(water lilies placed in a soft pool wearing
what she sees as rippling charades on her face)
Line.
~~~~~~~~~~~ (splash)~~
and (humble)hal
r
e
e
l
s
in
a
(naughty photograph)
Lilith
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
's fo' reelz.
It gets a credit rating if it puts the lotion in the basket.
Ian
ah. good day miss lil. How's down under?
Silky Johnson
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
Elaborate. What else is needed besides money to help people regain their livelihoods? Keep in mind that money rebuilds houses, pays for support staff and anything else you can think of.
Of course money buys those things. But it doesn't necessarily help people to build and strengthen their capacity, and therefore contribute to sustainable solutions relevant to their way of life.
Throwing money at people who didn't have the wherewithall to know how, or even be able, to use it in the first place can be a futile endeavor. You have to think about the people most adversely affected by disasters - who are often the poor, the elderly, women, children, the landless, the titleless...those with unequal access to resources and power.
Here is a definition of sustainable livelihoods:
"Livelihood is defined as adequate stocks and flows of food and cash to meet basic needs. Security refers to secure ownership of, or access to, resources and income-earning activities, including reserves and assets to offset risk, ease shocks and meet contingencies. Sustainable refers to the maintenance or enhancement of resource productivity on a long-term basis. A household may be enable to gain sustainable livelihood security in many ways - through ownership of land, livestock or trees; rights to grazing, fishing, hunting or gathering; through stable employment with adequate remuneration; or through varied repertoires of activities."
Considering the influence of political ideologies and economic systems on vulnerable people even before a disaster, do you really believe that there is fair and equitable distribution of money and resources after a disaster?
Often times, money that is dispersed to people in need after disasters comes in the form of loans, which they usually can't pay back, and therefore puts them further into debt and despair. It's all well and good that charitable organizations are going in there with money and resources to help clean up, and provide food and water and other basic necessities in the immediate time, but what happens after that? Is someone sticking around to help the poor coastal farmer or fisherman acquire ownership of land - that he most likely didn't have in the first place - and rights to employment, etc.? Money alone does not solve those problems. Unless you were already "rich" or "powerful" to begin with.
Domesticated
quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pie
"Livelihood is defined as adequate stocks and flows of food and cash to meet basic needs. Security refers to secure ownership of, or access to, resources and income-earning activities, including reserves and assets to offset risk, ease shocks and meet contingencies. Sustainable refers to the maintenance or enhancement of resource productivity on a long-term basis. A household may be enable to gain sustainable livelihood security in many ways - through ownership of land, livestock or trees; rights to grazing, fishing, hunting or gathering; through stable employment with adequate remuneration; or through varied repertoires of activities."
Considering the influence of political ideologies and economic systems on vulnerable people even before a disaster, do you really believe that there is fair and equitable distribution of money and resources after a disaster?
Often times, money that is dispersed to people in need after disasters comes in the form of loans, which they usually can't pay back, and therefore puts them further into debt and despair. It's all well and good that charitable organizations are going in there with money and resources to help clean up, and provide food and water and other basic necessities in the immediate time, but what happens after that? Is someone sticking around to help the poor coastal farmer or fisherman acquire ownership of land - that he most likely didn't have in the first place - and rights to employment, etc.? Money alone does not solve those problems. Unless you were already "rich" or "powerful" to begin with.
What you're talking about now is different to what I originally commented on. You're saying that aid money gets unevenly distributed after a disaster. Before, you said: "Any kind of relief efforts after any kind of disaster should be focused on sustainability, and helping people regain their livelihoods. Which encompasses a load more than just money."
If you want someone to supervise the fair distribution of aid money, you have to pay them - with money. If you want someone to help poor coastal farmers or fishermen acquire ownership of land, you have to pay them - with money. If someone needs to rebuild water lines, clear debris, search for missing people, recover lost identities - money.
Any kind of assistance requires money, except in the case of pure volunteer work, which seems to be depressingly rare. It all comes back to cash. I suppose what you're actually trying to say is that aid organisations can't just throw cash at a situation - there has to be some kind of thought as to where that money is going and how it can be used efficiently.
Silky Johnson
I'm sorry but my original point still stands. What I just said is not completely different at all. That's the the true nature of disaster, and the reason why relief efforts encompass a "load more than just money."
I took a few courses on this , I actually do know what I'm talking about.
edit: I didn't see this:
quote:
Originally posted by Domesticated
I suppose what you're actually trying to say is that aid organisations can't just throw cash at a situation - there has to be some kind of thought as to where that money is going and how it can be used efficiently.
Yes, exactly.
Silky Johnson
Honestly I think you guys can't stand it when I actually have something educated and well-supported to say. You ing nitpick everything I say that actually has merit and makes sense. you.
djhaziel
quote:
Originally posted by iclone
cassy and three were awesome last night.
that is all.
I believe you... can wait to see cassy on the Tiki .:toocool:
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Miss Pie
Honestly I think you guys can't stand it when I actually have something educated and well-supported to say. You ing nitpick everything I say that actually has merit and makes sense. you.
Have you ever been through a disaster situation?
Tell us about it.
Silky Johnson
off Hal.
Ian
as a Nurse (or trainee at the time maybe) Sars must be the closest ?
