TALKBACK 2000: June 01-16

 

June 01/2000/Communication on Globalization

To: (Recipient list suppressed)

From: "Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)"

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.

On further reflection I concede there are perhaps sound economics behind off-shore banking (cheaper processing), and transhipment may be about bulk orders from different origins in East Asia separated into mixed orders to destination countries. Aside from this, I think the concerns still stand.

I think the opportunity to discuss issues with World Bank staff has been fantastic. I think there are any misunderstandings on both sides. I am both sympathetic and critical of both sides of the debate. I believe the World Bank staff believe they are doing the right thing, admit mistakes have been made, and are exasperated when they are branded as part of a capitalist conspiracy of the North.

I very much encourage the World Bank to continue with this type of

open dialogue. It is a courageous and commendable step.

Geoff Holland

MY ORIGINAL POST:

********************************************************

I appreciate the case study of Mauritius presented by Philip English.

I had the pleasure of visiting Mauritius last year, and saw first hand the closure of many clothing factories, and the consolidation of many sugar mills in an attempt to keep the sugar industry afloat.

I also noticed the abundance of opulent five star hotel complexes, talked to businesspeople about the shift of many Mauritian businesses to Madagascar (which I also had the pleasure of visiting).

But Philip English's account of Mauritius' success through globalisation did not give me any more confidence in the current pattern of globalization.

Are not 'export processing zone - EPZ' and 'off-shore banking industry', euphemisms for Tax Haven, which is essentially what Mauritius, alongside the Bahamas, Panama, etc now is. As a tax haven, I am concerned that this is robbing tax revenue of other countries such as neighbouring India, particularly the nouveau riche of Bombay etc It is encouraging a process criticised in another posting by William Shaw, where, by the early 1990s, most of Africa's wealth was invested overseas.

As a tax haven, I feel certain that it is attracting organised crime where money laundering alone now has a global turnover of ~US$870b/an (equal to 2% of global GDP ~ US$32trillion). What are the implications of this for democracy in Mauritius ?

I suspect that the five star hotel industry in Mauritius is another piece in the jigsaw of this dubious development strategy, a playground of heads of state, the super-rich, and organised crime.

The 'transhipment' industry may also be another piece of the jigsaw.

I hate to guess what sort of commodities might be included in the

transhipment.. (I struggle to understand the economic rationale behind

unloading and reloading containers in Mauritius).

Even if we disregard the above speculation, can we consider the tax

haven industry a legitimate one ?

The five star hotel industry is also a dubious development strategy as

it is likely to become more and more volatile with global over-supply and a fluctuating market sensitive to changes in the world economy and fickle trends in tourism. More important is the impact on the local

Mauritian community who are alienated by and segregated from the

extravagant wealth in their own modest backyards (many hotels, small

island).

On the otherhand the garment industry was probably a more positive

development phase with Mauritius presumably still benefiting from

its investments in Mozambique and Madagascar.

We need to think again about our development strategies. Economic

growth any way you can get it is no longer good enough. I call this

'brute economic growth'.

The World Bank can shrug its shoulders and say it has no control over

organised crime. I suggest its policy strategies must bear some of the

responsibility of the eventual outcomes.

What other industries and development strategies could the World Bank

suggest for Mauritius - before the glimmer of hope described below

loses all innocence.

Geoff Holland

Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).

---------------

At 05:05 PM 05/30/2000 -0400, you wrote:

>Having finally had some time to review the many messages being posted, I havethe impression that participants have been frustrated by the limited responsefrom World Bank staff and the lack of specific examples. I would like to try a different tack, using the story of one remarkable little African country to explain why some people think that global integration can work to the advantage of the poor.

>Mauritius is still a young country, only achieving independence in 1968. At that time, it was also a poor country (per capita income $350) with bleak economic prospects given its total dependence on a stagnant sugar industry.

>Unemployment was estimated at 16% and incomes were falling. The small island had few natural resources and was situated a long way from the major OECD markets. It was full of social tensions as well, due to the mixture of Moslem and Hindu Indians, Africans, Chinese and a few Europeans. Labor unions were a strong political force. Observers worried that the island was ripe for a crisis, and many Mauritians were emigrating.

>Yet by 1993, per capita income had risen to over $3000, unemployment had disappeared, poverty had fallen to 11% (from 40% in 1975), and inequality had actually diminished. How did this happen? Integration into the global economy through export development and foreign investment, facilitated by reduced transportation and communication costs, played a major role.

>Garment exports from an export processing zone (EPZ) and upscale tourism were the two main pillars of the growth strategy, both of which relied heavily on foreign capital, inputs and expertise at least in the initial stages. The EPZ was established in 1971, with duty-free imported inputs, tax holidays and other incentives. It had some initial success before stagnating at the end of the 1970s due to rising oil prices and domestic economic mismanagement. Tourism followed a similar path.

>Perhaps the most interesting part of this story took place in 1982. Due to excessive government spending, wage hikes, inflation, and an overvalued exchange rate, Mauritian competitiveness had been declining for several years. EPZ factories were closing down, tourism arrivals were falling and foreign investment was drying up. The previous year, the government had been obliged to adopt a structural adjustment program with the Fund and the Bank. And then, an election was held in which the government was defeated and a new labor-backed

>coalition took office for the first time.

>Yet, with a labor leader as Minister of Finance, they decided to maintain the program of restraint on public spending and wages, allow further depreciation in the exchange rate, and take additional measures to attract foreign investment.

>This commitment to sound economic policy in the face of political change appears to have been convincing. New foreign investment flowed in, raising the number of EPZ firms from 115 (1982) to 591 (1988). Hotel construction also picked up,and the number of tourists doubled over the same period.

>By the early 1990s, Mauritius was "paying" the price of success, with rising wage rates bringing an end to the strategy of low-cost garment exports. So, it explored new ways to take advantage of global integration. While tourism continued to grow, it moved into financial services (notably off-shore banking for South Asia), and invested in a freeport and container terminal for transshipment of goods from East Asia to South Africa, Europe and North America.

>EPZ production evolved into high-value products, and low-cost production was moved to Mozambique and Madagascar. Not only have the poor in Mauritius benefited from global integration, but now so are some of the poor in neighboring countries.

>Of course, each country is unique and there were special circumstances in the case of Mauritius, but not all of them were advantageous. And, I should hasten to add that Mauritius has not always accepted the World Bank's advice.

But it has understood that a small country will be better off if it rises to the challenge of globalization by ensuring a sound domestic policy framework,absorbing foreign know-how and capital, adapting to the inevitable shocks, and adjusting its strategy as conditions change. In a continent where so many otherinward-looking models have failed, this one gives some cause for hope. The Indian women working in the clothing factories, the African fisherman now offering glass-bottom boat tours to foreign tourists, and the labor union leader

>turned Finance Minister seem to agree. You can hear them yourself in the WBI documentary "Mauritius: Island of Ingenuity".

>

>

>Philip English

>Economist

>Economic Policy for Poverty Reduction

>World Bank Institute

 

June 01/2000/Communication on poverty and environmental degradation

From: David @acceso..cr>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Subject: Re: Thanks for contacting me

Dear Lucio,

I just read your message and spent some time browsing

your site. I did not have time to read all of the

articles in any detail, but I will do so in due course.

I am particularly interested in the relationship between

pvoerty and environmental degradation, and have

researched and written in this area in the past. I

studied International Development with a focus on

environmental studies through Dalhousie University in

Halifax. While I generally agree with your views,

especially the notion that the poor are often

incorrectly perceived as irrational, I also have my own

opinions on poverty and enviro issues. There is no doubt

that it is difficult to think about conserving for the

future when your family is starving in the present.

However, personally I feel that too much blame has been

put on the poor for environmental degradation. Though

the poor maybe the direct actors in damaging activities

like deforestation, this is often as a result of poor

policy deciscion by government or large donor

organisations, (of course, these guys enjoy enough

criticism without me throwing in my two cents worth.)

Here are some of the observations I have made in the

past. Most of it probably agrees with your theories,

though as I haven't read them in detail, I hope I'm not

repeating things you've already said elsewhere.

When studying soil erosion in the third world, related

to deforestation, I found that World Bank structural

adjustment programs invariably lead to increaed

environmental degradation. These programs tended to

allocate the most valuable land to large, export

focussed commercial farms, leaving local people to

either work on these farms for (ridiculously)low wages

or cut down forests or move to marginal land to create

new pastures/fields.

Deforestation in the third world often occurs to provide

products for consumers in the first world, not for local

consumption. Often, international bodies or companies

oversee these activites. Changes in consumption patterns

in the first world may be the most effective way to

battle this kind of deforestation. Even if the people

chopping the trees are poor, it would be wrong to blame

them solely for this deforestation or to assume that

this is a direct correlation between the poverty of

workers and the loss of forest. It could, of course, be

argued that poor countries have less power to protect

themselves from corporations damaging the environment,

which may be true in some cases.

In several cases, poverty can be linked to resource

conservation. The poor have greater incentive to use

resources efficiently, and follow the three 'r's.

Investigations in cities in Bangladesh show that almost

no paper or other recyclables end up in the gutters,

landfills, or incenerators. These resources are

collected by scavengers are sold for scrap, ultimately

recycled. (I will look for some citations for you).

Farmers in some parts of the third world have strong

cultural/family ties to there land.This may endow them

with a sense of stewardship uncommon in western

commercial farms.

