Blog

Fragilecologies Archives
12 December 2005

Individuals and, collectively, societies have their own perceptions and expectations about the natural flow of the seasons where they live, despite the actual climate in their region. Whenever the actual flow of the seasons does not match those expectations, human activities are often disrupted in negative ways. For example, too much or too little rain at the wrong time in the crop life cycle can have a direct negative impact on crop yields, overall food production, and the availability of food in local markets. Even the timing and intensity of the rains throughout the rainy season can be quite disruptive, even though the total annual amount may be normal (for example, farmers do not want heavy rain at harvest time). In fact, many of the food-related problems that Africans continually face are related to the behavior of global climate and its influence on regional and local climates.

Droughts are of particular concern in Africa. Drought is a constant threat to many parts of the continent. It often strikes whole regions that encompass several countries at the same time. In just about any given year, food insecurity (that is, a worse-than-normal shortage of food) takes place somewhere in sub-Saharan Africa. That is the reason for a sustained focus on food security programs of many national as well as international humanitarian development programs. Droughts are often erroneously blamed as being the major or the sole cause of hunger and famine. Research has shown that to be far from the truth, as socio-economic and political factors are now known to play a major role. Considerable work needs to be done on improving drought and drought-related early warning systems, coping strategies and tactics, and drought response mechanisms.

http://www.the-human-race.com/pages/about_desertification.htm

Desertification has become a catch-all phrase that encompasses adverse changes in the surface of the land. It is a process of land degradation that can be brought about by allowing herds to overgraze the rangelands, by cutting trees for firewood and construction purposes, and by cultivating the wrong crops in marginal areas. Desertification aspects include but are not limited to soil erosion by wind or water, deforestation & woodcutting, reduction in vegetation cover, and the salinization of soils resulting from improper use of arid and semiarid soils. Large dust plumes, originating in the Sahara Desert and its surrounding West African Sahel, have been seen from space heading westward across the Atlantic Ocean to the United States and the Caribbean region.

Floods, too, are a constant threat to people across the African continent. In addition to the dislocation of populations, the destruction of dwellings, and the death of individuals and livestock, flooding is often accompanied by infectious disease outbreaks. Such outbreaks often occur as a step-like increase in the incidence of chronic diseases, both vector-borne and water-borne diseases; today’s medical facilities are wholly inadequate to treat anomalous disease outbreaks.

Because of the already critically urgent need in Africa to better understand and respond to the good as well as bad influences of climate variability, climate change, and extreme weather and climate extremes on human activities and on the ecosystems which societies depend on for their well-being, we want to pursue support for the establishment of an “All-Africa Center for Climate, Water and Weather Affairs.”

We can encourage this by seeking to convince governments, agencies, and development banks to support a multidisciplinary approach to address climate-, water- and weather-related issues and climate-related phenomena that are obstacles to sustainable development in Africa. The notion of “Affairs” encompasses the following: climate, water and weather science; impacts on ecosystems and societies and their impacts on the atmosphere; policy & law; politics, economics and ethics & equity.

Our new century will be dominated by climate-, water-, and weather-related events, anomalies and impacts. The need for bringing together African expertise and experiences related to climate, water and weather is ever-present, growing and urgent. Much of the basic capacity required to operate such an education and training center of excellence already exists on the continent Ö but is quite dispersed.

By creating this Center, it is possible to put together a coalition of supporters for developing it. Issues include not only climate change but environment, development, seasonality, and the use of climate knowledge for development in climate-sensitive sectors such as food, energy, water, health and public safety.

It is a well-known fact that many African researchers, educators and trainers leave the continent for education and training or employment opportunities elsewhere. Although several have the intention to return to Africa, many do not return.

An All-African Center would provide a hub of activity on the continent for educating and training professionals in the workforce, government personnel as well as educators in universities and colleges on climate-, water-, and weather-related knowledge. It would also provide a focal point for climate-related expertise in Africa as well as for Africans working or studying in other parts of the world. The center would be designed to attract the involvement of foreign expertise, experience, and resources as well.

In sum, I sincerely believe that it is time for the establishment of an ” All-Africa Center for Climate, Water and Weather,” an education and training center. It is a win-win-win situation: Africans win, both individuals and governments; the donor community wins because it has filled a void in African education and training focused on climate, water and weather issues, and the global community wins as a result of successful capacity building activities, with a focus on one of the major threats of the 21st century: an uncertain climate. By educating educators and training trainers in climate-sensitive sectors of society, societies can become better prepared to cope with the vagaries of climate on a range of time scales relevant to the concerns of governments and individuals.

A phrase used by an investment corporation captures the overarching mission of an All-African center: Knowledge is Power. Sharing Knowledge is Empowering.

Fragilecologies Archives
17 October 2005

Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, flash floods, heat waves, droughts, winter storms, El Niño effects, La Niña effects, brush and forest fires, high winds, and hail storms occur in the United States every year, somewhere. These are for the most part seasonally differentiated. Hurricanes have their season from April to November. Heat waves are usually in the summertime, fires are in summer and fall, and so forth. We have a weather channel that is on for 24 hours a day/seven days a week/fifty-two weeks a year. Many people stay awake at night until they hear the weather reports on TV and they wake up in the morning thinking about getting a glimpse of the weather during coverage of the morning’s news. And then there is the back page of USA Today, which is totally devoted to weather.

To me it is pretty clear that the US public is immersed in weather information from morning till night and from cradle to grave. Weather coverage does not stop at the US borders. Listeners are also informed about typhoons, cyclones, droughts, famines, fires and haze around the globe. Is there an upper limit for how much weather news America can stand? I think there is. I think we are at that point, if we have not in fact already surpassed it.

With such constant coverage in the media on a daily basis, are Americans likely to become desensitized to reports about weather and its impacts when it becomes important for them to know about it? Little effort is put in by the media to use their airtime to educate the public about weather. What does it mean when they say there is “a 60 percent chance of rain”? Where will it fall? Is it in a specific location where I am going to be, or is the forecast meant for a much larger area? This could help the public to understand why forecasters show yb using statistics how accurate their forecasts have been, while the general public thinks the forecasts are unreliable? What, for example, is the significance, if any, about reporting that a rainstorm was the worst in six years? Is that a significant fact?

I would argue that, as supersaturated as we are with weather information, weather knowledge of the general public is not very high. Their understanding of weather phenomena, that is, the science that underpins weather events and processes, is not very good. I would also argue that it is important for people to know the science even at a rudimentary level, because they often are putting themselves at risk to its impacts without realizing it.

America is a very mobile society. A significant portion of the population moves from one location to another in a given year. Even if they have come to know something about weather- and climate-related hazards where they have lived for some time, they may have little understanding of the weather conditions in the place to which they are moving. They’ll have a general knowledge: the East and Gulf coasts are subjected to hurricanes, the Midwest and Southeast to tornadoes, snowy cold winter outbreaks in the northeast, ice storms in the central US, and so forth. But that is likely to be all they know. The frequency, severity, and the coping tactics and strategies are often unknown and, therefore, unconsidered by them — until an extreme weather event occurs.

When there are negative impacts of an extreme weather event, all hell breaks loose. Finger pointing begins with claims that governments or agencies did not respond appropriately. But what responsibility do people have for their own well-being related to weather and climate?

I recall a New Yorker who had relocated in Colorado saying that he “had it with the winters there” and was going to move to the west coast of Florida . He specifically noted that he was not moving his family to the eastern Atlantic seaboard of that state because of the risk to hurricanes. He moved. As it happened he did avoid the wrath of Hurricane Andrew in August 1992. He was jubilant at his brilliant decision to avoid Florida ‘s hurricane-prone east coast. However, in mid-March 1993 his home and business were hit by the most intense winter storm of the 1900s, Superstorm ’93. In Florida that particular storm was call the “No-name storm”. It struck the state before the hurricane season had started and during which they name hurricanes. This one came from the Midwestern US and was out of the state’s perceived severe storm season.

