The argument of this case study is to re-echo the importance of sense-making, communication and resilience to disaster risk management. It is a critical analysis of sense-making of the BSE in the United Kingdom.
The words ‘mad cow disease’ was first made by David Brown of Daily Telegraph in 2008. The mad cow disease was first documented in Southeast England in 1985 when a farm in the region was afflicted by the disease which led to the loss of Sheep on the farm. In 1987 the disease was said to have spread to cattle. The disease was documented initially as bovine spongiform encephalopathy BSE. The disease affects the central nervous system of an adult cow; also known as ‘bovine spongiform results into cows' aggression and lack of coordination due to the influence of the disease in the brain of the cow. The description of the disease has a sponge-like appearance when examined in the brain of the cow. If and when consumed by humans, it can cause ‘variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease’.
The function of resilience in disaster risk management cannot is necessary due to the extended memory that disaster leaves in the minds of the victims. Resilience played a vital role in the case of the farmers and global community that witnessed the outbreak of the BSE. The desire to increase agricultural production led to the innovation of using several unwholesome technics. This development, however, did not slow down the resilience of the people of the UK. The government adopted policies that could tackle agricultural diseases such as the BSE.
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION:
1.1 History of the Mad Cow Disease:
2. SENSE-MAKING AS TOOL TO DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT
3. The Role of Effective Communication and Symbolism to Disaster Risk Management:
4. The Role of Resilience to Disaster Risk Management
5. CONCLUSION:
Objective and Research Focus
This thesis examines the critical importance of sense-making, effective communication, and resilience within the context of disaster risk management, utilizing the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis in the United Kingdom as a primary case study. The research explores how inadequate information management and governmental response strategies contributed to the escalation of the BSE crisis, aiming to provide insights into how such risks can be better mitigated through improved decision-making and stakeholder engagement.
- The theoretical application of sense-making in identifying and managing disaster risks.
- The impact of communication strategies on public perception and panic during national crises.
- The institutional challenges in food safety policy and disaster response mechanisms.
- The role of resilience in long-term recovery and public confidence restoration.
Excerpt from the Book
SENSE-MAKING AS TOOL TO DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT
When the BSE crisis broke, it resulted in a national crisis in the United Kingdom. The BSE epidemic afflicted up to 1000, 000 cows that were consumed by people in the UK. The newspapers exaggerated the crisis to such an extent that ‘panic gripped' the people living in the UK. Rather than get clarification from the news, the people in the UK got confusing information as to the actual cause and effect of the disease on the animals and humans alike (Brookes 1999: 252).
The BSE showcased the disaster risk inherent in the consumption of cattle, and the impact that the disease had on the image of the United Kingdom (UK). It was a test on the disaster response mechanism of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods (MAFF) the arm of government responsible for the formulation, design and implementation food safety policies in the UK (Van Zwanenberg and Millstone 2005: 2).
Although without conceding to the arguments of Neal and Younis (2006: 305) that there was the lack of emergency in the response of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods (‘MAFF' the arm of government responsible for the formulation, design and implementation food safety policies in the UK) that led to the spread of the disease and thus made it a global disaster. The argument against this view is that historically the BSE was not the exclusive reserve of the UK but was only first documented in the UK. Other nations, like the United States and Canada, also experienced BSE.
As a matter of preparedness strategy, the government banned the consumption of ‘specified bovine offal (SBO)', the parts of beef that were diagnosed to accommodate the BSE (Neal and Younis 2006: 306). This effort of the UK government alongside other policy measures used to curtail the spread of the disaster that was to occur in other places of the UK.
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: Provides an overview of the BSE crisis in the UK, highlighting the biological origins of the disease and outlining the key factors required for effective disaster risk preparedness.
History of the Mad Cow Disease: Details the government's initial response via the Southwood Committee and examines the findings of the Philips inquiry regarding the inadequacy of existing communication and management techniques.
SENSE-MAKING AS TOOL TO DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT: Explores the conceptual framework of sense-making in the context of the BSE outbreak, emphasizing the necessity of early detection and organizational understanding of risks.
The Role of Effective Communication and Symbolism to Disaster Risk Management: Analyzes the failure of the UK government to communicate effectively during the crisis and discusses the symbolic impact of the event on national identity and public trust.
The Role of Resilience to Disaster Risk Management: Discusses how resilience was fostered through policy interventions and the implementation of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) to stabilize the food supply chain.
CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the core findings, reaffirming that effective disaster management relies on the integration of detection, clear communication, and organizational resilience.
Keywords
BSE, Mad Cow Disease, Sense-making, Disaster Risk Management, United Kingdom, Communication, Crisis Management, Resilience, vCJD, Food Safety, Public Policy, Risk Assessment, Stakeholder Engagement, Governance, Hazard Analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this thesis?
The thesis focuses on the application of sense-making, communication, and resilience as essential components in managing disaster risks, using the UK's BSE crisis as a case study.
What are the primary themes discussed in the work?
The core themes include disaster preparedness, crisis communication, food safety governance, organizational decision-making under pressure, and public trust management.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to analyze how the UK handled the BSE crisis and to highlight the failures and necessary improvements in disaster risk management strategies.
Which scientific approach is utilized?
The study employs a case study analysis, reviewing historical reports (such as the Philips inquiry) and academic literature to evaluate disaster risk management techniques.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the history of the disease, the theoretical framework of sense-making, the role of communication during the crisis, and the development of institutional resilience.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include BSE, Sense-making, Disaster Risk Management, Crisis Communication, and Public Policy.
How does sense-making specifically aid disaster management?
Sense-making aids in the early detection of threats and helps decision-makers "understand" the risks from their source to their potential impact, thereby allowing for proactive policy development.
Why was the UK government's communication during the BSE crisis considered ineffective?
It was viewed as ineffective because authorities initially downplayed the risks, failed to provide clear information, and used conflicting terminology, which fueled public panic and distrust.
What was the role of the Philips inquiry?
The Philips inquiry served to examine the government's response, identifying failures in cattle rearing methodologies and communication channels, while recommending improvements for future hazard management.
What does the author conclude about the role of resilience?
The author concludes that resilience is necessary in disaster management because it allows institutions to adapt and recover by learning from past failures and implementing stricter control measures like HACCP.
- Citar trabajo
- Nathaniel Stevenson Odusola (Autor), BSE in the United Kingdom. Sense-making in disaster management, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/899977
