Why critical disaster risk data still doesn’t flow across borders in connected world?

At the heart of the problem lies fragmentation - technical, institutional, and cultural. The study reveals that both France and Italy have longstanding but differing approaches to disaster classification, response mandates, and data interpretation. For instance, Italy’s historical focus on seismic and volcanic activity contrasts with France’s emphasis on floods and landslides. As a result, even when working toward a common goal, disaster response actors operate from different assumptions and methodologies.

Despite technological advances and urgent climate-related threats, cross-border data sharing for disaster risk reduction (DRR) remains fraught with institutional fragmentation, trust deficits, and uneven capabilities across regions. These findings emerge from a new peer-reviewed study titled “Can Data Cross Frontiers? Challenges and Drivers for Cross-Border Data Sharing for Disaster Risk Reduction” published in Frontiers in Communication. The paper focuses on the Italy-France border as a representative case for understanding how geopolitical divisions hinder collective resilience in the face of disaster.

The study is anchored in a comprehensive qualitative analysis including 30 expert interviews, archival records, and participatory workshops, exploring the barriers and emerging opportunities in building a cross-border data ecosystem. As severe weather events like landslides and storms increasingly impact Alpine regions, the ability of governments, agencies, and local actors to coordinate response strategies hinges on their ability to share and interpret data. But the reality, the authors argue, is a landscape of disjointed visions, clashing standards, and incompatible digital infrastructures.

What prevents data from crossing borders during crises?

At the heart of the problem lies fragmentation - technical, institutional, and cultural. The study reveals that both France and Italy have longstanding but differing approaches to disaster classification, response mandates, and data interpretation. For instance, Italy’s historical focus on seismic and volcanic activity contrasts with France’s emphasis on floods and landslides. As a result, even when working toward a common goal, disaster response actors operate from different assumptions and methodologies.

This disconnect is exacerbated by semantic inconsistencies. Terms like “civil protection” can mean vastly different things across countries, leading to confusion over roles and responsibilities. These inconsistencies extend beyond terminology into the fundamental structure of organizations. For example, different agencies within the same country might focus on distinct risk profiles, use incompatible data platforms, or apply varying standards of interoperability. When extended across national borders, this organizational divergence becomes more pronounced and deeply obstructive.

The fragmentation is not limited to systems and vocabularies. Rivalries between institutions, inherited political mistrust, and fears over data misuse compound the reluctance to collaborate. In many cases, data is treated as a strategic asset - guarded jealously rather than shared for collective benefit. The researchers recount that even in cases where natural disasters threaten shared infrastructure, agencies often hesitate to provide full access to relevant datasets.

Can DRR actors build mutual trust and shared data strategies?

While fragmentation poses formidable challenges, the study also documents how DRR actors are developing emergent, adaptive practices that foster cooperation. Trust-building emerges as a foundational step. Interviewees described trust not as a passive byproduct of shared goals, but as an actively cultivated condition - a prerequisite for any data sharing initiative. This trust often develops through long-term partnerships, co-developed tools, and inclusive forums where institutional agendas are openly negotiated.

Efforts like the AMIS and ConcertEaux projects, part of the European Interreg Alcotra framework, provide hopeful examples. These initiatives aggregate geographic, hydrological, and socio-economic data across the Italy–France border, aiming to model climate-related hazards collaboratively. Even so, such tools are often underutilized due to limited awareness, low data literacy, or the absence of an overarching strategy to integrate them into daily disaster management operations.

To overcome the absence of a unified data strategy, local DRR actors are increasingly turning to bottom-up methods. Localized networks, often driven by a few committed individuals or bilateral agreements between municipalities, are beginning to fill the gaps left by slower-moving national frameworks. These grassroots efforts prioritize interoperability, mutual comprehension, and real-time usability, even if they lack the institutional mandate of top-down EU programs.

Still, one of the study’s most sobering revelations is the uneven terrain of data literacy. Organizations across the Italy–France border operate with vastly different capabilities. Some institutions can seamlessly process real-time API-driven risk data, while others struggle with outdated tools and siloed information repositories. The inability to understand or act on shared data, even when available, can be just as paralyzing as the lack of data itself.

How can cross-border DRR become more inclusive and resilient?

The study emphasizes that disaster risk resilience at borders cannot be imposed from above. Instead, it requires a delicate interplay of top-down frameworks and bottom-up innovation. European funding, technical standards, and governance structures can catalyze progress, but only if they allow for flexible, locally adapted implementations. Rigid adherence to centralized models risks reinforcing the very fragmentation they aim to solve.

Inclusivity, both institutional and civic, is emerging as a critical enabler. The study documents how language barriers and differing cultural practices have been overcome through sustained interpersonal engagement, multilingual documentation, and shared training exercises. Citizens, too, are increasingly seen as stakeholders - not only as recipients of alerts, but as contributors to risk mapping and information dissemination. The democratization of open data and public access to hazard maps, historical incident records, and even sensor-driven platforms is expanding the sphere of DRR accountability.

One of the more novel findings is the idea of “data interdependence” as a pathway to solidarity. In shared territories like the Alps, where geological and climatological risks transcend political borders, communities on either side are gradually recognizing that safety and preparedness are collective goods. The study cites examples of French and Italian actors co-constructing risk communication materials, jointly analyzing climate models, and even aligning evacuation protocols during cross-border events.

Despite the persistence of asymmetries and the absence of a pan-European data infrastructure for DRR, the authors argue that this experimentation, adaptation, and willingness to engage locally is creating a new form of resilience. Rather than waiting for unified technical solutions, many actors are using trust, mutual learning, and transparency to create de facto ecosystems of collaboration.