Planning for Future Disasters

Sooner or later, civilization is going to be disrupted by more natural events. Manipulating our natural and constructed environments is a prerequisite for surviving these disasters. Once we strip doomsday fears from the emerging spate of disaster-threat discoveries, a deep environmental challenge emerges: Nature's cycle includes periodic disruptions that could toss humanity backwards.

Besides planet-killing asteroids and calamities, other natural events may be serious threats in the future. They comprise floods, huge volcanoes, seismic disorders, equatorial drift, and repeated meteor cascade. They are sustained that might prompt loss of infrastructure, disorder of agriculture, or pollution caused by industrial debris.

Using the power of upcoming technologies we can overcome doomsday. Space telescopes, DNA analysis, sedimentary analysis, and application of engineering to archaeology are improving our ability to understand past and future planetary threats. Scientists have started interpreting old evidence in a new light.

To outlast future we need to transform our ecology. Even though we are not capable of unfolding, exposing, or protecting ruthless natural phenomena, it is crystal clear that ecologists need to take them unswervingly.

Ecologists oppose the use of biotech application for hindering the environmental equilibrium, causing danger to humanity, and playing God with natural systems. The opposing view is that organic farming is inherently inefficient and risky, and it forces the destruction of forests to put more land into production. If we consider the two positions from the standpoint of surviving mass natural changes, however, both sides take on a fundamentally different look.

To have a sustainable society we need a culture with enough staying power to endure and with the capacity to preserve its collective memory. The Egyptians did it for 3,000 years; no one else has come close. We are at the beginning rather than the end of that road.

Sustainable development is a controversial term with contradictory definitions. It is often interpreted to mean advancing economically without destroying the ecology we depend on. Enormous amounts are being spent for ensuring sustainable development, but somehow the importance of mega-disaster survival has been overlooked in our culture.

It is not likely that sustainable urban development could survive inundation by a once-in-5,000 years flood. Earthquakes, which produce tsunami and volcano fire in the US, and some countries of the Far East of Southeast Asia might tear down our technological foundation. A heliacal inclement weather would flatten many space stations in orbit. Moreover, if the Gulf Stream moves south, the agriculture in Europe can’t sustain.

Earthquake-resistant designs, flood canals, and wind resistance are part of modern cities now, but these innovations cannot handle the kind of super-threats referred to here. Food production and delivery systems need to be able to withstand enormous climatic stresses and recover in a few years. Genetic manipulation combined with microcomputers could help preserve our food supply in times of crisis.

The spiritual aspect of our futures is complex, yet basic to our ability to take the next steps. Science fiction and theological writers give us glimpses into that state of affairs, but have not yet paved the way between now and those futures.

Our understanding of pre-history requires far more investment. We need to find out more about natural events that occurred just prior to the beginning of modern history, 5,000-en-25,000 years ago. Theories about this period suggest that planetary disruptions may cause cyclical rather than linear evolution of civilizations. If true, this throws conventional understanding of history on its ear. Some physical clues exist, but we need to separate science from pseudo-science in this arena.

To carry each of these first steps forward will require institutions to take on the imminent danger of disastrous threats—by recognizing their existence, and by allocating much more resources to singling out their nature and where they will probably strike.

The good news is that the tools are emerging and we have the possibilities in our hands. We are nevertheless unwilling to see the time limit that we confront. Even though watching bright-hued live transmission of a planet striking the Jupiter only some years ago, a lot of even now turn down the probability that if it could happen to them at all.

It's healthy to be skeptical of doomsday fears. Yet the discovery of big natural risks may alter our perception of Armageddon. Adapting to those risks may be our greatest challenge.

It seems pointless for a human society to struggle 5,000 years only to have its accomplishments destroyed by a stray meteor storm, ice age, or inundation. For humanity to be truly sustainable we must protect ourselves from natural catastrophes that exterminated the dinosaurs and other species in the past. Asif J. Mir, Organizational Transformation

A Dehydrated Future is coming

Water resources are declining and different UN reports confirm that serious shortages are occurring soon. Thus we see a future when there will be no or less drinking water.

