specific
science-based projects and programs on DRR across international
borders.

The KECs would also help to promote interdisciplinary and transdisci-

plinary cooperation instead of exploitive and extractive multidisciplinary
research, where outsiders come in, complete their work, and then leave,
with the areas researched gaining little from the knowledge [11]. Leaving
all work up to local people for themselves only means that external advice
and new ideas are missed, plus less opportunity exists for exchange. The
KECs would support efforts that are aimed at reaching a balance, so that
working together means using everyone's own experience elsewhere
while gaining from others. Each national KEC would provide a hub for
enhancing the efforts of scientists working on disaster risk issues, for com-
municating the scientific knowledge (gained or already available) to help
in informed decisionmaking [20], and for promoting successful interna-
tional collaboration on DRR via domestic linkages to the policy, diplomatic
and political communities.
In disaster diplomacy, formal disaster governance approaches have
tended to be the most reported and accepted, yet they are also critiqued
as being too slow, too top-down, and too inflexible [21]. DRR and response,
Fig. 1. Examples of transnational knowledge exchange in disaster risk reduction for especially across boundaries, can be impeded through efforts to impose
the benefit of humankind.
overly formal or excessively political structures or processes, especially
when they ignore or sideline local realities and more individual and ad
major VUCA1 elements in KECs will assist in reducing disaster risks, en- hoc efforts [22]. Consequently, informal disaster governance becomes im-
hancing resilience, providing informed decisionmaking, and contributing portant, especially embracing its far-reaching extent and impacts. This
to sustainability. form of governance is about people developing their own roles and pursu-
Effective disaster diplomacy means that science is not just for, by, and ing their own actions irrespective of official, expected, or defined positions
with scientists; rather it is a collective, inclusive effort, in which everyone and mandates. In borderlands, for instance, informal disaster governance
affected and involved learns and contributes. The goal of KECs is hence to efforts may cross national borders whose geopolitical significance may
foster inclusive discourse that would inform proactive decisionmaking, not extend to local practices dictated by human need and proximity. The
aimed at reducing risks and enhancing global resilience. The four pillars KECs would support cross-boundary activity that can lead to informal
relationships.
of KECs include:
KECs would provide high-quality scientific evidence for informed
1. Supporting scientists in individual (i.e., peer-to-peer, project-to- decisionmaking along with a component related to disaster science media
project) international collaborations. For example, Cuban and to ensure that appropriate knowledge reaches a variety of people who
American scientists were able to work together on weather- and need it in different forms tailored for them. UNDRR and ISC can promote
climate-related topics despite extended hostility between the two gov- activities of the KECs via UNDRR National Platforms and through ISC Mem-
ernments [17]. Due to the official antipathy, the collaborations were bers such as international scientific unions and associations as well as na-
not always straightforward to implement. In such contexts KECs could tional academies and research councils. Moreover, KECs may promote
assist in connecting scientists from countries at loggerheads and facili- transdisciplinary education in disaster diplomacy at universities, especially
tate collaboration. at departments dealing with diplomatic relationships, sustainability,
2. Fostering knowledge co-production between scientists and non- climate/environment, and DRR. Finally, the KECs would foster the use of
academic DRR experts and practitioners. Promoting inter- and trans- disaster diplomacy to inform effective planning and decisionmaking to re-
disciplinary approaches KECs can provide a venue for making extended duce risks and the impact of disasters.
and reciprocal stakeholder connections beyond sectors and for everyone
to come together on an equitable footing for expressing and sharing 4. Conclusion
their knowledge forms and how to use them in tandem. Mercer et al.
[18] provide a framework for doing so for disaster risk reduction Governmental entities, institutes, and officials responsible for suppor-
which could be implemented through KECs. ting international cooperation should be prepared to assist scientists in fa-
3. Initiating and facilitating discourse between DRR experts and cilitating their science diplomacy efforts. When engaged in science
policymakers from local to global level. True transdisciplinary ap- diplomacy, scientists can inadvertently create diplomatic issues, and KECs
proaches will allow scientists, policymakers and a broad range of com- will provide necessary space for building cooperation and partnership. To
munity and civil society stakeholders to integrate their understandings be effective, KECs should be ever evolving with the events in both scientific
and knowledge and promote accessible but robust analyses. Although and diplomatic spheres. They should not be a product to be set up as a tick-
trans-disciplinarity remains a challenge especially in academia, disaster box exercise and then left for a fixed time period. They would require
risk reduction and indeed progress on many of the issues of the global continual support, monitoring, evaluation, and progression aiming for
commons require inter-stakeholder discourse. Also, KECs would provide long-term outcomes, not just short-term outputs. KECs should not be lim-
advice and a virtual and physical location for people from different back- ited by the Sendai Framework, Sustainable Development Goals, Paris
grounds to interact, exchange, teach, and learn equitably. Agreement, and other international processes, including with the COVID-
4. Engaging the global diplomatic community given that diplomatic ef- 19 disaster and future pandemics confronting humanity on a planetary
forts will be needed to turn such analyses into effective programs. scale. They should push beyond established frameworks, aiming to do