Finally, and obviously I don't need to tell you this,

but there are countless examples of environmental

atrocities (including deforestation) which have occured

in the developed world or which have been perpetrated by

wealthy multinational companies. Logging on Vancouver

Island, hardly a haven for world poverty, is one stark

example. Who is to blame for the cutting of these

forests, the people working the chainsaws, or the

multimillion dollar companies?

(intimately connected with the B.C. government in this

case) The links between wealth and deforestation here

are copmlex.

The intention of the above is not to suggest that there

is no correlation between poverty and enviro damage, but

just to suggest the the relationship is far more

complicated than often considered. Nor is my intention

to bash the world bank, the government, or

multinationals, though they are admittedly easy targets.

I just hope to point out,(though I'm sure you are

already aware) that the matter is not as simple as

the fact that 'poor people can not afford to protect the

environment'. In fact, I would probably argue that

excessive resource consumption by wealthy western

countries is probably the greatest cause for concern in

environmental terms.

Sorry I didn't offer any citations, but I'm working in

Costa Rica for the moment and most of my resources are

at home in Canada. Hope some of this is vguely

interesting for you.

By the way, I'm not a member of Green sanctuary, I just

do work on their site.

Dave

Mensaje citado por: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>:

> Dear David. I received your message, thank you very

much. I just did a > quick look at your site and I am

happy to see you are doing tangible > things on the

ground. I agree with the need to conserve as much as >

possible remaining forest, not just tropical forests as

you said in the > site there are alternatives to

deforestation. However, I think that the > alternative

to deforestation is what I call PRESERVATION PLUS, not

just > preservation. If you look at the data I am

providing on my site as > poverty increases

deforestation pressures increases and as ramaining >

forest areas decreases, they indicate increases pressure

on > deforestation. Hence, there is a link between

preservation and poverty > which must be addressed to

achieve sustainability in my view, otherwise > we are

just extrapolating deforestation into the future. We

know that > the behaviour of the poor, while it appears

irrational to non-poor, it > is rational behaviour

specially when there are not alternatives. I > would

happily exchange ideas with you and your group as there

is a lot > of room for cooperation. As you may know, I

am an independent > researcher and the views expressed

in my TRUE SUSTAINABILITY SITE AND > THE DEFORESTATION

IN CENTRAL AMERICA SITE are my humble means to steer >

some positive change, which requires cooperation and

networking. I will > be presenting very soon some

alternative proposals to deforestation and > to address

poverty, which at least will provide food for thoughts

at the > local and non-local level.

> Greetings;

> Lucio

 

June 01/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE

From: "Patricia Krommer" <pater@hotmail.com>

To: munoz1@sprint.ca

Lucio: Thank you for your wisdom. Your comments are well considered. I hope that this exercise has not been an empty attempt to "release steam" and has been taken seriously by the Bank. Pat Krommer CSJ, Board Member, Humanitarian Law Project, International Educational Development, Inc. UN consultative status.

 

June 02/2000/Communication on globalization

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

From: "Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)"

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 Holland

Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).

 

At 10:58 PM 06/01/2000 -0700, you wrote:

>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

 

June 03/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Welcome

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Welcome - Bienvenidos - Bienvenue

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

Dear Colleagues,

It is my great pleasure to welcome you to the Electronic Conference on

"Integrating Sustainable Food Security Dimensions into the Research Agenda of the National Agricultural Research Systems.

You will recall that the main purpose of this conference is to provide a forum for international discussion by diverse stakeholders on the main challenges facing agricultural research to contribute to sustainable food security, a follow-up to the World Food Summit held in Rome from 13-17 November 1996.

We would like to affirm the importance with which we view both this topic and the consultative process for its discussion. Individuals and groups representing a broad range of expertise and experience have been invited to engage in this dialogue. We all have a stake in the outcome of these discussions and therefore your participation is greatly appreciated.

The E-Consultation leading up to this E-Conference was quite useful in

helping us to identify how to address this complex topic. We look to you now, our E-Conference participants, to provide critical insights and innovative ideas so that the outcome of this effort provides tenable results for sustainable food security research.

With this message, we will formally open the E-Conference. We would like to thank you all again for taking the time to join us. We look forward to your valuable contributions and participation over the coming weeks in the discussions on this critical and timely topic.

Sincerely,

Santiago Funes

Officer-in-Charge, Research, Extension and Training Division

Sustainable Development Department

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

************

Estimados Colegas,

Es un placer darles la bienvenida a la Conferencia Electrónica sobre

"Integración de la dimensión de la seguridad alimentaria sostenible en los planes de investigación de los sistemas nacionales de investigación

agronómica".

El principal propósito de esta conferencia es proveer un foro internacional de discusión a los distintos entes involucrados sobre los principales retos a los que se enfrenta la investigación agraria para contribuir a la seguridad alimentaria sostenible, en seguimiento de los acuerdos tomados en la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación que tuvo lugar en Roma del 13 al 17 de noviembre de 1996.

Desearía descatar la importancia que damos a este tema así como al proceso consultivo para su discusión. Tanto individuos como grupos, representantes de un amplio espectrum de especialidades y de experiencias, han sido invitados a participar en este dialogo. Los resultados del debate nos afectan a todos y por ello les agradecemos su participación.

La Conferencia Electrónica fue precedida de una consulta, tambien

electrónica, que ayudó a definir la orientación que se debe dar al debate sobre un tema tan complejo. Ahora nos dirigimos a Vds, los participantes en la Conferencia, para que puedan aportar ideas esclarecedoras e innovadoras de forma que este esfuerzo común produzca resultados tangibles para la integración de la seguridad alimentaria sostenible en la investigación agraria.

Con este mensaje abrimos oficialmente la Conferencia Electrónica. Nuevamente les agradecemos el tiempo que van a dedicar a ella. Durante las próximas semanas estaremos deseando recibir tanto sus aportaciones como su participación en el debate sobre un tema tan importante para todos.

Atentatemente,

Santiago Funes

Oficial Encargado, Dirección de Investigación, Extensión y Capacitación

Departamento de Desarrollo Sostenible

Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Agricultura y la Alimentación

 

June 03/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Openning Remarks

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Introduction to the E-Conference Team

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

Dear E-Conference Participants,

Following on the kind words of welcome by Mr. Funes, the E-Conference

Management Team would also like to extend its welcome and thank you for

joining the Electronic Conference. We would like to take this opportunity to introduce you to the E-Conference Management Team. This group will be working with you over the course of the next 6 weeks. FAO and SANREM are collaborating with the NARS Secretariat of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) in this initiative.

Constance Neely, from the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource

Management Program (SANREM) of the University of Georgia will be serving as the moderator. A core group of individuals will help coordinate and support the consultative process. Members include: Ester Zulberti, Abubaker Maddur, Henry Mwandemere, Maria Zimmerman, Isabel Alvarez, Rainer Krell, and Wendy Truelove from FAO; Fernando Chaparro and Christian Hoste from the NARS Secretariat; and Thomas Price, Carla Roncoli, Julia Earl, and David Stewart from SANREM.

The E-Conference will be held in English, however, the E-Conference

Management Team will gladly accept submissions in other languages.

Submissions provided in other languages will be posted to the E-Conference in the language in which they are received.

The E-team members would like to stress the importance with which we view this conference. We are convinced that the process - because of your input - will lead to significant outputs. We thank you each for joining in this discussion.

Regards,

The E-Consultation Management Team

(E-Team)

**********

Apreciados participantes en la Conferencia Electrónica,

El equipo que gestiona la Conferencia tambien desea darles la bienvenida y agradecerles su participación durante las próximas 6 semanas. FAO y SANREM colaboran con el Secretariado de los SNIAs del Foro Global de Investigación Agropecuaria (GFAR) en la organización de esta Conferencia y por tanto el equipo está compuestos por personal de estas instituciones.

La moderadora será Constance Neely del SANREM (Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Collaborative Research Support Program) de la Universidad de Georgia, EE.UU. Un grupo de personas asistirán y ayudarán con la coordinación: Ester Zulberti, Abubaker Maddur, Henry Mwandemere, Maria Zimmermann, Isabel Alvarez, Rainer Krell y Wendy Truelove de la FAO; Fernando Chaparro y Christian Hoste del Secretariado de los SNIAs y ThomasPrice, Carla Roncoli, Julia Earl y David Stewart del SANREM.

El idioma de la Conferencia será el inglés pero se podrán enviar

aportaciones en otros idiomas. Estas últimas serán introducidas en el idioma original.

El equipo desearía manifestar la importancia que da a esta Conferencia.

Nosotros estamos convencidos que el proceso llevará a resultados

significativos dependiendo de sus contribuciones. Así pues les agradecemos a cada uno de Vds su participación en el debate

Atentamente,

El Equipo de Gestión de la Consulta Electrónica

(Equipo-E)

 

June 03/2000/Communication on Sustainability Page

From: "Diana Lopez-Feliciano" <diana22@caribe.net>

To: <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Subject: Sustainability Page

charset="utf-8"

Buenos Dias from Puerto Rico.

First, thank you fro sharing the page and of course its contents. I have not completed the reading but after reading the first page I have a question. In the last paragraph you say the page has external and internal components but the word external appears twice and then I do no know which are the internal. Must I assume that where the word external was written should read internal?