Now the global climate is changing. On this most scientists seem to agree. They do not agree as to the cause or severity of the change (e.g., global warming) or to the likely impacts that might occur. Questions abound: will there be more heat waves? Will they appear earlier, last longer, and become more intense? The same questions can be asked about tornadoes, hurricanes, bush and forest fires and flooding? The climate change community has been concerned in the past about the possibility of single-event blockbuster storms, and it seems that since the early 1990s there have been several storms that have been called “superstorms.” They had been called so because of their record-setting properties or because of their severe economic or social impacts on society. However, now, at the onset of the 2st century, what I call “The Climate Century,” I think a new concern has emerged that has not been on the radar screen of scientists: a season of superstorms.

In 2004, for example, Florida was hit by a record-setting 4 hurricanes in a season. At the same time of year, Japan was hit by a record-setting number of typhoons (ten) making landfall. Okay. One could legitimately argue that these were independent freak occurrences. In 2005, however, the US Gulf coast was hit by two major hurricanes within a few weeks (Katrina and Rita, respectively), almost hitting in the same location. Some climate researchers have suggested that the appearance of more intense and more frequent tropical storms is consistent with global warming arguments.

A key hurricane researcher, Bill Gray of CSU, has shown that in the 1930-60 period hurricanes were much more numerous than they have been in the 1960-95 period. He contends that hurricane frequency fluctuates on the decadal scale and that we are now moving back to an era of hurricanes similar to that of the 1930s to 1960s. How this debate becomes resolved is not yet clear.

The jury is out on this particular scientific issue, but it does not let people or their governments off the hook. They each have a responsibility when it comes to weather-related hazards awareness.

So, at a time when Americans are supersaturated with weather information, they are likely to be bombarded with even more weather information. If there has ever been a time for people to have knowledge about weather and the climate system that produces it, that time is now.

Fragilecologies Archives
14 October 2005

My brother recently reminded me that 30 years ago I wrote an article about drought in West Africa. I called it “Nine Fallacies of a Natural Disaster.” In light of the impacts of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast states, he wanted me to discuss fallacies (these are statements that some people have said or may think are true but for the most part are either not true at all or are partly true in certain circumstances).

Until Katrina struck and the cascade of negative impacts followed, it had not crossed my mind to look at other disasters in terms of fallacies (or myths) about disasters. Also, I am not a hurricane expert. However, like millions of American citizens following the plight of victims of Katrina and the crumbling levees, I have been glued to newscasts about the horrifying situation there. In fact I have had many discussions about it with people selling me coffee at the local Starbucks, cashiers in supermarkets, salespeople in computer stores, and so on. The disaster situation in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi and Alabama Ö and now the abysmal government response to it Ö is on everyone’s mind. It is THE ultimate reality show.

Taking my brother’s advice, I did some thinking about what fallacies (myths or misconceptions) have reappeared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Here is my list. I will briefly mention what I have in mind for each in the section that follows.

Fallacies/Myths/Misconceptions

1. Poor people want to live in dangerous places
2. Technology is the answer (but what was the question?)
3. All’s well that ends well
4. Education is the answer
5. Forewarned is forearmed
6. People learn from their mistakes
7. Global warming has nothing to do with disasters
8. The Third World is more vulnerable to hazards than the rich countries
9. Government leaders say what they mean and mean what they say
10. America does not need help from other countries to cope with its disasters
11. The impacts associated with Hurricane Katrina were the result of a natural disaster

Fallacies Explained

1. Poor people choose to live in dangerous places

People live in places that are at elevated risk to natural hazards for a variety of reasons, many of which are beyond their personal control. Some do it because of the view. These people generally speaking have funds available that allows them to rebuild if their property is damaged. They also have the wherewithal to “get out of town in a hurry” if they have to do so. For example, we saw on TV news channels the lines of cars and trucks leaving New Orleans the day before the hurricane was expected to hit. But, many of the city’s residence could not leave: No available cash in hand, No access to cash to flee, no money for gasoline, no way to move possessions, no where to go, and so forth. Making the response of those at-risk to Katrina even more difficult was the fact that there had been hurricane warnings and close calls before in recent times (such as Hurricane Georges in 1998). For a while there was still some uncertainty as to the exact location of landfall, and the impacts were not expected to be very threatening from the hurricane itself. So, many “stayed the course” to a tragic end. The combination of psychological, financial and political factors combined with a direct hit by Hurricane Katrina and the cascade of disasters that followed (the breakdown of the levees) underscored the vulnerabilities of the poor, the elderly, kids and racial minorities (nationally speaking). It also underscored the importance of educating people about the range of the local hazards that they may have to face. Many of the at-risk people living along the Gulf Coast do not choose to live in harm’s way; they are forced to do so by circumstances they cannot control.

2. Technology is the answer

Americans in general (myself included) tend to have a blind faith in technology. That means, as I see it that, if there is a problem, a hi-tech solution can be found that can save us from the impacts of that problem. And to date technology has frequently come to the rescue. Sometimes, however, technological fixes are often used as band-aids, meaning that they are only temporary solutions to chronic major underlying problems. They do not erase the problem but help us to circumvent it Ö at least for a while. A famous economist once suggested that technology actually helps to increase the total amount of misery, because when the problem does reappear, there are more people around to be negatively affected by its impacts. I tend to believe that technology is neutral. What determines whether it is a positive or a negative tool is how and whether it is used effectively.

As we are seeing, once the emergency response phase to Hurricane Katrina ends and reconstruction begins, debates will ensue about whether the levees should have been reinforced according to plans that were not only on the table but were already being undertaken. Clearly, the need to shore up the levees had been recognized at all government levels, local to national. The citizens in the Gulf states elected their official representatives and had the right to expect them to operate in society’s best interest. Nevertheless, a known effective technological solution to potential flooding that could logically have been expected to accompany a Category 5 hurricane was available but was not used. The funds that had been authorized by the US Congress to improve the levees had not been made available during the past few years. Technology may prove to be the answer, but one must ask “what is the question?” Should that question be about decision making related to the use of technology?

3. All’s well that ends well

Different perceptions already appeared within the first few weeks of Katrina and its associated aftermath. Some official government statements were busy putting a positive spin on the government’s hesitant as well as delayed response to the immediate needs of thousands of hurricane victims. The government initially suggested it did the right things, given the uniqueness of the event, the lack of expectation that flooding might ensue and the severity of the cascade of impacts that followed. Government spin doctors have claimed: that the magnitude of the number of people affected was surprising as well as unexpected; that the actual strength of the storm was not forecast; that the National Guard units were dispatched to keep order as fast as could be done; that it had not been asked for assistance by state or city officials, etc.

Toward the end of week one, after Katrina made landfall, it seemed that the Federal Government was starting to get its act together. Evacuation from the Convention Center and the football stadium was in progress to some extent. Food and water were being delivered in larger quantities. The National Guard and regular Army units were policing the streets. People were being airlifted to cities around the country where they have been greeted warmly and provided for now and in the immediate future. So, it seems that all is ending well. But how did we get here?

