MY VIEWS 2000: June

 

June 01/2000/Communication/Preservation and poverty

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "David"

Subject: Fw: SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW - Issue 20

Dear David, We seem to agree in most things. In fact, the data you will find in my Deforestation in Central America site may be use to support some of the links or observations you made. I believe that preservation and poverty reduction can go hand on hand if we plan so that one support the other, we know that the poor will go the extra mile to proctect its only cow.

However, to be able to do that we need to counteract the rational man world, and one way of doing it, in my view, is by creating the conditions so that the rational man becomes responsible. I made such an arguments recently, which got published in SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW Issue 20 just a few days ago. Please read section 3 by Lucio Munoz if you have time, and send me your commnets. I live permanently in Vancouver, as I am a Canadian-Salvadorean, and it would be nice to explore the possibility of putting some of these ideas into practice. It is nice to have gotten in touch with you as I and my friends in the CAEE group(Central American Environment and Ecology) would like to provide useful information and ideas on the issues and options.

Greetings;

Lucio

>

 

June/01/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Communication

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "(IGFR)"

Dear Geoff, I think that your posting is appropriate. It seems to me that we have not had yet a true liberalization model even though it was indicated and agreed in the e-discussion that globalization is not something new. Liberalization to be profitable to the maximum to the few needs protecting heavens where to keep hidden the byproducts of development(pollution in terms of money or in terms of externalities) as the less can be seen the further the partial liberalization push can go. And once the byproducts of development become too noticiable at a specific level, then it is time to move to a higher level of development(from local to regional, then to country, and now to world development, and next will be space development). In other words, for liberalization to be profitable for the few it must be partial and this partiality is the key I think to the notion that the most fit to produce the byproducts of development will dominate. True liberalization would not be able to allow for protecting heavens of any type as it would mean truely equal rights(access) and obligations(costs), internally and externally. The irony I saw in this posting was that we were looking for alternatives to erradicate poverty that could be replicable or applicable world wide; and

since I do not think that there is a possibility for all countries to become "protecting heavens", I found this posting a little out of tune.

Most of my contributions were not posted too, but I found that in general the selection was good given the nature and sentiments on the topic and I think too the world bank is changing apparently for the better, so let's cross our finger crossed.

I will forward you one of the message I sent proposing the creation of THE WORLD POVERTY FUND to address the poverty reduction head on and take this headache away from the world bank so that they can time fully test their economic efficiency theory.

My warm greetings Geoff

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR) <igfr@igfr.org>

To: <Recipient list suppressed>

Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2000 6:43 AM

Subject: [globalization] Response to Philip English on Mauritius

> This post is being sent to approximately 30 people who have participated in the [globalization] list, and is one of many that were not posted.

> The reason it was not posted could be one of the following:

> - need to select from overwhelming postings

> - not relevant enough

> - unprofessional

> - too sensitive

> - unnecessarily provocative

>

> I suspect the latter two, possible all of the above, but I'll leave it to you to judge. It was meant to constructive, if addressing sensitive issues. If any of you think it is out of order, or way off the mark, please feel welcome to let me know.

>

 

June/01/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Who is in control? Plus should the ission of erradication of poverty remain with the world bank?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "(IGFR)"

Dear Geoff, here is the posting I mentioned to you. Please feel free to comment on it. I am currently working into writing a complete formal proposal on this,and see how it ends.

Greetings:

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: tom abeles

Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 12:57 AM

Subject: Re: [globalization] Who is in control? plus should the mission of

erradication of poverty remain with the world bank?

> Dear Friends, I totally agree with Tom's comments, which lead me to the following thoughts:

> a) all these years the mission of the world bank has been the erradication of poverty, yet despite of all the money spent on the ground, poverty gaps have been increasing, should not the bank had adjusted its policies a long time ago as soon as it was obvious that the bank mission was not being achieved?Why it can not be done now?;

> b) looking at the situation closer it looks to me that it should not be the role of any bank to be given the mission to erradicate poverty as just thinking about combining the terms BANK(money making machines) and POVERTY looks contradictory and these objectives can easily be placed in conflict when as indicated by Tom corporate influences become dominant;

> c) I believe that the best way to proceed if we are seriously thinking about using globalization to erradicate poverty is the creation of a WORLD POVERTY FUND based on a basic and ongoing sustainability plan(basic material and non-material social, economic, and environmental needs) targeted to families(rural and urban), and which could be finance with swapping of local and internation debt, technology swapping, and a global poverty tax.

These program could be implemented step by steps with four consecutives goals: first goal(short-term), the estabilization of the rich/poor gap; second goal(medium term), the reduction of the rich/poor gap; third goal(over medium term), the miminization of the rich/poor gap; and the final goal(long-term), the elimination of the rich/poor gap.

> What better target than the family, this program could be used to

induce preferences for smaller families and perhaps induced negative population growth(as mentioned by Martha T.) on earth for a while while providing the bases for a more responsible social, economic, and environmental behaviour all over the world at the same time. Moreover, a sustainability plan like the above would address the basic needs of the current generation to plans the seeds for future sustainability behaviour;

> d) by forming the WORLD POVERTY FUND we can target the issue of poverty head on and leave the world bank to do what it can do the best MAKE MONEY: It would be nice to see if there is a positive relationship between the increasing gap between the rich and the poor and increasing profits at the bank since it began operations, my guess is that there may be.

> In conclusion, now seems to be the time to take the world bank mission of erradicating poverty away and the creation of this WORLD POVERTY FUND is a possible way of doing it while the world bank then can focus on what it is good at as claimed: ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY. I would be interested in your opinions about this proposal, which I will be trying to put in more formal details in the coming days.

> My warm greetings to all:

> Lucio Munoz

> Independent Researcher

> http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

>

>

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: tom abeles

> To: Globalization E-Conference <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

> Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 6:36 AM

> Subject: [globalization] Who is in control?

>

>> > Looking on these exchanges with over 30 years of international

> > consulting/education experience, I am increasingly concerned with the focus on the data as presented in the WB report.

> >

> > In many ways arguing about the "facts" has become a misdirection.

> > Herman Daley hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the issue was more in the area of "control", an issue on which all who have

> > commented have either overlooked or avoided.

> >

> > The question is that of national sovereignty. Multinational corporations and financial interests are increasingly pressuring countries for "open borders" and the sanctity of business needs over country interests. With multinationals being invited to sit pare passu with countries in international decision making, with companies whose annual profits are greater than many country's GDP and with corporations able to use the WTO to abrogated national environmental decisions, is it any wonder that there is concern when the WB and IMF seem to be hand maidens to developed world industrial policies.

 

June 02/2000/Communication: Selective Liberalization/world poverty fund

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "(IGFR)"

Dear Geoff, yes you are right, I think that true liberalization would

evaporate the protecting heavens which in my opinion are essential for the survival of elites, so we may never see true liberalization in practice under "sustained development".

With respect to the World Poverty Fund proposal, the sustainability set

would be an investment into the current and following generations of poor rural and urban families targeted by means of internal subgroups(the young,the parents, and the elders) and subjected to specific rules. For example, students get paid to dedicate the time to studing only to keep them away from the bottom labour market until they are ready to start a little up the bottom at least, and all students have basic responsibilities to fulfill. Families could be paid to take over the basic sustainability set that will allow them to enjoy a more sustainable lifestyle: access to basic social, economic, and environmental services plus take some responsibilities. We

address the basic needs of the current generation and plant the seeds for less poor generations with the goal of in the end erradicating poverty from the inside out. I will put the ideas together formally and if appropriate, I could benefit from your input.

Beside this idea of "protecting heavens", I also introduced two more ideas: a) that of the "Coned World" where the benefits of globalization go to the wide part of the cone and filter everytime less and less as it reaches the acute bottom, the poorest and marginalized; and b) that of "Trash and Keep Syndrom" underlying the behavior of polluting industries everywhere. Both appear to have been well received and I am putting together some short articles right now to get these concepts out. A few days ago, another of my articles was published in SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW # 20 called "Rationality, Responsibility, and Sustainability: When Can Human Behaviour Have a Chance To Be Sustainable?. If you have time to read it please do it. So far so good. Greeting Geoff, and receive my warm greetings from Vancouver.

Sincerely;

Lucio

 

----- Original Message -----

From: (IGFR)

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 2:06 AM

Subject: Re: [globalization] Response to Philip English on Mauritius

 

> Thanks Lucio,

> I have not heard of the expression 'protecting the heavens' and it

> took me a moment to catch on. What you are saying is that the

> liberalisation process is actually selective liberalisation to protect the elite, to protect the heavens.

>

> I think the idea of a WORLD POVERTY FUND could be good -

> but runs the risk of being underfunded, suggests aid rather than

> investment (capital, social) which is what we need to overcome poverty.

> But it might be better to set up a new insitution with new ideas than

> wait for the culture of the World Bank to evolve its worldview.

>

> Much would depend on the specifics of the proposal I'd imagine.

>

> Regards,

> Geoff

June 04/2000/Communication: Another poverty reduction related proposal

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "(IGFR)"

Dear Geoff, a couple of weeks ago I got in touched Mr. Bouarque related to the Bolsa Escola proposal. I agreed that this proposal had a lot of merits, but I told him that it was not holistic as it would be geared to addressing basic social needs only(eg. education). We need to address some basic economic and environmental needs at the same time to hit poverty squarely, which is from where the term sustainability set comes. Given our common goals and a very close way of thinking, we entertained the possibility on cooperating with these ideas. I will put together the World Poverty Fund proposal in general terms as I see it, and then we can polish it with Mr. Bouarque and you and through feedbak from readers and other interested participants. I will get back to you when ready. Now that I think about it again, it comes to my mind that the Bolsa Escola could be one of the program within the sustainability set in the hands of the World Poverty Fund.

Greetings, Geoff.

Sincerely;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: (IGFR)

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 8:11 PM

Subject: Re: Selective liberalization/world poverty fund

 

> Lucio Munoz

> <munoz1@sprint.ca>

>

> Dear Lucio,

> Look forward to your further ideas on the World Poverty Fund. We

> could possibly publish it in the Global Futures Bulletin.

>

> I include an article from the latest issue on education for the poorest.

>

> Regards,

June 07/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Background information and working definitions

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>,

<RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Cc: "Odo

Dear Friends, I wish I could have participated in your previous

e-consultation so I could have shared some thoughts with you that may have helped to focus the research options and needs related to Food Security still more. I will make a few observations on the background information provided and on the working definitions, which are the following:

a) when food security is defined as access to food, then it is important tosee the connection of this with the supply and demand aspects of this, but I read nothing about this. As you may know, if the income required to sustained the demand is there and if the supplies reflect local needs, then we need not to worry much about food security;

b) food security is only one of the components of the basic set needed to address povety conditions, even if we could eat meat everyday, but we do not have education, shelters, and a healthy environment around us, still we are not going to be in a sustainable situation: should not we press for the right not to be poor, intead of the right to have food around us or to be fed?;

c) the document talks about the need to address food security holistically, yet no reference is made to sustainability. We should remember that holistically does not necessarly means optimal or conjunctural. Is sustainable food security the same as sustainability in food security?;

d) from my view the key aspects related to food security is income(demand side), whether earned or given, yet the enphasis of the background is mainly on the production side: if the supply is sustainable in the way sustainable is used in this background, but the demand is not, so why should we be surprised if the food is exported instead?. In other words, searching for a sustainable farming system targeted to small farmers is imposible under an unsustainable demand;

e) the document talks about marginal lands, and I would like to remind the participants that now that social and environmental concerns are as

important as economic concerns, there are no marginal lands. In other

words, the lands we considered marginal before because they were barriers to faster economic development(e.g montains or deep forests), we know today that they were not marginal, they had social and environmental values that went as unaccounted as social and environmental externalities, not unnotticed or felt as we know today. So we need to find a better term for this;

f) it seems to me that the NARS, if the objective is sustainability in food security, should focus more attention to research the question, How can we ensured general income stability at the local level so that there are incentives for the farming system to supply the local market?;

g) from my point of view, the issues of food security can be constructed as follows:

1) if we accept the notion that the goal is sustainability in food

security;

2) then the issue is sustainability in access to food;

3) which squarely falls within the domain of sustainable supply and

demand or sustainable market activity;

4) and this implies, ability to sell and ability to buy;

5) and all this translates into, producer security, and consumer

security, regarless of whether or not you are rich or poor.

These are my humble comments and I hope they are useful to you.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: <RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2000 8:37 AM

Subject: Background Information and Working Definitions

 

> Dear E-Colleagues,

> In this message, we would like to provide you with some background information and working definitions. Given different approaches to sustainable food security, the following materials are provided to serveas a foundation for future discussion. We would like to warn you that this background piece is rather long and at the same time promise that this will be the only instance in which background materials of this length are sent during the e-conference.

 

June 08/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Questions week 1

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>,

Dear friends, please take my comments in a positive sense. In this section, I attemp to address the questions presented(but I may add some when I see some answers) as to me the terminlogy used is not clear, and to make this point clear, please see the following:

In section one: National food security is defined in terms of production and household food security is defined in terms of access to food/consumption. What about national access/consumption or household production?. What type of household are we talking about?producer households or consumer households or rich/poor households or resource rich/poor households?this can affect the nature of the answers.

In section two: it says that food security is not only dependent on crop and livestock production, but also on the sustainable use of natural resources. To me all three are natural resources, but some are altered and others are in their wild state. Non of them is man made, and some of them are altered by men. For example, forest are natural resources as defined in this posting, but some are altered(forest plantations) and others are in their wild state(old growth or primary forest). Fisheries are also made up of altered fisheries(fish "plantations") and fisheries in their wild state. So the issue is how to sustainably used both altered and wild natural resources to support food security.

In section three: I mentioned in my previous posting that the term "marginal area" no longer hold as marginal economic areas may not be marginal areas in social and environmental terms. For example, marginal economic areas that before had zero or negative value (mountains), have a positive value today, be it for example CO2 fixation value or CO2 non-emision value or both if both services can be present in the same marginal economic land.

Finally, no mention is made to the importance of researching the potential negative impacts on food security of policies such as the kyoto protocol or full resource protection polices(forest or biodiversity or both) or similar policies which can affect the process of conversion and reversion of land uses, dominant land uses, and issues of land tenure and access. These issues have more relevance for less developed countries not just because of the insecurity of access to food, but also because of the security that these policies are more likely to be skewed toward them.

These are my comments, and I would be happy to know your views on them.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: <RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2000 3:24 AM

Subject: Questions - Week 1

 

> Dear E-Participants,

>

> In this message, we are asking four questions related to three key issues.

