Famine in the Horn of Africa: Never again?
East Africa is stalked by famine once more despite scientists' early warnings of disaster. Can the lessons be learned? WHY? Why, once again, has the drought-hit Horn of Africa succumbed to famine so rapidly? As another major relief operation takes place, this time to help an estimated 12 million Ethiopians, Kenyans and Somalis, recriminations have begun over the failure to anticipate the crisis. These will soon be followed by well intentioned though short-lived choruses of "never again". To finally break this cycle of drought-led famine requires a strategic vision and action that far outstrips the ostensibly good intentions of governments in the region and the international community. Yet there are actions that can mitigate future crises. These revolve in part around the ways that politicians use science and technology. Evidence of a looming disaster in the region emerged in 2008. Projections of the build-up of persistent drought were made by a number of respected institutions, such as the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It signalled in November 2008 that rainfall anomaly maps showed significant deficits in southern Somalia and southern Kenya. This pattern, despite heavy rain during autumn 2009, was confirmed by the Famine Early Warning Systems Network, World Meteorological Organization and the European Community-funded Somali-based Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit, the latter noting in February 2009 an "ongoing and sustained humanitarian crisis in Somalia, with 43 per cent of the total population of the country, or around 3.2 million people, in need of emergency livelihood and life-saving assistance". The general message was that agriculturalists, pastoralists and urban dwellers were in for difficult times. Of course these warnings have to be seen within the broader context of the origins of the crisis, as they were caught up in an array of other issues. "Somalia is <a href="http://newerahatstock.com/polo-hat-c-8.html"><strong>cheap polo hat</strong></a> no worse off humanitarian-wise than it has been for the past 20 years," noted a senior official of a major food-donating government in September 2010. This view was symptomatic of the contending perceptions and motivations which constrained actions that might otherwise have mitigated the unfolding nightmare. Contributing factors to the famine included concerns about the terrorist nature of one of the ruling factions in southern Somalia, Al Shabaab; donors' more general concerns about perceived corruption in the aid process; donor fatigue; and the reluctance of governments in the region to acknowledge the threat publicly. Despite all this, the early warnings could have been more clearly understood by politicians and used to help frame a pre-emptive mitigation strategy. Some key players tried to engage the humanitarian community, including participants in the Greater Horn of Africa Climate Outlook Forum. But these efforts did not generate the policy responses required. Failings at the interface between science and politics are not confined to African droughts. In June, the UK's House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology issued a critical report on scientific advice and evidence in emergencies. It pointed to the fact that, in dealing with two recent threats in the UK - volcanic ash and severe winter weather - the government had failed to use its chief scientific advisors effectively, particularly when assessing risk. It noted: "Scientific advice and evidence should be integrated into risk assessment from the start." While the sciences are increasingly <a href="http://newerahatstock.com/gucci-hat-c-7.html"><strong>gucci hat</strong></a> invited into the room, they too often do not get a seat at the table. In part this is because politicians are disinclined to deal with the possible or the plausible, and insist on certainty. In a related vein, longer-term threat analysis is still regarded as a luxury by politicians, pressured as they often feel they are by the demands of the immediate. In the Horn of Africa, there were at least three problems facing those in power when it came to using the available science. The first relates to the UK select committee's findings, namely, that there was and is no systematic and consistent approach to bringing the sciences into policy-making. In part this is to do with the ways that science is all too often used to confirm the opinions of those in power rather than guide them. It also has to do with the uncertainties that frequently permeate how findings are presented, and the fact that scientific advice has to be sieved through the political, administrative and operational realities of those receiving it. The second is that the scientific information used has to find ways to be more contextualised. For example, patterns of drought-impact on their own do not provide sufficiently precise information to identify differentiated effects upon populations, cattle and agriculture. In the case of the present crisis, a combination <a href="http://newerahatstock.com/red-bull-hat-c-15.html"><strong>red bull hat</strong></a> of satellite remote sensing and mobile technologies that can verify and differentiate impacts are available, but they are not coordinated and integrated sufficiently well. Finally, there is a more fundamental issue that the Horn of Africa drought illuminates. Governments in the region and the international community have to begin to prioritise drought-related vulnerabilities. To date, there is rarely any coherent action except when a crisis is imminent. There is no overarching framework or strategy that reflects a commitment to prevent and prepare for such events. That absence offers little incentive for a systematic and consistent dialogue between scientists and politicians, and little incentive for the two to learn how to engage. Solve this and maybe those cries of never again will sound a little less hollow. Randolph Kent heads the Humanitarian Futures Programme at King's College London, and is a former UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator in Somalia If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
|
Linear Mode