Diana Lopez-Feliciano

 

June 04/2000/Communication Selective Liberalization/World Poverty Fund

Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:11:43 +0800

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

From: "Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)"

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,

Geoff Holland

Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR).

At 10:46 PM 06/02/2000 -0700, you wrote:

>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

(cut)

*********************************************

GLOBAL FUTURES BULLETIN #108

---15 May, 02000---

POVERTY CYCLE, SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIP, AND DEBT SWAP

Cristovam Buarque and Geoff Holland [1]

In 1995 a program was introduced in Brasilia called 'Bolsa Escola'

(School Scholarship) whereby families of working children are paid to

keep the children at school. The program has been very successful

and has now been implemented in many cities in Brazil, in Mexico

and more recently in Ecuador.

To qualify for the scholarship, the family must have all its children at school and none of them can miss more than two days of classes per

month, otherwise they lose payment for that month. In the Mexican

program, the family is also required to take their children to the doctor once a month.

The project has been favourably evaluated by UNESCO, UNICEF,

IDB and BIRD [2].

But its potential is much greater than education. Poverty is geared to

both an economic cycle and a generation cycle. The BolsaEscola

project can break the generation cycle where children of poor families

grow up to be poor adults who raise poor families.

We have found that paying a scholarship income to poor families has

had unexpected positive impacts in health, empowerment of women,

reduction in drug use, and growth of income.

The BolsaEscola school scholarship goes to all families who qualify

according to a means test, not just those with working children (to

avoid the possibility of parents sending their children to work simply

in order to qualify).

The concept could be expanded significantly if we could instigate a

Debt-for-BolsaEscola program.

If we consider US$40 per family per month, worldwide, as the

opportunity cost of its children, and with 250m working children

worldwide estimated by UNICEF, and av. three children per family, it

suggests 83 million families would be beneficiaries, (as well as

another estimated 20 million families whose children go to school but

who would qualify under the means test).

The cost of a global BolsaEscola program would be approx US$50

billion/an - roughly the equivalent of 50% of the external debt service

paid in 1997, or around 0.15% of the world GNP, or 7% of annual

global military expenditure. Not so much.

In the recent 'Education for All' conference in Dakar, Kofi Annan

recommended the BolsaEscola project. Debt for education swap

programs have already been debated, and the BolsaEscola could be a

good way to do it - relatively easy to manage, and with highly

beneficial immediate and longterm impacts.

There is a difference between Debt-for-Nature swaps and Debt-for-

BolsaEscola swaps in that the former does not usually require

expenditure (or relatively little anyway) on the part of the developing

country concerned. Usually the land is public, and simply requires a

change of zoning so that it is protected in perpetuity - (although one

could argue that by doing this, the government is forfeiting income

from potential sale of the land in the future).

With the Debt-for-BolsaEscola scheme, the governments of

developing countries would have to pay the debt, (or an agreed

percentage of it) but instead of it going to the banks it would go to

eradicating child labour and raise the school participation rate closer

to 100%.

Currently, Kenya, for example, spends 25% of government revenue on

debt servicing, but only 6.8% on education and 2.7% on health.

While debt forgiveness is imperative for the Highly Indebted Poor

Countries (HIPCs), Debt-for-BolsaEscola swaps may be more

productive for other developing countries in that they may help in

restructuring government spending patterns away from large

infrastructural projects (that often primarily benefit the elite) and from military spending, and redirect them back to education.

The conservative lobby of the wealthy countries who now generally

oppose debt forgiveness might be more likely to support Debt-for-

BolsaEscola swaps as it would be perceived as the West exerting

leverage to extract concessions, rather than carte blanche debt

forgiveness. The issue would change from 'forgiveness versus no

forgiveness', to 'what form of debt reduction ?'.

In 1997 developing countries owed ~US$2,200 in debt, and paid

US$104b/an servicing this debt [3].

*

[1] Cristovam Buarque was Rector of the University of Brasilia 1985-

1989 and Governor of the Federal District of Brazil/Brasilia 1995-

1999. Geoff Holland is Editor of the Global Futures Bulletin.

[2] IBD - InterAmerican Development Bank; BIRD - Bank of

International Reconstruction and Development (World Bank group)

[3] see 'Debt relief' Global Futures Bulletin #80 15 Mar, 1999

*

{1. development issues, theory and paradigms}

 

June 06/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Background information and working definitions

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Background Information and Working Definitions

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

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 serve as 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.

PREPARATORY E-CONSULTATION (APRIL 3-21, 2000) As you may know, prior to this E-Conference, an Electronic Consultation was held to assist in the design of this E-Conference. During April 3-21, 2000, FAO, in partnership with the SANREM CRSP, and in collaboration with GFAR

hosted an E-Consultation in preparation for this E-Conference. During that three week consultation, a core group of approximately 30 experts

representing a diversity of stakeholder institutions came together

electronically to provide guidance on and respond to questions related to the proposed expected outcomes and outputs, the conceptual framework and key issues, as well as some organizational aspects of the program. Information from the E-Consultation can be found on the E-Conference Web Page. Oursincere thanks go out to those individuals who generously contributed their ideas and time during the E-Consultation.

THE BIG PICTURE - WHY ARE WE DOING THIS?

Within the Rome Declaration of the World Food Summit held in 1996, Heads of State and Governments reaffirmed "the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right of everyone to be free of hunger". In turn, there was a pledge of political will and commitment "to eradicate hunger in all countries, with an immediate view to reducing the number of undernourished people by half their present level no later than 2015."

In the developing world, 790 million people do not have enough to eat,

according to the most recent estimates (1995/97). According to the State of Food Insecurity in the World 1999, the current reduction does not indicate uniform progress throughout the world. Indeed the data reveal that, in the first half of this decade, just 37 countries achieved a reduction in the number of undernourished. Across the rest of the developing world, the number of hungry people actually increased.

We are heading toward the 5-year review of the World Food Summit and we know that there is no single prescription to achieve sustainable food security. The goal agreed to at the World Food Summit must be translated into concrete objectives at local, national and regional levels. This will enable people and their leaders to take action that will guarantee the birthright of everyone on this planet - enough to eat.

SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY - DEALING WITH A MULTIFACETED TOPIC

Although there have been numerous definitions, food security generally

refers to "access for all people at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life" (FCND, 1999; FAO, 1997; World Bank, 1986). During the World Food Summit (1996), Food Security was defined as "the right for everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food, consistent with the right to adequate food and the fundamental right for everyone to be free from hunger."

Through time, the focus of Food Security has shifted from national and

international food security concerns (food supplies) to individual and

household food security (access, vulnerability, entitlement). Food security is dependent on agriculture production, food imports and donations, employment opportunities and income earnings, intra-household decision-making and resource allocation, health care utilisation and caring practices (Johnson-Welch et al., 2000). It is a multidimensional development issue that requires interventions in an integrated fashion.

Generally food security consists of elements of availability, accessibility, and utilisation (USAID, 1997). Food security has been used as an organising principle for development. Maxwell and Frankenberger (1992) provided an analysis of assumptions in the definition of food security and found that there were four concepts implicit in the notion of "secure access to enough food all the time." These were a) sufficiency of food, defined mainly as the calories needed for an active, healthy life; b) access to food, defined by

entitlement to produce, purchase or exchange food or receive it as a gift; c) security, defined by the balance between vulnerability, risk and insurance; and d) time, where food insecurity can be chronic, transitory or cyclical.

The Rome Declaration articulated seven (7) commitments in order to address the multifaceted character of Food Security. Commitment 3 states that: "We will pursue participatory and sustainable food, agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development policies and practices in high and low potential areas, which are essential to adequate and reliable food supplies at the household, national, regional and global levels, and combat pests, drought and desertification, considering the multifunctional character of

agriculture."

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF RESEARCH IN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SECURITY?

Objective 3.4 within Commitment 3 of the Plan of Action mandates

"...decisive action in cooperation between the public and the private

sectors to strengthen and broaden research and scientific cooperation in agriculture, fisheries and forestry in supporting policy and international, regional, national and local action to increase productive potential and maintain the national resource base in agriculture, fisheries and forestry and in support of efforts to eradicate poverty and promote food security".

Among others, one component of Objective 3.4 stated that "governments in collaboration with the international and scientific community, in both private and public sectors, as appropriate, will strengthen national research systems in order to develop coordinated programs in support of research to promote food security".

BROADENING THE RESEARCH AGENDA: INTEGRATING SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND FOOD SECURITY RESEARCH

Despite increases in production, there is a large segment of people in the poor world whose lives have not been sufficiently influenced by the research programmes pursued to date. Feeding the world in the 21st Century should ensure that food production is coupled with both poverty reduction and environmental conservation and focused on small holder farming systems of the poorest countries. An increasing focus has been placed on an expanded vision for research and sustainable food security. There is little doubt that such an expanded vision demands a different and much more comprehensive research agenda.

Today, many actors are struggling to put this enlarged concept of

sustainable development into operation, be it in agriculture, forestry,

fisheries or food production. The early focus on the environment and natural resources and on the conservative management of these resources is being superseded by a much more comprehensive sustainable development concept taking into account economic, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions.