> THE ISSUES AND QUESTIONS

>

> A. Food Security at the Household and National Levels: National food

> security must assure sufficient production of food to meet a growing

> population in a sustainable manner. Household food security assures year round access to the amount and variety of foods needed for their members to lead an active and healthy life. The importance of household food security has gained a great deal of attention in the last decade including its relationship to national food security.

>

> QUESTION 1. What research strategies are being (or could be) undertaken to address/improve household food security in terms of:

>

> a) facilitating access to food?

> b) increasing food production?

> c) improving food nutritional value?

> d) reducing food losses?

>

> QUESTION 2. How do research strategies for improving national food

security relate to those aimed at addressing household food security?

>

> B. Natural Resources: Food Security is not only dependent on crop and > livestock production but also on the sustainable use of natural resources. Forests can play a significant role in food security and in terms of products and nutrition as well as a depository for biological diversity. Likewise, fisheries can serve as a source of food as well as a source of income.

>

> QUESTION 3. What research strategies could be undertaken by the NARS to incorporate the significance of the following into an agricultural

research agenda in terms of enhanced food security at the household, community or national level:

>

> a)forests?

> b)fisheries?

>

> C. Marginal Areas: We are constantly reminded of the balance (or tension) between production and natural resource conservation and protection particularly in ecologically fragile or marginal areas. These marginal areas are typically home to resource poor households.

>

> QUESTION 4.

> a.) Which are (or could be) the NARS research strategies that can

> address the specific needs and constraints of resource poor farmers in less-favoured agro-ecological zones and fragile eco-systems? and,

> b.) How can these be best combined with research strategies that

> address intensive agriculture in more productive areas?

>

> ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?

> We look forward to your responses to the questions and any additional

> comments that you may have.

>

> Thank you and best wishes.

>

> The E-Team

 

June 08/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Reply to Katzir

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Cc: " Katzir"

Dear Friends, Mr. Katzir makes some very interesting comments about the need for regionally(locally) appropriate or fit technologies and the need for effective partnerships between farmers, extension staff, and researchers. However, there seems not to be much evidence that food security can be achieved throught export led development or that partnerships where one participants set the priorities are optimal partnerships. Specially, when we produce food for exports, and get money for non-food imports and we have a local food deficit. On the other hand, for an efficient parnership to ensure food security to be developed, all partners must be convinced that they have to follow the best interest of food security, but this may put the profit incentives of farmers with food security needs in a conflict position. On the other hand, such a partnership is a production side partnership delinked from partners from the demand side, which creates the

possibility that even if the supply side partnership works well it will not reflect the concerns of the demand side, local and global. We know that unsystematic approaches sould not be expected to lead to sustainability situations.

Greetigns;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.h

tml

 

----- Original Message ----- > Message 1. Background Materials, comments by

Katzir.

> >From Raanan Katzir [rannan@internet.net.il]

> Sent: 6 June 2000

> To: RAFS2000

> Subject: Re: Background Information and Working Definitions

>

> Dear team of organizers,

>

> Thanks a lot for the interesting Background Information and Working

> Definitions prepared by the preparatory team of experts for the

> E-conference. After reading it carefully, I would like to add few

elements, which according to my opinion, might enhance the document. You ask for questions, but I hope you do not mind if I will add few remarks. I would like to emphasize the regional approach for the searching of solutions referring to agricultural production. Since many differences, mainly in climate, soil and water resources, exist between the various regions in the country or a state, it is utmost important to apply the research in the region itself for the appropriate regional solutions, in order to improve agricultural production. .In this case solutions will be generate and applied quicker , more precisely and efficient.

> The priority for regional solutions, needed for agricultural production, must be considered based on market (local, national and export), requirements. Food security could be achieve also by export, which support the import of food articles that can not be produced in the country itself.

> An efficient partnership is needed between representatives of farmers, agriculture extension agents and researchers. In such a partnership, the farmer will set priorities of missing solution , the extension specialist will contribute out of his regional experience and these both together with the research system, will cooperate to find the adequate applied solutions, needed to improve the agricultural production.

>

> Thank you very much,

> Katzir

 

June 08/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Response to Foster

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Cc: "Foster"

Dear Foster, from the context being used in the background document and as it is usually used by most organizations "sustainable" here means

"sustained". However, True Sustainability means self-sustained. Sustained systems do not allow you to climb or to fall by choice, mobility, if it takes place, is based on allocative outcomes. True sustainability will required some to climb and some to fall to achieve optimal conditions. Your human reponsibility notion, while important it is only one side of the coin, and it may not work without acting together with "human rationality". Please, if you have time read my article "Rationality, Responsibility, and Sustainability: When Can Human Behaviour Have a Change to Be Sustainable?, it is in SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW Issue # 20, seccion 3 by Lucio Munoz or you

can find the link in the Sustainability section of the first website below. It may be of interest to you and others as the idea of the need for a responsible rational man is suggested.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz/Independent Researcher

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.h

tml

----- Original Message ----- > Message 3. Background Materials, Comments by Foster

> To: RAFS2000

> Subject: Re: Questions - Week 1

>

> A. Food Security at the Household and National Levels: National food

> security must assure sufficient production of food to meet a growing

> population in a sustainable manner...

>

> Dear RAFS2000,

> I have a question or two and some thoughts about the history of the human element. When one refers to "sustainable (anything)", (Does that mean, "equal to something level of quality that we presently have, relate to, or can remember" such as in America or France? If it doesn't, then well someone please explain what, where, when, who is it referring to? Perhaps, how far do "we" climb or fall to get there, perhaps, to find this illusive "sustainable"? Quality Time Resources and Sustainable Quality of Life I believe the Quality of Life does determine the future, and how much of it we well have. There is a lot more time behind us, than appears to be in front of us. This is determined by, if by no other reasons than, the quantity

and quality of clean water and clean air.

June 08/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Reply to Katzir

> > From: Lucio Munoz [mailto:munoz1@sprint.ca]

> > Sent: 08 June 2000 19:46

> > To: RAFS2000

> > Cc: Katzir

> > Subject: Re: Reply to Katzir

> >

> > Dear Friends,

> > Mr. Katzir makes some very interesting comments about the

> > need for regionally (locally) appropriate or fit technologies and the need for effective partnerships between farmers, extension staff, and researchers. However, there seems not to be much evidence that food security can be achieved through export led development or that partnerships where one participant sets the priorities are optimal partnerships.

Specially, when we produce food for exports, and get money for non-food imports and we have a local food deficit. On the other hand, for an efficient partnership to ensure food security to be developed, all partners must be convinced that they have to follow the best interest of food security, but this may put the profit incentives of farmers with food security needs in a conflict position. On the other hand, such a partnership is a production side partnership delinked from partners from the demand side, which creates the possibility that even if the supply side partnership works well it will

> not reflect the concerns of the demand side, local and global. We know that unsystematic approaches should not be expected to lead to sustainability situations.

> >

> > Greetings;

> > Lucio Munoz

> > http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

> >

>

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

 

June 09/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Extending my reply to Foster, what ever his name.

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Dear Mr. Seth or Foster, I took the time to answer your query about

sustained/sustainable/sustainability and besides indicating you my thoughts about what other think about those terms and what I think about them too, I try to suggest some arternative thoughts, "alternative", not binding thoughts. I tried to respond to your private communication privately as it is easy to figure out that you have already made up your mind that over-population is the problem that created today's environmental situation and that there is not need for more discussion, and we are wasting time in this conference according to the views in your correspondense.

Can you please provide me your views on the following: a) do you really believe that todays environmental problem has been caused by

over-population?, if yes, why do you believe so?; b) rats over populate when there is abundant of food and not predators or natural illness of any kind, do you think that there is over population because there is too many food around and no human predators or human illnesses to control it?; c) what has been the role of over-industrialization (reaching the limits)then, as you do not seem to have a problem with it?; and d) if you know what the development problem is, so what is you solution to this problem, the same solution that could be applied to Rats?. I would like to hear your views whether through

the conference or privately as they are relevant from my sustainability

point of view, I will do my best to reply to your views.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz/Independent Researcher

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

June 09/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE/Communication: A recipe for hope?

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: " Ridings "

Dear Mr. Ridings, we have in common our desired to create the basis for

better social conditions all over the world, but have different views on how this can be done. And think that you as me also believe that people, who before were not either willing to listen, are at least putting attention now. Your view of "poverty busting" falls within two of the basic sustainability set under which the proposal I made in thw e-discussion of creating the WORLD POVERTY FUND, and I am working right now on writing formally this proposal. I would be happy to get your feedback on it when ready so I can some how incorporate your views to improve it. To me as long as there is a change for the better it does not matter who is the driver.

I will provide you three comments on your postings as food for thoughts: a) you may have to extend your poverty busting set a little more to at least HEETHNi, where Ni = Basic(s) environmental busters, otherwise it would not be sustainable. Please, visit my website at

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz and look at the theory there; b) local control under the "responsibility principle" can be as bad as global control under the "rationality principle", we need to create a responsible rational man to achieve local-global consistency. Please, read my article called "Rationality, Responsibility, and Sustainabililty: When Can Human Behaviour Have A Chance To Be Sustainable? in Sustainability Review Issue 20 section

3 you can find the link at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/sustain1.htm; and c) the "one hectare one vote" model could work for the benefits of rural communitities as you desired under the past paradigmed based only on

economic goals as it could drive local economic development, but under

today's eco-economic model, your one "hectare one vote" could very soon give the environmental sector a golden change to dominate your views as you could easily then "buy the model" openly with money as the land would be in the hands of environmental stakeholders, then environmenal development would seek a maximization position leading to a process of reversion of non-forest areas to forest uses. All this happenning under current unequal conditions in income and land tenure. Please, read my article called "An Overview of Some of the Policy Implications of the Eco-Economic Development Market and Their Policy Implications", it may have some views relevant to your position. It is in January/2000 MBC/International Journal in Environmental Management and Health.

Greetings, and let's keep in touch

Sincerely;

Lucio

----- Original Message ----- > ----- Original Message -----

> From: Ridings

> To: <globalization@lists.worldbank.org>

> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 5:24 PM

> Subject: Re: [globalization] A Recipe for Hope?

>

> > Greetings to ever-patient Moderators and enthusiastic Participants

> > At last, I now make my own submission to this conference, endeavouring to do justice to the hundreds of contributions that I have read and hopefully digested.

> > I have not contributed to this open discussion before. This is my one off.

> > I have read what is on-line where I can, and have listened the best I can to where each contributor is coming from, and thinking of that

contributor's people.

> > As a result, I have conversed with a number of contributors from

different continents including several from the World Bank.

> > Many I have sympathised with. Several I have debated with.

> > I have run out of time to do everyone justice. My apologies if this

> appears too succinct.

> > WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ME

> > I have grieved for the misery in Africa, and the discrimination -

sexual, racial, financial, educational, and other - that is experienced across the world.

> > I have grappled with the ways of struggle with the global economic

> momentum of the transnational market forces.

> > I have felt the frustration of those locked into impossible political systems with less than competent political leadership.

> > I found myself continuously praying for this conference and for its

> > contributors.

> > I was particularly moved by those who had the courage to cross religious divides to call for peoples to pray and work together and to respect one another.

> > THE STARTING POINT - SPIRIT

> > This for me appears to be the starting point of recovering this planet from this disease called greed.

> > We have to change ourselves first in this momentum to change the present direction.

> > THE NEXT STEP - GLOCALISATION

> > I found encouragement in the promotion of "glocalisation" - thinking global,acting local.

> > There is at the same time a simultaneous need on the one hand to

> strengthen international law to ensure accountability from the powerful, something bigger than the sovereignty of nations with all its strengths and weaknesses.

> > On the other hand, the basis of all civilised society, even before

> humanity emerged, is the extended family expressed today by the rural village -the ultimate victim of the present practice of globalisation in every way.

> > To this village must be returned some basic control in the 5

> > poverty-busters, I have called the HEETH principle - Health, Education, Employment, Transport, and Housing.

> > For each to be addressed, all 5 must be addressed simultaneously to

break the poverty cycle. You probably know all this already.

> > The most local level of government must be included in decision making likely to affect any of these 5 areas.

> > Included in this is their inherent right to have some control over their credit arrangements to fund local small businesses to serve their

> community. Otherwise, the nation will be swallowed up into amorphous cities with the rural areas denuded. This has occurred even in my beloved Australia.

> > I am prepared to advocate for the sake of our planet Earth, a movement of the vote from "one person, one vote" to "one hectare, one vote" to protect the land which indigenous people remind us is our Mother, sometimes long-lost. This is the only way to brake the surge down from rural to city.

> > I promote the "barefoot" implementation of poverty-busting. Barefoot doctors, barefoot teachers &c in arrangements locally agreeable and workable without interference from outside economic forces.

> > Even in poverty, the people can still grow if given that first glimmer of that necessary ingredient called HOPE.

> > Where governments fail to subsidise the Education of its poor, then I commend the Frank Laubach method of "Each one, teach one". The basis of education is to teach the other to learn. Then there is no holding back despite setbacks.

> > You may have your own workable variations on this theme!

> > ANOTHER STEP - REGIONAL CO-OPERATION

> > With globalisation and transnational corporations increasing their

> > influence, it seems to me that national sovereignty has become disabled.

> > Western Europe entered first into a common market and recently into a united currency. I'm not debating the merits or disadvantages of such union except to say that under the increased power of market forces, this becomes a necessity.

> > I am pleased to hear that some South American nations have entered into something like this and also several regions within Africa. It is

working well for some regions.

> > Other "regions" have long-standing problems between neighbours. These problems have to be addressed long-term. Desmond Tutu's recipe for Reconciliation and Forgiveness in his "No Future without Forgiveness"(the title speaks for itself) is spiritual but again is an essential starting point if these people are to have a hopeful future.

> > One can hope for progress or nurse the hate. The two are mutually

> exclusive.

> > INTERNATIONAL LAW & JUSTICE

> > Somehow, the World Bank has to be seen to be working within the

framework of International Law.

> > The International Court of Justice (ICJ) centred in The Hague will have to become a more mobile Court represented in every region so that even the local village can have access to it.

> > International Law needs to include what is known in the USA as

> "anti-Trust" legislation so that no corporation ever has the power to evade its enforcement.

> > The Court will need to have the power to completely terminate

> transnational corporations for offences, environmental, labour, or any other against the nation's populace in accordance with the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

> > One can have a free market or a free people, but not both, for one

serves the other. The market is an excellent servant but a bad master. You know that.