3
Y.Y. Kontar et al. Progress in Disaster Science 11 (2021) 100188

better and to drag the international agreements and diplomats towards International Social Science Council, Paris; 2015 Available at: https://council.science/
wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Report_RiskReduction_WCDRR_2015.pdf. (retrieved on
substantial improvements, especially thinking long after 2030. 30 May 2021).
[5] Ismail-Zadeh A, Takeuchi K. Preventive disaster management of extreme natural events.
Authors contribution Nat Hazards. 2007;42:459–67.
[6] Shreve CM, Kelman I. Does mitigation save? Reviewing cost-benefit analyses of disaster
risk reduction. Inter J Disas Risk Red. 2014;10:213–35.
All co-authors contributed to the conceptualization of the paper. YYK [7] GAR. Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. Geneva: UNDRR; 2019.
and AIZ performed writing – original draft preparation. All co-authors per- [8] Gluckman PD, Bardsley A. Uncertain but inevitable: the expert-policy-political nexus
and high impact risks. Center for Informed Future, University of Auckland; 2021 Avail-
formed writing – review and editing. AIZ visualized the concept.
able at: https://informedfutures.org/high-impact-risks (retrieved on 30 May 2021).
[9] Cutter S, Ismail-Zadeh A, Alcántara-Ayala I, Altan O, Baker DN, Briceño S, et al. Global
Declaration of Competing Interest risks: pool knowledge to stem losses from disasters. Nature. 2015;522:277–9.
[10] Bunders JFG, Broerse JEW, Keil F, Pohl C, Scholz RW, Zweekhorst MBM. How can trans-
disciplinary research contribute to knowledge democracy? In: in’t Veld R, editor.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial inter- Knowledge democracy: consequences for science, politics, and media. Heidelberg:
ests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the Springer; 2010. p. 125–52.
work reported in this paper. The opinions expressed in this publication [11] Ismail-Zadeh A, Cutter SL, Takeuchi K, Paton D. Forging a paradigm shift in disaster sci-
ence. Nat Hazards. 2017;86:969–88.
are those of the authors. [12] Berkman PA, Kullerud L, Pope A, Vylegzhanin AN, Young OR. The Arctic Science Agree-
ment propels science diplomacy. Science. 2017;358:596–8.
Acknowledgments [13] Sellheim N, Zaika YV, Kelman I. Arctic Triumph: northern innovation and persistence.
Cham: Springer; 2019 194 pp.
[14] Grydehøj A. Informal diplomacy in Norway's Svalbard policy: the intersection of local
The authors are thankful to Rajib Shaw for inviting the paper for publi- community development and Arctic international relations. Glob Change Peace Secur.
cation, and reviewers for constructive comments, which improved the 2014;26(1):41–54.
[15] Berkman PA, Young OR, Vylegzhanin AN, Balton DA, Øvretveit O, editors. Building
initial manuscript. common interests with informed decisionmaking for sustainability. Volume 2. Informed
The authors also thank the Global Health Security team of Public Health decisionmaking for sustainability. Dordrecht: Springer; 2021 [in press].
England for funding the costs related to publication of the paper. [16] Bennis W, Nanus B. Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. New York: Harper & Row;
1985.
[17] Glantz MH. Climate-related disaster diplomacy: a US-Cuban case study. Cambridge Rev
References Int Affairs. 2000;14(1):233–53.
[18] Mercer J, Kelman I, Taranis L, Suchet-Pearson S. Framework for integrating indigenous
and scientific knowledge for disaster risk reduction. Disasters. 2010;34:214–39.
[1] Kelman I. Disaster diplomacy: How disasters affect peace and conflict. London:
[19] Kontar YY. Fostering US-Russia cooperation in the Arctic through disaster diplomacy ef-
Routledge; 2012.
forts. In: Sellheim N, Zaika YV, Kelman I, editors. Arctic triumph: Northern innovation
[2] Gluckman PD, Turekian V, Grimes RW, Kishi T. Science diplomacy: a pragmatic perspec-
and persistence. Cham: Springer; 2019. p. 181–92.
tive from the inside. Sci Dipl. 2017:6(4) http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/201
[20] Berkman PA. Science diplomacy and its engine of informed decisionmaking: operating
8/pragmatic-perspective.
through our global pandemic with humanity. Hague J Dipl. 2020;15:435–50.
[3] Kontar YY, Beer T, Berkman PA, Eichelberger JC, Ismail-Zadeh A, Kelman I, et al.
[21] Duda PI, Kelman I, Glick N. Informal disaster governance. Polit Gov. 2020;8(4):375–85.
Disaster-related science diplomacy: advancing global resilience through international
[22] Edwards FL. Effective disaster response in cross border events. J Conting Crisis Manag.
scientific collaborations. Sci Dipl. 2018:7(2) http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/
2009;17(4):255–65.
article/2018/disaster-related-science-diplomacy-advancing-global-resilience-through-
international.
[4] Ismail-Zadeh A, Cutter S, editors. Disaster risks research and assessment to promote
risk reduction and management. International Council for Science and the