There was a poor response in the pre-hurricane landfall phase. There was poor response during the hurricane. There was sluggishly slow response during the first days after the hurricane had passed. At least a thousand people are dead. Hundreds of thousands are homeless and penniless. Families have been devastated. People were still being plucked off of rooftops after some days. Why so sluggish? For survivors perhaps “all’s well that ends well” are comforting words to some extent. Not so, though, for those who suffered or died in the earlier days, when quick responses from Federal officials, from the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the head of FEMA might have made a major difference in the outcome of death, destruction and misery.

While the adage “all’s well that ends well” sounds comforting, it also raises questions about another adage that many people already have trouble with: “do the ends justify the means?”

4. Education is the answer

Educating the public is very important and a very difficult task. This is true whether you are talking about K-12 kids, college students, older citizens enrolled in over-50 learning activities, or the general public at large. For some reason it seems to be especially hard to teach people about the specific aspects of hazards that they might have to face someday. However, education is not a process that ends when you reach a certain grade or age or with a certificate or a degree in hand. It is a life-long learning process which means it requires repetition as well as re-education on issues that are constantly changing and about which new information may become available. It is not just an intergenerational problem. It is a problem that can also be addressed by passing on, in this case, disaster-related knowledge within today’s living generations. What are needed are continual reminders of the risks people have to live with at the local level. Brochures about how to prepare for hurricanes were printed by NOAA following Hurricane Camille in 1969. These are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg of more than a century of warnings and educational materials about coping with hurricanes along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Are we applying the lessons we have identified in previous disasters?

5. Forewarned is forearmed

“Forewarned is forearmed” is an old adage that speaks well to early warnings and to knowledge in general. It is based on the popular belief that more information about the future enables one to prepare for it, at least to some extent, if not fully.

The projections and speculation about Hurricane Katrina’s category, location of landfall, potential damage from a variety of sources, of the intensity and storm track for Katrina were in essence forewarnings. However, they were not heeded by those with the power to encourage, entice or force people to move out of harm’s way by evacuating their homes and their cities along the Gulf Coast. Warnings are not enough. Actions must take place in response to them.

6. People learn from their mistakes

That people learn from their mistakes is generally considered to be true. Some societies have a saying that supports this: “Once burned, twice shy.” Unfortunately, there are all too many examples in disaster response studies from different countries, cultures and times that suggest that lessons are indeed identified but not necessarily learned. By learned I mean that the lessons identified would have influenced future behavior in some significant way. With regard to disasters, problems encountered from warning to reconstruction that hinder effective response to victims, are identified by the public as well as by disaster experts, and plans are usually drawn up to overcome those problems. However, follow-up reviews of the reconstruction phases that follow major disasters show that many of the lessons identified remained unapplied. Any one of a variety of reasons (excuses really) from political to economic to cultural can be found as to why known solutions to chronic problems (known, expectable recurrent hazards) had not been implemented. The bottom line message here is that people and societies sometimes do learn from their disaster-related mistakes, while often they do not.

We must not assume that people will automatically do the right thing by learning from experience. They have to be encouraged to learn from and apply the lessons that they had identified. We have to break the cycle of denial as people seek to get back to a semblance of normal, when it was “normal” that put them in harm’s way in the first place.

7. Global warming has nothing to do with disasters

Some researchers suggest that there will be an increase in the frequency as well as magnitude of climate and weather-related extreme events as a result of the warming of the earth’s atmosphere. Others suggest that there is no definitive proof that would be the case. They argue that records are being set every year and that we are to expect such extreme blockbuster episodes under normal climate conditions. Scientific uncertainties notwithstanding, there is mounting evidence suggesting that stronger extremes are linked to a warmer atmosphere. Whether these dangerous and deadly extremes, like Hurricane Katrina, are the result of natural variability or human-induced changes to the chemistry of the atmosphere provides little comfort to the victims. In either case, the “precautionary principle,” as well as the historical record about hurricanes that have made landfall, need to be taken into account.

Many climate change scenarios for the year 2050 have been produced by large computer models. They are suggestive and illustrative but not definitive. Researchers on social issues are then expected to determine how best society might react to such a happening as well as how society might prepare for such an eventuality. However, Hurricane Katrina — and Ivan, Georges, Mitch and Andrew — have underscored the fact that societies today are not well prepared to cope with climate, weather and water extremes under the present day conditions. In this regard improvements in the way we deal with contemporary hazards and disasters can help future generation to prepare for and deal with the hazards that they will fact.

Bill McKibben recently reported in Grist ( September 9, 2005),

Consider the first problem for just a minute. No single hurricane is “the result” of global warming, but a month before Katrina hit, MIT hurricane specialist Kerry Emanuel published a landmark paper in the British science magazine Nature showing that tropical storms were now lasting half again as long and spinning winds 50 percent more powerful than just a few decades before. The only plausible cause: the ever-warmer tropical seas on which these storms thrive.

8. The Third World is more vulnerable to hazards than the rich countries

There has been a prevailing view among climate scientists and policy people, both those who believe in global warming and those who don’t, that developing countries are more vulnerable to climate change impacts than are the industrialized countries. I continue to believe that this belief — that developing countries are more vulnerable — is unrealistic. I think it relates more to the self-deception of people in rich countries who are surrounded by technologies that they believe can protect them, technologies that those in developing countries can only dream about.

We have watched from a distance as superstorms of one kind or another have impacted societies in developing countries. A most recent geophysical event (not weather-related) was the 26 December 2004 killer tsunami in the Indian Ocean when hundreds of thousands perished. Another was Hurricane Mitch in late 1998 (over 17,000 dead). Yet another was the 1999 SuperCyclone in Orissa, India (20,000 dead). SuperTyphoon Maemi hit South Korea in 2003. There seems to be an increase in the number of blockbuster, record-setting, killer natural disasters since the late 1980s: tropical storms, winter storms, fires, and the biggest most damaging El Niño event of the century in 1997-98, and so on.

In most of these cases we watch poor people in great numbers sifting through the debris where their homes had been for anything that they can salvage. A sad difference between poor and rich countries is that people in poor countries are accustomed to adversities and are often left on their own to cope with natural and other disasters. In the rich countries, the people expect and usually get help from their governments because they have the resources to cope with the problem and to pay for the solution, an option that many poorer countries do not have. Rich countries, however, have much lower thresholds of tolerance for inconvenience.

This argument has been difficult to prove about the relative vulnerability of rich versus poor countries; difficult to proveÖ until now. Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005 slammed into the Gulf of Mexico coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and exposed how vulnerable all societies are, regardless of level of technological development, and how ill-prepared they are to respond to their impacts.

9. Government leaders say what they mean, and mean what they say

It is not possible when it comes to forecasting, as well as coping with disasters and their aftermaths, to get through the entire early warning process perfectly. There is always a high probability that some part of the disaster early warning system will fail and those in charge will attract blame. It is inevitable. Some of that blame is probably not deserved, but some of it will be. Nevertheless, those in power will unleash what are called spin doctors. Their job is to put a positive light on the entire early warning process from hazard forecast to the response to its impacts to reconstruction. Platitudes abound about the fantastic job that the government at all levels had done. But, close scrutiny reveals that there are half-truths, cover-ups, and attacks against those who raise questions about disaster response effectiveness and appropriateness.

In the case of Hurricane Katrina it remains to be seen if the government follows through on its pledges to help the victims, rebuild the city and protect the city from similar occurrences in the future. Meanwhile the spin doctors have praised the government for its “quick response” to the victims needs. Aside from the spin doctors, few members of the general public believe those claims, if public surveys are an indicator. The battle that will play out in reviews and reports from the government agencies involved in disaster-related activities and other assessments of Katrina and its impacts will be between “disaster management” and “disastrous management.”