> > Rather than the nation returning to have the political power to

> nationalise a corporation like the "socialist" (or rather state capitalist) powers have had, I propose that the ICJ be empowered to break up such a corporation, to confiscate its resources and to either nationalise it to compensate affected countries, or to auction "the pieces" off separately.

> > FINALLY

> > I trust this will also stimulate each of you to own a recipe that will work for you and your people where you are so that we can belong to one another.

> > Either we will have One World, or none!

> > My prayers go with you!

> >

> > Shalom, Salaam, Grace, Peace, Good Will &c

> > Ridings

June 09/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Comments by Doelle

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>

While I agree with Doelle that two of the main to problems farmers are

facing(supply side of food security) are declining fertilicy(increasing

degradation) and income security of farmers(unsustainable demand)facing

agricultural systems), and these are common factor in developing countries in my view. Seen closedly this is a market failure induced by consumers not having the ability to pay. If consumers had the ability to pay and under "middle man dominated markets", then farmers could have the ability to sell, and redirect some income to addressing declining fertility(there is a reason for longterm reinvestments). However, under this model consumers would have an indirect link to pressure farmers for more environmentally and socially friendly practices, but a direct link to pressure middle men. Action in

developed countries usually focus on middle mens. If consumers had the

ability to pay and under a"middle man free market", then consumer would pay less and farmers would get more income for the same quantity, and perhaps farmers could invest more in addressing declining productivity(more reasons to long-term investments). Under this model, consumers could have a direct link to affect farmer's production choices, including the need to address declining fertility. Either of these two models can be seen from a closed system view or an open system view.

Under a closed system, if the ability to buy is there, the ability to sell would be there as well as the interacting pressures to ensure food

sustainability. Under an open system, the "leaking effect" takes hold, and if let alone(free trade), this will erode the ability to buy and the ability to sell that existed in the closed system unless free trade is subjected to local food security first. And this bring us to a direct conflict between local food security and global food security that is right now in the making and that we may feel sooner than expected. Hence, the two farmer's problems above are directly linked to and exacerbated by an unsustainable demand(lack of earned or given income), and this provides a clear point of entry for short-term action, specially at the international level. These are my views

and your views are very welcome.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: <RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 1:14 AM

Subject: Key Issues - Week 1, Comments by Doelle

> From: doelle

> Sent: 09 June 2000 00:42

> To: RAFS2000

> Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 1, Response by MPhuru

>

> I have read all of the previous concerns with food security

> etc and marginal areas.

> I am of the opinion that we are missing the key issue for

> food sustainability and security and that, in my opinion is:

> a) increasing infertility of land

> b) income security of farmers.

> I do not believe that without these issues we will achieve

> better food supply and security to people.

>

Doelle

 

June 09/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Munoz comments on Katzir

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Katzir"

"RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Dear Katzir, I do agree that farmers should maximize the income from their activities, but can that only be done in the export market?, specially volatile export markets. At least in theory, local food security could be achieved under controlled leakages if the income necessary to bring farmers and consumers in the local market together exist. Research should be focused on how this could be done and how this can be tested. If the conditions mentioned above exist, then we could use the export model to support the local model and we could be able to have optimal local partnerships of consumers, farmers, and researchers. It looks to me that through time, sustainability forces will bring us closer to a system where the basic sustainability of local demand will be addressed to provide the basic income to farmers.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz/Independent Researcher

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Katzir

To: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Cc: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 5:23 AM

Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 1, Munoz comment on Katzir

 

> Dear Dr. Munoz and friends,

>

> Dr. Munoz is doubting two points which I pointed out:

> 1. The trend of agricultural production directed for export and food

Extension, sets the priority.

>

> Please allow me to evaluate on these two points.

>

> As Dr. Munoz, I am familiar with the agrarian situation in the Developing Countries ( I spent in the late sixties and early seventies, two years in his mother land : El Salvador and since then, I am a permanent traveler in the Latin America continent, as well as Africa and Asia), and also in the industrial countries ( I was born, raised and educated in Israel and very much familiar with the European and American situation).

>

> According to my perception , the main aim for a farmer( =farming sector), is to produce , to sale and gain as much as he can out of his work, in order to increase his purchase power and by that his( and his family), level of living.

> Excluding time of security conflict ( we both in El Salvador and Israel are familiar with), in the open world of today, local market and not less foreign markets , are the targets for the sale of his products. If the farmer can compete on the European and American markets, his income return will be greater.

>

> In the world of today , Food Security , does not mean that we have to produce all food that the nation need. We have to produce for maximum gaining , which means, using the advantageous crops in the different regions, regarding the potential markets. What the nation is missing as food components , we can import . This principle has to become a government policy.

>

> I do not believe in food shortage. The potential of production is still very far from limitations. Poor people in the rural and urban sectors, can not afford enough food, since their purchase power is low.

>

> To the second point. I believe that the farmer (=his representatives), on a regional and national levels, knows the best, what he needs and missing, to maximize, under sustainability principles, the agricultural production.

> Agricultural extension and research systems, must support the target of generating efficient and rapid answers to the farmer needs. Agricultural research, in many cases, might set priorities from a more personnel and institutional approach. That's the reason while I pointed out , that in the above mentioned partnership, the farmer is the more important.

>

> Wishing all he best and a fruitfull and enjoyable weekend.

>

> Raanan

 

June 11/2000/Communication: Data on Coffee Agriculture

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Danny "

Dear Danny, I do not have information about coffee agriculture separately in my study, but it could easily be added or linked to the information I have provided. Once I finished uploading all the information and revalidated the information, I will add information about coffee agriculture. Any key commodity of the moment makes it an interesting sustainability tool, and coffee agriculture is one of them. While I expect coffee agriculture to have increased pressures on deforestaion, I expect it role now as compaired as when it was introduced to be decreasing while coffee agriculture should

be expected to have had through time a positive impact on non-natural

forested areas. It will be interesting to find out what exactly has

happened, and I will find out soon. I am working on some proposals (which I called Preservation Plus) that may attempt to provide a link to preservation issues and poverty that may increased the sustainability of remaining forested areas and social goals, which to me are not been met today, and soon the situation may backfired if we do not capture the long term social opportunity costs locally. As you may know, I am an independent researcher and the views and ideas share in my website as my humble contribution to sustainability efforts. Please, visit my TRUE SUSTAINABILITY PAGE at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz and send me you comments.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Danny

To: <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 10:06 AM

Subject: Deforestation Study

> Dear Lucio-

> In looking over your information on the Planeta forum I am curious if deforestation studies on the effect of sun-tolerant coffee agricultural was one of your measurables. To what extent does coffee agriculture contribute in the overall percentage of deforestation? Do you believe it is of major concern? I am director of a non-profit, The Songbird Foundation, working with neo-tropical songbird issues, and issues of sustainability (www.songbird.org) particularly relating to coffee production in Latin America. Coffee as a commodity makes a great tool to speak to issues of sustainability. Obviously, cattle would as well. Our own glaring example of deforestation and destruction of habitat to create farm and grazing lands makes Meso America pale by comparison, but their's is, of course, a smaller land base and more critical.

>

> All the best,

>

June 12/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Munoz's comment on Aphane's comment on Marcoux

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Dear Juliet and Friends in RAFS2000, your reply still leaves Marcoux

question unanswered, who is the food insecured we are talking about: the poor or the poorest; or the rich or the richest; or developing countries or developed countries; or all of them.

Marcoux is right in that the policies that would fit the bill to solve the problems of the poor or poorest food insecure may be totally different than those needed to satisfy the needs of other types of households and/or the needs of farmers(producers).

To me defining the type of household we are talking about simplifies not just the discussion, but the efficient research options we are trying to nail down. So Please if possible, clarify the type of household you call "the food insecured".

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: <RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 1:39 AM

Subject: Key Issues - Week 1, Aphane comment on Marcoux

> From: Aphane,

> Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 5:16 PM

> To: RAFS2000

> Subject: RE: Key Issues - Week 1, Response by Marcoux

>

> My comment on Marcoux's response:

>

> Marcoux poses pertinent questions:

> [a] who the food-insecure are (certain types of households?

> certain social categories? the people of certain localities?);

>

> [b] what kind of food insecurity they suffer from

> (inadequacy of own-production? quantitative or qualitative? inadequacy of income? inadequacy of food distribution? etc.).

>

> Because of unlimited resources, we need to prioritize and

> target our efforts to the food insecure, otherwise the WFS goal of

reducing the number of food insecure people by half by 2015 will remain elusive. Often, projects do not benefit the real needy.

>

> Further, I wish to point out that FAO's Economic and Social

> Department is doing something in this regard through the FIVIMS (Food

> Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping Systems) initiative.

>

> Juliet Aphane

June 12/2000/RESECON/Carbon sequestration as "joint production", perhaps no

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: "Frank "

<RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

Dear Friends, I will venture my thoughts here as requested by Frank, if I am wrong please excuse me. First, carbon sequestration became a market good after the Kyoto protocol was passed with the characteristics of both public and private goods depending on the land ownership type where the wood is found. It is one side of the carbon market, which is thought as of having two components: Fixing services and non-emission services. However, as of now this is a partial market with fixed demands(developed countries) and fixed suppliers(developing countries). I have written an article about this and the Meso-American Biological Corridor(MBC), which is currently under review for publication, but I could share it with the list as a discussion

paper if there is interest. Second, to me carbon sequestration and would production can not be a joint function because one is a function of the other depending on the direction of the process. Wood is a function of CO2 when sequestration takes place, but CO2 is a function of wood when would is burned. Wool and mutton is a funtion of the size of each of the sheep as it grows to maturity, but sheep is not a function of wool and mutton. Wool and mutton are two components of the same sheep, but we can not say that CO2 and wood are two separate components of a tree or of each other. Finally, I would like to bring to your attention that today the same tree can have different values to different stakeholders, and the stakeholder who values more the tree will gain ownership. For example, a full grown tree can have

a non-emission value and the traditional economic(wood) value, if the

non-emission value is higher it should prevail; and this fact has a high potential for reverting traditionally dominant patterns of land use, specially in developing countries.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Frank

To: <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 8:00 PM

Subject: Carbon sequestration as "joint production"

> Reseconers:>

> A classical example of "joint production" is mutton and wool. Has there been any work done along the line of treating carbon sequestration as a joint product along with wood, crops, or soil? Carbon sequestration/wood(for example) differs from mutton/wool in at least two significant ways.

> First, "carbon sequestration" is not a market good; in fact, it appears to be an excellent example of a pure public good. Second, while mutton and wool are found on different parts of the sheep, wood is made from carbon(among other elements).

>

> Any references to work done along these lines (books, articles, URLs) will be appreciated. Also, if this question tickles your imagination, I would like to learn your thoughts.

>

> Thanks,

 

June 14/2000/RESECON: Carbon sequestration markets

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: "Jim "

Dear Jim and friends, in my view since 1987 when the Bruntland Commission recognized the need to include environmental concerns, we were brought into what I call the ECO-ECONOMIC MARKET in which it can be shown that you can find two invisible hands at work, and the relative strengh of each hand would dominate under perfect competition, but handshake markets are also now possible under this view. I am pretty sure all of you would find interesting the idea that there can be more than one or more than two hands within the same market, which no longer is a pure economic market. If you can find my paper called "An Overview of Some of the Policy Implications of the Eco-Economic Development Market" published by MCB/International Journal in Environmental Managament and Health, January/2000, it may be of interest as it is related to some of the questions you post. The other paper called " Unprotected Areas, Protected Areas, and Sustainability Under Green Development Policies: Which Are the Expected Impacts?" is being reviewed in Local Environment and the paper called "The Meso-American Biological Corridor and Regional Sustainability: An Overview of Potential Problems and Their Policy Implications" is being reviewed by THEOMAI/Argentina. These articles are also related some how the the questions you posed. My view is that our theories can and must adjust to reflect environmental and social concerns, but first we have to challenge our imagination and that is what I have attempted to do with those articles. Once before the kyoto protocol was passed, I shared some of these ideas in ELAN, and they were rejected because they considered these views esoteric. After the kyoto protocol was

passed, there were no comments on the posting previously made as they appear to start making sense. Let's be flexible and explore the possibilities. I think that you may agree with me that one of the reasons that developed countries, including Canada have not move faster in this area of carbon sequestration is because most of us are still thinking in the same all ways.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim

To: <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:02 PM

Subject: Carbon sequestration markets

> Nathsha or anyone,

> Tell us more! Who buys the offsets? Another business in

> Australia? A Kyoto signatory country seeking compliance with the Kyoto protocol? A business within a signatory country? Who establishes the quantity being sequestered relative to the base year? What if things change (weather, forest condition, fire, etc.)?

> This is intriguing. It sounds as if people of action/common sense

> have forged ahead, undeterred by measurement and incentive problems that economists say will prevent such markets from working.

Jim

June 14/2000/RESECON/Cabon sequestration markets

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

----- Original Message -----

From: Lucio Munoz <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: Jim>

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 12:50 AM

Subject: Re: Carbon sequestration markets

> Dear Jim and friends, in my view since 1987 when the Bruntland Commission recognized the need to include environmental concerns, we were brought into what I call the ECO-ECONOMIC MARKET in which it can be shown that you can find two invisible hands at work, and the relative strengh of each hand would dominate under perfect competition, but handshake markets are also now possible under this view. I am pretty sure all of you would find interesting the idea that there can be more than one or more than two hands within the same market, which no longer is a pure economic market. If you can find my paper called "An Overview of Some of the Policy Implications of the Eco-Economic Development Market" published by MCB/International Journal

> in Environmental Managament and Health, January/2000, it may be of

interest as it is related to some of the questions you post. The other paper called " Unprotected Areas, Protected Areas, and Sustainability Under Green Development Policies: Which Are the Expected Impacts?" is being reviewed in Local Environment and the paper called "The Meso-American Biological Corridor and Regional Sustainability: An Overview of Potential Problems and Their Policy Implications" is being reviewed by THEOMAI/Argentina. These articles are also related some how the the questions you posed. My view is that our theories can and must adjust to reflect environmental and social concerns, but first we have to challenge our imagination and that is what I have attempted to do with those articles. Once before the kyoto protocol was passed, I shared some of these ideas in ELAN, and they were rejected because they considered these views esoteric. After the kyoto protocol

was passed, there were no comments on the posting previously made as they appear to start making sense. Let's be flexible and explore the possibilities. I think that you may agree with me that one of the reasons that developed countries, including Canada have not move faster in this area of carbon sequestration is because most of us are still thinking in the same old ways.

