james (and all others out there who are interested),
that's a good thing to consider - and i can't do much more than throw
it back out there for further consideration.
while thinking about how to incorporate environmental conditions/
processes (either as a separate category or somehow subsumed under one
of the other 4), i remembered that the point of this whole undertaking
was reducing HUMAN vulnerability. so, although i do subscribe to the
view that all living entities great and small have intrinsic value and
that vulnerability of them should also be reduced, i decided to omit
such consideration for this framework (and exercise).
but, as these environmental entities do provide services for reduction
of human vulnerability as well, their usefulness in this regard must
be considered. and, hopefully, the groups are considering these
effects when considering the pre-existing and post-event states
of "natural capital" (in the livelihood conditions/processes - not
just for self-protection in terms of livelihoods, but also for
resilience of all life, resources, and goods/services). but i'm
wondering now whether and how to make consideration of these
environmental effects more explicit and thank you for bringing this to
my attention. and i will certainly send them the prior discussion to
which you referred.
hopefully and gratefully,
bob alexander
----- Original Message -----
From: James Lewis <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 7:44 am
Subject: tsunami recovery workshop participants request assistance
> A while ago on this network, a general issue raised referred to
> tsunamirisk exacerbated by coastal shrimp farming and associated
> (or not)
> destruction of reefs and mangroves. Will these and other
environmental
> issues, especially those relevant to risks from whatever sources, be
> included in this already impressive spectrum ?
>
> James Lewis
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.18 - Release Date: 19/04/05
>
|