Emerging from several decades of debate, there is now a realisation of the need for a more holistic definition of the agricultural research agenda - a broadening of the research paradigm to an integrated one that encompasses more comprehensive approaches to agricultural development and the multifunctional character of agriculture. An integrated or holistic research paradigm is not intended to downplay the continuing importance of research strategies that have underpinned agricultural development to date.

THE EVOLVING STRUCTURE OF THE NARS

The National Agriculture Research Systems (NARS) are the national

institutions engaged in agricultural research. NARS are composed of the organisations and entities in a given country that are responsible for the generation, adaptation, validation and transfer of the technology (related to crops, livestock, forestry and fisheries) that farmers and natural resource users require.

The institutional diversification of agricultural research, the appearance of new institutional actors (i.e. NGOs, the private sector, universities), and the increasing complexity and costs of agricultural research due to very rapid developments in new areas of science are leading to significant changes in the organisational structure of agricultural research.

We are witnessing a clear evolution from an organisational model that was characterised by the very predominant role played by one large public research institute, a National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI), to an organisational model based on a diversified institutional infrastructure.

In this scenario a range of institutions play different but complementary roles in the process of generating, adapting, disseminating and using technology to improve the quality of sustainable livelihoods in the rural sector. This second model is given the generic name of National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS).

EXISTING NARS RESEARCH CHALLENGES

Multi-faceted challenges currently face the players engaged in agricultural research and food security. Although these challenges are formidable, they provide the seeds for transformation for the NARS to take cutting edge approaches in research. Some of these challenges are more substantive in nature and others have to do with the research process:

SUBSTANTIVE RESEARCH CHALLENGES

- addressing access, production and nutritional aspects of sustainable food security

- integrating natural resources, forests and fisheries into sustainable food security research.

- addressing resource poor agriculture in marginal areas

- integrating the new areas of science (e.g. biotechnology, communications and information technology)

- addressing household food security and integrating livelihood security and food systems strategies

- adapting to changing population demographics - urbanisation

- integrating traditional knowledge and transfer mechanisms

- integrating non-agricultural food security research issues

- addressing sustainable food security in light of trade liberalisation, decentralisation, and issues of property rights

RESEARCH PROCESS CHALLENGES

- implementing participatory, demand-driven and farmer-centred research

approaches

- integrating interdisciplinary research including agricultural, ecological, and social sciences

- integrating gender, ethnicity, tenure, age, and other dimensions

- linking between and coordination of research and policy making related to sustainable food security

- changing relationships between research, education and extension

- identifying mechanisms for integration of the various actors, institutions and their roles

- integrating the private sector and public/private sector research

partnerships

- seeking mechanisms to build human and financial resources for effective research programs.

- decentralising research and bringing smaller research units to be closer to the farmer

- research planning and priority setting

These and other factors are leading to a change in the institutional

infrastructure of agricultural research. Countries in the developing world are trying out diverse approaches.

BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS TO ENHANCE INSTITUTIONAL INTERACTIONS

To enhance their effectiveness with dwindling financial assistance and to take advantage of the comparative advantage of different groups, research and development institutions are rapidly seeking partnerships with those institutions not traditionally engaged. The NARS work very closely with the other Stakeholders of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR) including: International Agricultural Research Centres (IARCs) of the CGIAR, ARIs (Advanced Research Institutes of developed countries), NGOs (in both developed and developing countries), the Private Sector, Farmers' or Producers' Organisations, and Donors of international agriculture research and development. Presently, the NARS Forum provides a mechanism to address the interaction between research, extension and innovation in the agricultural sector, in order to assure that research effectively contributes to food security, poverty alleviation and sustainable development.

WHERE TO FROM HERE?

We realise that this is an enormous amount of material and quite broad in nature; however, we felt it necessary to provide some background information on the issues that we will be discussing in the next weeks. Thank you for your patience. It is now time to bring some focus to the discussions and we will do that in the next message using a set of questions to get us started.

And so, to the questions....

Best wishes,

The E-team

 

June 07/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Questions week 1

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Questions - Week 1

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

Dear E-Participants,

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

These questions are designed to draw out useful insights and examples

relevant to the list of Substantive Research Challenges in the previous

message. A short statement referencing one of the substantive research

challenges prefaces each question (or series of questions). Before we go to the questions we offer a few ground rules and gentle reminders which we would like to adhere to though out this e-conference.

GROUND RULES AND GENTLE REMINDERS

As we have set an ambitious course for these six weeks of working together, we offer a few ground rules and reminders might help us stay focused.

* Research: Remember that we are working in the realm of research for sustainable food security.

* Reality: While we are all looking to innovative ideas, we should

also bear in mind the existing situation (structures and resources) of the NARS and address solutions that are grounded in reality.

* Integration vs. Add-ons: Consider that integrating sustainable food security means addressing the issues holistically and not just adding aspects to the current agenda.

* Multi-Faceted Topic: Sustainable food security has political,

social, economic as well as technical dimensions and building partnerships in addressing issues is essential.

* Responses: We ask that you feel free to answer any or all of the

questions below. Your creative ideas are what are important so please do not be overly concerned with formally structured responses. Also, always please feel free to send any additional comments that you might wish to share.

We realise that everyone has many demands on their time. We would like to sincerely thank you in advance for your interest, your contributions and your assistance in keeping us on track.

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 07/2000/GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Thanks from the moderators

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

From: moderator1@worldbank.org

Dear Participants:

During the past month, more than 5000 of you have signed up to listen,

learn and contribute to this discussion on globalization. We received more than 1000 substantive messages and have faced the daunting task of choosing a rich and diverse sample of them, finally choosing roughly 250 messages for posting. More important than the numbers was the quality of the contributions and knowledge-sharing which, according to the feedback we have received from many observers and participants alike, has been very high. Perhaps most importantly, it is clear based on the "offline" correspondence we have seen that many of you are listening and learning from each other as new contacts and informal networks were made through this list.

We are now exploring options for continuing and expanding this dialogue in partnership with a number of other organizations. We will be back in contact shortly with more information. We will also be posting soon the summary of topic 4.

In the meantime, we will present copies of the weekly summaries of the

discussion to the World Bank's senior management (several of whom have

observed the discussion with great interest). The World Bank members of

the moderating team will explore with their colleagues how to share more broadly with World Bank staff the lessons drawn from this discussion, and how to continue and expand the involvement of World Bank management and staff in these public electronic dialogues.

We wish to thank each and every one of you. For those who did not actively contribute, thank you for your time listening and, hopefully, learning from others. For those who devoted the time to compose messages, thank you for your efforts and commitment. Our thanks also to the UK Department for International Development for its financial support of the Panos Institute's co-moderation of this discussion.

As a way of continuing the dialogue on important development topics, but on more specific documents and policies, The World Bank invites you to participate in the following current and upcoming discussions in the

Development Forum:

* Comprehensive Development Framework (Part 2)

For more information, go to: http://www.worldbank.org/devforum/forum_cdf2.html

To sign up, send a blank email to: join-cdf@lists.worldbank.org

* Policy Research Report on Gender and Development

For more information, go to: http://www.worldbank.org/devforum/forum_prr.html

To sign up, send a blank email to: join-prr@lists.worldbank.org

* Biodiversity Conservation and Use: A Seminar via Internet

For more information, go to:

http://www.worldbank.org/devforum/forum_biodiversity.html

To sign up, send a blank email to: join-biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org

 

June 08/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comments by Katzir, Munoz, and Foster

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Background Materials, Comments by Katzir, Munoz, and Foster

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

[Moderator's note: This message contains three sets of comments received relative to the Background Materials from Katzir, Munoz, and Foster. Thank you.]

Message 1. Background Materials, comments by Katzir.

>From Raanan Katzir [rannan@intet.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,

Raanan Katzir

*********

Message 2. Background Materials, Comments by Munoz

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

<mailto:[mailto:munoz1@sprint.ca]>

Sent: 08 June 2000

To: RAFS2000

Subject Re: Background Information and Working Definitions

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 to see 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 poverty 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, instead 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 necessarily 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 emphasis 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 impossible 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. mountains 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 unnoticed 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, regardless 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

*********

Message 3. Background Materials, Comments by Foster

From: SirSeth [mailto:sirseth@wans.net]

Sent: 07 June 2000 19:03

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.

The human responsibility: A Quality Sustainable Plan to have a Quality

Sustainable Future/Legacy, (something besides lots of cockroaches and a

newer version of the Titanic).

The critical world crisis is really the out of control residue of too many humans, exacerbated by the Chaos of Prosperity/greed, which, for some reason, forgot to be announced as the Number One World Crisis, called Easter

Island Syndrome.

Is one proposing to feed this problem/martrydom and what happens at

12,000,000,000 people? And, who wants to live or be sustained, like rats or cockroaches? Most humanitarian efforts seem to be quick trips, and mind spins, on long term solutions chewing up natural resources feeding chaos of an ever growing not-so-educated overpopulation and our greedy nature. It appears we humans are really exceptional at rationalizing and not accountability, for we have consumed our Quality Time Resources and are jumping without a parachute. Perhaps, we just haven't figured ourselves out, or perhaps we have and don't like what we discovered, then jumped? Sincerely, Seth Foster sirseth@wans.net <mailto:sirseth@wans.net>

June 08/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comments by Munoz

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Key Issues - Week 1, Comments by Munoz

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

 

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

Sent: 08 June 2000 09:50

To: RAFS2000; RAFS2000-L@mailserv.fao.org

Subject: Re: Questions - Week 1

Dear friends, please take my comments in a positive sense. In this section, I will not attempt to address the questions presented (but I may add some when I see some answers) as to me the terminology 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

 

June 08/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Reply to sustainability query

From: "SirSeth" <sirseth@wans.net>

To: <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Dear Lucio Munoz thank you for your response to my query.