> Greetings;

> Lucio

> http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

June 14/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Questions-week 2

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Dear Friends, here are my comments about this section, and please your

comments are welcome, including the moderators who I believe could help to focus the discussion by participating actively too.

a) ON BIOTECHNOLOGY

For biotechtonology to realy benefits those who you said you are

targeting, the food insecure poor, three requirements have to be met: a) it should reflect local conditions; b) it must be controlled locally, and c) it must be accessible to all. It would be easy to show that as of today, biotechnology innitiatives are not targeted to addressing local specifity; they are controlled by external forces; and they will be accessible to either those who can afford it or those who are lucky to have land, which is a very minority. Unless those three conditions are addressed by NARS we may be aiming at the wrong target, specially that globalization forces should be expected to try to walk away from those three requirements at all levels.

> QUESTION 5. What should be the guiding principles for NARS research

> strategies to capitalise on biotechnology's contribution to food security while taking into account socio-economic, cultural, and environmental concerns at:

>

 

b) ON COMMUNICATION BY THE NET

Yes, I agree that this can be a good asset to save human and non-human resources used in research and development, but what people needs in the ground is not just raw information, quantitative or

qualitative, but meaningful information back with ways to show how it was generated so the techniques can be copied and replicated according to local conditions. This way we are going to promote the use of existing and new information to the maximun so that the value of existing data bases can be justified. In my personal webpage in DEFORESTATION IN CENTRAL AMERICA below under my name I am providing not just the information about deforestation that can be gathered from local and non-local sources, but also the theoretical and impirical bases on how it was done and on how it could be done. I hope that this will have a spill over effect in the long term, but similar projects should be promoted. Having information available and the basic knowledge to extract meaninful information from it is to me what is

needed on the ground. Can the NARS do something similar?

c) II. EXTERNAL ISSUES AND TRENDS -

NARS should make local research the priority(basic local sustainability needs) in the short-term to set up the structural bases so that in the medium and long-term it can be made consistent with external pressures and trends(basic global sustainability needs): we need a sustainability plan for this. Once a consistent set of basic local/global sustainability needs are addressed, then the set can be expanded toward full sustainability. The structure of the NARS seems to be a good starting point for such a vision.

As I said your comments are welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

June 14/2000/World Bank CDF CONFERENCE: CDF principles and sustainability

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Friends, I wish I had had the opportunity to participate in the process that led to the selection of the core principles of the Comprehensive Development Framework so I could have helped in checking its sustainability structure and save some time. I am an independent researcher interested in development issues from the sustainability angle.

My comments are the following:

With all my respect, a holistic vision starts from now and moves

Conjucturally into the future(medium term, ...long-term). A long-term holistic vision starting in the long-term may never materialize. No wonder there is no direct mentioning of income, "earned or given", as direct poverty reduction tools. Also the holisticvision appears to

include only economic and social values, where are the environmental

concerns in such a vision. With respect to the ownership of the development agenda I agree that there needs to be country ownership to reflect truely local values, however, local ownership means lack of implementing resources, technical and insitutional. With respect to partnerships, external partners must be willing to share external and internal responsibilities, where external responsibilities means avoid the trash and keep syndrom(leaving at home polluting development approaches) and internal responsibilities means share in the

local cost of implementation. Result orientation based on future

expectations may be a dangerours approach as it is not subjected to short-term sustainability checks, but the time you realize in the long-run that you were wrong you can not turn back the time. Hence, a proactive approach based on short-term results must be prefered to avoid facing explosive systems adjustments with little room to

call the precautionary principles into action.

In my view, the comprenhensive development framework to be effective and then be able to allow the bank the opportunity

to fulfill its main duty of poverty erradication has to start with a

short-term holistic vision supported by a short-to medium term

sustainability checks which can allow the determination of options to adjust the countries consensus building process and to sort out reliable and unrelieable partners to guarantee the continuity of the poverty reduction goals into the long-term future.

It seems to me that the situation that Francisco Molina described in El Salvador took place because the long-term vision was planned without taking into account the short-terms needs that need to be met to ensure efficient implementation, clear responsibilities,

and short-term to medium term sustainability checks, and the presence of responsible partners.

If we follow by the book the four principles proposed by the moderators, my humble opinion is that we are transfering the resolution of today's problems to future generations and the bank is postponing its duties of poverty reduction today, and in the medium term into an unknown future.

Your comments are not very welcome.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: <cdf@worldbank.org>

To: CDF E-Consultation <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 5:00 PM

Subject: [cdf] Question for Week One

 

>

> The CDF Principles

>

> LONG-TERM HOLISTIC VISION

> * Country strategy needs to focus on a long-term vision

> * Poverty reduction requires institutional change, capacity building

> and strengthening governance and accountability --long term processes.

> * Macro/financial/structural and social issues need to be addressed

> simultaneously in a balanced way.

>

> COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

> * Country owning and directing the development agenda, supported by

> all the other players.

> * Broad-based consensus on country strategy through wide government

> ownership and government led national consultations with civil society, private sector and external partners.

>

> PARTNERSHIPS

> * Strong partnerships between Government and donors can help reduce

> wasteful competition; align external partners support to the country

> strategy; promote selectivity, transparency and learning.

>

> RESULTS ORIENTED

> * Medium and long term poverty reduction goals with indicators of

> progress are needed to ensure policies are well-designed, effectively

> implemented and carefully monitored.

> * Objectives for poverty reduction should take as a reference point,

> the international development goals.

June 15/2000/RESECON/Carbon sequestration is long gone DEAD/you may be wrong

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: "Bob "

Dear Bob, you are talking about two different issues that should be

addressed conjuncturally to make a dent on new and past emissions of CO2. Regulating new emissions is the "wall of china" in developed countries to move ahead in the short term as it would bleed traditional economic models dearly for some time, and perhaps a long-time. Carbon sequestration seems to be preferred in developed countries because that allows them the option of buying forest in developing countries to keep the right to continue polluting through compensating market transactions. Theory suggest that as long as the marginal benefit to emit CO2 for developed countries is higher than the marginal cost of carbon sequestration in developing countries, there will be incentives to continue polluting as long as there are forest available to buy, and this provides the opportunity for creating a fully forested development model as forest uses whould yield a higher rent than non-forest uses to owners with minimal technological needs(environmental value economic value). While this may be good for biodiversity and global warming and for the minority who owns forested and non-forested lands, it may not be good for food production and social equality.

If you focus your attention only on the new emission side, how are you going to deal with the issues of forest protection and conservation in developing countries binding the health of the earth?, if we reverse the set of benefits and costs mentioned above you may be able to induce what you want, minimum or no new emissions, but you have to find somewhere else the money(or additional money) to buy emission and non-emission services to help cope with the OLD CO2 in both developed and developing countries. If in fact CO2 is as important to global warming as it is portrayed, would not eleminating new emmissions of C02 and minimizing past emissions of CO2 be the best? How do you explain the fact that sequestration markets are serioursly going ahead in developing countries if the sequestration option is dead?. Are we getting developing countries into deals we know are dead

venues?. As the economics of this clarifies more in the days to come, I

think this sequestration option may gain more momentus as a short-term start for a long-term strategy that will sooner or later involved minimizing or eliminating new emissions. This is my opinion.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: Bob

To: <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 6:37 AM

Subject: Re: Carbon sequestration is long gone DEAD

> A couple of additional points:

> Carbon sequestration in forests is a question of relative turnover time. Forests reach equilibrium in carbon flow a lot quicker than the turnover time in the atmosphere. So, CO2 from fossil fuel emissions will still be around long after net sequestration in forests has stopped. For this reason, sequestration in standing biomass is of minute impact and then only if total forest area is increased dramatically. Finally, to have any real effect, carbon must be taken out of circulation for much longer periods of time. Increasing soil carbon does this to some degree, but comes no where near matching the sequestration process that created the fossil fuels in the first place.

> We'd do better to put more resources into (1) finding ways to reduce the rate at which fossil fuel carbon gets into the atmosphere, by, eg.,

increasing fuel efficiencies and finding alternative (non-fossil) energy sources, and (2) preparing for inevitable impacts of climate change. A lot of what is going on now seems to be closing the barn door after the horse has already fled.

>

> R.Macgregor

>

> >>> Folke Bohlin <folke.bohlin@SH.SLU.SE> 06/13/00 04:51am >>>

> The one thing which keeps sequestration on the agenda is politics and poor advisors. If one is not at all aware of its infeasability, it may just seem the easiest way out, just to pay to have the carbon "sequestered". The only way to get rid of carbon sequestration from the agenda is for researchers to say no thanks to such research grants. Difficult but necessary.

>

> Carbon sequestration in biomass (CSB) is a dead issue for three major

reasons > and umpteen lesser ones.

> 1) Carbon sequestered in biomass will always be let loose eventually. To start building "CO2 bombs" might just possibly be considered a desparate measure when all other avenues are closed, not now while we still have time to do more effective things like getting rid of the C altogether.

> 2) CSB is exceedingly expensive, the opportunity cost of not harvesting at the appropriate time is very costly, cf compensation paid for different nature reserves. Nevertheless one can always find tons of cases when this opportunity cost IS LESS OBVIOUS, eg on low producing "waste lands" in the tropics, or, in the forests left uncut in the North. Still you will always find that those waste lands are being used by many for grazing opr other purposes, and as soon as the timber price goes up you'll have those forests being cut down.

> 3) Mutton and wool. Yes that is co-production of different

goods/benefits, but wood is a single good no matter how you turn. You can thin some, grow it a bit denser, lengthen rotation times, but basically sequestration means trying to save the cake while at the same time you also want to eat it, and that is an equation which does not really hold as we've all been told I suppose.

>

> Sequestration is furthermore a totally inadequate measure. Even with the millions and millions of hectares which have some scenario makers have sometimes wanted to turn into CSB areas they don't get close to doing anything to halt or change direction in the way carbon is going. Perhaps a little, TEMPORARY, slowing down, that's all. At least 85 % of C comes from fossil fuel use, and the only way to change things is to get away from fossil fuels.

> Frank wrote:

>

> > Reseconers:

> >

> > A classical example of "joint production" is mutton and wool. Has there been any work done along the line of treating carbon sequestration as a joint product along with wood, crops, or soil? Carbon sequestration/wood(for example) differs from mutton/wool in at least two significant ways.

> > First, "carbon sequestration" is not a market good; in fact, it appears to be an excellent example of a pure public good. Second, while mutton and wool are found on different parts of the sheep, wood is made from carbon(among other elements).

> >

> > Any references to work done along these lines (books, articles, URLs) will be appreciated. Also, if this question tickles your imagination, I would like to learn your thoughts.

> >

> > Thanks,

 

June 15/2000/Communication on CDF conference: Did you received my message

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <jngundam>

Dear John, greetings. Can you please let me know if you received the

message below throught the CDF Discussion?.

I am not sure if it was posting or just came back without posting. I will appreciate your reply.

Sincerely;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: <bounce-cdf-21381@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2000 2:00 PM

> for <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>; Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02: 4:18 -0400 (EDT)

> Message-ID:

<LYR21381-3322-2000.06.15-17.00.24--munoz1#sprint.ca@lists.worldbank.org>

> From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

> To: "CDF E-Consultation" <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-cdf-21381U@lists.worldbank.org>

> Subject: [cdf]

> Reply-To: cdf@lists.worldbank.org

> Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 17:00:24 -0400

> Precedence: bulk

>

> Dear Friends, I wish I had had the opportunity to participate in the

process that led to the selection of the core principles of the

Comprehensive Development Framework so I could have helped in checking its sustainability structure and save some time. I am an independent researcher interested in development issues from the sustainability angle.

> My comments are the following:

> With all my respect, a holistic vision starts from now and moves

> conjucturally into the future(medium term, ...long-term). A long-term

holistic vision starting in the long-term may never materialize. No wonder there is no direct mentioning of income, "earned or given", as direct poverty reduction tools. Also the holistic vision appears to

> include only economic and social values, where are the environmental

> concerns in such a vision. With respect to the ownership of the

development agenda I agree that there needs to be country ownership to

reflect truely local values, however, local ownership means lack of

implementing resources, technical and insitutional. With respect to

partnerships, external partners must be willing to share external and

internal responsibilities, where external responsibilities means avoid the trash and keep syndrom(leaving at home polluting development approaches) and internal responsibilities means share in the local cost of implementation.

Result orientation based on future expectations may be a

> dangerours approach as it is not subjected to short-term sustainability checks, but the time you realize in the long-run that you were wrong you can not turn back the time. Hence, a proactive approach based on short-term results must be prefered to avoid facing explosive systems adjustments with little room to call the precautionary principles into action.

>

> In my view, the comprenhensive development framework to be effective and then be able to allow the bank the opportunity to fulfill its main duty of poverty erradication has to start with a short-term holistic vision supported by a short-to medium term sustainability checks which can allow the determination of options to adjust the countries consensus building process and to sort out reliable and unrelieable partners to guarantee the continuity of the poverty reduction goals into the long-term future.

>

> It seems to me that the situation that Francisco Molina described in El Salvador took place because the long-term vision was planned without taking into account the short-terms needs that need to be met to ensure efficient implementation, clear responsibilities,and short-term to medium term sustainability checks, and the presence of responsible partners.

>

> If we follow by the book the four principles proposed by the

moderators, my humble opinion is that we are transfering the resolution of today's problems to future generations and the bank is postponing its duties of poverty reduction today, and in the medium term into an unknown future.

> Your comments are not very welcome.

>

> Sincerely;

> Lucio Munoz

> http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

>

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

 

June 16/2000/World Bank CDF CONFERENCE: CDF Principles

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "John"

Dear John, perhaps the confusion arose because they did not place my name in the sender and allocated a number instead which I do not understand why. Any way it was good to get in touch with you as we seem to have the ability to put together ideas that make them feel unconfortable as they do not seem to have either the theoretical nor the practical ability to fight back for the moment. Your perception of the bank preference for non-central planning approaches to poverty reduction, but yes to orderly social change is right according to me, but it bears that heart of the contradiction and delima for the bank: there can not be progress toward poverty reduction led by compartamentalized systems(unorganized society) without central ideas, and that is the reason of pushing these CDF principles, but compartamentalized principles are not good guiding principles, and may make things worse, and since they are based on a long-term strategy without short-term check and goals, the aswers will be in at a time we can not go back for readjustments.