10. America does not need help to cope with its disasters

In my lifetime America has always been a superpower and has acted as such. It took on the role of one of the political poles in a bipolar world, with the other pole being the USSR. We were often the leaders with troops in foreign conflicts. The United States was the superpower representing the West that dominated the workings of the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. The USA was often (though not always) a leader in calling for aid to victims. It offered food aid to Cuba during recent drought-related severe food shortages in that country and Cuba is considered a major enemy in the political sense.

I had never imagined over the past few decades of dealing with one type of disaster or another that I would see such a dire situation in the United States, following a natural disaster such as Hurricane Katrina. Several countries, including countries that the United States considers unfriendly ñ Cuba and Venezuela — offered assistance, especially during the first few days following the hurricane’s landfall. To me it was at first embarrassing that foreign governments would feel compelled to offer disaster assistance to one of the strongest and wealthiest nations on earth. But they did, and sadly it was really needed in the first week following the appearance of Katrina along the Gulf states’ coasts.

11. The impacts associated with Hurricane Katrina were the result of a natural disaster

Hurricane Katrina reached Category 5 level at or about the time it made landfall in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. It was called a massive hurricane, a top-strength storm, an incredibly strong storm, and one webmaster referred to it as a superstorm; that is, the natural hazard that was sure to have brought about death and destruction at some expectable level. However, the damage from this event was much higher than even the experts expected. A lot of the reason for extreme levels of death, destruction and human misery rests with society’s contribution to the adverse impacts of the naturally occurring hurricane. The poor, for example, often end up living in locations that are at high risk to whatever the local natural hazard happens to be. The levees in the New Orleans area were known to be in need of repair as well as upgrading. The impacts of a Category 5 hurricane were projected in many scenarios over the years. This event was not wanted, but was expected to occur at some time. In fact, there had been several near hits in the past few decades. So, that raises the question about what part of the disastrous impacts of a natural disaster (death, destruction, and misery) can be correctly blamed on nature and what part on societal, especially political, decision making. To be sure there will be considerable discussion, finger pointing and blame, as well as spin doctoring and claims of success, but in America there is the expression that the “buck stops at the US President’s desk.”

In sum, the reason for pointing out what I consider to be
fallacies/ myths/ misconceptions is that, even if such views are proven to be incorrect, the actions taken by individuals and governments based on them will be real and therefore will have real consequences. When it comes to disasters, people have to be careful about the generalizations they make because people will not necessarily evaluate them for their validity. Myths and fallacies, like unfounded rumors, are very misleading and can have dangerous long-lasting consequences for societies as well as for the victims of natural-hazard-related disasters in the distant as well as near future.

Fragilecologies Archives
10 October 2005

“Surprise” is a funny word. Often it does not mean what it was originally intended to mean. The following definitions of surprise were taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.

•  The (or an) act of coming upon one unexpectedly, or of taking unawares; a sudden attack.

•  To take by surprise : to come upon unexpectedly, take unawares; hence, to astonish by unexpectedness.

•  Something that takes one by surprise; an unexpected occurrence or event; anything unexpected or astonishing.

•  The feeling or emotion excited by something unexpected, or for which one is unprepared; Alarm, terror, or perplexity, caused by a sudden attack, calamity, or the like.

•  Surprise is the feeling or mental state, akin to astonishment and wonder, caused by an unexpected occurrence or circumstance.

A key element of the different dictionary definitions of “surprise” is the word “unexpected”. Yet, many of us use the word surprise in ways that do not depend on the element of being unexpected. For example, I am sure that at some time we have said such things to our friends like the following: I was “semi-surprised”, “almost surprised”, “hardly surprised”, “a little surprised”, “somewhat surprised”, “sort of surprised”, and so forth. These expressions were drawn from different articles.

The truth is that there are “knowable surprises”. That sounds like a phrase in which the words contradict each other. If you believe in the official definition of the word, you could not know that a surprise is coming? Yet there are knowable surprises.

Knowable Surprises

I have identified some climate-related surprises for Africa south of the Sahara. The following list of surprises to governments or to the media, for example, that should not have been surprising was generated by a discussion about famine in Malawi in 2002.

• When a drought occurs (i.e., defined here as less rainfall than is needed for favorable crop production or for sufficient rangeland vegetation), governments are surprised and are, therefore, often unprepared to deal efficiently or effectively with it. Yet, drought in sub-Saharan Africa is not only a remote possibility but it is a foreseeable occurrence somewhere on the continent in any given year. That droughts occur at all and with some regularity should not surprise anyone when one appears. However, what could be surprising would be the severity of its physical characteristics or its impacts on different countries or villages.
• During an El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean thousands of kilometers away, there is a likelihood (but not a certainty) of drought in various countries, especially in east, northeast and southern Africa.

Food distribution in Malawi. Richard Lord, UMCOR 2002 (ACT).

• Food shortages are often the result of inappropriate land use policies. There are many examples of people and governments being encouraged to grow things in locations that are not well suited to the local or regional climate conditions. Yet, growing wheat on irrigated farms in Northeastern Nigeria, for example, is not the best use of the land and water. For example, a wheat crop is more sensitive to adverse changes in rainfall and temperature than are other traditional crops in the region such as millet and sorghum.
• In many agricultural areas there is a competition between growing subsistence crops and cash crops. Subsistence crops feed people but cash crops are grown for sale out of the country. Farmers are paid for their cash crops (such as qat or cotton), but if there is a drought and cash crop production falls sharply, they have no food to eat or money to buy it with in the local marketplace. Often, irrigation schemes are built to grow cash crops for export. They continue to do so even in countries that have food shortages.
• During prolonged severe droughts, often high interest rate loans have to be repaid either in cash or in kind (such as by working on the fields of the lender) by those who had to borrow seeds for planting, food for the family or funds to buy food. This creates as well as perpetuates an unequal relationship between the person lending the seeds or money and those who borrow it. This leads to more exploitation by the lender of the borrower who may, for example, have to work on the fields of the lender at critical planting and harvesting times, at the neglect of his own fields.
• The time that humanitarian food donors need to respond to emerging famine conditions is relatively long. After a couple of decades the system appears to work but could be greatly improved. Part of the problem rests with how different people see and use the indicators of food problems: some people know a food problem is starting by looking at the crop conditions in the field while others wait for signs of severe shortages such as people abandoning their villages in search of food.

World Food Programme

• Not all the food aid goes to those in need.This is a problem for the donors of food assistance. There are examples where the food aid has been diverted by governments to keep the army loyal, for example, or has ended up by being sold on the black market.
• In reality, pledges by governments to provide food aid are often not met. Donor governments, like people, get caught up in the emotion surrounding a disaster, including the need to help victims. Yet, when it comes time to follow through on food aid or pledged funds, they fail often to do so.
• Those segments of the population that who are likely to become victims during droughts are known well before food shortages occur. Many of the people who are at-risk to malnutrition during food shortages can be identified before hand: the poor, pregnant women, the elderly and children.
• It is well known that there is a time of the year just prior to harvesting known as the hunger season. This is the period leading up to the harvest as well as during it when nutritional levels of the people are severely stressed. It is a period when people are hard at work in the fields, and when family food reserves are at very low levels for many.
• People are dependent on the natural flow of the seasons. Anything that disrupts that expected seasonal rhythm — like a drought or a flood, an infectious disease outbreak, or a late beginning or early end of the rainy season — causes major societal disruptions.
• During severe food shortages and especially during famine situations, there is an increase in population movements in search of food and shelter. Preparations can be made well in advance to keep people in or near their villages by way of providing food and funds for public works as has been done in Latin America.

Some Thoughts to Consider

2 June 2002. Jarson Mphezewa, a farmer in the village of Lovimbi, Malawi, 100 km from Lilongwe, Malawi’s capital (photo: AFP).

