Ethics in disaster management

Ethics in disaster management

Surya Parkash

National Institute of Disaster Management, New Delhi, India

ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, 55, 3, 2012; doi: 10.4401/ag-5633

ABSTRACT

In any profession, a basic set of moral values needs to be followed tocomply with what we call ethics. Geoscientists have significant roles toplay, more particularly in the field of geohazards, to appraise societyabout the possibilities of natural hazards such as landslides, avalanches,floods, volcanoes, and earthquakes. Geoscientists cannot only assessthese hazards, but they can also estimate the potential consequences ifthese hazards occur in a given place and at a given time. However,sometimes it has been found that the credibility of geoscientists amongsociety and government is lost, due to some unethical practices for short-term gain, or due to incorrect understanding of geological phenomena.Some of the hazards that cannot be predicted with the existingcapabilities have been forecast by some pseudo-geoscientists, to drawsocial/media attention, thereby bringing the reputation of the professioninto disrepute. There is the need to be fair enough to accept the limitationsof our profession in providing information about natural hazards thatare not yet fully understood by the professionals themselves. Morespecifically, the predictions related to earthquakes have drawn theattention of society as well as media in the developing countries where the‘common’ people have different perceptions. Most often, popular mythstake over scientific facts among the public, and this can lead to rumorsabout natural hazards. This article will mention some cases of rumorsabout natural disasters, and particularly earthquakes, and the responseof society, media and government. It emphasizes the role of geoscientistsas the ethical responsibility to inform the public about the actualsituations and the geohazards, to avoid panic caused by rumors from non-specialists or hyperactive pseudo experts. This article indicates the recentrumors about a lake outburst, flash floods, and volcanic activities after amoderate earthquake (M 6.9, September 18, 2011) in the Sikkim State ofIndia, and considers the actions taken by the geoscientific community tocorrectly inform people about the real situation.

1. IntroductionProfessional culture and ethics are very important is-

sues for credibility, sustenance and development of anysubject, particularly those related to societal, humanitar-ian and environmental aspects. Geosciences have con-tributed a lot to our understanding of the Earth and howto use it as a resource for human development. The ap-

plied branches of geosciences, including for example min-ing geology, engineering geology, hydrogeology, environ-mental geology and economic geology, use geoscientificknowledge and information for the exploration and ex-ploitation of the natural resources of the Earth, as wellfor the reduction and management of geo-risks. This ar-ticle mainly discusses the issues related to geoscientific cul-ture and ethics in disaster management, with some caseexamples from landslides, debris flows, flash floods andearthquakes in different parts of India.

2. Case studies on earthquake disastersAn earthquake of magnitude 6.9 struck the Sikkim

State in the northeastern part of India at about 18:10 hourson September 18, 2011, with the epicentre near the Indo-Nepal border [Report on Sikkim Earthquake 2011]. Theauthor had the opportunity to visit the affected area soonafter the earthquake, for monitoring of the response and tocarry out a quick reconnaissance of the damage/lossesthrough a field survey. The earthquake had caused thedeath of about 55 people and the economic loss of ap-proximately 200 million USD (Figure 1). During the sur-vey, the author received information from the media andadministrators in the affected area about some reports oflake outburst floods in the higher reaches of Sikkim Statethat were yet not accessible. The reports also indicatedthat some people were also suspicious about volcanic ac-tivities in the area after the earthquake. These reports cre-ated great panic among the public, as well as the Stateadministration. The author gathered the necessary infor-mation about the geology and geomorphology of thearea, and confirmed that these reports were just rumors.This professional geoscientific information helped to buildconfidence among the State administrations and to dispelrumors about the phenomenon. The author participatedin the meetings of non-governmental organizations (Fig-ure 2), media and government officials at the emergencyoperation center of the State (Figure 3), to inform all con-cerned about the real situation in the field based on geo-

Article historyReceived March 2, 2012; accepted March 27, 2012.Subject classification:Geoethics, Earthquake disasters, Debris Flows, Landslides, Geohazards, Seismic risk, Hydrogeological risk.

383

scientific knowledge of the area. Thereafter, the responseteams for post-earthquake activities planned their opera-tions appropriately in the affected areas.

