March 6, 2019 at 11:02 pm #2306
Many of the constraints on development of the U.S. Virgin Islands are structural. They present systemic risks that must be reduced or eliminated.
[See the full post at: https://underthemarkets.com/economy-and-structure/]March 13, 2019 at 12:00 am #2314
The globally-agreed framework for reducing disaster risk, known as the Sendai Framework, is relevant to the current recovery and future disaster management efforts of the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Also, the Territory can learn from how other local governments are attempting to integrate hazard mitigation and climate adaptation planning.
March 24, 2019 at 9:17 pm #2313
- This reply was modified 1 year ago by Lloyd Gardner.
Disaster risk reduction is not the framework underpinning the hazard mitigation plan for the U.S. Virgin Islands, but the framework is central to the current recovery efforts of the Territory. For more on disaster risk reduction, see the Sendai Framework.
See also case studies of local governments in the USA integrating hazard mitigation and climate adaptation planning.
http://icleiusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Integrating-Hazard-Mitigation-and-Climate-Adaptation-Planning.pdfMarch 24, 2019 at 9:18 pm #2337
The article identifies micro and small enterprises (MSEs) in the creative and cottage industries as areas of potential economic growth for the U.S. Virgin Islands, which implies that some support is currently provided to MSEs in other sectors. Two initiatives for startups and small businesses were recently reported.
1. The StartUp Popular program by Banco Popular: https://www.popular.vi/startup
2. Strategic alliance between the U.S. Virgin Islands Economic Development Authority and the U.S. Small Business Administration: https://www.usvieda.org/resources/media/pressreleases/us-small-business-administration-us-virgin-islands-economicMarch 24, 2019 at 10:00 pm #2343Justin MoorheadKeymaster
LLoyd. Thank you for your recent articles. They are insightful and on point.
I share your concern that in repairing /replacing/mitigation we are not giving appropriate thought to disaster risk reduction. Doing much of the same, even should the replacement and mitigation be appropriate to today’s reality, we fall short. What we do now needs should be totally responsive to the evolving climate-change reality and the implications therefrom. Your recommendation for marrying the recovery plan and the longer term vision— setting aside for the moment other important considerations such as economy and society and simply focusing on disaster risk reduction– is on-point. In failing to weigh and incorporate the best information we have of future occurrences available from climatologist, we will once again respond after the fact rather than be ahead of what now seems inevitable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.