Each of these twelve situations have been referred to as a surprise, when if fact it should not have been. We know a lot about what happens in sub-Saharan Africa when the rains fail, when the rivers become dry or when crop production drops like a proverbial stone. At least at a strategic long-range planning level, national governments and the international community could and should take effective evasive precautionary preparatory actions in response to foreseeable food shortages likely to occur in different parts of Africa in any given year (this, however, requires political willpower). While governments, development banks, and donor agencies might claim surprise by a decline in access to food in the marketplace, claiming it does not make it so.

Underlying many of the points above is that governments and donors must take early warning activities much more seriously than they have in the past. It is not enough to have an accurate forecast of an adverse event; that is, a good forecast system is only part of a larger early warning system in which communication and response mechanisms are an integral part. Also, it is not enough to have an early warning activity if it is to be funded at low levels that make it impossible to deliver effective and timely warnings to those in need, not providing them with enough time to react to the warning.

Effective early warning systems can empower governments in ways that help them to protect their citizens as well as their political stability. After all, there are several examples where poor response to hazards or their adverse impacts led to the downfall of governments, as was the case during the 1968-73 drought across Africa’s Sahel when four governments were overthrown by drought-related coups.

Fragilecologies Archvies
13 September 2005

My perception of American perceptions about Africa

People on the street in America, the average citizens, seem to be getting bored with news out of Africa . Some observers think the Americans have turned their collective backs on sub-Saharan Africa . As their attention move on toward other problems, they are looking at Africa in the proverbial rear view mirror of their automobiles.

It is not that people don’t want to help Africa citizens fulfill a lot of the hopes built up by promises made to them by their own political leaders and by other governments ever since the early years of their independence from colonial rule. Deep down in their hearts they do. It is a matter of burnout. Lots of funds have entered Africa over the past four decades or so, but there is little show for it. Only corruption seems to have done well in this period.

In addition to widespread government corruption at most levels and in many countries, Africa has been beset by food, health, environment and development problems in recent times that suggest that effective leadership at the top in many African countries is lacking. By leadership I do not mean in UN or in African Union deliberations or in special international activities where platitudes abound on the need for democracy or for civil society. In some countries, there are deadly internal wars, while in others there are unspeakable inhumane acts against innocent people and against humanity. Few African leaders have publicly complained about the failing of other African leaders, for example, the case of Mugabe’s behavior in Zimbabwe . Phrases like ëblood diamonds’, child armies, genocide, arrogance of power and, so forth conspire to block effective amounts of support (financial and moral) that Africa desperately needs in order to make economic development progress.

To be fair to most government and humanitarian organizations, there seems to be some emergency help for African countries following major natural disasters. We saw that, with the floods in Mozambique . Yet, international assistance (aside from South African help) did not materialize for several days and was catalyzed by the video of a pregnant woman giving birth to baby in a tree surrounded by swirling flood waters. Industrialized countries were embarrassed into getting involved.

Africa seems always to have been a victim; at first from colonial powers seeking to dominate workers and in distant places. Then came the struggle for and achievement of independence from their colonial rulers, mostly through competing hot-war revolutionary movements. That was taking place in the midst of an ideologically based Cold War between the USA on one side and the Soviet Union on the other. As a result of the Cold War, these competing African political factions had to curry the favor of the western powers or eastern ones to get arms or money. Competing groups within the same colony were sought after by the Superpowers for access to their strategic locations on the continent and for their votes in the UN General Assembly.

With the end of the Cold War, Africa became more or less neglected by the rich countries, though it still supplies natural resources to the industrial world. I argued in an editorial some years ago that Africa had apparently been triaged.

Triage refers to a battlefield policy developed in World War I. with not enough medical supplies to take care of all of the battlefield wounded, doctors had to divide the wounded into 3 categories: the walking wounded; they required no special attention and could get them selves to medical help. Their wounds were not life threatening. Another category included those whose wounds were so serious that they were likely to die on the battlefield even if given timely emergency medical assistance. Using medical supplies for them would be wasted, as they were likely to die. So the medics focused on the middle category of wounded soldiers, those who had been seriously wounded but who had a reasonable chance to survive if given medical attention immediately and in appropriate amounts.

By analogy, when the Soviet Union lost its hold on Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and broke up as a country in 1991, western countries turned their attention toward East European countries as the seriously wounded in terms of the need for aid infusion to help them to develop economically and to re-integrate them into a non-communist world. Attention and support went to Eastern European countries as they were viewed as the seriously wounded. Africa then fell into the 3 rd category. After decades of development assistance to Africa , there was little progress to show for it. Deadly internal conflicts took place in Ethiopia , Rwanda , Burundi , Mozambique , Algeria , Angola , Congo and Eritrea . Countries favored by the west, such as the Ivory Coast , Liberia , Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe each in its own way has proven to be major development disappointments. Much of that disappointment relates to failed leadership, both within the country and from the international community.

I was one of the students of Africa who was filled with so much hope for the continent in the early 1960s. It was a time of colonial wars and some very impressive pronouncements about national goals as stated by impressive noteworthy African leaders such as Nkrumah, Azikwe, Kenyatta, Keita, Ben Bella, Senghor, Banda, Adoula, Nyerere, Cabral, Mondlane and Lumumba (names that students of African politics today might not even know). There was a lot of hope not only on the continent but also in government and in academic circles. Many university professors spent their careers writing about ways to develop African polities. After 30-40 years of writing about it, many (myself included) feel saddened at the paucity of success stories.

The countries out side of Africa have meddled in Africa affairs and most recently some have fought to punish former colonies, have bargained to get cheap natural resources away from Africa, have sought to dump their unwanted waste (garbage and radioactive) on the continent, and of course there is the aftermath of the superpower conflict that African leaders had to contend with, an overly armed Africa.

Rich countries for whatever their excuses seemed to have done little to rid the continent of its genocidal, murderous or illegitimate rulers (Mengistu in Ethiopia ; Amin in Uganda ) or corrupt ones (Mobutu/Sese Seku in the Congo ; Taylor , Liberia ).

There is plenty of blame to go around within the continent and outside of it. As of now, it seems that the industrialized countries see Africa in a new way, one that is disturbing to those who care about the fate of Africans and of their hope for progress and well being. It seems that Americans and perhaps others have begun to look at Africa through the rear view mirrors in their cars Ö as they drive away.

I am not sure how this can be changed. It will take brainpower much bigger than mine to figure it out. So, here I sit wondering what went wrong. An African continent filled with independent states was not supposed to turn out the way it has, so vulnerable to natural as well as manmade disasters. The main goals of those interested in saving Africa from its corrupt leaders must be to devise a way to end these senseless internal wars, to get neighboring countries to respect the borders of their neighbors and then, only then, convince the American people to view Africa , once again, through the windshields of their autos.

Fragilecologies Archvies
2 September 2005

For three decades now I have been challenging the prevailing view among climate scientists and policy people, both those who believe in global warming and those who don’t, that developing countries are more vulnerable to climate change impacts than are the industrialized countries. I continue to believe that this belief — that developing countries are more vulnerable — is unrealistic. It relates more to the self-deception of people in rich countries who are surrounded by technologies that they believe protect them, technologies that those in developing countries can only dream about.

We have watched from a distance as superstorms of one kind or another have impacted societies in developing countries. A most recent geophysical event (not weather-related) was the 26 December 2004 killer tsunami in the Indian Ocean when hundreds of thousands perished. Another was Hurricane Mitch in late 1998 (over 17,000 dead). Yet another was the 1999 Supercyclone in Orissa, India (20,000 dead). Supertyphoon Maemi hit South Korea in 2003. There seems to be an increase in the number of blockbuster, record-setting, killer natural disasters since the late 1980s: tropical storms, winter storms, fires, and the biggest most damaging El Niño event of the century in 1997-98, and so on.