I have found Dr. Virginia D.Abernethy has written a couple of

excellent books that reflect directly on the chaos of "bio-sustainable"

: Population Politics: The Choices that Shape Our Future (1993) ISBN:

0306444615 and Population Politics (1999) ISBN: 0765806037. Very

interesting works on flagrant bureaucracy, sustainable, and generation

accountability, that perhaps can be of interest to you and others.

I believe one must remove the politically correct duplicity and

dogma and address "The human responsibility" for the world we live in.

It appears we have become refugees of the "Garden of Eden," (perhaps,

too many Locust).

We appear to feed the cause for our self acquired "Easter Island

Syndrome," (a multiplying unsustainable overpopulation).

For, it is our chaos of prosperity & catastrophic human overpopulation

that triggers all other chaos. Somehow our human legacy of self

distruction does not equate to your "notion" of,

"...True sustainability will required some to climb and some to fall to achieve optimal conditions. Your human responsibility notion, while

important it is only one side of the coin, and it may not work without

acting together with "human rationality".

Human Rationalizing is nothing more than "blowing smoke" and side

stepping accountability. Humans have a history of temporary crises

initiatives, basically when faced with no other way out, unless

martyrdom is the goal.

If one were to agree "The critical world crisis is really the out of control residue of too many humans, exacerbated by the Chaos of

Prosperity and greed..." and announce it out loud and in print,

something may happen, besides chewing-up what's left of the "Garden of

Eden" and looking for someone or thing, to blame...

Sincerely, Seth

 

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

From: "Christopher N. Ridings " <tutu@.com.au>

To: "Warwick Dumas" ….

"Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca>,….

Subject: Fw: [globalization] A Recipe for Hope?

Dear fellow participants in the recent Globalisation electronic conference(and a few others) Doubtless, your e-mail box is resting thankfully after its much use this last few weeks.

I thought I might share with you my submission to the final week in the

Conference. It didn't get onto the final posting (of course), so my 15

seconds of international fame is now not likely to happen. Nevertheless, I have enjoyed my conversations with you.

Out of the over 500 e-mails I received, I decided to share this with

approximate 60 with whom I shared conversation because you are the ones who have each taught me something about yourself and the environment from which you come.

I am also sharing this with a few others here at home closely involved with where I come from.

I shall be happy to receive any response.

God bless each of you in your work and we seek for human beings to love

their neighbours with practical and long-lasting forms of justice and mercy!

Chris

Rev. Christopher N. Ridings

tutu@atu.com.au

http://www.atu.com.au/~tutu

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

From: Christopher N. Ridings <tutu@.com.au>

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

> Rev. Christopher N. Ridings

> tutu@atu.com.au

> http://www.atu.

>

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

> From: <moderator1@worldbank.org>

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

> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2000 11:58 PM

> Subject: [globalization] The discussion will end soon

 

June 09/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comments by Doelle

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

From: doelle [mailto:doelle@ozil.com.au]

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.

The Green Revolution has been very damaging to our land as

it:

a) removed the small farmer from the farm in favour of large

landowners using machines

b) introduced chemical fertilisation, thereby destroying our

soil population vital to crop production

c) introducing pesticides and insecticides.

If we want a sustainable food production, we have to make

sure that our soils are healthy and that we replace chemicals with

intercropping etc, what the small farmer has done is is still doing in many areas of the world. In my opinion, we cannot increase our fields for ever and thus destroying more and more of our forrests and other environments and leaving the infertile soils without crops.

I am always amazed that food security always circulates

around plants producing food, yet not realising that crop yields are

diminishing if the soil is becoming infertile.

I tremendous amount of yield reduction is due to soil

problems.

We surely cannot improve or create food sustainability

without taking care of the soil. Without a soil microbial flora and soil mineralisation, there will be no crop.

I am of the opinion that food security is ultimately linked

with farm security and thus a socio-economic approach of agriculture, which can be achieved, I believe, by diversification of crop usage through bio-integrated system technology.

Best regards

Horst Doelle

Horst W.Doelle, D.Sc., D.Sc. [h.c.]

Chairman, IOBB

Director, MIRCEN-Biotechnology

June o9/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Response by Munoz to Foster

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

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

Sent: 08 June 2000 20:18

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Re: Response to 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 responsibility 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

Reply to Munoz by Foster

From: SirSeth <mailto:sirseth@wa.net>

To: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca <mailto:munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 6:26 PM

Subject: Dr. Virginia D. Abernethy

Dear Lucio Munoz thank you for your response to my query.

I have found Dr. Virginia D.Abernethy has written a couple of

excellent books that reflect directly on the chaos of "bio-sustainable" :Population Politics: The Choices that Shape Our Future (1993) ISBN:

0306444615 and Population Politics (1999) ISBN: 0765806037. Very interesting works on flagrant bureaucracy, sustainable, and generation accountability, that perhaps can be of interest to you and others.

I believe one must remove the politically correct duplicity and

dogma and address "The human responsibility" for the world we live in. It appears we have become refugees of the "Garden of Eden," (perhaps, too many Locust).

We appear to feed the cause for our self acquired "Easter Island

Syndrome," (a multiplying unsustainable overpopulation).

For, it is our chaos of prosperity & catastrophic human

overpopulation that triggers all other chaos. Somehow our human legacy of self distruction does not equate to your "notion" of,

"...True sustainability will required some to climb and some to fall to achieve optimal conditions. Your human responsibility notion, while important it is only one side of the coin, and it may not work without acting together with "human rationality".

Human Rationalizing is nothing more than "blowing smoke" and side

stepping accountability. Humans have a history of temporary crises

initiatives, basically when faced with no other way out, unless martyrdom is the goal.

If one were to agree "The critical world crisis is really the out of control residue of too many humans, exacerbated by the Chaos of Prosperity and greed..." and announce it out loud and in print, something may happen, besides chewing-up what's left of the "Garden of Eden" and looking for someone or thing, to blame...

Sincerely, Seth

 

June 09/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Response from Foster to Munoz

From: "SirSeth" <sirseth@wns.net>

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

Dear Lucio, you do have good thoughts.

Even better, if not for the lack "Time Resources" consumed by bad

habits of prosperity, which for some reason gives us religious

martyrdom, greed, complacency, all stimulating overpopulation,

exacerbating poverty & nationalism.

Let us get real, it's a life & legacy time clock aggravated by

prosperity. I research this problem and I do not hide or pretend it

doesn't exist.

It is nearing panic time at the sight of this year's drought with a world clean water crisis, what do you think is causing this situation? Mean while, Overpopulation is a growing like uncontrolled terminal cancer.

Until one can say "It's the residues of uncontrolled overpopulation

stimulated by prosperity & greed, one remains with the blind masses,

saying "I just had ten or twelve children like everyone in my village

that lived" and then, viola, my goodness, it's one very large human

accident looking for food and someone to blame.

O.K. Lucio, my friend, in twenty years there may be at least

12,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000 are unsustainable people chewing-up

the world (consuming) and you "Lucio" are responsible for feeding them

and also, you are the accountable Captain of this ship call Earth.

It's only your decision, and half the population is under the age of 24

and multiplying, what do you do (and where are you going to ship the

excesses)? To survive Captains must be absolute dictators.

I wonder, one could go into politically correct group therapy and

get all fuzzy & warm and then have every human hold hands and jump into

a predestined martyrdom?

Let's not pretend, because of procrastination, "There is no

acceptable & accountable Working Quality Sustainable Plan", other than

for cockroaches & rats, now or ever. It is because of mentality of the

"Self Destructive Human Element."

I wish you could remember the " Great French Oceanographer Jacque

C." Why are you painting the roof while the house is burning down?

Procrastination may haunt you for the next twenty years, a little

brother to the last twenty...

I still would like an answer, even if one has to say "There is one,

or none, but I would rather not say." Perhaps, the only sustainable

act/project is an exercise in murky gyrations of futility, the search

for accountability.

The Dinosaurs lasted longer and did better with a pee sized brain,

what's our excuse, besides the unknown factor "The human element"

meaning we can't figure ourselves out from one generation to the

next?...:o)) Best wishes, sincerely, Seth

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

From: Lucio Munoz=

To: SirSeth

Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 9:29 PM

Subject: Re: Dr. Virginia D. Abernethy

 

Dear Seth, it seems to me that our way to look at the world is not that

different at all, just that we have different views on how best to

achieve change toward Human Responsibility in your view or achieve

change toward sustainability in my view. You appear to believe that the

culprit is over population, and I believe that the fault is that social

concerns(which includes population concerns) are left out our current

eco-economic development model. Please, visit my web page at

http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz and let me know what do you thing

about its content. I wrote an article called

"An Overview of Some of the Policy Implications of the Eco-economic

Development Market and Their Policy Implications" published in

January/2000 by MBC/International Journal in Environmental Management

and Health which reaches some conclusions that may be, if materialized,

as coatic as your over population thesis.

