CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF THE SITUATION
The Volcano
6. Any discussion of the situation in Montserrat
must begin with the scientific advice on the current state of
the volcano and its future activity, and effects on the health
and safety of the remaining population. We took evidence from
Professor Stephen Sparks, Professor of Geology at Bristol University
and one of the five Chief Scientists of the Montserrat Volcano
Observatory. He made clear that eruptions of this kind could
go on for many years. Any long-term planning for Montserrat would
have to take this into account.[3]
The volcano in the Soufrière Hills was unusual because
volcanos are usually "very violent and active in the beginning
... gradually slowing down and going to sleep. This volcano has
done the exact opposite. It started out very slowly and has gradually
built up and I think everyone involved in Montserrat, including
the scientists, have always been running to keep up with the volcano...and
how it has escalated and developed".[4]
Having mentioned estimates of a further two to four years of
activity he went on to say that one volcano in Chile started erupting
in 1984 but had its biggest explosion in 1993, nine years later.[5]
7. There has been speculation as to whether there
will be a cataclysmic eruption on Montserrat, similar to volcanos
such as Krakatoa and Mont Pelée. Professor Sparks made
clear that the probability was negligible.[6]
He added, however, that there were possible explosive events
falling short of such a cataclysm which could nevertheless have
catastrophic effects on such a small island. The more pertinent
question therefore was "is the north safe, and the answer
to that is that the north is definitely the safest part of the
island by a long way, but one cannot rule out events in the future
which could be large enough to affect the north seriously".[7]
8. The dangers posed by the volcano were explained
by Professor Sparks in his memorandum, "if the volcanic magma
(molten rock) rises slowly enough then it loses its dissolved
volcanic gas and so erupts as lava. If the magma rises faster
it has less time to lose the dissolved gas and can become highly
explosive. This is what happened in August [1997] when there
was a series of strong explosions. Another major factor in the
eruption is that the pile of lava that is growing into a new mountain
is very unstable. Large pieces of the dome involving millions
of tons of rock at 850 degrees C avalanche down the volcano at
speeds of 100 kph. The avalanches (known as pyroclastic flows)
destroy everything in their way and were responsible for the deaths
on June 25th 1997".[8]
The pyroclastic flows include solids, gas and ash. The heavier
material is at ground level but above there are pyroclastic surges
of ash and gas. It is these surges which have done the most damage.
9. Should there be further pyroclastic flows,
they will go down the Belham River Valley, destroying the central
area of Montserrat and leaving only a small proportion of the
island's infrastructure intact.[9]
Evidence suggested that the north of the island where Montserratians
remain is relatively safe from the threat of pyroclastic flows.[10]
There remains, however, the danger of explosive events. Professor
Sparks, having spoken of the negligible risk of a Krakatoa-like
event, went on to explain, "The best estimate of an event
which could, for example, put fairly large rock fragments in the
north is something between 1:30 and 1:300, and that is a much
higher risk ... it is a huge eruption from the point of view of
a modest-sized island".[11]
The probability of such an event was not high "but it is
sufficiently high to be concerned about it and keep a very close
watch on the volcano".[12]
Professor Sparks was confident that scientists could spot the
approach of such an explosion. Montserratians might, however,
have only a few hours in which to evacuate since escalation can
be very quick.[13]
10. In addition to the risk of injury from explosions,
there are also more long-term dangers, in particular the risk
of silicosis from sustained exposure to the ash. There have been
three reports published in 1997 which discuss the dangers from
the ash falls, those of Peter Baxter from Addenbrooke's Hospital
in Cambridge (27 August 1997), from Alison Searl and Andrew Nicholl
of the Institute of Occupational Medicine (September 1997) and
from Sir Kenneth Calman, the Chief Medical Officer (27 September
1997). The Calman Report concluded that there was a serious risk
of silicosis from exposure to ash south of the Nantes River (this
area is now evacuated). In the northern zone, the Report stated
that, "ash falls have been light and there is currently no
risk of silicosis from past exposures in this area".[14]
Persons with respiratory problems and children were, however,
special risk groups.