If you look carefully at the content of my posting, it simply says that

based on sustainability theory, the set of principles is not sustainable, and they do not make up a sustainability plan. So my view and my experience with international organizations is that they continue to look for ways to go around sustainability, which is fine with me at last now they are listenning. As you may know, sustainability is not based on the traditional economic principle they posses, which makes them unconfortable I think, but little by little.

Can you reply to my posting to the list expressing your views on it and see if they post it properly?

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: John

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 2:19 AM

Subject: Re: CDF

> Dear Lucio,

>

> We both seem to have been in a hurry to react.

> Actually, your contibution was posted. It was hidden

> among several messages in my mail box and I coild not

> see it at the time I replied your querry.

>

> Shalom

> John

June 16/2000/Communication: Call for paper proposal

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Gedeon"

Dear Gedeon, thank you for contacting me and I am happy to see that you have come accross my work.

I first started contrasting traditional sustainable development with

sustainability theory since 1996, when the kyoto protocol was just a

proposal. I realized then that there was a mismached plus there was not , and there is no today a well accepted sustainability theory. I first attemptend to brings my sustainability ideas in the list ELAN, but they were taken as esoteric.

Once the kyoto protocol was passed in 1997 and my ideas gained relevance there were no comments. I realized that to be able to get my ideas out, I have to first come up with a formal sustainability theory proposal. As you may know, sustainability theory does not reflect fully traditional economic and ecological-economic theories, which are the two most important paradigms today filtering new ideas. So my aim became my lone goal to induced true sustainability thoughts in a long term effort so that when key ideas in my theories get accetped people can go back my path and see that we could been there a long-time ago, but change for the better is never late. I would happily put together for you the proposal that you think may have a better change of reaching this audience as hitting a target that you do not know

the first time around is a matter of luck to me or of good advising. All time my ideas have been out only positive comments have come to me,

which encourages me. Have you visited my site at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz ?. I have give access there to a few articles already published and to some articles that hold key ideas that I would like people to be familier with and if possible reply to me to test the possible reaction to the work available for review. Again positive comments are coming. I even gave access to an article where I proposed a version of sustainability theory and I show how it could be used to improved the practice of agenda 21 sustainable development indicators, it had good reviews recently but it was considered too long and it did not call much attention when first wrote. The reason I provided both detailed theory and detailed practical use in this original article was the unfamiliarity(expected skepticism) of editors and practitionners with the nature of these theories, and I wanted to get them both out at the same time. Now that other pieces of the puzzle have been published I may be able to break this articles into two componets: one theory, and one how it can be put into practice. Can you take a look at it in my website? it is in the SUSTAINABILITY section. As you will see in my site, I am trying to provide a variety, but consistent set of ideas.

I will do my best to put the best proposal possible at this time for you as this may give me the opportunity to get the rest out later on. Let me know what you find interesting within my work listed in my website under each main page and let's work out the best alternatives. Some of the work in the environment section related to carbon sequestration, green markets, and sustainability are calling attention too. I will talk to people here see what they think it the best here to maximize the chances of reaching your audience. I will be looking forward to hear from you.

Sincerely yours;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/index.html

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gedeon

To: 'Lucio Munoz' <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 8:15 AM

Subject: Call for paper proposals

> Dear Lucio,

>

> I enjoyed reading your thought-provoking articles. The International Journal of Economic Development is seeking proposals for papers for a symposium on Sustainable Development. This special issue is aimed at exploring the depth and breadth of research behind the concept of "Sustainable Development," striving to bring together as many theoretical and pragmatic viewpoints for the sake of building a strong sustainable development knowledge.

>

> Since the concept of sustainable development was brought to

> world-leaders' attention during the Rio Conference, the official debates have revealed little willingness on the part of the world's governments and multilateral agencies to seriously address the needed global transformative changes. Recalling that the order of priority implied in the second chapter of Agenda 21 was trade, development, and environment, to what extent did the international community provide a supportive international climate for promoting sustainable development? What level of collaboration exists among Northern and Southern scholars / practitioners on this critical concept?

How has sustainable development concept been received and applied in both developed and developing countries? What is the current thinking among First and Third World scholars and practitioners, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the world's least developed regions? To what extent will the call for transformational changes bring about global sustainable development? What is the current state of sustainable development field? Where do you see this field in the year 2020?

>

> This symposium attempts to address the above and other sustainable

> development's historical, theoretical, and pragmatic issues. Scholars and practitioners interested in approaching this concept from the mentioned perspectives are encouraged to submit their proposals (up to two pages).

> The proposal should contain the paper's title and abstract, and include the primary focus, theoretical or pragmatic.

>

> Submit your proposals by August 30, 2000, to Gedeon M. Mudacumura, a guest editor of this special issue, at the following address:

>

>

> I thought you might be interested in publishing one of your articles.

Would

> you help me spread the word to other sustainable development researchers?

>

> Thanks

>

> Gedeon

June 18/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Munoz's comment on comments on Primavesi by Doelle

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>,

Cc: "Doelle" <

" Primavesi" <

Dear Doelle, I also agree with the comments you made and the ones made by Odo on the need of locally fit education to support local farmers and practices. However, your posting highlits the key issue(which I have previously mentioned) of the dilemma faced by developing countries and the key entry point for help for developed countries to really aim at breaking the cycle of poverty and unsustainable practices:

a) no income(earned or given), no sustainable demand

b) no sustainable demand, not sustainable supply

c) and therefore, a tightly skewed market where poverty is rampant and the level of nutrition of food is irrelevant as just the act of having something to eat matters(how good tortilla and salt taste when there is nothing else to eat!).

Under the above conditions, there is an increased demand for using local knowledge to sustain the unsustainable market, but not a stable market for professionals holding locally fit skills as farmers can not afford it, and governments are usually not able to afford it with local resources even a "barebone" value.

Hence, the solution is simple if there is will from key players: search for ways to provide income(earned or given) to at least sustained a basic demand, which will provide the profits needed to sustained a basic supply for at least a medium term plan. Such a plan has the potential to sustained a targeted market of basic food security; to impact the poverty gap directly; to guaranteed basic food on the table with the nutritious level that can be afforded; to increased the

demand for local technologies to reduce production costs or keep them low; and to provide the income farmesr need to higher professional help to sustain higher demands that may come with sustained income and decreasing poverty gaps.

The problem I see is that the goal of poverty reduction belogns to the world bank and the problem of food security which is a funtion of poverty belongs to the NARS/FAO. Hence, it looks like the NARS can not solve the problem of UNSUSTAINABLE SUPPLY(FARMERS) until the world bank solves the problem of UNSUSTAINABLE DEMANDS(CONSUMERS).

We can not achieve a sustainability outcome using non-sustainability

frameworks, we need conjuctural frameworks.

My humble opinion is that the POVERTY ERRADICATION OR SIGNIFICAN REDUCTION NEEDED for the NARS to have a chance to fix the supply problems may never materialize unless we separate the two main goals of the world bank: poverty reduction and economic efficiency. I think

that the creation of a body such as THE WORLD POVERTY FUND could take care of poverty reduction alone, and the world bank can dedicate all its time to maximize economic efficiency subject to sustainability concerns. This way poverty reduction or elimination can lead to both: a sustainable supply and to a sustainable framework for economic efficiency where developing countries also have comparative

purchasing power and equal rights. Since the solution of the UNSUSTAINABLE DEMAND PROBLEM is the short term problem preventing SUSTAINABLE SUPPLIES, then addressing poverty seems to be a

short term priority.

However, the CDF framework being discussed ritht now by the world bank has " A LONG-TERM HOLISTIC GOAL" to development. Therefore, my humble

reccomendation to the NARS are to take the long-term goals of the world bank as given a plan for a more unstable future for farmer's profits and for the basic needs of the poorest.

My warm greetings to all;

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: <RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 2:40 AM

Subject: Key Issues - Week 2, Comment on Primavesi by Doelle

> From: doelle [SMTP:doelle@ozemail.com.au]

> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2000 11:27 AM

> To: RAFS2000

> Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 2, Response by Primavesi

>

> Dear Odo and everybody else,

>

> I was very happy to read the statements below. I wholeheartedly

> agree with all your answers. I have been involved in numerous UNESCO

> Training courses teaching the basics in microbial technology to

researchers and other infrastructure in developing countries. There is still an enormous > demand for such courses to spread the simple technology. However, even UNESCO, ICRO, UNDP and UNIDO and may be all the other international agencies unfortunately know only molecular and genetic engineering.

>

> I have said many times before, the environmental and health problems

> in developing countries need help, the soil improvement needs help. We do not need modern genetics and so-called improvements in developing

countries as yet. I wished FAO and other agencies would wake up to the fact that cleaning up the environment and reduce the enormously high mortality rate due to environmental pollution in these countries. This can be done without plant improvements etc.

>

> I fully agree with Odo that the plight for nutritious food is a joke

> and I wonder where in the world it is needed. Poverty has absolutely

nothing to do with nutritious food. It is there, but we have to make sure that the families have enough income to obtain the food. It has been demonstrated in some countries of SE Asia that socio-economic biotechnology in the form of bio-integrated systems is helping poor families in Bangladesh, Vietnam, Cambodia and has spread now also slowly to India.

>

> This system requires basic knowledge to be brought to the local

> communities in form of demonstrating the technologies. However, for these 'old technologies' , which have been proven a success and are increasingly showing success, we need training courses. We cannot set up a strategy in general, because a strategy in Europe does not work in Asia. We have to help first 'TO SAVE PEOPLE AND THE ENVIRONMENT BEFORE WE CAN SUSTAIN EITHER.

>

> We have the technology for that and should teach these technologies,

> but unfortunately these technologies are not fashionable and thus do not attract finance, not even from our international agencies.

>

> I have not given up hope, since I am very much encouraged by the

> work of my previous students and training course participants, who took our teaching to heart. Unfortunately we had to abandon these training efforts because of lack of finance, despite tremendous demands for these courses from all countries of the developing world.

>

Doelle

June 20/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Questions-Week 3

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>,

Dear Friends, all the questions asked are part of a single and

self-reinforcing system which can be broken down in four pieces for

effective analysis: participation, integration, interdisciplinary, and

monitoring. The framework is as follows:

a) effective participation requires effective process and effective tools. The process to be effective must reflect or be consistent with local values and needs; and the tools to be effective must reflect or be consistent to local resources and skills;

b) effective integration requires effective social integration and effective tool integration. Social integration to be effective must reflect inclusion and tolerance at all levels, individual, groups, local, national; and method integration to be effective must be able to produce research outputs where the generalities are consistent with the individualities or vis a verse;

c) effective interdisciplinary approaches must be able to handled

conjuncturally social integration and tool integration so as to optimize their interactions;

d) effective monitoring requires a framework consistent with effective

participation, effective integration, and effective interdisciplinarities.

Problems:

a) the process and the tools used in local research are usually not

consistent with local conditions or resources or both. For example, if the process is influenced by outsiders, it may lead to participation still, but passive and traditional research tools are usually not consistent with local research limitations, time, money, skills...;

b) group dynamics based on exclusion and intolerance usually prevent social integration at different levels and traditional and non-traditional research tools violate the method consistency requirements for effective tool integration. For example, access to resources/power is usually a group variable that moves based on the relative strenght of groups though time, which is constantly affecting social integration; and research outputs produced by traditional and non-traditional research tools are not comparable as some can be be generalized and others can not leading to the problem I called "lack of detail-generality consistency";

c) inconsistencies in processes, tools, social integration, and tool

integration do not support effective interdisciplinary integration as there is a tendency to dominate the process, the tool suitability, the level of social integration, and the type of research methods to use.

d) effective monitoring under the conditions above is a headache to say the least;

Solutions

a) carry out a process suitability analysis to determine the best fit for local conditions;

b) carry out a tool suitability analysis to determine the best research

tools for those local conditions

c) carry out a tool integration analysis to determine ways to maximize

detail-generality consistencies within the research outputs;

d) carry out a social integration analysis to determine ways to avoid

exclussion and promote consensus;

e) carry out an interdisciplinary analysis to determine ways to deal with integrating social variables with integrated research methods;

f) carry out a project monitoring analysis to clearly identify how progress, failures, benefits and cost are to be measured and how this will be incorporated to support appropriate action;

I am of the opinion that the best tool to support research in developing countries come from the integration of Rapid Assessment Techniques and Qualitative Comparative Analysis(the Rapid QCA method) as it can be easily made to fit local processes; to fit local skills; to eliminate illusion of precision associated with traditional research methods while providing research outputs that provides both the generalities and details relevant to the project at the same time; to integrate social variables and concerns across economic and environmental concerns; and to support long-term monitoring programs in a cost-effective, flexible, and scientific way. I have written an article supporting this view, and those intereted in this

view can read the full article and send me their comments. It can be seen at:

http:/www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/ART1.htm

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

----- Original Message -----

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: <RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 5:41 AM

Subject: Questions - Week 3

> Dear E-Colleagues,

>

> Thank you sincerely for your responses to the Week 2 questions on research issues. We would also like to invite those of you who have not contributed to the debate thus far to please take the opportunity to provide your insights and comments to the group.

>

> During Week 3, we will turn our thoughts to topics related to the research process. These include: Interdisciplinary Collaboration, Participatory Research, and Institutional Partnerships including Research-Policy Relationships. Many of these topics have been raised in the last two weeks because of the difficulty of separating process from content. We would like to address these research process issues using the 4 questions below.

> Again we ask that you focus your responses on how these different factors can best be capitalised upon by the NARS to assist in addressing sustainable food security concerns.

>

> Questions:

>

> A. Participatory, Demand-Driven Research: Participatory research

> approaches have been evolving over the past decades. "Participatory" has meant everything from inviting the end-users for consultations to

empowering end-users to drive the research process. Participatory research approaches imply the promotion of meaningful participation of marginalised groups such as resource poor farmers, women, youth, farm workers, and the landless.

 

June 23/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Munoz comment on response by Bertelsen

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>,

Dear Friends, while I respect the opinion of Mr. Bertelsen I disagree

with his views that SPEICIFIC AND GENERAL POLES OF RESEARCH are the way to address cost-efficiently the human, and financial limitations in developing countries around research. They could be good ways to maximize resource outputs in rich countries as you could profit from your comparative advantages, but we know that unless we address before hand the local-regional output consistency problem, research outputs from one locality can be even useless for other localities. Carrying out validation research in the countries receiving foreign outputs may turned out to be expensive too. We should take the limitations in skills, resources, and timing in developing countries as a reason to become more ignovative at the local level and to attract resources that can lead to support and promote those local ignovations.