Greetings and please receive my warm greetings;

Sincerely;

Lucio

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

From: SirSeth

To: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 6:26 PM

Subject: Dr. Virginia D. Abernethy

 

Dear Lucio Munoz thank you for your response to my query.

I have found Dr. Virginia D.Abernethy has written a couple of

excellent books that reflect directly on the chaos of "bio-sustainable"

: Population Politics: The Choices that Shape Our Future (1993) ISBN:

0306444615 and Population Politics (1999) ISBN: 0765806037. Very

interesting works on flagrant bureaucracy, sustainable, and generation

accountability, that perhaps can be of interest to you and others.

I believe one must remove the politically correct duplicity and

dogma and address "The human responsibility" for the world we live in.

It appears we have become refugees of the "Garden of Eden," (perhaps,

too many Locust).

We appear to feed the cause for our self acquired "Easter Island

Syndrome," (a multiplying unsustainable overpopulation).

For, it is our chaos of prosperity & catastrophic human overpopulation

that triggers all other chaos. Somehow our human legacy of self

distruction does not equate to your "notion" of,

"...True sustainability will required some to climb and some to fall to achieve optimal conditions. Your human responsibility notion, while

important it is only one side of the coin, and it may not work without

acting together with "human rationality".

Human Rationalizing is nothing more than "blowing smoke" and side

stepping accountability. Humans have a history of temporary crises

initiatives, basically when faced with no other way out, unless

martyrdom is the goal.

If one were to agree "The critical world crisis is really the out of control residue of too many humans, exacerbated by the Chaos of

Prosperity and greed..." and announce it out loud and in print,

something may happen, besides chewing-up what's left of the "Garden of

Eden" and looking for someone or thing, to blame...

Sincerely, Seth

 

June 09/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Munoz comment on Katzir

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

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

Sent: 08 June 2000 19:46

To: RAFS2000

Cc: Raanan 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 ON FOOD SECURITY: Katzir reply to Munoz

From: "Raanan Katzir" <rannan@inter.net.il>

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

Cc: <munoz1@sprint.ca>

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

security.

2. The farmer as a partner to the cooperation: Farmer, Research, 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

___________________________________________________

Raanan Katzir, Director, Project & Technology, Latin American Affairs.

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

> Sent: 08 June 2000 19:46

> To: RAFS2000

> Cc: Raanan 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.h

> tml

>

June 09/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Response by Primavesi

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

From: Odo Primavesi [SMTP:od@c.embrapa.br]

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 1:52 PM

To: RAFS2000

Good day, colleagues!

Considering that there is a REAL INTEREST of the first world

countries and governments to promote the sustainability of human life

quality on Earth, through agriculture and food production, distribution and access, besides sharp atmospheric pollution control, and environmental quality improvement restoring ecological functions (both sharply affecting the agricultural yields), and that the sustainability components social-environmental were equally considered with the economical (therefore reducing the goal to maximize individual efficiency and competitivity to accumulate capital without work = UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, changing to an effort to promote life quality and equity without any discrimination and with empowerment of the consumption power of each person = SUSTAINABLE GROWTH), not considering the third world mainly as an in EXCESS CONSUMPTION

MARKET of value aggregated goods and services or FREE SOURCES of

rough materials and human power, so we can have the hope of a SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (based on a SUSTAINABLE GROWTH), and answer the questions objectively.

Today the lack of food security is not a main problem of production but a problem of access (land acces or income in the rural environment, and income in the urban environment), and honest nutritional (human nutrition) knowledge, and the cutting of social or economical conflicts and wars, most of them induced or directly or indirectly supported by the so called firstworld institutions, economically driven.

And the restriction of productivity in the third world is not a lack of research and validation of modern technologies and complex equipments but the validation and extension of an on holystic agroecological principles based knowledge, with regard to the restoration of the environmental production functions, mainly resident water and soil conservation and the inclusion of agroforestry concepts to manage the microclimate (temperature and relative humidity), besides associativity, management and market knowledge, and improvement of medium to familiar diversified production systems, considering the multifunction of land..

Question 1.

a) facilitating access to food?

in rural area improving the diversified production systems, with an

integrated multifunction land use. In urban areas only increasing the income of the population, and improving the nutritional education.

b) increasing food production?

urgently restoring the environmental production functions, improving

the resident water and soil conservation with inclusion of agroforestry systems, direct drill on mulch with culture rotation practices, based on agroecological principles. These activities are base to an increase of the input efficiency like fertilizer and water use, in common or site specific practices. The main problem I see is to restore the availability of water: increasing storage, reducing losses, increasing water use efficiency by plants, and optimal water use (the only factor studied with more interest).

In this view the introduction of the forestry component at local and also regional and global level will be the major challange and more efficient practice from the ecological point of view.

c) improving food nutritional value?

reducing pesticide use by integrated pest and disease control, by

use of biological products, improvement of natural enemies or improvement of plant nutrition. And increasing the biological value of the product by a site specific and variety specific nutritional program. All based on item <b>.

After harvest increasing food integrity maintenance, and maintaining the natural nutritional quality of harvested food.

d) reducing food losses?

better harvest machinery and post-harvest transportation and storage

conditions.

Question 2.

B. natural resources

a) forests?

answered in question 1 b. In Brazil the environmental/forestry

egislation compel to a general maintenance of 20% of the rural

property under natural forests. But the legislation doesn't teach the farmer the ecological function of this reservation and also the benefits to the agricultural production systems (temperature and air humidity stabilization, reservoir of natural pest enemies, etc. for a sustainable agricultural development, or how to restore these areas.

b) fisheries?

in smallholders production systems this is possible, with an

increase in an efficient multifunctional land use.

C. marginal areas

Question 4.

a)first of all the evaluation of the production potential of the

natural vegetation (fruits, gums, wood, etc) and of the bare soil under the predominant climate, through an agroecological zoning/classification of these areas. Development of diversified agroforestry productions systems, trying to increase and maintain the resident water, biomass and soil protection. In very fragile areas avoiding the deforestation, introducing the sustainable extraction of products (fruits, wood), or even maintain these areas preserved, like the riparian or spring protection areas.

b) independent if marginal or better areas, in the tropics, the

exclusion of the forestry component in the systems (including the 20%

permanent protected areas), the reduction of soil protection, will reduce the resident water and therefore the water production along the agricultural year, and affect the input and irrigation efficiency. And this will turn also good areas economically marginal!. In Brazil we explore only about 8-25% of the practical production potential of plants because of the transgression of the main ecological principles, with destruction of many natural functions.

Therefore, the intensification of agricultural systems ONLY by an

increase of inputs (or use of site specific technologies, or use of

transgenic site (with lower potential, or more stress) adapted varieties), will not be sustainable, nor from the ecological, or economical or social point of view.

We need to restore the agricultural environments, and at short time this will cost more, and increase the end price of products. But as I stated at the beginning: if we want a sustainable food production and access, we cannot maximize the short time economical goal but the ecological and social component!!!!!

Additional Comments? Yes! I am now working also with Environmental Education, and was surprised to state that the main goal is to preserve natural environments, and to reduce urban environmental pollution, but nothing concerned to the restore and healthy management of highly degraded agriculture environments (degradation process in the humid tropics is very fast: what in Europe occurs in 30 years we can see here in 6 months after removal of a Cerrado/savanna forest). Of the other side the all soil and water conservation and forestation programmes were rural Environmental Education programmes! The principles of environmental education came from the first world! So what is the matter? The degraded agricultural landscapes force the farmers to occupy more natural environments, what is not sustainable! And here the agricultural environments occupy more than 70% of most of the Brazilian states, degrading soil, natural environments and therefore resident water (rupture of hydrological cycle, soil surface

compaction and surface rainwater losses etc). We need urgently to integrate and compatibilize environmental concepts of sanitation engineers, agronomists and ecologists, when working together in watersheets. Water is the integrating management factor of natural-agricultural-urban environments in a rural farm, and the farmer need to know how to do this efficiently, what are the advantages for him and the community and also the global community etc. And the urban population need to be educated on the healthy environmental management, because of their political power (in Brazil 80% of population lives in cities).

Many of the good intentioned FAO and World Bank development

programmes failed because of the maximization of the economical component against the socio-environmental. If you want succeed with the proposal of this Conference, you need urgently change the skill of our production system, to anything similar what Munoz suggested.

I have to add that I agree completely with the first opinion of

Lucio Munoz from Canada, when we want really a sustainable local and global development of food security. His idea need to be really taken into account if we want succeed with any action in sustainable development and food security.

Best regards,

Odo

 

June 09/2000/FOA CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Response from Foster

From: "SirSeth" <sirseth@wans.net>

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

Dear Lucio,

The World Problem is we are the problem and we are not a solution

{other than martrydom) and more people make a bigger problem, therefore, not so many people...

"It is nearing panic time at the sight of this year's drought with a

world clean water crisis, what do you think is causing this situation?

Mean while, Overpopulation is a growing like uncontrolled terminal

cancer.

Until one can say "It's the residues of uncontrolled overpopulation

stimulated by prosperity & greed", one remains with the blind masses,

saying "I just had ten or twelve children like everyone in my village,

that lived" and then, viola, my goodness, it's one very large human

accident looking for food and someone to blame."

"I still would like an answer, even if one has to say "There is one, or none, but I would rather not say." Perhaps, the only sustainable act/project is an exercise in murky gyrations of futility, the search for accountability.