11. The Calman Report recommended regular monitoring
of dust and that a system of air quality advice be established.
Winds normally blow out to sea, the result being that whilst
areas such as Salem are vulnerable to dusting the north of the
island is much less so.[15]
The wind can, however, blow to the north. A few days before
the Committee's visit to Montserrat and Antigua both the north
of Montserrat and Antigua had experienced heavy ash falls. The
Antiguan Government expressed serious concern at the fact that
ash falls were resulting in disruptions to the airport and threats
to health. The pH level of water in Montserrat was also now deteriorating
as a result of the ash.[16]
The Calman Report written in September this year, concludes that
there is "currently" no risk of silicosis from past
exposures to ash in the north. We are concerned, however, that
continuing and heavier ash falls in the north will seriously increase
that risk. We were told that the silica in the ash "is about
twice as toxic as the type of silica you get in coalmines or quarries".[17]
HMG must give urgent consideration to their liability in the
event of Montserratians developing silicosis from exposure to
the ash. We believe that the risk of silicosis from ash falls
casts doubt on the safety of the north of Montserrat.
12. Professor Sparks was asked when he thought
the south of the island would be habitable again. He referred
to a volcano in Papua New Guinea, in a similar climate, which
erupted in 1951, destroying the surrounding rain forest. It took
15 to 20 years for the rainforest substantially to recover. He
concluded "It will probably be many years, if not a couple
of decades before ... there is complete recovery...it would seem
to me that it would be a long time before one would redevelop
Plymouth".[18]
We have heard other evidence suggesting a return in ten years.
13. Professor Sparks also warned against too
early an assumption that the volcano had ceased to be active,
"we have heard other evidence suggesting the possibility
of a return in ten years. It may not even be a sensible idea
because even if the volcano stops, it can start again. A number
of communities have been caught out by volcanos which have apparently
stopped and then start a few months or years later. So one would
need to be very cautious about development in the south".[19]
14. Current scientific assessment of the volcano's
activity can be summarised as follows:
i. The risk of a Krakatoa-like catastrophe
is virtually negligible (1:10,000).[20]
ii. There is further risk of pyroclastic flows,
the most vulnerable area being the Belham River valley (in the
evacuated central region).
iii. There are possible explosive events falling
short of a Krakatoa-like cataclysm which could nevertheless have
catastrophic effects on such a small island. The probability
of explosive events affecting the north and causing serious injury
is between 1:30 and 1:300. This probability is significant
enough to be taken into account in any planning of the future
of the north of the island.
iv. Ash falls in the centre and south of the
island will continue posing a serious threat to health. Heavier
and more sustained ash falls in the north and other Caribbean
islands are possible and would result in an increased risk of
silicosis.
v. Volcanic activity will very probably continue
for at least a few more years.
vi. It will be years, perhaps decades, before
the south of Montserrat is safe enough to be redeveloped and re-inhabited.
vii. Volcanology is an inexact science and
the volcano in the Soufrière Hills is not typical of volcanos
previously studied, for instance in the escalation in the severity
of its activity over time. Consideration
of scientific advice must always bear this in mind.
Health
15. In addition to an account of current views
on the activity of the volcano, we must also describe the state
of healthcare on the island. We draw both on the Calman Report
and on our own observation of the hospital and shelters during
our visit to Montserrat. In any discussion of the health needs
of a community a precondition for effective planning is a demographic
breakdown of inhabitants. Calman states,
"Details concerning the demography of the population
or its health needs are unknown. However there are approximately:
250 frail elderly people requiring some level of
institutional care of whom 150 are in shelters and 100 in the
community;
120 people with mental illness currently requiring
regular medication. Of these some 20 people have chronic illnesses
not appropriately managed, which leaves them vulnerable to increased
risk from the volcano;
Hypertension and diabetes mellitus and their complications
are relatively common".[21]
16. The Committee observed a high proportion
of the elderly, disabled, mentally ill and other vulnerable groups
in the shelters visited. We understand that many are determined
to stay in Montserrat, the upheaval of relocation being too great
for them to contemplate. There is no doubt that others are simply
left behind.