Access to water is a human right. Current declarations on human rights include basic water needs sufficiently. Basic water rights focus only on water for domestic use, and speak only of amounts of the order of 30-50 liters per person per day. Nonetheless, for many poor people, access to water for productive purposes is a crucial basic need as well. This is because water is a key factor of production in agriculture and for most other forms of economic activity that are vital to the livelihoods and opportunities of the poor.

Some question the wisdom of providing water of drinking quality at great expense, only to have a large share flushed down toilets, to carry waste, where after it is cleaned again for the few that can afford this costly practice. Opinions differ: some water experts advocate ecological sanitation, others dry toilets, some people argue that only bottled water should be of drinking quality and piped water quality should be limited to fit all other use made of it. All these alternative approaches deserve more attention.

Water infrastructure of Pakistan is turning into archaic. Reservoirs are silting up irrigation networks and turning disrepair. Groundwater levels are falling in important aquifers that have contributed substantially to food security in recent years by providing water-on-demand to millions of farmers that tapped them using tube-wells to grow their crops. This situation has impacted adversely causing a serious scarcity of water resources. This scarcity has hit the poor and vulnerable-first and hardest.

Pakistan’s per capita water availability in 1951 was 5,650 which has fallen to around 1,200 cubic meters 1,200 and with current population growth rate, it will be reduced to 1,000 cubic meters by the year 2012. So the hard reality that we as people faced today is that Pakistan in the past fifty years has turned into a water-scarce from a water-sufficient country and the situation continues to go downhill. This is the specimen of a mismanaged case.

Pakistan is the victim of repeated wrong planning of its land and water resources to produce food. All this is due to the pathetic and inert attitude of the technocrats, bureaucrats, politicians and the government as no national policy on water development was framed.

Large-scale development of river and groundwater resources is less acceptable today, for environmental reasons. It is also less cost effective than it was in the 1960-1990 period, when the large majority of the world's 45,000 large dams were built.

Water can be distributed through government institutions or the market. Privatization of water service provision, however, does not imply privatization of water resources. Water is a public good, which should be treated as an economic good where it is used for economic purposes. The public-private sector role nevertheless does not imply the role of multinational companies but the role and significance of the small-scale private sector.

In agriculture, private farmers have been largely responsible for the major investments in groundwater development. This groundwater use has contributed significantly to food production and the creation of wealth in rural areas. But government has failed to elaborate rules and mechanism ensuring that groundwater is used in a way that minimizes the risks of over-use and protects groundwater quality.

Increasing the efficiency in irrigated agriculture can result in large water savings. The UN Secretary General once rightly uttered: We need a Blue Revolution in agriculture that focuses on increasing productivity per unit of water. Indeed, at the farm level, the focus on water productivity in physical terms, crop output per unit of water, is a necessary and useful framework. Likewise, appropriate soil fertility and plant nutrition management can be a way to achieve more crops per unit of water. Water productivity at the basin level must be defined to include crop, livestock and fishery yields, wider ecosystem services and social impacts such as health, together with the systems of resource governance that ensure equitable distribution of these benefits.

For sustainable development, it is clear that better water management should be a means to reduce poverty. Strategies to address water-poverty relationships need to improve the different capabilities of the poor in their battle against poverty. These strategies also need to address the pervasive gender issues in water. Those affected by water problems are too often women, while those deciding on solutions tend to be men. Building gender-equitable capabilities of the poor to manage their water resources should also be at the heart of capacity building in the water sector.

The Provinces should formulate a water supply master plan and continuous planning process to estimate demand for drinking water and identify alternative ways of meeting that demand.

They should also establish and allocate resources to local governments for the preparation of provincial-mandated water supply plans. The Provinces should also enact legislation requiring local governments to formulate and administer comprehensive watershed protection programs in designated future water supply watersheds.

A system needs also to be evolved to promote the adoption of best management practices to minimize agricultural erosion in designated future water supply watersheds by funding and extending existing state cost-sharing programs to those watersheds and by targeting federal, state, and local technical assistance programs to them. A framework also has to be in place to increase technical assistance to local governments to help them prepare and administer watershed protection programs for designated future drinking water sources.

In evaluating alternatives for conjunctive use, water managers should also view ground water as more than a supplement to surface supplies. In particular, managers should assess the value of ground water in optimizing storage capacity, enhancing transmission capabilities, and improving water quality of the system. Asif J. Mir Organizational Transformation