In most of these cases we watch poor people in great numbers sifting through the debris where their homes were for anything that they can salvage. A sad difference between poor and rich countries is that people in poor countries are accustomed to adversities and are often left on their own to cope with natural and other disasters. In the rich countries, the people expect and usually get help from their governments because they have the resources to cope with the problem and to pay for the solution, an option that many poorer countries do not have. Rich countries, however, have much lower thresholds of tolerance for inconvenience.

This argument has been difficult to prove about the relative vulnerability of rich versus poor countries; difficult to proveÖ until now. Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005 slammed into the Gulf of Mexico coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and exposed how vulnerable all societies are, regardless of level of technological development.

A woman calls for someone to help the elderly woman she cares for (BBC News)

The mighty USA has been set back on its heels. Much of America watches helplessly as people in the disaster zone, especially New Orleans, plead for help from anyone and no help comes. Stuck on rooftops, inside hospitals, inside convention centers and football fields, people beg for water, food, baby formula, diapers, toilets, rescue helicopters, and so on. Never would we have expected to see this in America, especially at the hands of a natural disaster that can be forecast, tracked and observed minute by minute on TV, the weather channel or radio. The damage from this hurricane is now called the worst natural disaster in at least 100 years, some have said in the history of the country.

The news media are filled with horror stories about the impacts of Katrina. Each story worse than the previous one: poor planning for a disaster that was expected to happen at some time; poor response by the President and his administration; slow response to looters; no water; people shooting at the rescue helicopters, etc. Clearly, researchers can no longer say which types of governments are more vulnerable than other types. We are all vulnerable to the impacts of nature. Maybe the difference is that we in the rich countries will eventually rebuild, whereas the developing countries do not have the resources to do so. But we are all vulnerable to the impacts.

And the climate is changing. We are now being increasingly confronted by the devils we don’t know, as the devils we do know no longer seem to be as important. After all is said and done, the response to a major natural disaster by the US Federal Government in the Gulf of Mexico’s hard-hit states has been poor at best. To characterize it, as has the secretary of Homeland Security as ìmagnificentî a few days after Katrina’s impacts is not only offensive, it is totally unrealistic. On what planet is he living?

As the country continues to hold its breath over the misery and suffering due to Katrina, it is holding its nose over the stench of a ìday-late-and-a-dollar-shortî response of the President, his administration and the US Congress.

Fragilecologies Archives
22 August 2005

By Dr. Eric Udelhofen : Guest Editorial
udelhof@carleton.edu

Two months ago, I was an outsider to the global warming discourse. I had heard mention of the phenomenon, but considered the advent of its impacts remote. I figured that global warming doomsayers were on the fringes of the scientific community, and did not deserve my attention. As a result, my knowledge of global warming was extremely limited. And it likely would have remained that way, had I not received the opportunity to work as a research intern with the Center for Capacity Building, a subset of Boulder ‘s National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). Because of this opportunity, I have spent the past two months diving headlong into the vast literature that has been penned on the topic of global warming, with a specific focus on sub-Saharan Africa. The literature has one striking commonality-: every article begins with the presupposition that global warming is both occurring and human-induced. Perhaps this shocked me as thoroughly as it did because I failed to keep abreast the relevant news as well as I should have. More likely, I suspect, my surprise was engendered by two main factors: the way in which the popular media presents the issue of global warming, and an abiding trust in the integrity of the American political system and the leaders selected through it.

The main problem with the way the media presents the global warming issue stems from the type of balance that is typically sought when presenting such a contentious issue; the reporter will cite one expert climatologist who believes humans are responsible for global warming and one “expert” who believes that global warming is within the realm of natural variability. The reader then sees the battle as one on one, and both arguments are given equal weight, when in actuality the numbers are more like 95 percent of the scientific community against 5 percent. Prior to two months ago, when I would read an article about global warming, I assessed both viewpoints equally, and as a result assumed that there was still considerable uncertainty among the experts. With such a conclusion, I was left with hardly any motivation to limit my own contribution to global warming, and I assume that in this regard I felt much like the majority of Americans feel. If the experts can’t even say for certain that human activity is contributing to global warming, why would I take pains to limit my contribution on a micro scale?

My research here at NCAR has allowed me to read more than 100 books and articles written by the world’s most respected climate-related scientists. This literature has thoroughly convinced me that the scientific community has reached a consensus regarding human implication in global warming.

People need solid facts if they are to take action; in this case, the general public needs to know that their own actions and decisions are in many cases contributing to global warming. As a result of my new knowledge, I have begun to take measures to limit my own use of fossil fuels; I now bike to work and take the bus home to Denver instead of driving. Not everyone has the freedom to read the scientific literature regarding global warming. Most people will depend on popular media sources to inform them. If the necessary individual action is to be taken, readers must see past the one-to-one presentation offered by most news stories to recognize that the scientific community is in agreement, and we are to blame.

My faith in the system established by our founding fathers was another reason for my inaction. If elected officials at the highest level were not taking serious steps to limit the contribution of the U.S. to global warming, why would I do anything about it? I realize now that waiting for a top-down policy mandate is foolish. The beauty of our political system is that policy often bubbles up, from individuals to cities, and eventually to a national level. Individuals taking concerted action get recognized by public officials. We are more empowered than we think.

For many, my conclusion regarding the consensus of climate scientists on the subject of global warming is suspect, perhaps a result of biased readings, but you don’t need to take my word for it. As the Senate recently learned from Ralph Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, “nearly all” climate scientists believe that the observed global warming is caused by increases in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Though the Bush administration will continue to use rhetorical sleight-of-hand to downplay the certainty of this consensus, and media may continue to present the issue as only half certain, the scientific community is in agreement. No longer can uncertainty be a cause for inaction. With luck, Americans will realize their own empowerment and stop waiting for the national government to tell them to limit their contribution to global warming. As I’m beginning to realize, this may be our only chance.

Fragilecologies Archvies
22 July 2005

By Dr. Eric Udelhofen
udelhof@carleton.edu

Historical Causes of Pollution in Copsa Mica

Industrial units began appearing in the Copsa Mica area in 1935, but rapid development did not occur until the forced industrialization of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Pollution in Copsa Mica was almost entirely caused by two factories; Carbosin produced carbon black for dies and tires from 1936 until 1993, and SOMETRA is a non-ferrous metallurgical smelter that is still operational.

In 1947, Romania became a Soviet satellite, and nationalization of industry followed soon after. Stalinist-type industrialization goals focused on heavy industry and short-term production quotas. This “industrial megalomania” was characteristic of nearly all of the Soviet satellites. From 1965 on, party and state leadership were monopolized by Nicolae Ceausescu, supposedly the

“most absurd of all the totalitarian governments of this century’s Europe, featuring a personality cult of pathological dimensions, led to distortions in the economy, the degradation of the social and moral life, (and) the isolation of the country from the international community.”

