The recent evaluation of the UK Government's response to a number of crises in 2010 has been published in British media recently. Given my research on volcano early warning systems I have taken particular interest in the review of the Eyjafjallajökull eruption response that generated quite possibly one of the most economically costly volcanic disasters in history. One thing to note upfront, is that the enquiry has not been sufficient at all, and barely scratched at the surface at an issue that is likely to affect the UK and Europe in the future. So already the Government have failed to adequately prepare for the low-probability but high-impact events it has expressed a specific mandate to do by not even taking time to learn from our past mistakes. Interestingly the aviation sector seems to show little interest in investing in further research to understand the impact of ash on jet engines.
An article by BBC News caught my recent attention (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12623089). It is reasonable that the Commons Science and Technology Committee highlighted 'last April's volcanic ash cloud - which grounded thousands of flights - as an example of poor risk assessment'. Indeed it was poor risk assessment - but not because scientists were unaware that Icelandic volcanic ash could cause trouble for aviation. Professor Sir John Beddington said ash should have been considered given the 'relative frequency of volcanic events in Iceland'. This is interesting given that in only 2004 the volcanic eruption of the Icelandic subglacial Grimsvotn volcano in the Vatnajokull ice cap generated an eruption plume detected on satellite images showing ash drifting into large parts of the North Atlantic, reaching Scandinavia. Air traffic was disrupted with an area of 311,000 square kilometres closed for flights from the beginning of the eruption (November 1) until the morning of November 4. In 2000 a NASA DC-8 airplane suffered significant damage to its engines when inadvertently flying through volcanic ash generated by Hekla volcano in February 2000 (see: http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/1161.pdf for full paper and analysis. This paper shows two things: first, volcanic ash from Icelandic volcanoes has been a nuisance to aviation in the past and therefore is not an unidentified risk; second, that volcanic ash can have lasting impact on aircraft that may not be immediately apparent. Clearly this is worrying as many aircraft may have flown through low concentrations of ash ain 2010 and may currently be accumulating wear and tear - like the NASA DC plane - but I digress. Scientists and the aviation sector were well aware of the possibility of volcanic ash affecting European airspace because it has happened before, numerous times. Poor risk assessment took place in understanding the interaction of ash and jet engines, and their sustained impacts.
The result of this enquiry is to generate another independent committee to advise the government on risks. The article states that during the ash ban 'research had to be hurriedly carried out to find out when it might be safe for planes to fly'. I am not sure what research was actually conducted - certainly there was a huge effort to monitor the ash using a variety of new techniques including LIDAR, but in terms of determining safe concentrations of ash, which led to the CAA amending its protocols three times, it seems no new research was done. After 30 years of research into the impact of volcanic ash on engines, I find it hard to see how in 6 days any significant advancement could have been made, other than looking at data from other parts of the world, where the physical and social contexts differ greatly. The Commons Science and Technology Committee examined the use of scientific advice and evidence in national emergencies resulting in MPs stating that the Iceland volcano was a 'stark example' of the lack of scientific input in risk assessment, which seems fair however, they also go on to say that 'the government should take more notice of scientists when deciding how to respond to emergencies'. In some respects I agree; the risk assessment conducted is dependent on scientists who are connected with the Government and able to voice their opinions - of which I was not one, despite the useful research I had conducted that may have helped to have managed the crisis better. However, I fundamentally disagree with this statement. It is precisely because we only have scientists providing a perspective that we are missing out on the expertise of many other stakeholders that could provide valuable insights on how to prepare for such high-impact low-probability events, and react better during a crisis. If the Government wants to make crisis response better then perhaps then need to have a process whereby any specialist or expert (scientist or not) can easily request to be involved and shake this notion that the scientific expert is the only way forward. Almost any resident in Anchorage, Alaska could have told the UK Government about volcanic ash and its impacts, some with startling detail. But to 'flip' this statement around, the Government needs to act on what scientists (and other experts/stakeholders) say, and not just have more or better information to provide ample accountability for identifying and taking reasonable steps to mitigating against an environmental risk. Action is needed: investment is needed, but both go beyond the typical political term. It therefore may be the political system that needs to be reformed if we are to take environmental risks seriously to make sure that a Government can sustain its people, businesses and nation during a crisis. It did not do well with a tiny bit of ash, what happens if another Laki fissure opens in Iceland, like it did in 1783-1784, that would impact agriculture, aviation, trade, and cause significant health hazards for over a year? We are totally unprepared, and tragically the UK Government, like many around the World, are not taking notice of the warning signs that the Eyjafjallajökull eruption really demonstrated rather well.
