This chapter contains advice to help monitoring scientists communicate
with the civil authorities and the media, but it is also recommended
that other stakeholders familiarize themselves with the material
to better understand the problems that scientists face. The
scientists are responsible for assessing the probable behaviour
of a volcano and the impact of an eruption. This information
is fundamental for deciding how to respond during an emergency,
and provides the first step in the information chain during
a crisis. It is thus crucial for scientists to explain their
forecasts in plain and unambiguous language. It is also important
that scientists adhere to their remit of informing only about
the state of the volcano. It is often tempting for them also
to become involved in issuing warnings directly to the public.
This second step, however, has implicit political overtones.
To maintain credibility as impartial advisors, therefore, scientists
should avoid issuing warnings and making public statements that
are more properly the responsibility of the civil authorities.
If they are, however, required to talk to the media or to make
statements or comments related to the crisis, this must be with
the full agreement of the Emergency Management Committee and
following discussion with its science liaison officer.
During previous volcanic episodes in the Caribbean and elsewhere,
states of crisis have been worsened by misunderstanding of scientific
advice and apparent disagreement and conflict between the scientists
themselves. To avoid similar problems, an ethical protocol has
evolved among the volcanological community to constrain the
role and responsibility of scientists during a crisis. Although
details of the protocol may have to be adjusted on a case-bycase
basis, its key features remain unchanged and form the basis
for these guidelines.
Procedures at the Guadeloupe Volcano Observatory have been praised
at all levels as a good example of how to disseminate information.
The Observatory sends a monthly report of volcanic activity
to several institutions, including regional and local councils,
the civil protection,
|
police and emergency services, environmental
offices, local and regional media and other volcano observatories
and institutes in France and the Caribbean. The reports comprise
three parts:
Activity at La Soufrière volcano (e.g. seismicity and fumarolic
behaviour) and the current level of alert (together with an
explanation of different alert levels).
Regional seismicity.
Activity on the neighbouring island of Montserrat.
Reports will be issued more frequently during sustained increases
in activity.
Fig 11. Guadeloupe Volcano Observatory
Most scientists spend their careers
communicating with their peers, so that it is
natural to use specialised terms when discussing
ideas. In times of volcanic emergency, it is
important also to express forecasts in plain
language. A trade-off is thus often needed
between technical precision and general
accessibility. Qualitative, non-technical
statements yield more positive reactions among
non-scientists - but they must always be based
on precise technical analysis. During a crisis, it is
important for the scientific team to be clear, to
be patient, and to learn from previous mistakes.
If a message is not understood, it should be
repeated in alternative terms, and as often as
necessary, until its meaning has been made clear.
Confusion with terminology is one of the main reasons why non-scientists
misunderstand a forecast. Three problems are especially common:
The inability to distinguish between terms
|
|
Download manual