Ceausescu is also blamed for the pervasive and widespread environmental degradation that left many parts of Romania in situations of ecological disaster by the end of his reign. During Ceausescu’s rule, industrial units were situated in such a way as to concentrate pollution from industry in a few small areas, leaving the rest of the country relatively pristine. Copsa Mica had the misfortune of being designated as one of these locations, in spite of the fact that the orographical and meteorological positioning of Copsa Mica is not favorable for polluting industries. Short smokestacks kept pollution from spreading over a large area, and farmers were forced to sell only at Copsa Mica markets in order to restrict the spread of toxins through food vectors, but early workers acknowledged the risk, and were compensated with higher wages. Only under Ceausescu did the plants fall to disrepair, exposing the workers to higher levels of toxicity as the government was retreating more and more behind a veil of secrecy.

www.un.org/UHN50/Photos/un50-094.gif

The plant at Copsa Mica was part of Ceausescu’s drive to drag Romania into a major industrial role. Plants fell to disrepair under Ceausescu who, unwilling to take on more foreign debt, refused to replace failing parts and filters, causing plant managers to sacrifice worker health and safety as well as environmental concerns in the interest of meeting short-term production quotas. Lead levels in Copsa Mica factories sometimes reached levels that were 1,000 times the allowable international limits. Pollution statistics and consequences were state secrets under the communist regime, and this secrecy prevented both international intervention and local knowledge of the extent of the exposure of residents to toxins. Ceausescu’s police state became increasingly oppressive, particularly in the 1980s, before he was finally overthrown and executed in late 1989.

Revolution ended the communist era in Romania in 1989, when the National Salvation Front dismantled communist institutions and promoted free elections as well as a market economy. In 1991, the new Constitution of Romania passed, containing democratic provisions that conformed to European standards, and the new government pursued large-scale industrial privatization as well as returning land to historical heirs. Romania’s new leaders were eager to show their environmental sensitivity to an international community newly alerted to the appalling ecological state of affairs behind the iron curtain. After 1989, the Romanian government enacted regulations and set up the Ministry of Waters, Forest and Environmental Protection. The environmental strategy of 1991 and 1992 identified 14 environmental “hot spots,” one of which, of course, was Copsa Mica. Because of governmental changes, though, the Environmental Strategy and the National Environmental Action Program were not approved until 1995, at which time more widespread and intensive measures were taken to alleviate pollution, especially within the “hot spots.”

These efforts, along with the passage of the New Environmental Framework Law and the draft Law on Water and Forestry Code, were large steps in the right direction towards improving environmental conditions in Romania. In Copsa Mica, the carbon black plant Carbosin was shut down in 1993, and the lead and zinc smelting factory, SOMETRA, was opened to international industrial safety experts from the U.N., who upgraded some of the equipment, installed new filters, brought long-needed spare parts, and set up emissions monitors.

This was part of a United Nations Industrial Development Organization project that allotted $211,112 to ameliorate some of the environmental damages that previous mistakes had concentrated on the Copsa Mica area, as well as limit future pollution. The projects that the Romanian government deemed a priority for Copsa Mica were: equipment modernization at the nonferrous metallurgical plant SOMETRA, gradual increasing of SO2 recovery at SOMETRA, and afforestation. Indeed, the period of 1990 through 1994 saw a large reduction in emissions as compared to 1989, mostly caused by cutbacks in production; however, some of the reduction can be attributed to technology improvements and pollution reduction efforts.

The Extent of the Problem

The emissions from the two factories contributed to make Copsa Mica one of Europe’s most polluted cities in the 1990s. Carbosin was responsible for the most visible and hence most easily remedied pollution within the Copsa Mica area. When Carbosin was running at full strength during the waning years of Ceausescu’s reign, the outdated machinery would lose or release seven tons of carbon soot per six-hour shift. Emissions from Carbosin left soot everywhere, and though it has been closed for a dozen years, and a large-scale decontamination effort has been made, its impacts are still visible in many places.

Pollutants from SOMETRA, the non-ferrous metalworking smelter, are less visible but more harmful and insidious than those of Carbosin. SOMETRA is largely responsible for some of the most appalling health problems of Copsa Mica’s population due to its emissions of lead, zinc and cadmium. Of these three pollutants, cadmium has the highest toxicity, and exists in pasture topsoil of the surrounding area at a mean content of 2.3 times the maximum allowable limit. The ingestion of this low-quality, toxic forage has led to a deterioration of livestock’s health condition, especially cattle and horses, contributing significantly to the high rate of morbidity and mortality among animals in the Copsa Mica area.

More important, though, are the direct impacts on human health, which include: widespread lung disease, impotence, a life expectancy that is 6 years below the national averag (in 2001) of 71, the highest infant mortality rate in Europe, lead poisoning, reduced lung function, and neurobehavioral problems.

Where is Copsa Mica now?

Between 1993 and 2001, concentrations of all major pollutants decreased significantly, but Copsa Mica remains extremely polluted. In the Tarnava Mare river, downstream from Copsa Mica, “even with the considerable decrease that was noticed over the last decade, the lead concentration remains more than twice the maximum admitted value (MAV), zinc almost ten times, cadmium is close to MAV, and copper is about half of MAV.”

Sheep once black with soot are white again, and houses reveal their true color hidden by Carbosin’s emissions, but insidious pollutants are expected to contaminate the soil and food chain for thirty years to come. Health officials advise against eating livestock or vegetables and drinking the water or milk, as these are vectors for the heavy metal pollutants that are still present at toxic levels in the soil. According to Roger Thurlow, Copsa Mica’s recovery is only skin deep, and due to waning political will and international intervention, residents are now responsible for their own health. Measures such as requiring workers to change into clean clothing before leaving work, washing hands before smoking (the lead on worker’s hands is more dangerous than the cigarette itself), boiling water, and mopping floors have, along with a drop in the level of poisonous emissions, caused quick improvements in health in the mid- to late 1990s.

Doctors noticed that the number of severe cases of lead poisoning declined steadily from the yearly high of 130 in the 1980s, as were lead-related cases of encephalitis, twitchy hands, and lameness. However, once the relatively painless measures of the early nineties had been implemented, and the town was no longer blackened by carbon soot, government enthusiasm faltered. The smelter still lacks crucial emission control technology, and health problems persist among residents; the year 2000 saw 77 cases of lead poisoning; locals die on average six years earlier than their countrymen; children lag behind in learning; there is a higher incidence of rickets and asthma; lead-related impotence is prevalent; and alcoholism and depression linger.

What’s more, cleanup efforts caused widespread unemployment; 1,700 lost work with the shutdown of Carbosin in 1993, and new technology allowed SOMETRA to lay off 2,400 workers throughout the mid-nineties. Now, the city is just plain poor, and many of the workers look to their previous hazardous jobs longingly. The city’s infrastructure is still outdated, as evidenced by a recent outbreak of dysentery and diarrhea caused by problems with the water network, which is controlled by SOMETRA.

In many ways, Copsa Mica is a microcosm of Romania with regard to environmental issues. The 1999 and 2000 European Commission’s regular reports criticized the Romanian government for its failure to enact policies and take action to protect the environment. According to Jon Thompson, “Leaders [in Eastern Europe] are walking a tightrope between spending money to clean up the environment and keeping their floundering economies afloat.”

In Romania, compliance and enforcement of pollution regulations are limited by a multitude of factors, including: a lack of incentives, difficulties with public participation, a lack of technology, financial limitations, and most of all, the slow process of privatization and corruption at all levels. Though SOMETRA, Copsa Mica’s remaining factory, was privatized fairly smoothly in 1997, the new owners from the Greek firm Mytilineos Holdings are unwilling to implement many necessary environmental protection measures. Owners say that they inherited a firm riddled with problems, and only so many of them can be solved without forcing the plant to be shut down entirely. Poverty in Copsa Mica is indicative of the national situation, as 28.9% of Romania’s population remains below the poverty line.