Geologists have had important roles in society byidentifying earthquake prone areas through correct map-ping and by assessing the possibilities of major earthquakesbased on geo-tectonic and seismological studies. However,the views of geoscientists were shattered when an earth-quake of magnitude >6 occurred at Latur in Maharashtra,India, in 1993. The area had been declared a low seismic

activity zone, as it formed a part ofpeninsular India that was consideredto be relatively stable in geologicalterms, in comparison to other areas.The credibility of the seismic zona-tion map as well as the geoscientificviews about spatial prediction ofearthquakes was challenged by theLatur earthquake, and later led to therevision of the seismic zonation ofmap of India. The five seismic zonesin the India map have been reducedto four seismic zones, by mergingzones I and II into one category anddelineating the boundaries again(Figure 4). However, the author’spersonal opinion related to geoscien-tific culture and ethics for disastermanagement is not very encourag-ing as he finds a gap in field mapping

of the related features for seismic zonation and inadequateseismic instrumentation. Therefore, to build greater con-fidence among society regarding geoscientific practices, wemust make our claims about earthquakes on the basis ofsystematic field mapping and instrumental records.

However, it would be worthwhile to mention herethat there have been some instances where some geosci-entists have made wrong predictions about earthquakesand have communicated the same to the public throughthe mass media, which has resulted in panic and chaos.

SURYA PARKASH

384

Clockwise from top left: Figure 1. Earthquake damaged buildings beingdemolished for reconstruction. Figure 2. Meeting with NGOs to define the truesituation in the field, and to dispel rumours based on geoscientific knowledge.Figure 3. Meeting with government officials at the State Emergency OperationCentre, to reveal the true situation in the field, and to dispel rumours based ongeoscientific knowledge. Figure 4. Macro-seismic zonation map of India, withSikkim falling in Zone IV (high risk with potential for MSK intensity as high as VIII).

385

Later, these scientists even had to face the fury of the peo-ple and other members of the geoscientific community.One of these examples can be cited from ArunachalPradesh in northeastern India, where a scientist predictedthe occurrence of a major earthquake during a specific pe-riod, although nothing happened. The tribal people of thearea were unhappy over such an incredible warning, andthreatened the scientist not to repeat these kinds of falsewarnings among the public.

3. Case studies on debris flows and landslidesLeh town in Jammu and Kashmir State in the north-

west part of India was severely affected by cloud-burst-induced debris flows in August 2010 [Ghosh and Parkash2010]. The debris flows led to the loss of more than 140people and an economic loss of more than 150 millionUSD, due to damage to buildings and infrastructure (Fig-ure 5). The author visited the affected area soon after thedisaster and interacted with the local community as wellas the administration. Leh town is part of a high altitudedesert area with a low rainfall (less than 100 mm per

annum), although during August 2010, the area was sud-denly hit by 200 mm to 250 mm, leading to huge debrisflows in the area. The area was recently afforested by ef-forts of the community, the local administration and en-vironmentalists, which had changed the land scenariofrom barren lands to green lands. The heavy precipitationduring August 2010 was considered to be due to the af-forestation of the lands, which resulted in micro-climatic

ETHICS IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT

Figure 5 (top right). Flash floods and debris flow at Leh submerged and damaged buildings and infrastructure after heavy precipitation duringAugust 2010. Figure 6 (bottom). Impact of debris flow and response of victims in Leh during the August 2010 tragedy.

changes. So, a negative opinion about the afforestationprogram arose among the public. The author made de-tailed observations in the area and found that althoughchanges in precipitation amounts were possibly due tomicro-climatic changes, the damage/losses due to rain-in-duced debris flows were mainly caused by the large num-bers of trees planted along the banks of the rivers and oftheir tributaries. During the initial phase of their lives, theplants got water easily from the channels. However, dur-ing the heavy precipitation, they were uprooted andblocked the channel and the debris flow, thereby creatinga temporary natural dam. These dams burst and broughthuge amounts of debris on the downstream sides, caus-ing loss of human lives and property (Figure 6). Due tothe afforestation programme, the greenery of the areawas a good positive step towards environmental regener-ation of the area, although the plantations were not setup correctly along the banks of the rivers.