17. An urgent priority is a demographic breakdown
and survey of the health needs of Montserratians remaining on
the island. Sir Kenneth Calman recommended to this effect in
his Report.[22] The
Secretary of State said she was frustrated at the lack of detailed
information on the current population of Montserrat. She related
this to the unwillingness of the Government of Montserrat to respond
to her desire to conduct a social survey of the character and
wishes of the remaining population. She suggested that "one
of the problems has been the fear of the Government of Montserrat
that people would choose to leave and, therefore, my desire to
consult them all and give them choices and tell them what the
practicalities were was seen as threatening large numbers into
leaving, so the desire was that they should not leave". [23]
18. Mr Brandt stated that the Government of Montserrat
did not have the expertise to conduct a social survey. Two consultants
from the British Government were involved in conducting such a
survey, assisted by the chief statistician of the Government of
Montserrat, but the survey was interrupted by evacuation plans
in August 1997.[24]
19. Such contradictions in evidence occurred
on a number of occasions during the course of this inquiry. The
number of such disagreements is a cause for concern, suggesting
a less than happy relationship between the United Kingdom Government
and the Government of Montserrat. It is not the purpose of this
Report to adjudicate on every such dispute and distribute blame.
We are more concerned with recommendations for the future.
20. We are, however, amazed that a comprehensive
survey of Montserrat's population has yet to be undertaken. In
the weekend before the Chief Minister gave evidence to the Committee
the Government of Montserrat was able to organise a count of residents
in the north with the help of teachers, the total being 4,008.
It is a clear responsibility of the Government of Montserrat
to know the population which it is there to serve. Even without
the assistance of consultants from the United Kingdom we are surprised,
given the seriousness of the situation, that no provisional analysis
was attempted. We believe that the recommendation in the Calman
Report of a comprehensive needs assessment should take place without
delay and that the number of those on Montserrat be updated each
day on the basis of arrival and departure information.
If the Government of Montserrat is unable to complete such
a survey in the near future, we recommend that HMG undertake it.
21. Montserrat's hospital was originally sited
in Plymouth (Glendon Hospital). Indeed after Hurricane Hugo a
new extension was built with United Kingdom aid. It was about
to be commissioned when volcanic activity started on 18 July 1995.[25]
There appeared some uncertainty among our witnesses as to where
the new hospital's equipment had gone. Equipment at the temporary
hospital in the north was almost non-existent and, to quote Sir
Kenneth Calman, "the hospital premises are grossly substandard;
there is no adequate sanitation system to dispose of waste from
the hospital; the wards and operating theatre are separated by
a mile".[26]
We note here that HMG retains a responsibility for the welfare
of Montserratians as Dependent Territory citizens. We
are appalled that vulnerable persons should be found in such poor
and degrading conditions over two years after volcanic activity
began. We recommend that HMG find out what happened to the equipment
from the new hospital and use as much of it as possible in the
temporary hospital on the north of Montserrat. We also recommend
that there be an urgent provision by HMG of resources which can
be immediately used to upgrade the standard of the temporary hospital's
care and environment.
3
Q.488. Back
4
Q.521. Back
5
Q.522. Back
6
Q.500. Back
7
Q.498. Back
8
Evidence p.103. Back
9
Q.502. Back
10
Q.178. Back
11
Q.500. Back
12
Q.523. Back
13
QQ.503-4. Back
14 Calman
Report para. 6.3.2. Back
15
Q.508. Back
16
Q.506. Back
17
Q. 508. Back
18
Q.513. Back
19
Q.513. Back
20
Q. 500. Back
21
Calman Report para. 5. Back
22
Calman Report para. 8.4.2.. Back
23
Q.73. Back
24
Q.292. Back
25
Evidence p.2. Back
26
Calman Report paras. 6.2.2 7-9. Back
| 