Environmental improvement schemes will need to be balanced against efforts to curb unemployment if Romania is to meet its goal of accession into the EU by 2007. The future may be bleak without international intervention; as the Romanian Embassy put it, “in Romania, the resources available in the next ten to twenty years for improving environmental conditions are very limited and the cost of action in the field is very high.”

Fragilecologies Archvies
24 June 2005

By Dr. Abraham Levy : Guest Editorial
Director, INFOCLIMA
Lima, Peru, abrahamlevy@terra.com.pe

In Peru, El Niño (the Pacific basinwide event, not the more localized mid-Pacific one) is a matter of national concern. It is what CNN’s Mike Boettcher described precisely as a “slow-motion natural catastrophe.”

Back in 1997, as early warnings were being received about a new and very strong El Niño brewing in the Pacific, the Peruvian government immediately reacted and started to conduct an all-out effort to mitigate its likely impacts. The effort compromised society like never before: stories were coming from the Peruvian Armed Forces (working on several kilometers of drainage channels to protect cities), all the way to those coming from the Catholic Church, which was conducting campaigns in order to collect everything that might be needed by poor people during the rainy season. Societal responses to the El Niño forecast were making headlines every day, everywhere.

The effort to combat El Niño was such an unusual collective society-wide experience that there was almost no coverage when government incompetence or corruption appeared: a rare behavior in Peru’s media. The prevention campaign was the right response, and El Niño was hazardous. We Peruvians needed to act, and that was the story before the rains came.

And the heavy rains did come. By the end of the year, and after seven months of El Niño calling the shots in the Pacific, the local media agreed that it was the most important news of 1997. Moreover, the news outlets were selling papers as ratings soared on El Niño reports on TV. It is obvious that TV and newspapers, with images of floods, storms, and all the related impacts, were attracting the public’s interest. I cannot imagine any reporter, either for local or for national media, not covering almost constantly the El Niño-related stories. As it was said, we were living in a slow-motion natural catastrophe.

So, now, any remote sign of an impending El Niño rings the alarms in press rooms. It happened again last March.

At that time, a group of local scientists announced that a “rare warm phenomenon” called a Kelvin Wave (and one of unusual proportions) was already under the surface of the tropical equatorial Pacific Ocean, and it was expected to reach the Peruvian coastline sometime during the next thirty days. Media coverage started almost at once. Immediately after its arrival, there was a media frenzy. High-temperature records were being set everywhere along the central coast (where Lima is located), and local beaches were being frequented much later than normal. Ice cream, cold beverages, and all summer-related products were getting a second wind, while the local textile industries were being left on the sidelines, losing money by being unable to sell their normal wintertime products. This was very much like the events observed during the onset of the 1997-98 El Niño event. Media were covering everything related to this — but to “this” what?

Although temperatures were very much like those typical of an El Niño, as were other impacts as well, there was no rain. Without rain, this climate perturbation did not have El Niño “fingerprints.” Then appeared a big headline in the country’s most important newspaper about the “Efecto Kelvin” or the Kelvin Effect. It filled the media gap perfectly. One month later, millions of Peruvians had become very much aware of the Kelvin Effect and its related internal wave.

As I was leaving the TV station late one night, a few days after the arrival of the Kelvin Wave, a local policeman at the entrance asked me, “Hey, Mr. Levy, how it is going with the Kelvin Wave?”

I turned to him and asked, “What is a Kelvin Wave?” It didn’t take a second, and he responded, “It is a submarine wave that goes all the way from Australia to Peru.”

Amazing. Science is not a boring story. What is boring is a story that is not connected to the life of the person listening to it, watching it, or reading it. In a country where local authorities resist using the term “El Niño,” there will always be a place for new names for climate phenomena yet to be experienced, after the arrival along the Peruvian coast of a Kelvin Wave that may or may not trigger the onset of a basinwide event.

Fragilecologies Archives
16 June 2005

By Dr. Naho Mirumachi : Guest Editorial

Let’s say that you are in need of water but do not have any. There are ultimately two ways you can obtain water: forcibly take water from your neighbor or share what your neighbor has to offer.

South Africa has done the latter with neighboring Lesotho. The two countries have developed the Lesotho Highlands Water Project, a water transfer scheme on the Senqu/Orange River. By creating dams and underground delivery tunnels in the highlands of Lesotho, it diverts the southwesterly flow of the river northwards into South Africa. This large-scale project boasts Africa’s highest concrete dam, Kaste Dam, measuring 185 meters. Water delivery started in 1996, and currently provides South Africa with roughly 30m3/sec of water. The usage is for industrial purposes and also as potable water. South Africa is one of the biggest economies on the African continent with high demand of water for industrial growth. Especially since the large cities such as Pretoria and Johannesburg are distantly located from water sources, obtaining a stable supply of water has been a constant issue.

Lesotho has also been reaping benefits from the project as well. It is said that Lesotho receives roughly US$5million every year plus a variable royalty revenue for every cubic meter of water transferred from South Africa. This has acted as a highly influential component of export and public revenues for the small mountain kingdom. Water is often expressed as ìwhite goldî in Lesotho for it has spurred much needed economic growth. Lesotho is one of the less developed states on the continent. Being totally engulfed in South Africa has made it harder to become economically independent. In the mountainous region, agriculture is non-productive and the only available resource is water. It had been seeking ways to harness this otherwise ìeconomically wastedî water since its dependence from British colonial annexation in the late 1960s.

South Africa did have some other options of water supply other than investing in such an elaborate transboundary transfer scheme. However, storing water in Lesotho for delivery reduces evaporative loss due to its high altitude ñ an appealing advantage for dry South Africa. The Kaste Dam soars 1993 meters above sea level for this reason. In addition, the Lesotho Highlands Water Project was cheaper compared to another domestic inter-basin transfer scheme.

The Lesotho Highlands Water Project was agreed by South Africa and Lesotho in 1986. This was actually a result of negotiations that spanned over three decades. The major stumbling block was that the two were at odds with the apartheid policy. Lesotho feared that South Africa would impose apartheid policy if it committed to joint development. South Africa was discontent with Lesotho’s rebellious attitude. Furthermore, Lesotho created a highly sensitive situation for South Africa by associating with communist Soviet and Cuba during the Cold War era.

Despite the political tension between the two countries, the plan of the project persisted. South Africa, being stronger in terms of military and economic power, could have easily forced Lesotho into agreement. It has often been said that water wars will occur as the climate changes, population grows and economies expand. Dams and reservoirs are said to be targets of attacks in such cases. However, just like the case of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project proves, it is highly unlikely that states will go into war over indispensable resources like water. Paradox to the exaggerated assumptions, it is this urgency that prevents states to engage in conflict. Why would you bomb dams when you need them?

The Lesotho people have been clever in calling water white gold. They are seeing water not just as H20, a substance for human life, but as an economically valuable good. The emphasis here is on valuable. If we can start perceiving water as something that brings in benefits for those who share, it can be a driver for cooperation. Indeed, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) is trying to promote regional development through the management of international rivers. South African President, Thabo Mbeki stated the following at an inauguration ceremony of one of the dams in the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

This project sparkles like a jewel in the crown of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the African Union, proving that we can, as Africans, accomplish sustainable development, to the mutual benefit of neighboring countries and as an example of projects that are needed all over our continent to achieve our renaissance.
www.lhwp.org.ls/news/apr04/speechbypresident.htm

Water is white gold for all. It’s up to those sharing the waters to realize in what way they can cooperate molding the white gold into something even more valuable. –Naho Mirumachi

n_miru@yahoo.co.jp

Note: The research for this article was partly funded by the New Research Initiatives in Humanities and Social Sciences of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS), and by the Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology (CREST) of the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) during her field work in South Africa and Lesotho in February-March 2004.