It has been said that local ignovations are the ones keeping the

unsustainable supply still active in developing countries despite the

unsustainable demand. We need to bring research to the village or community or to the marginalized. We need to bring researchers closer to the users of research outputs and subjects of research, not farther and farther away from them. Concentration of research in few hands acts like concentration of wealth, there is a point that you are less willing to share, specially if somebody else is paying the research bill.

NARS should work to ensure a healthy supply of public knowledge in a descentralized fashion to maximize individual ignovations which are usually the source of new practical knoledge in and around farms. Those local ignovations need to be identified, supported, and replicated. Effective local research implies active local participation, active local integration, active local interdisciplinary approaches, and active local monitoring structure in such a way that can produce research output that can be validated using either internal or external or both approaches. Only this way, local research will lead to locally fit research outputs, and rich countries and international organizations should promote the organization of

research in all countries in all areas this way for achieveing

consistentencis. Local research independence at all levels, yet consistent with non-local concerns or other NARS concerns should be the goal of developing countries, not more research dependency. Research independence requires the production of ever more flexible and cost-effictive tools of research(in time, money, skills, technology...) that can fit the variety of conditions and limitations around local research that we all appear to fully agree that exist. How can this be done? is the question that local researchers have more stake in answering if research independence is the gaol. I believe if this is done, developing countries will through time adjust their structure in more sustainability friendly attitudes as local selfsteem is a strong force toward positive change.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html

 

----- Original Message -----

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: <RAFS2000-L@mailserve.fao.org>

Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 12:55 AM

Subject: Key Issues - Week 3, Response by Bertelsen

> From: Bertelsen

> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2000 7:14 PM

> To: RAFS2000

> Subject: Key Issues - Week 3

>

> QUESTION 14. Based on your experience, what are the current CONSTRAINTS to incorporating participatory, interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral approaches into NARS research strategies?

>

> My comments follow those of Tamboli. Specifically, I agree that the

number one constraint facing the NARS is the lack of sufficient resources, human and financial, to support adequate research programs to confront the pressing and complex problems of very poor countries. Furthermore, because > of extreme poverty, there is very little individual countries can do to meet these challenges; they simply do not have access to sufficient resources to undertake necessary broad-based participatory, interdisciplinary research program development and implementation by themselves. Research collaboration with the North (e.g., USAID's Collaborative Research Support Programs - CRSPs) is a partial solution. However, great care and sensitivity must be exercised on all sides to ensure that the research agendas of the NARS are not hijacked by their international collaborators.

>

> A more sustainable solution may be offered at the regional level through the "Research Pole" concept currently being implemented by the 9 Sahelian states that make up CILSS (Comite Permanent Interetats de Lutte Contre la Secheresse dans le Sahel). The Research Pole is a Sahelian concept and initiative that recognizes that individual countries of the region must come together to coordinate research. Because research resources are extremely scarce and external assistance is dispersed and erratic, there is a need to stretch resources - countries need to coordinate and concentrate their individual and regional resources in areas where they have comparative advantage and share research results accordingly. By so doing, the Pole concept envisions the emergence of regionally integrated centers of excellence that lead research efforts. These centers of excellence would serve not only to mobilize internal (country) resources, but also coordinate

> and channel externally-funded research projects.

>

> One critically important area for cooperation in the Sahel is the area of applied NRM research, particularly participatory research into low input, environmentally friendly agriculture, livestock, and forestry management techniques. The NRM Research Pole is the first research pole to begin operations (in 1997) although others are planned for the future (e.g., sorghum, small ruminants).

>

> The NRM Pole is composed of the NARS of nine Sahelian countries and their international collaborators. It is supported in part by the

USAID-sponsored West Africa NRM InterCRSP project and CILSS sister institution, the Institut du Sahel. Each NARS appoints a national NRM Research Coordinator to the Pole Coordinating Committee that meets regularly to conduct Pole business. The NRM Research Pole is coordinated by INERA, the NARS of Burkina Faso. Four vanguard countries and areas of specialization have been identified. They

> are:

>

> Burkina Faso: soil and water conservation

> Niger: irrigated systems

> Mali: agroclimatology, varietal choice and climatic

> constraints

> Senegal: mycorhiziem and symbiotic nitrogen fixation

>

> These thematic areas figure prominently in the individual country

strategic research plans and each has prepared proposals for expanded research in the different areas. The overall NRM Research Pole program is participatory and interdisciplinary in orientation.

>

..

,

..

Bertelsen

 

June 23/2000/WORLD BANKD CDF CONFERENCE: Week two reflections

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Desta Mebratu"

Dear Friends, I agree with Mr. Mebratu's observation that the summary was framed to imply that we must take the four CDF principles as they are given as his comments and my comments made and aim at improving YOUR FRAMEWORK were left out. However, I am satisfied that at least you posted our comments so others can make up their minds. I am of the view that changing our own ideas is difficult even when facing close death experiences, but most ideas change through time specially went the validatind data does not show up. Also I notice that the World Bank is not recognizing individual contributions by name in the summaries as it is a standard practice in all other international and national discussion(see FAO Discussions) which make it difficult to trace who said what, and in my opinion it reduces the validity of the content in the summaries made is there is no clear accountability in it. Is there a reason to do that?. I will continue sharing my ideas with the participants whenever it is appropriate to do so.

Please, receive my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Desta Mebratu <dmebratu@hotmail.com>

To: CDF E-Consultation <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 2:23 AM

Subject: [cdf] Week two reflections

 

> Greetings

>

> This is Desta Mebratu from Ethiopia. To begin with a reflection on the summary for week one, in light of the exclusion of the views expressed on the need for continuously revisiting the principles of CDF, the summary seems to imply that the four principles of CDF has to be taken as given.

For me, this is not a positive trend and I sincerely hope that this is not the case. Having said that, I will pass on to the issues raised by the Moderators for week two discussion.

June 25/2000/ELAN/Changing existing land use laws/FOOD FOR THOUGHTS

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: "ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA NETWORK" <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Dear Friends, obviously, decisions such as the recent one debated in Brazil aimed at changing land allocated directly or in principle to protection and conservation to other uses may backfire. While Brazil seems to have a special place in the environmental struggle, similar reaction should be expected in the future in other countries following

similar actions/events affecting the future of existing forested areas.

The rational for this to happen for me is that for socio-economic agents, the socio-economic value of these lands is greater than their environmental value now. However, for environmentalist, the environmental value of these lands is higher than their socio-economic value. These suggest two different types of development scenarios: a) socio-economic development subject to environmental concerns; and b) environmental development subject to socio-economic concerns. The first approach is the one usually known as "sustainable development", and the second approach is the pure preservation/protection approach. In theory, both approaches could be valid paths toward sustainability if they fully address their respective constraints through active interactions/participation. However, each approach appear to ignore or underestimate, if possible, their responsibilities when applied, which leads to my Never Land Sustainability Principle: as long as socio-economic models and environmental models keep overestimating(insisting

on) their rights/positive impacts and understimating(playing down) their resonsibilitie/negative impacts there will be progress toward Unsustainability only. This is because the wider the right-Responsibility gap, the greater the incentives to each of them to maximize their rights and to minimize their responsibilities.

The gap between rights and responsibilities between these two development approaches in Brazil seems to be big, and hence we should expect the power struggle to continue in the future. I looks to

me that to be able to balance the socio-economic concerns of one approach and the environmental concerns of the other approach, we need to develop "sustainable development plus " approaches to minimize environmental concerns or "preservation plus "approaches to minimize socio-economic concerns. Any thoughts? Is there somebody out there working in these lines of thoughts right now?;

Greetings:

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.h

mtl

June 25/2000/Communication

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Marly "

Dear Marly, thank you for contacting me. You should not have had problems with downloading the tables as they are in the server. I will check it out later and if there is a problem, I will correct it. I am happy to hear that you are enjoying the site. I will add a few more ideas in the coming days and I will update the section MYVIEWS and TALKBACK to June/2000. Perhaps you will enjoy my other site at:

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/caee/eng/people/impacts/deforest/index.html It relates to my views on how to deal with deforestation causality and

issues and I apply these views in Central America.

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: Marly

To: <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2000 9:12 PM

Subject: SD Indicators

 

> Hi Lucio,

> I enjoy surfing your very valuable website. I would like to tell you

> that I had difficulty downloading the Appendix tables to your aticle

> entitled "Munoz, Lucio, 2000. Linking Sustainable Development Indicators by Means of Present/Absent Sustainability Theory and

> Indices: The Case of Agenda 21." The hyperlink is still to your desktop and not to the website. For Example, Appendix 1 can be accessed only if you add Table1 to ART8 of the web address.

> I am interested in reading your other works, including the draft ones.

> I hope you can send e-copies to my email address.

> Thanks and keep up the good work.

> Marly

 

June 26/2000/Communication

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Gedeon"

Dear Gedeon, my article on Sustainability Theory and Agenda 21 indicators in my webpage seems to be having a lot of acceptance, and this is an application of the general sustainability theory I proposed in my article: "Beyond Traditional Sustainable Development: Sustainability Theory and Sustainability Indices Under Ideal Present-Absent Qualitative Comparative Conditions". I could dedicate some time to review it and release it for potential inclusion for potencial publication in your journal. Let me know.

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Gedeon

To: 'Lucio Munoz' <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:26 AM

Subject: Personal research opinions

 

> Dear Lucio,

>

> Thanks for making a commitment to share your thinking on this complex and challenging concept. I agree with you that so far there is no well

accepted sustainability theory.

>

> Using a metaparadigm approach, I am currently building a general

> comprehensive sustainable development theory, striving to jointly optimize the key development dimensions. I identified political, economic, ecological, social, cultural, and spiritual dimensions as the main dimensions that must be jointly-optimized for development to be

sustainable.

> As long as we deal with a multidimensional issue such as development,

> optimizing one or/and two dimensions (economy or ecology) will not get us very far. You and I agree that joint-optimization of development dimensions must be the focus of theoretical and pragmatic debates.

>

> Keep in touch.

>

> Gedeon

 

June 26/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Reconciling the true dichotomies

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Lovejoy"

Dear Tom, the best discussion are the honest and open ones. I think that the dichotomy you refer to is not as important as the dichotomy

people/biodiversity. The problem can be constructed simply as follows: a) forest areas(FA) are by function of development(D) converted into deforested areas; b) during this process poverty(P)and lost of biodiversity(BL) takes place; c) increased poverty and increased

biodiverstiy lost worsen the conditions of remaining forested areas and

existing deforested areas; and d) the process repeat itself endlessly

through time and now we are witnessing the consequences, environmental and social degradation.

Most people world wide, if I am not mistaken, live in existing deforested areas while remaining biodivirsity remains mosly in the remaining forested areas. So the dichotomy choice for the world bank has been who is the priority, reforestation programs to have a direct impact on poverty reduction or forest protection programs to conserve biodiversity, and therefore an indirect impact on poverty.

So far forest protection has increased and poverty has increased too as the main policy of the bank has been on forest protection. A few months ago I made the comment that the main goal of the bank in theory, poverty reduction, was inconsistent with bank's policies on the ground, preservation policies, and that both should be encouraged at the same time by integrating deforested area development programs with forested area development programs, but so far this is not the case. We all

Know that as more remaining forested areas are converted to non-forest uses more biodiversity is lost and more poverty means more pressures on remaining forested areas and on biodiversity.

If the world bank want to measure it sucesses or failures in terms of

biodiversity/preservation gains,it should state this as its mission, not poverty reduction. However, this would be inconsistent with the

original reason why the bank was created in the first place. If the main goal continues to be poverty reduction it is time to give more attention to existing deforested areas where most people appear to live.

I believe that just preservation is not a receipt for poverty reduction

specially when preservation is based on one time debt swaps to achieve land use change as the roots of poverty are left practically

intact by the transaction while society sacrificies the continues future benefits that preservation will provide forever thereafter. As things are right now, specially with globalization, more development in

a smaller area may lead to more visible inequalities which will threaten the preseved areas later on.

The issue to me is how we can preserve as much as possible without

increasing social pressures or if possible, eliminating social pressures around the preserves?. I called this possible approach

PRESERVATION PLUS.

Your comments are welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Independent researcher/Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: <tlovejoy@worldbank.org>

> To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

> <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 3:54 PM

> Subject: [biodiversity] Reconciling Dichotomies

>

> > Current debates seem to pit biodiversity "hotspots" against regional conservation/ecosystem management. Both viewpoints are in fact correct hotspots (endangered areas with concentrations of species with restricted distribution) are where the "fire engine" should go first. At the same time all regions need biologically functional landscapes with a biological matrix holding representative biodiversity.

> >

> > A similar debate pits protected areas against community development

> > projects which involve local people. Again both views are correct.

> > Strictly protected areas are critical to conserve biological communities in close to their natural state. Yet in the end if local people do not support conservation, the protected areas themselves will not succeed.

> >

> > World Bank activities need to take both sets of activities (as well as a lot of other elements) into account. Individual Bank projects need to fit into sustainable development plans for their regions.

> >

> > Tom

 

June 26/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week three

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Desta Mebratu"

Dear Friends, there are at least 7 ways to address poverty reduction through earned income, given income, and existing wealth redistribution. It appears to me that the CDF framework is based around only the earned income option as it is the one that better reflects or that is expected to reflect supposely sound market conditions. Does the CDF framework considers/promote or will consider/promote the given income and/or existing wealth distribution options as valid poverty reduction tools too?. Are there

strategies among the ones being put in place according to the world bank message below in developing countries consistent with above trichotomy poverty reduction strategy?. If not, how does the CDF framework will incorporate existing initial unequal endowments to address the poverty gap?.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz/Independent researcher

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <cdf@worldbank.org>

To: CDF E-Consultation <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 4:00 PM

Subject: [cdf] Question for Week Three

> Thank you for your responses to Question Two. A summary will be posted > later this week. Please note that sources of the summaries will not be > attributed.

>

> ****Question for Week Three (Monday, June 26-Wednesday, July 5)*****

> Implementing the CDF Principles in Poverty Reduction Strategies

> The CDF principles are being applied in the Poverty Reduction Strategies(PRS)that are being prepared over the next two to three years by all countries that are eligible for concessional loans from the Bank and the IMF. (See specifically paras. 48-55 of the May 2000 Progress Report). The process is already well underway in many countries. For more details on the PRS program, copies of available PRSs and a tentative timeline, see http://www.worldbank.org/prsp.