In September 2003, the author came across anotherlandslide in the Varunawat hills in the Uttarkashi town ofUttarakhand State in northern India [Parkash 2003]. Thelandslide took place when a large chunk of mountainmoved downhill and engulfed three four-storey hotelsalong the national highways, as well as damaging roadsand other infrastructure (Figures 7 and 8). The authorheard a rumor from local officials that the landslide wastriggered by an explosion of gas inside the rock, or somevolcanic activity. These myths override people’s senti-ments or minds, and gain ground if not properly dealtwith by the geoscientific community. It was chance thatthe author had studied this area for landslide problems ear-lier and had identified this particular site as a potentiallandslide area based on the terrain characteristics. He in-formed the public and the local administration that the in-formation about the underground gas explosion orvolcanic activity was not true, as the local geology andgeo-tectonic activities did not favour the occurrence ofthese phenomena. Rather, it was a case of a landslide and

rockfall, as lots of dust had been generated following theattrition of rock materials. The dust went into the air dueto the light weight and size of the small particles. Ade-quate information based on geoscientific data, maps andinformation helped the community to judge the phe-nomena correctly, and to take appropriate and timely ini-tiatives. The other major issue found in ethical practicesrelated to geohazards was the gap in communicating rel-evant information and reports to the authorities con-cerned by the geoscientists, as well as getting them tounderstand the phenomena. The area was surveyed by theGeological Survey of India, and a report about the possi-bility of landslides was given to the administration prior toits occurrence. This was why people were evacuated andlives were saved. However, it did not help the administra-tion to understand the phenomenon well. The authorused his reports of previous studies in the area, and madethe factual situation at the site clear. The author was alsocontacted by the media , and the correct information wasshared with the public through print and electronic media.

4. ConclusionsIt can be concluded from the above case studies and

discussion that the geoscientific community have a very im-portant role to play in the field of geohazards risk manage-ment; however, it requires hard work, sincerity and honestyfor ethical practices, and to maintain the credibility of thisprofession among the ‘masses’. There might be some caseswhere accurate knowledge or information is not availableto geoscientists due to indeterminacy or uncertainties inthe nature of a geohazard, so we should then be cautious toprovide our input within the given limitations.

The strength of a geoscientist lies in the correct un-derstanding of the Earth’s environment and processes, in-cluding the role of humans in causing and controllingadverse consequences of geohazardous events, like earth-quakes, landslides, volcanic activity, and tsunamis. It wouldbe good if the appropriate standards of practices in geo-

SURYA PARKASH

386

Figure 7 (left). The three four-storey hotels in the Varunawat hills in Uttarkashi Town on September 25, 2003, just the day before these buildingsgot buried under the landslide debris. Figure 8 (right). View of the landslide after the burial of the hotels, with people watching in panic.

387

sciences can be followed, to achieve credible and reliableresults with more accurate information. The knowledgeand information thus generated should be well validatedthrough field checks and discussions among the geoscien-tific community, before they are shared with others.

Geoscientists should gear themselves up for a betterunderstanding of the geohazards and for disaster-riskmanagement. Critical assessments and evaluations shouldbe done in the positive as well as negative roles played bygeoscientists in disaster management, to improve ourpractices and eliminate our shortcomings.

Acknowledgements. The author would like to express thanks tothe Executive Director, National Institute of Disaster Management,New Delhi, India, for his kind cooperation and support in developingthis article. He would also like to thank his colleagues, the professionaladministrators, and people of the community who interacted with himand discussed this theme with him, which led to better understandingof the subject.

ReferencesGhosh, C., and S. Parkash (2010). Cloud-burst-induced de-

bris flows on vulnerable establishments at Leh, IndianLandsl., 3, 1-6.

Parkash, S. (2003). Landslide Precursors and Potential forMonitoring Studies on Varunawat Hills at Uttarkashi,presented at the National Conference on Natural Haz-ards (Earthquakes & Landslides): Challenges, Perspec-tives and Societal Dimensions with focus on the Stateof Uttaranchal, Abstract p. 46.

Report on Sikkim Earthquake (2011). A Roadmap to Res-urrection, submitted by the National Institute of Dis-aster Management, New Delhi, to the Ministry ofHome Affairs, Government of India.

Corresponding author: Surya Parkash,National Institute of Disaster Management, New Delhi, India;email: [email protected].

© 2012 by the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. Allrights reserved.

ETHICS IN DISASTER MANAGEMENT