The Dinosaurs lasted longer and did better with a pee sized brain,

what's our excuse, besides the unknown factor "The human element"

meaning we can't figure ourselves out from one generation to the next?

I believe I've said more than enough, Best wishes and good luck on your

adventure, sincerely, Seth

 

June 10/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Munoz reply to Foster

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

To: "'sirseth@wans.net'" <sirseth@wns.net>

Cc: "'munoz1@sprint.ca'" <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Dear Mr. Foster (cc Mr. Munoz),

I am forwarding this message from Mr. Munoz. I believe that this message and its potential reply are intended for private discussion rather than for the E-Conference. Thank you.

Best regards,

Constance Neely

E-Team, Moderator

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

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

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:35 PM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: RE: Extending my reply to Foster

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

 

June 10/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comment by Munoz on Doelle and reply to Katzir by Munoz

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Key Issues - Week 1, Comment on Doelle and Reply to Katzir by Munoz

[Moderator's note: This message contains two separate messages

received from Munoz. Thank you.]

Comments on Doelle by Munoz:

From: Lucio Munoz [SMTP:munoz1@sprint.ca]

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 10:20 PM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 1, Comments by Doelle

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

are facing(supply side of food security) are declining fertility(increasing degradation) and income security of farmers(unsustainable demand)facing agricultural systems), and these are common factor in developing countries in my view. Seen closely 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 long term 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 men. 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

 

Reply to Katzir by Munoz:

From: Lucio Munoz [SMTP:munoz1@sprint.ca]

Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 10:46 PM

To: Raanan Katzir; RAFS2000

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

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

 

June 10/2000/PLANETA.COM/Communication: Deforestation Study

From: "Danny O'Keefe" <nfo@bird.org>

To: <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

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,

Danny O'Keefe

The Songbird Foundation

 

June 12/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comments by Bunch

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

From: rolando@cosecha.sdnhon.org.hn

[SMTP:rolando@echa.sdnhon.org.hn]

Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 5:29 PM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 1, Comments

Dear Colleagues,

Basically, I agree with most of what has been said: food security is

primarily a "demand-side" problem--food is available everywhere, even during the worst famines, for those of us who have the money to buy it. The problem is that so many people can't produce enough-to eat, themselves, or sell to buy something else. Access to land and better local infrastructure, among other things, are also obviously extremely important.

So improved markets could certainly help, but people have been

complaining about the problem of poor markets for 40 years, and I see

precious few successful, sustainable efforts. Globalization will very

likely have a tremendously negative effect on small-scale developing nation farmers for at least the next fifteen to twenty years. After all, the whole theory of comparative advantage is based on the concept of level playing fields, but what small-scale farmer in Honduras, Brazil or Pakistan is on a level playing field with a 5,000-ha tractorized, satellite- and computer-connected, university-educated, government-subsidized farmer working five mts from a paved highway in the US Midwest?? Someone's got to be kidding!

But one thing we can do, and that is reorient the kind of

agricultural research presently being done. As others have said

(especially Odo Primavesi), we MUST move toward a more ecological

agriculture, and one that 1) deals with the real limiting factors of the farmers, and 2) does not require very many far too expensive inputs (including chemical fertilizer, which will be shooting upward in price soon because of recent increases in petroleum prices).

In most of the developing world, partly BECAUSE of the kind of

research we've been doing, WATER and SOIL quality are the two most widely spread limiting factors. This means we very much need to do a lot of research on: micro-scale irrigation, micro-scale water harvesting, water storage (at less than US $ 10/cu mt), SIMPLE recycling of grey water, green manure/cover crops that produce edible by-products and can be grown on land with no opportunity cost (not the traditional monocropped green manures of temperate climate fame), soil cover (rather than soil conservation structures) for erosion control, green manure/cover crop systems that already exist traditionally (they are tremendously widespread, as farmers have developed them because researchers haven't), and "dispersed tree" systems (probably the most promising agroforestry systems we know of for small farmers, which are also very widespread in Africa, Asia, and parts of Latin America, but researchers haven't given them hardly any attention at all).

And the research processes? We need a variety of processes, but no

one seems to have mentioned so far small farmer experimentation, or

"participatory technology development". We in COSECHA are presently doing a study of 200 farmer experimenters in Honduras, and are finding an average of about 1.5 very promising, original technologies per experimenter that these farmers have developed over the last five years. No research process could ever be as cost-effective as this one.

Sincerely, Roland Bunch

 

June 12/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comment by Jonnalagadda

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

 

From: kedar jonnalagadda [SMTP:smartpark@bizland.com]

Sent: Sunday, June 11, 2000 6:48 PM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 1, Responses

Hi ! Happy to be here! I got lost a bit. My specialization is

generalization. I am glad I have the company of Dr.Katzir and Dr.Munoz who are talking of "holistic approaches". I think the main issue is

"SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABILITY".

1. Once upon a time...Students of B.Sc. Agriculture in India had

jobs waiting for them no sooner they graduated. Their job was to propagate science of agriculture to 'uneducated - ignorant' farmers. They were to teach - application of artificial FERTILIZERS, USE PESTICIDES, and generally adopt geometric straight agriculture. It was unscientific otherwise. 30 years later - Health Food Era. ORGANIC FOODS, NATURAL FOODS - HEALTH FOODS, HERBAL you name it getting a larger shares in the markets.

This is cause for worry to many, especially highly qualified policy makers. They have discovered a brand new diet... eating their hats. They need to go now to "ignorant farmers" saying - "Sorry Buddies! What you are doing is wrong. There is this brand new science called ORGANIC FARMING...you have to use no synthetic stuff..."

The farmer's "old, uneducated, ignorant grand father" is sitting in his favourite posture muttering something...

2. For R&D Seeds are a good beginning. As you sow so shall you reap. A very big industry too...Once upon a time...farmers selected their own seeds from crops they raised. "Natural selection" ? "Scientific farming" is high input farming. Now all varieties do not respond to high inputs. So plant breeders over the years, discovered genes for high response to high input.

A good variety responded beautifully to high inputs and good care. Old varieties that performed average or less than average disappeared. Weeded out we must say. They performed miserably under "high input" conditions. Over the years, all varieties developed are champions under high input conditions.

Then comes in the champion concept, "organic food". Fad (it was

called). It germinated, grew naturally and now bears fruits too. But, what kind of varieties do we have now for organic farmers ? Are they good performers under "organic farming" regimes? Is there "scientific work" for higher productivity under "low input organic farming" regimes. Where is the "gene pool"? Good topic for arguments ? Heh?

3. "Sustainable food security" in the most relevant context is an

"economic question"...Not a technology question. Let me give an example a few years back. in the state of Maharashtra, India. Everybody discovered "strawberry"... what a wonderful crop...yields so high! Everybody got on to the "strawberry" wagon... Result... prices fell from Rs.250 a kg. to Rs.15. And what can one do with strawberry that has to wait for buyers...It weeps. Now don't tell me ..."how stupid..why don't you make wine or strawberry jam, or deep freeze it...the question is: wasn't I food secure before the ***//### strawberry?

4. Despite today's "Information Technology Era", the problem seems to be that "half of the world does not know what the other three fourths" are doing. So Rural Information Systems and Rural Information Technology Centres worldwide are needed just to be more aware. The time has come to integrate and use "wheels" not reinvent.

5. So we are back to the beginning... HOLISTIC APPROACHES....

"Farming", "Food", "Energy", "Environment", "Health", "Information

Technology", "Society".

6. An e-conference on INTEGRATED approaches would be swell and we

could come out with use of "solar energy", zeolytes for refrigeration.

Biodegradable packaging, "bio fuels", name it.

7. Bon Homie. Human approach... A little bit more care...Not the we and they approach...Not the impersonal touch...And a sense of humour. While we are all at it ... I have put up the world's first "sportal" on sustainable technologies Smart Park - Sustainable Technologies - Virtual Exhibition on Farming, Food, Energy, Environment, Health and Society. All are welcome. The autographs of distinguished gathering will be treasured.

Thanks

Kedar

Kedarnath Jonnalagadda B.Sc.(Agri),M.Sc.(Genetics)

 

June 12/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Whittaker comment on Munoz, Foster, Qureshi

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Qureshi,

Balasubramanian, and Egal

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

From: Thomas Whittaker [SMTP:thomas.whiaker1@virgin.net]

Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 2:48 PM

To: rafs2000-L@mailserv.fao.org

Subject: Response to comments so far.

Hello from Britain.

I have been reading all the comments so far with great interest.

Some of you may remember me from the FAO's Maastricht conference last year.

I am farmer here in England. This probably lets me view things from a

different prospective.....The bottom up perhaps?

Comments on Lucio Munoz, Seth Foster, M.Subhan Qureshi,V.

Balasubramanian and Florence Egal.

The points raised initially by Lucio Munoz are outstanding to say

the least. As are the comments of all so far.

Seth Foster has hit the nail on the head with his comments on the

Easter Island syndrome and quality of life. The difference today is that unlike the Easter Islanders, who, when they had exhausted their islands natural resources and after a while realised that eating each other was something of a spiral of diminishing returns, had somewhere else to go. We don't.

Developing and developed countries are in the same boat now and if research systems are to be considered in an holistic context, surely in this age of information technology the term 'national' leaves something to be desired when used as a system boundary.

