That is a quite different thing, and I believe this is not just an irrelevant point. I believe that failure to recognise the difference has led to several failures of ‘coastal management’. Recognition of the important difference

would go a long way, in many cases, towards turning an intractable problem into a tractable one. I have seen several examples where recognition of this different focus of what the target of management really is, and the change in management which would arise logically from it, could lead to a shift in the way of working to solve it. I think there are many cases where recognition of this would have made an GDC 941 impossible problem become a possible one. In the case of many systems, for example, the complexity of the system is high and its components cannot by any stretch of the imagination be ‘managed’. But the management of the human behaviour that is causing it to deteriorate, such as discharge of sewage or of uncontrolled dredging, is a simple task, at least in principle. A welcome shift towards this started some years ago, seen more often than not in phrases (including ‘mission statements’ in NGO brochures, for example) of the sort

“people are a part of the ecosystem too”. Indeed they are, in many cases that I have seen this is more meant to mean ‘don’t mess with people’s rights, traditions or long held customs’. check details Well, traditional customs do have to change in many cases as populations rise and put unsustainable pressures on the supporting ecosystem. Not all customs should be or can be sustained in the modern world anyway – hunter-gathering was a long practiced tradition

until population rise forced a change to farming. Management of human behaviour as it impacts on our life support systems is what the focus should be. Trying to manage Endonuclease the ecosystem to fit what we used to do simply is not working. There is a point in doing this, even if climate change is coming along and threatening to overwhelm some local impacts. We can buy time if we reduce some of the locally inflicted impacts on our local support ecosystem. Indeed we need to do so more effectively. Each report of the IPCC shows that, for many factors, the predictions of the previous IPCC report were too conservative. For an up to date example: the previous IPCC envelope for sea level rise (global average rise) was up to about a half metre by the end of this century. Since then, several uncertainties have been heavily researched, new results published, and the report next year should, if it reflects the new research, suggest that up to 1.9 or 2.0 m could be the upper end of the envelope. This is four times greater. Consider the implications to coastal societies, indeed to those dozens of countries whose entire estate lies just a couple of metres above present sea level.