When I read Dr Mukhopadhyay's message I applauded it to myself and pinned a
hard copy above my screen. As a people's viewpoint it should receive the
serious attention that it deserves. Whether he is "burned" or not has no
bearing on the basic issue he raises, perhaps only to its expression. To
reiterate that so many organisations are doing this and that, through,
amongst other things, the employment of experts who too quickly rush to
their support, does not, to my mind, form a part of that serious attention.

Alternatively and characteristically, Ilan Kelman has further articulated
the issues Dr Mukhopadhyay is seeking to see addressed. Like others, I hope
Dr Mukhopadhyay will contribute further to the debate he has courageously
initiated.

Henry Quarantelli wrote a long time before this network existed, and even a
long time before Philippe Boulle in 1999, that disasters were a social
phenomenon and would best be understood in that context. Another view he
also held, if my memory serves me, is that what people are asked to do in
response to risk will work best if that action is made to fit with their
traditional or instinctive responses.

As an extension of those views, what I see as so necessary is for measures
of "disaster reduction", and all its attendant wordings, to be made a part
of an overall development strategy. In that way, natural disaster reduction
will receive attention as part of the same long-term overall programmes by
which normal everyday quality of life can also be improved. In such a way,
the risk of disaster will be addressed, though not necessarily high on the
list at the time, as part of an agenda for the improvement of other aspects
of life which may be. Sustainable or not, how can the latter happen without
integrated and due attention to the former ? And vice versa one might say.

After so many years of making this argument, the only reason I can see that
it is not part of the concensus view, is that all those organisations
already referred see themselves as able to receive more funding (and make a
better living) by being attached to the more emotive and higher profile
"disasters" loby, not to the poor cousin of development - a very damaging
dichotomy for so many people.

As a part of such a strategy, perhaps Dr Mukhopadhyay might receive the
funding he is seeking for his participation in WCDR and to present
"Capacity building and Best practices" as part of long-term disaster
management in Latur, Bhuj and Orissa and in which he is inviting
like-minded participation.

As I understand his messages, he is not asking for the scrapping of all
organisations, only those that appear to him to be more interested in
themselves that the people they purport to serve. Only when what is done is
done on the terms of people who feel the need and in ways with which they
identify, will "disaster-affected people in the developing countries live
in peace".

James Lewis




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.574 / Virus Database: 364 - Release Date: 29/01/04