No 380
9 May
2008
The cyclone disaster
in Burma, also known as Myanmar, has highlighted a number of important and
recurrent issues which arise when events like this occur. The most obvious,
which has been the main focus of the media in recent days, is the political
situation, which is hampering access by the world’s aid agencies, so that, at
the time of writing, the Burmese government has still not allowed UN World Food
Programme (WFP) disaster-response workers into the country.
Closely linked to
this is the economic situation. In countries where most of the population live
in poverty, the lack of good roads, effective health services, communications
and transport means that, even if food and logistical support were available,
it would not be able to reach the areas which most need it. Moreover, in the
period after the actual disaster has ended, reconstruction is slow and in many
cases does not happen at all. Many more people die from exposure, starvation or
disease.
In the present case,
the international aid agencies are also severely affected by world food
shortages and the high price of the food which is available. The WFP relies on
voluntary donations from governments for its resources and will reportedly have
to divert funds from other projects to meet the needs of the Burmese emergency.
Ironically, too, Burma is one of the world’s major rice producers, and the
cyclone has destroyed large parts of this year’s rice crop.
It is also worth
noting that in countries like Burma, very few people have insurance cover, so
that no kind of compensation is available after a disaster. Compare the 2007
figure of US$12.5bn paid out by insurance companies in Europe for around 1000
casualties in 35 catastrophes, to that of US$3.5bn paid out in Asia for 14000
casualties in nearly 150 catastrophes.
Finally, much has
been said about the need for better advance warning systems before such events
occur, and improved communications within the countries concerned. In Burma, it
was reported that no warnings were issued to the population before the cyclone
struck. On a global level, climate scientists are drawing up plans for a
supercomputing centre where sophisticated climate models can be devised to
predict these events with more accuracy, though for this they need thousands of
times more computing power than they have today. Climate is still one of the
most complex areas of study for scientists, but in today’s world it is becoming
ever more important to understand how it works, because it is so closely linked
to questions about water and food supply, drought, famine and the health of the
global population. But for this research yet more money is needed. How
should this extremely costly work be funded?
[Source: The
Economist - New
Scientist]
In countries and
regions where on-line social networking, blogging and, more to the point,
mobile phone technology is readily available, a new kind of informal internet
collaboration has started to happen. This has been labelled ‘Emergency 2.0’.
When disasters such
as earthquakes, drought or wildfire strike, people have always banded together
to help each other, for instance with clothes, food and evacuation centres. I
addition, during the California wildfires of 2007, internet and mobile phone
tools were widely used to pass on real-time information to local people of a
much more practical and factual nature than the official media were
broadcasting: the progress of the fire, the location of emergency services, the
availability of shelter, what shops and services were open or closed.
Research after the
event has showed that these social media are highly suited to disaster
response, even though they were not designed for that purpose. It has also
revealed how effectively these media have already been used, for instance in
response to events like the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007. As the use of this
kind of technology increases, becomes more flexible, and promotes communication
between members of the public, so more unpredicted applications are revealed.
A conference was
held recently on how to harness these new technologies for disaster response.
In some parts of the world, the Red Cross is already using social networking
sites to gather up-to-the-minute information about local disasters, and the US
Geological Survey uses the internet to collect reports from the public on
earthquake activity. The challenge to emergency response teams is great, not
only concerning how to gather the information which members of the public may
generate, but how to process it, to sift useful from useless, truth from lies. How
would you use the media at your disposal in case of emergency or disaster?
[Source:
New Scientist]
The British government has repeatedly expressed its
intention to make ‘social enterprise’ central to public
service delivery in areas such as housing, regeneration and neighbourhood
renewal. Social enterprises define themselves as “profit-making businesses set up to tackle a social
or environmental need”. They do not exist to make money for shareholders, as
commercial businesses do. Their social and environmental aims are central to
what they do, and any profits they make is used to further these aims.
Government statements express the belief that such
organisations, which usually originate in the communities where they work, are
best suited to tackle local issues and meet local social needs. It believes
them to be a “powerful source for change”, being a way in which “local people
come together, find their own solutions, and have a real say over the future of
the places where they live”. Government grants money to social enterprises
through a process called ‘commissioning’, whereby it ‘commissions’ such
organisations to do particular jobs and pays them for what they do. It also
encourages private business to link with social enterprises so that this
becomes another source of funding for them.
In reality, several problems have arisen. A number
of social enterprises claim that in fact, despite statements to the contrary,
it is becoming more and more difficult for small organisations to get their
fair share of these contracts. Another concern is that those who do win
contracts may no longer be able to pursue the aims for which they were set up,
since the contracts may be for tasks of a different nature, and small independent
organisations drift into becoming agents of the state. Though many do believe
that commissioning is the only way forward in the future, others fear that it
may be bringing serious changes in the nature of social enterprise itself. What
do you think should be the relationship between the state and independent,
social organisations?
The Arts Catalyst is a British-based organisation
which works to promote understanding between the arts and the sciences. They
commission new projects from artists whose work engages with science, and they
stimulate workshops, exhibitions, conferences and educational exchanges which
examine the relationship between science and society.
In conjunction with the Arts Catalyst, an artist in
the United States was putting together an installation which was intended to
allow museum visitors to see whether food they had bought contained genetically
modified (GM) organisms. It included a small food-testing lab consisting of
petri dishes, chemicals and the like. There was also a film sequence concerning
the dangers of GM food and issues to do with germ warfare. While he was
preparing for the installation, the artist’s wife took ill and he had reason to
call in the emergency services for assistance. While attending to his wife,
they noticed the lab, imagined he was involved in bio-terrorism, and called in
the FBI. This was the start of legal proceedings which lasted four years. Since
he was accused under the Patriot Act in the US, the maximum penalty could have
involved imprisonment for 20 years, but finally all charges were dismissed.
It has raised questions about government reactions
against artists and academics who criticise the administration. A number of
people have been banned from entering the US in recent times in the name of
Homeland Security. These have included peace activists, musicians, economists,
historians “for reasons stated and unstated”, so a US law professor reports.
The case has attracted widespread criticism from the art world and has been
referred to as “a persecution, not a prosecution”. Do you think there are
any circumstances in which artistic expression should be muzzled?
Guerrilla gardening has received some publicity
recently from the British media, but it is a practice with a long history all
over the world. Loosely, it means cultivating land which is derelict, but does
not belong to the people cultivating it. Strictly speaking, it is illegal, but
activists say that by reclaiming unused land, for flowers or vegetables, their
actions are of benefit to people and to the environment.
Sometimes it is referred to as ‘political gardening’
because it challenges existing land ownership, especially if the owners make no
use of the land involved. The London land-squat by a land rights organisation
called The Land Is Ours on terrain belonging to the Guinness brewery in
Wandsworth 12 years ago, and the foundation of the ‘Pure Genius!’ eco-village
was perhaps an example of such a challenge. The term ‘guerrilla gardening’ has
apparently only existed as such since the 1970s, but challenges to land
ownership, land occupations and the demand for land rights by landless or
expropriated people goes back centuries. Nowadays, however, in big cities such
as London, the purpose seems to be mainly the beautification of littered or
abandoned areas, rather than more wide-ranging ambitions. But, whatever the
underlying reasons, it represents people's desire to be involved in their
environment, and their demand for the right to an amenable place to live. What
would be your programme, if you decided to become a guerrilla gardener?