|
Talking about disaster management |
|
 BOOK REVIEW SHIVANAND KANAVI Art and Science of Managing Public Risks Author:V S Ramamurthy, Dinesh K Srivastava, Shailesh Nayak Publisher: World Scientific Publishing Pages: 412 Price: ₹ 4,015 The
three authors are senior scientists. Shailesh Nayak is a
geologist who was also the secretary of the Department of Earth Sciences and
has been deeply involved in India´s Antarctic projects. He played a key
role in rolling out, in record time, a Tsunami Warning System for the Indian
Ocean Region after the 2004 tsunami. V S Ramamurthy, a
nuclear scientist, has had a long innings as secretary, Department of Science
and Technology and has grappled with the issue of improving communication
between scientists, policy planners, media and the public to promote rational
rather than kneejerk solutions to key issues in scientific policy. Dinesh K Srivastava
is a distinguished nuclear physicist, former director of the ambitious
Variable Energy Cyclotron in Kolkata, and is deeply interested in climate
change. Ashutosh Sharma of
IIT Kanpur, an Infosys Prize winner in Chemical Sciences and also a former
secretary, Department of Science and Technology, has written a scholarly and
lyrical preface to the book. When such senior
scientists venture into public policy, policymakers would do well to listen
carefully. In fact, Art and
Science of Managing Public Risks should be made compulsory
reading to policymakers and disaster managers. It is perhaps the
most exhaustive and comprehensive compendium of disasters of various types. The authors´
concerns range over both natural and manmade disasters. For example, it
talks about climate disasters, cyclones, cloudbursts, landslides, flash
floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis. It also tackles
infectious diseases and epidemics such as plagues, polio, smallpox, malaria,
TB, dengue, cholera, and Covid19. In industrial accidents, the book covers
coal mine collapses, accidents in oil and gas fields, dam failures, transport
and chemical accidents, the Bhopal gas tragedy, harm from pesticides and
insecticides. The authors have
also dealt with the fact that every technology developed by man so far has
pros and cons when the costs and benefits are tallied over the life cycle of
the project. So how should
policy choices be made and why? How should the risks be communicated to
policy makers and communities and through what channels and modus operandi?
The authors have taken the same approach in the discussion on nuclear power
and safety issues involved and with genetically modified (GM) crops and the
fears and upsides, as the transgenic mustard debate has shown in an edible
oil hungry India. Then there are
developmental issues such as pollution, urban waste management, ewaste,
biomedical waste management and so on. The book also
discusses the nature of risk communication, dialogue and debate regarding
policy choices. The authors
conclude that the formulations of government policies are extremely
vulnerable to public perceptions. Moreover, risk
perceptions are highly individualistic; consequently, risk communication
could be complex. The traditional
forms of risk communication are often inadequate and ineffective. The authors argue
that communication should be in the form of dialogue and not debate and
should lead towards a consensus. Importantly, they
point out that there is no alternative for governments to taking the public
into confidence and empowering them with reliable information. “Humanity has
always been vulnerable to a wide spectrum of public risks, such as natural
disasters and infectious diseases. The recent developments in science &
technology, while providing tools to manage public risks of different kinds,
have also broadened the spectrum of public risks that we have to face,” they
write. Across the world,
they add, “governments as custodians of public good are expected to also hold
the responsibility of managing public risks. With more and more
countries opting for democratic forms of governance, we also see that
formulation of government policies on managing public risks are highly
vulnerable to public perceptions.” A classic example of differing risk
perceptions from the last three decades is the GM foods. While farmers are
eager to benefit from the many advantages of modern biotechnology and move on
to Green Revolution 2.0, experts and nongovernmental organisations are
divided in their opinions, resulting in the policy becoming a victim of
procrastination at great cost to the nation. For example, Bt
Cotton and Bt Brinjal have finally entered production legally or illegally;
now, there is a prolonged evaluation of Dhara Mustard 11, when we are in dire
need of better and more oilseed production. The authors have
briefly mentioned the National Disaster Management Act and the agency created
to handle disasters in India. One wishes that
they had critically examined this law and made recommendations to make it
more effective. (The reviewer is
adjunct faculty at NIAS, Bengaluru. skanavi@gmail.com ) |