>

> What are the benefits and challenges of preparing these poverty reduction strategies on the basis of CDF principles? It will be particularly helpful to hear from dialogue participants who have experience or knowledge of the Poverty Reduction Strategy process so far.

June 27/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Using simple market mechanism to conserve and promote biodiversity

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Daniele, I would like to contribute a few ideas that may be relevant to your project, but first I would like you to clarify the working of the project a little more, it is the core of the project to work under an full unprotected model where better used of existing deforested areas is to be the focus of increasing income expectations? or it is the core of the project to work under an unprotected model where remaining forested areas are to be used for designing sustainable practices to increase income generation? or it is the core of the project to work under a full protected model in both cases above? or is it the project to work under a mix unprotected/protected model?. Each of these approaches has different political implications throurgh their potential relationship to earned income, given income, and existing wealth distribution from at least five different angles: the globalization angle, the power innequality angle, and the land concentration angle, the carbon sequestration angle, and the food

security angle. I will share some ideas once the nature of your project on the ground is clear to me, and perhaps I can be able to relate your practical approach to my already written or published theories.

Please, receive my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz / Independent Researcher

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <Dgiovannucci@worldbank.org>

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 1:14 AM

Subject: [biodiversity] Using simple market mechanisms to conserve & promote

Biodiversity

My name is Daniele Giovannucci working on GEF - World Bank projects that are currently developing practical operational methodologies to both conserve and promote biodiversity.

While there are a number of conservation theories, I would like to point out an actual operational approach that is currently being tested in the field. We--the team members on these projects-- believe that most successful conservation efforts depend on the collaboration and support of local stakeholders who often include the poorest of the rural poor. The powerful incentive of economic hardship or an incomplete understanding of the consequences of human intervention in fragile ecosystems can easily destroy biodiversity and sink conservation projects. The approach we are developing is three pronged and we invite your comments and participation.

a) Encourage the development of community associations and cooperatives. Using participatory methods to develop a critical mass to anchor learning and enable cost-effective logistical interaction with stakeholders that would otherwise be impractical to provide on an individual basis.

b) Offer locally relevant environmental and resource education. Local

actors can be effective environmental stewards and good resource managers whether they have a tangible rationale for doing so i.e. the practical and economic benefits to a family of having a diverse forest. Targeted programs also consider the long-term benefits of environmentally conscious youth.

c) Practical training and linkages in commercialization. Building local capacity and self-determination through linkages with viable enterprises enables rural communities to assess and access diverse premium markets for products grown using environmentally friendly techniques that cause minimal impact on critical natural habitats. Forest or shade coffee is only one example of markets that provide clear incentives favoring this type of production over more destructive agricultural methods. Other non-timber forest products include spices, essential oils, and nuts.

..

..

 

June 27/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Local costs and global benefits

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Friends, with my respect to Mr. Dixon I would like to asked him, as implied by his posting, if preservation/conservation should be justified only on the grounds of biodiversity values. Should not it be an ecosystem value?. Do standing forests have value?. Can biodiversity values be sustained without standing forests?. I believe that preservation/conservation justification must be holistic, not single value element handed. On the other hand, the impact of social activities on biodiversity and the impact of industrial activities on biodiversity seem to be taken as similar. Are social impacts on biodiversity bigger than industrial impacts in developing countries?. Should we protect biodiversity living in remaining forest areas or in existing deforested areas? or should we protect resident biodiversity or transcient biodiversity?. While all these aspects affect the total value/cost, and it is implied that there is actually a net benefit. The issue is how that net benefit can be divided among socio-economic agents(to close the poverty gap) to ease their pressures on biodiversity and actually promoted it?. We seem to agree that

only if this happens, pressure on biodiversity will be decreased following increase income positions. The other issue I see in your posting is that it appears that you are lookings at the pros and cons of biodiversity under the traditional economic market of just one invisible hand, are you sure that this is the right market to understand the behaviour of environmental stakeholders?.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: <jdixon@worldbank.org>

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 1:59 PM

Subject: [biodiversity] Local Costs and Global Benefits

> Local Costs, Global Benefits: Valuing Biodiversity in Developing Countries

> -- by John A. Dixon and Stefano Pagiola

>

> The question of the conservation of global biodiversity presents an

> interesting paradox: although biodiversity provides us with many benefits -- and, indeed, may be indispensable for our very existence -- it is being lost at unprecedented rates. Biodiversity, and the ecosystems that contain it, provide benefits at multiple levels. Locally, it provides benefits to farmers, villagers, and other land-users such as harvestable products and services such as crop pollination. Nationally, it provides benefits such as hydrological regulation and water purification to populations living downstream. Globally, it provides benefits such a carbon sequestration and genetic information. These appear to be important and large benefits.

> Why, then, is biodiversity so threatened? Why are we not doing more to protect it? To the extent that biodiversity produces benefits at the local level, individual land-users and countries have an incentive to conserve it. Likewise, national governments have an incentive to provide the resources needed to protect biodiversity to the extent that it provides benefits at the national level. Neither local land-users nor national governments, however, have any incentive to protect the global benefits provided by biodiversity. Moreover, even at the national level, the benefits provided by biodiversity are often very poorly understood -- if at all. As a result, national governments all too often view biodiversity conservation in terms of the development options that must be given up to ensure conservation. At the local level, land-users receive but a small fraction of the total benefits of biodiversity. Conversely, the forgone benefits of biodiversity protection -- in terms of increased agricultural or livestock production, or the cutting and sale of forest products -- loom large to the local population.

> Hence the paradox: biodiversity conservation is usually "underprovided" by the market -- that is, market forces will lead to more conversion of habitat, and biodiversity loss, than would be either optimal or economically justified, precisely because of the divergence between local costs and global benefits. And, in addition, the extent to which companies are willing to pay for biodiversity conservation for the genetic material it contains (one thinks of pharmaceutical companies), is much smaller than traditionally hypothesized. Therefore, one must think clearly about the location and size of both the costs and benefits of biodiversity consrvation if one wishes to develop realistic management policies.

>

> These issues are explored in a draft paper by John Dixon and Stefano

> Pagiola (prepared for the OECD Working Party on the Economics of

> Biodiversity) titled: Local Costs, Global Benefits: Valuing Biodiversity in Developing Countries (May, 2000). The draft paper is available on request from either author: jdixon@worldbank.org or spagiola@worldbank.org

>

> Dixon

June 27/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Human made biodiversity UNDER SUSTAINABLE DEMAND

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Franco

Dear Franco, your posting hightlights some of the issues I am trying to

raise: there are deforested areas in all countries, and some of them very critical areas with high potential for economic, social, environmental benefits if their recovery was the primary target. However, for this to work you need a sustainable demand(where willingess to pay equal at least ability to pay) around it as it is usually the case in developed countries(communities) that needs ecosystem parks only for mental and spiritual satisfaction. However, when there is an unsustainable demand as it is the case in most developing countries(where ability to pay is the issue), then ecosystem parks are seen as a tool to meet basic needs. These implies that it would be easier to set up ecosystem parks on deforested areas in developed countries than in developing countries. On the other

hand, it is easier to conserve more biodiversity in developing

countries(specially per area) than in developed countries, as mentioned in your posting, there are not much original forests left in developed

countries. This is to me one of the key issues that is driving

preservation/conservation initiatives to almost exclusively toward forested area protection and toward almost exclusively on developing country resources. Why not to target existing deforested areas and remaining forests in developed countries too, can they make money to out of biodiversity protection?. I am happy to see that the PINETINA Park fits this sustainable demand view and wish its continues success and perhaps replication. However, keep in my here that the key word is SUSTAINABLE DEMAND.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Franco

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 3:47 PM

Subject: [biodiversity] human made biodiversity

> Dear colleagues,

> my name is Franco Cavalleri, and I am an environmental researcher and

> journalist in Como, northern Italy.

> I would like to point your attention at an example of enhancing

> biodiversity in an ecosystem, by means of man-made actions and managing policies.

> It is the Parco della Pinetina di Appiano Gentile, in northern Italy.

> Completely enclosed in a heavily urbanized area (the park is only 30 km north of Milan, and lies in between the counties of Milan, Varese and Como, some four million people as a whole live in a 40 kms radius from it), it representes the last forested area of Lombardia.

> The area is a product of human action: two hundred years ago, it was

> completely bare. The introduction of tree species from North America

> started the "miracle", which eventually turned this 5000 ha into a

> completely wooded area.

> Today, the forestation process is continuing, both on its own (many bird species you can't find elsewhere have elected the forest as their home) and by means of man's action. In the next winter, the parks' managers are planning to reintroduce deers in the area, after some 500 years of absence.

> Purists will probably disagree with these policies, but the results are in favor of the parks' management: the Pinetina (as it is called) represents an area of absolute value, both naturally and economically.

>

> Franco

June 28/2000/FAO CONFERENCE: Sharing my thoughts-Week 4

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "RAFS2000" <RAFS2000@fao.org>,

<RAFS2000-L@mailserve.fao.org>

Cc: "Odo"

Dear Friends, I will share a simple qualitative framework with you,

which can be used to get an insight into the questions you post in a

systematic manner.

Terminology:

F = Food security f = food insecurity

P = sustainable production p = unsustainable production

C = sustainable demand c = unustainable demand

As defined at the beginning of the discussion, food security is affected by the sustainability of supply(P) or by the sustainability of demand(C) or by both, which can be stated as follows:

F = P + C

This leads to four different scenarios:

a) unsustainable demand(F1 = Pc)

This scenario indicates that even if we have a sustainable supply(P) as long as we have an unsustainable demand, the situation can not be sustained;

b) unsustainable supply(F2 = pC)

This scenario indicates that even if we have a sustainable demand, if there is an unsustainable supply, the situation is not sustainable;

c) total unsustainability(F3 = pc)

when both the supply and the demand are unsustainable the situation is fully unsustainable;

d) total sustainability(F4 = PC)

if both the supply and the demand are sustainable, then the market clears and full sustainability exist

People have indicated that production is not the problem, and I have pointed out that unustainable demand is the problem, which is consistent with scenario F1 = Pc ; based on this my answer to the questions are the following:

1) The main constraint to the actual food security issue at the local level or on the ground(F1) is the demand side(c), not the supply side(P);

2) there is a need to determine what needs to be done to move from F1 to F4 which means that there is a need to determine ways to address the

unsustainable demand as Pc/PC = c/C;

3) if we assume that P = AB, where A = producers and B = intermediaries and if we assume that C = L.E , where

L = local consumers and E = non-local consumers, then the total

sustainability scenario can be rewritten as follows:

F4 = PC = (AB)(LE)

This means that sustainable food security depends on the sustainable

conjunctural interactions of producers(A), intermediaries(B), local

consumers(L), and non-local consumers(E). One implication of the above is that we can not achieve local food sustainability(ABL) without non-local demand sustainability(E) underlying the unavoidable local/non-local interdependencies, which can be stated as follows:

F4 = PC = (ABL)(E)

Another implication is that even though it appears desirable to get rid of intermediaries(B), we can not totally eliminate them, we must make them behave consistently with food security(F4). Other implication is that we need full parnerships(ABLE) to be able to achieve the sustainability of food security, which can be expressed as follows:

F4 = PC = ABLE

4) to implement such a view, data needs to be gathered about the four

components and we need to find out compatibilities and incompatibilities among the four components to identify options for action to achieve the full partnerships;

5) the data can be gathered in an ongoing basis, using the four component structure as an standard framework to determine how these components per product are linked and see point of entry;

6) such a framework can easily be used for ongoing monitoring and it can be subjected to local validation or non-local validation or both at the same time; and

7) a systematic view of the problem like this may help to provide

information on an ongoing bases about characteristics and circunstacnes of each component, research priorities, new market opportunities, consumer needs/views, locally and internationally about access, safety, quality of food, and so on.

These are my views and your comments are much welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz / independent researcher

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: <RAFS2000-L@mailserve.fao.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 9:35 AM

Subject: Questions - Week 4

 

> Dear E-Colleagues,

>

> We have finished Phase I focusing on Key Issues and will now turn our

> attention to Phase II. This phase is devoted to articulating

"Constraints, Opportunities and Lessons Learned" related to integrating sustainable food security. To do this, we will build upon issues raised over the last three weeks and focus questions around prioritising research efforts in addressing these issues.

>

> Please note that due to the larger number of issues to cover this week, that > the questions will come in two groups. Please do not be overwhelmed by the number and do not feel obligated to answer them all. The second group is smaller, with "only" three questions on one subject area. We anticipate that some issues are more appealing to some of you than others and hope that you will take the time to focus on those that you find the most inviting and thought provoking.

>

> With these points in mind, we do ask that for the topics you choose to address please specify:

> a) the associated constraints;

> b) concrete mechanisms (either existing or suggested) for overcoming the constraints (including institutional, financial and political, whether internal or external to NARS);

> c) the nature of partnerships and players needed to move toward solutions;

> d) your remarks with actual examples of success stories or lessons learned to further ground our discussions in the range of constraints and opportunities facing NARS.

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Preservation Plus

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Jim, your view and my view of how to link reservation/conservation and poverty reduction/elimination to create the conditions to promote both goals at the same time overlap in some ways, but they differ in other ways. I will call attention to the weaknesssess I see in your approach with the positive attitude to improve our theories and practices:

a) your view seems to be an eco-economic view based on traditional economic principles, which I believe may be an inconsistency: economic markets to economic agents and eco-economic markets to eco-economic agents;

b) Conservation/preservation is needed in two types of resources, existing deforested areas and remaining forested areas,

and the eco-economic market may work differently so your approach may work differently too and the incentives needed could be different too;

c) Values of deforested areas and values of forested areas recorded in

dollar terms, reflect economic values. In cases where the environmenal

value is higher, we could be understimating them if using the lower value as a benchmark for payments;

d) when talking about deforested area/forested area

preservation/conservation/restauration, direct payments would go to the

owner, a private individual, a community, or the goverment or an NGO, how can those payments benefit the landless and marginalized in a world where deforested area and forested areas are unequally distributed, within countries and between countries: THE ISSUE IS NOT JUST TO INCORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES INTO ECONOMIC MODELS, BUT TO RIDIRECT THOSE VALUES DIRECTLY TO POVERTY REDUCTION, WHICH IS WHAT I CALL PRESERVATION PLUS. In other words, preservation plus is more that ecologically sustainable economic development, it is sustainability.

d) We also have to keep in our minds that the BUYERS you refer in your

system of buyers/agents are still ongoing polluting entities, which raises the possibility that as long as the net benefit on an additional unit of pollution is higher than the cost of biodiversity protection or CO2 Sequestration or both, pollution will continue, and hence global warming until there is no more biodiversity or forest to buy;

e) plus you have to realized that the market you are talking about is a

fixed market where developed countries are the buyers and developing

countries are the sellers, you can imaging what can happen when competition kicks in together with globalization forces;

f) it is my view that a solution to the issues of the market which I called the ECO-ECONOMIC MARKET can only be found within eco-economic theory, which holds that there may be two invisible hands in this market. However, still this eco-economic market is far from the SUSTAINABILITY MARKET, and my views on PRESERVATION PLUS will be geared to identifying clear options and their pros and cons to approach sustainability conditions;

g) Finally, I partially agree with your conclusions that NO ECOLOGY, NO

ECONOMY AND NO ECONOMIC VALUE, NO ACTION FOR BIODIVERSITY. My view is that no environment means, no society and no economy, and that action in favour of biodiversity protection or forest protection can take place even in the absence of the economy.

My warm greetings and I enjoyed your posting, you may find my webpage

interesting.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim >

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 8:00 PM

Subject: [biodiversity] Simplifying ecosystem management with a system that rewards sustainable development economically

> One of the main difficulties with managing biodiversity is the

> administration and management of a system that targets the correct areas with regard to biodiversity, and also the partner to biodiversity

> management, human development that threatens or eliminates biodiversity.

In the following text, I will attempt to explains my deliberations on a

system of economic reward for sustainable development.

> Biodiversity Credit: A System of Economic Reward Framework for

Sustainable Development

> Beginning with Malthus' famous 19th century essay, On Human Population, it has been obvious that humans have the potential to increase in numbers beyond the resources available to support them. Over the past four decades, it has become clear that pressure from human population can adversely affect the environment, particularly in terms of biodiversity (a term for all the diverse forms of life). There is direct evidence that the extinction rate for species has increased dramatically in this time period.

> Other environmental values such as clean air and pure water can be and are regulated and controlled through relatively clear social and economic systems associated with industry, transport, public utilities and agriculture (many but not all of these systems have been surprisingly successful). Dealing with biodiversity and wildlife issues has been much more difficult for a variety of reasons which I will discuss further below.

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: People in deforested areas, biodiversity in forested areas, and the World Bank

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Friends, I think that it is important to mention that to find ways to promote both poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation, we have to look at inconsistencies in institutional policies. As you may know, the mission of the world bank is to reduced poverty, but most of the world bank efforts have been directed to remaining forested area protection where less poor people actually lives. I made the observation that there is an inconsistency here that in the long-term as we are seeing now it will work against the same forest being protected. I suggested that it is time, if the policy of the bank remains poverty reduction to attack the poblem head by given attention to the deforested areas where most poor people lives while protecting as much remaing forested areas as possible, but in my view you can not reduce poverty by preservation means alone unless the benefits of

preservation are directly linked to poverty reduction. To me this could lead to a system of direct distribution of benefits or direct payments or a conbination of both. I am happy to see that these options, which could have not even been heard a couple of years ago, are being discussed now. At one point I even came to suggesting that we should take away the poverty reduction mission of the world bank and create A WORLD POVERTY FUND to do that and leave the work bank to purely addressing economic efficiency subject to sustainability concerns. I have put some thought on this and they will be available soon.

In my view, a link between degraded forest and poverty is not as clear as the apparent link between land conversion for forest uses to non-forest uses and poverty gaps.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Redwood

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 1:41 PM

Subject: [biodiversity] Biodiversity Connection To Human

Economics/Activities

> There is a clear link between degraded forests and poverty. It is

estimated that one billion of the world's poorest people in about 30 heavily deforested countries would be alleviated from poverty if given

> government support for managing neighboring public forest land and sharing the benefits within their communities [Salim, 1999].

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Ecosystem management

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Bastiaan, I have written some papers that may provide ideas on how to integrate initiatives in and outside protected areas and provide some theoretical logic to practical options. It looks to me that your are looking for purely economic options to forestry programs, have you thought about the environmental options?. While the economic value of mohagony may be low, its environmental value may be higher even if soil protection practices are put in the cost if it is agree so in the fix CO2 markets. The trick in todays market is how far the recognized environmental value is from its economic value. The environmental dimension if it is based for example on volume of CO2 that can be packed in the same hectare or the amound of biodiversity that can be contained there, may lead to maximization drives not being heard of as of today: quality of the mix may become the issue, not quantity as the notion of, more, does not matter what, is better to maximize our production functions may still prevail. I think that the environmental option could provide different approaches to deal with the same questions you post We for sure will have to have a full book of precautionary principles as we move from paradigm to paradigm toward our inevitable destination, SUSTAINABILITY.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bastian

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 4:14 PM

Subject: [biodiversity] ecosystem management

 

> My name is Bastiaan Louman. I am specialist in forest harvesting and

> forest management of the Tropical Agricultural Centre for Investigation and Higher Education(CATIE) in Costa Rica with experience in Bolivia, Papua New Guinea and

> the (sub)tropical moist forests of Central America.

> Over the last few years we have been confronted with these challenges on more than one occasion and in different parts of Central America. For example, What to do with the forests outside protected areas that contain Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany) as the major or only commercially attractive species?

> How to reduce deforestation due to shifting cultivation practices?

> > How to improve logging practices of both companies and local

> communities, in order to reduce impacts while maintaining efficiency?

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Reconcilling true dichotomies

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Bala, Sustainable use does not implies distributional efficiency so as long as conservation/preservation is delinked from poverty reduction, they will be constantly threaten. We have to find a workable way of doing this, and this where my thought about Preservation Plus are right now and I see that others are going the same direction.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Bala

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 11:18 AM

Subject: [biodiversity] RE: Reconciling the True Dichotomies

> I agree with Lucio Munoz on the dichotomies. But how can preservation

alone > help? Conservation is preservation with sustainable use!

>

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Lovejoy and Munoz dichotomy

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Dear Jim, I would would like to call to your attention that just a forest can have economic, social, and environmental values, biodiversity can also different values. This leads to the possibility that even ecosystems with no economic value, have social or environmental value or a combination of both. So we should not think in terms of economic values only to incorporate non-economic market values. On the other hands, rewards cound be non-economic ones too. The beauty of systainability is that it recognizes the existence of and the need to optimize all values.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Jim

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 10:21 PM

Subject: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

> The discussion below relates to the dichotomy between poverty and

> biodiversity. I refer this discussion to the previous entry I made in this seminar, which outlines the background and process leading to a system for directly rewarding sustainable development in economic terms, based on a positive economic value for biodiversity.

> The key concepts here are:

>

> 1) Positive Economic Value for Biodiversity

>

> and

>

> 2) Direct Economic Rewards for Sustainable Development

>

>

> Shields

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week three

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: <DonPhelps@aol.com>

Dear Don, my comment is that the CDF framework is not systematically

holistic as claimed as it appears to leave available options out that could provide a conjuctural way of dealing with the problem of poverty head on by paving over existing inequalities gradually, but for sure from now and on. For those with more than the basic resources to developed marketable skills, the earned income option works the best as as you said it gives you pride and satisfaction; and competition under equal conditions is GOOD to show that you are worth the extra buck, but for those with less than the basic resources(the landless and marginalize) to start with, the option of given income or redistribution of existing wealth may be needed to give then the

edge they need so that in the future, two or three generations from now, they also can enter the by then world earned income bracket. We have to solve the poverty issue from inside out as I believe that this is the way to quicker close the poverty gap. As you may know, an unsystematic long-term holistic approach is disigned to deal with problem of poverty in the future. Following your comments, THIS SOUNDS TO ME AS THE SAYING "LET'S DO IT TOMORROW, AND WE KNOW THAT TOMORROW IS NOT COMING ANY TIME SOON. The bank was created to erradicate poverty now, not to tranfer the problem to future generations. I believe that if we used the thichotomy strategy wisely, we can create TRUE FISHERMANS with sustainable skills. Through time, pride

will spread all over and nobody will want to stay in the given income

position as you can make more by applying your excellent skills given that the market for your skills exist.

I appreciate very much your comments as they encouraged my thinking.

Please, recieve my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: <DonPhelps@aol.com>

To: CDF E-Consultation <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 4:18 PM

Subject: [cdf] Re: Question for Week Three

> Lucio

>

> Your latest comments on the CDF Framework are interesting to consider but it made me think of the saying.

> Give a man a fish and feed him for a day

> Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

> Would a longterm policy of given income really benefit anyone??

> The wealth distribution concept is one that I have never seen work because as soon as it is distributed the agressive ones begin to accumulate it again so you would have a cycle never to be broken.

> Bad as it seems the earned income option is the one that rewards

initiative while instilling pride of accomplishment.

>

> Don

 

June 30/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERITY CONFERENCE: Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: "Jim

Dear Jim, the Bank did not pass this message and advised me to send it to you directly. I send another replying to another posting of you, but they have not posted it yet.

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 1:03 PM

Subject: Re: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

> Dear Jim, I would would like to call to your attention that just a forest can have economic, social, and environmental values, biodiversity can also different values. This leads to the possibility that even ecosystems with no economic value, have social or environmental value or a combination of both. So we should not think in terms of economic values only to incorporate non-economic market values. On the other hands, rewards cound be non-economic ones too. The beauty of systainability is that it recognizes the existence of and the need to optimize all values.

> Greetings;

> Lucio Munoz

> http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

June 30/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <Nkishor@worldbank.org>

Hello, thank you, I just did it.

Greetings;

Lucio

----- Original Message -----

From: <Nkishor@worldbank.org>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 8:08 AM

Subject: Biodiversity Internet Seminar

> Dear Mr. Munoz,

> I think that this e-mail is better suited to be sent directly to Mr.

Shields.

>

> Thanks,

> Nalin.

> ********************

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>,

"Ronald

Dear Friends, I am interested in taking a look a this Joint UN et al

report. I would appreciate if Ronald can send me the URL where the document is or send me copy of it. I have exchanged ideas with Mr. Buarque on the issue on how to better address poverty. I made a comment to him recently that while I believe that such a program of debt swaps for education could be feasible, this is still a little away from the required basic sustainability set to attack poverty world wide head on.

My view is that there needs to be a different institution which I called the World Poverty Fund to deal simple and exclusively with the provision world wide of this basic sustainability set, where education is obviously one of them. However, funding could also come from alternative sources: a globalization tax, international debt swaps, national debt swaps, technology swaps, environmental income, and so on. As it was highlighted in the discussion on globalization and poverty sponsored by the world bank, we leave in one unequal world where globalization is taking over therefore we have to start looking at poverty as a global problem and as a global responsibility. I believe that poverty needs to be erradicated from inside out by the enabling resources must be collected and provided from outside in and this must be done through an organization separated from the world bank

and independent. The world bank can continue with its goal of economic

efficiency subject to sustainability concerns which would provide a single and clear goal to the bank so that accountability could be cristal clear and conflicting missions and goals can be avoided.

I am putting this ideas together right now and it is encouraging to me to see that Mr. Buarque's ideas on scholarships for basic education is being discussed. However, I want to call to the attention that the statement made" the project will also reduce immigration from poor countries to reach ones" may not be true in the short-term, specially if done if some countries, but not in others. In the short-term, more education may mean more emmigration to richer places or regions or countries as your skills could earn better returns in more developed places that needs them as you may all know, for example, the inducement of qualified immigration to developed countries is a cost-effective reality. I will read this report with interest when I can get it.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald

To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:55 AM

Subject: World Bank, IMF Blamed for Poverty

> > Wednesday June 28 5:14 PM ET

> >

> > World Bank, IMF Blamed for Poverty

> >

> > By NAOMI KOPPEL, Associated Press Writer

> >

> > GENEVA (AP) - Eighty church and grass-roots groups on Wednesday accused the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund of causing poverty and criticized the U.N. secretary-general for being sucked into a``propaganda exercise'' with the financial institutions.

> >

> > The coalition of groups said they were ``outraged'' by a report on

poverty that was issued jointly by the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank and IMF.

> >

> > ``This report was received with great astonishment, disappointment and even anger,'' said Konrad Raiser, general secretary of the World

Council of Churches, in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

> >

> >The report was released Monday at the start of a U.N. General Assembly special session on poverty reduction. It presented poverty-cutting goals, including enrollment of all children in primary school and a two-thirds cut in child mortality by 2015.

 

July 01/2000/ELAN/ Scholarships are a farse

From: "Lucio Munoz" <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

To: "Ronald

Dear Ronald, can anybody else in Mexico support your claim that

"scholarships are a farse"?, who keeps these statistics or tracks the

progress of these programs in Mexico?. The program there seems to be of a considerable size. What about the Brazil component of the project, is there evidence in Brazil that this project has been implemented? or is being implemented?, who tracks the progress of these projects in Brazil?. Any opinion from Brazil?.

Credibility is a big issue when dealing with effective policy. To avoid situations or claims like this is why I believe that resources for achieving poverty reduction must be collected and come from outside-in through a global institutions which can follows not just the trace where the money is coming from and where is going to, but it also trace ongoing monitoring and accountabililty.

The other thing is that if you assert that these scholarships are a

farse, why did not you say so when you made the posting of this article to ELAN?. I gave me the impression that you read it and agree with it and now

you said it is a farse? Can you explaing?

Greetings;

Lucio

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ronald >

To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 8:09 AM

Subject: Scholarships are a farse

 

> > > Cristovam Buarque, the former governor of the Brazilian capital,

> >>Brasilia, presented a plan to pay families what the child could earn from working provided the child goes to school instead. The scheme has already put up to 100,000 Brazilian children and 5 million Mexican children into school, Buarque said.

>

> I have seen this story repeatedly in the international press. It is not mentioned in the national press. Internationally, some Mexican and World Bank official make much of this so called scholarship fund. What Mexicans would like to know is where are these supposed five million children receiving these scholarhips? Business Week reported with great awe that 2,000,000 children in Chiapas were receiving these scholarships. But where are they? No parents in Chiapas have ever hear of this program. The only programs in Chiapas are hand-outs given by the official party in return for people's votes. This is a farse. There is no scholarship program of which parents and children or teachers in Chiapas have ever heard.

>

> The multilateral agencies and governments justify to the world that they are carrying out programs to alleviate property. This is false. Does the truth not matter any more? Can officials and institutions just say what ever they want regardless of the reality? I guess we can't let a little matter of the truth about these programs stand in the way of the really important processes of economic growth and globalization.>

> Ronald