Perhaps NARS could mobilize regional and sub-regional research

programs working within an international framework based on mutual

understanding and a need for research that can be used in a practical manner at some stage? Or is that too much to hope for.

Systems, by the way, be they social, (Easter Island for example.) political, eco, monetary or research, sooner or later break down and fail unless they evolve. For a research system to be successful in terms of sustainable food security it would have to be almost an organic entity reacting to each change in its environment with rapid change to itself. The twin worlds of Government and Academia are in a pretty slow orbit whereveryou are and tend to consider 'glacial' as too fast to ride a bike.

Subhan Qureshi.

You could be talking about Britain! We have have a problem with

parasites of the middle-man variety too! I would disagree with you most

strongly on the need for bigger slaughter facilities though, on a number of grounds. Animal welfare for example. Fewer but larger slaughterhouses would mean greater distances to travel and more stress on the animals. As a beef farmer I have no problem with killing and eating animals, but we do have a responsibility to lower life-forms. It would also lead to local monopolies, govt. corruption and less money and food security for the primary producer. Food quality would suffer also.

The time spent taking the animals greater distances would be lost to the farmer who would have to work longer hours to compensate, thus reducing quality of life. I do not know what crime rates are like in your country but if we were to leave our farm unattended for more than a few hours, half of it would not be there when we came home! A different slant on household food security perhaps?

Florence Egal is right to suggest that greater regulation would be detrimental. I do not think Subhan Qureshi was referring to the

middle-women needing to earn a living by small scale processing and

marketing, more perhaps the industrial type processors who force 'on farm' prices down whilst raising the end price to the retailer and consumer. Who, if poor cannot afford to pay the price.

On the subject of food safety and the effect on defence mechanisms.

All you have to do is look at the problems we have in developed countries. Asthma levels at a all time high, allergies to just about everything and a population that thinks every egg or lettuce leaf is a salmonella or listeria threat. Yet they quite happily eat sterilised food from plastic packaging that leaches phthalates and carcinogens into the food. When they come into contact with salmonella or e-coli, quite often lack of immunity is fatal.

Local food for local people is I think essential, at least initially when aiming for food security.

I will try to answer week 1's questions soon, but I am thinking a

few things out in general that I will send tomorrow.

The phrase 'think globally act locally' seems highly relevant to

food security and the development of NARS.

Regards

Thomas Whittaker

 

June 12/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Message from E-team

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

Our thanks go to all of you who have taken the time to read the

materials and react to the questions that were sent out for Week 1. Thank you for your participation. We have made a lot of progress thus far.

In the next couple of days, we will draw Week 1 to a close and move on to a new set of questions related to additional key issues. Therefore, we would like to solicit any further responses to Questions 1-4. Particularly we notice that there were less responses related to issues of integrating natural resources - forests and fisheries (Question 3) as well as addressing marginal areas (Question 4). If there are additional comments and responses out there to any of the questions, we would be grateful to receive them.

This week (Week 2) we will continue discussions on the key issues

and next week (Week 3) we will be moving to research process issues some of which have already been alluded to in your recent comments.

In the meantime, we have a couple of housekeeping items:

1. The E-Conference web site (www.fao.org/nars/rafs2000

<http://www.fao.org/nars/rafs2000> ) has been updated to include the

registration database - list of registrants. Please note that there is a difference between subscribing (signing up to receive e-mail) and

registering (sending in your contact information details). Currently, about 60% of the RAFS2000-L subscribers are registered. By registering you ensure that you are listed along with other registrants on the list posted on the web page. Those of you who have not sent in your registration information are encouraged to do so - we will happily update the list. Just let us know your name, institutional affiliation, institution type, address, phone, fax,

email address and web page (if applicable). You can send that information by email to RAFS2000@fao.org <mailto:RAFS2000@fao.org> or go to "Register Here" on the menu bar of the E-Conference web page and fill in the form.

2. One of our E-Colleagues has requested that we put together a citation list of the most recent relevant literature and post it on the web. We think that this is an excellent idea. Therefore, we ask that if you have or know of publications that qualify as "must reading" please send us the citation information including: for journals - author, title, journal (volume, page), year; for books - author, title, year and publisher; or for grey literature - title, author/institution, year, source and availability.

Again, thank you for your participation and we look forward to your

continued involvement.

Best wishes,

The E-Team

 

June 12/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week one

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

From: cdf@worldbank.org

Welcome to the second phase of the World Bank’s electronic dialogue on the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF). It builds on the first

discussion (May/June 1999) on the CDF principles. The dialogue will last until Friday, July 7. Each week there will be a new question to help guide the discussion.

During the first two weeks, the dialogue will focus on the implementation of the four CDF principles (see below) and the challenges and issues for countries (governments and civil society, etc) in the first week and for external partners (such as aid donors) in the second week. During the third week, it will focus on how the CDF principles are being applied in the "Poverty Reduction Strategies" that are being prepared by all low-income developing countries. The final week, July 3-7, will be for people to raise any other issues on the CDF not covered in the first three weeks of the dialogue.

As essential preparation for the dialogue, we urge you to read the CDF May 2000 Progress Report, with a 4-page Executive Summary, and have a look at the updated Questions and Answers. These are at the World Bank's website at<http://www.worldbank.org/cdf>. If you do NOT have web access, you can receive an MS Word 6.0 version of the May 2000 Progress Report and Q&A by sending a request to: Cdelgadillo@worldbank.org

If you would like to access the original January 1999 CDF proposal and

other CDF information, these can also be found at:

<http://www.worldbank.org/cdf/>.

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.

 

**** QUESTION FOR WEEK ONE (JUNE 12-19) ****

Implementing the CDF principles—the Benefits and Challenges for Developing Countries.

As you can see from the May 2000 Progress Report, there are considerable benefits and challenges for developing countries, for governments, civil society, etc. in implementing the four CDF principles. What are your views and experience?

---------------------------------

Ground rules for the discussion:

Finally, we want to remind you to observe a few simple guidelines in

sending a contribution to the debate.

1. Please keep your messages short (one page maximum) and to the subject.

2. Illustrate your points whenever possible with practical examples.

3. Introduce yourself briefly (one or two lines) when sending your first message to the discussion.

4. Please do not submit attachments. If you would like to share a document, please send a link or mention that it can be requested from you directly.

5. If you have a message for one individual only, and not for the whole

group to read, please send it directly to that individual.

We are looking forward to a lively debate and reading your contributions.

 

June 12/2000/RESECON: Carbon Sequestration as Joint Production

Sender: Land & Resource Economics Network <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

From: Frank Benford <benrd@OPEN.ORG>

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

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,

Frank Benford

 

June 13/2000/RESECON: Carbon Sequestration is Long Gone Dead

Sender: Land & Resource Economics Network <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

From: Folke Bohlin <folke.bohlin@SH.SLU.SE>

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Status:

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 Benford 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,

> Frank Benford

 

June 13/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comments on Aphane/Marcoux by Munoz

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

From: Lucio Munoz [SMTP:munoz1@sprint.ca]

Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 1:47 AM

To: RAFS2000

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

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

 

June 13/2000/RESECON: Carbon sequestration as a joint production. Perhaps No

Sender: Land & Resource Economics Network <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

From: Natasha Landell-Mills <Natasha.dell-Mills@IIED.ORG>

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Dear Frank,

I have recently be doing my own research on CDM and forests and have come across some useful initiatives in Australia that might interest you. The New South Wales (NSW) State Forests have been actively involved in marketing carbon offsets from their plantations and have recently teamed up with the Sydney Futures Exchange to market these more widely. In addition, they are exploring ways to extend this model to markets for salinity credits and biodiversity credits. The idea is to find ways of bundling these services together whereever possible to sell as joint products from a single area of forest. As long as the total return is higher than alternative land uses, it is hoped NSW can earn revenue from forest protection for their environmental services.

Natasha Landell-Mills

Research Associate

IIED

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

From: Lucio Munoz [mailto:munoz@INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA]

Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2000 06:40

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Subject: Re: Carbon sequestration as "joint production", perhaps no

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.h

tml

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

From: Frank Benford <benford@OPEN.ORG>

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,

> Frank Benford

 

June 14/2000/RESECON: Carbon sequestration markets

Sender: Land & Resource Economics Network <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

From: Jim Roumasset <jimr@HAII.EDU>

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

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

 

>Dear Frank,

>

>I have recently be doing my own research on CDM and forests and have come>across some useful initiatives in Australia that might interest you. The New>South Wales (NSW) State Forests have been actively involved in marketing>carbon offsets from their plantations and have recently teamed up with the>Sydney Futures Exchange to market these more widely. In addition, they are>exploring ways to extend this model to markets for salinity credits and>biodiversity credits. The idea is to find ways of bundling these services>together whereever possible to sell as joint products from a single area of forest. As long as the total return is higher than alternative land uses, it>is hoped NSW can earn revenue from forest protection for their environmental>services.

>

>Natasha Landell-Mills

 

June 14/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Week two

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

Dear Colleagues,

We are grateful for your comments and responses to the earlier questions.

This week we will add 5 additional questions related to key issues. These questions address the impacts of new technologies and external issues and trends. Just as last week, we provide a brief statement related to each topic followed by a question or a series of questions. We realise that each of these topics merits a conference of its own. However, please focus your responses on how research programs in the NARS can capitalise on or respond to these issues to the benefit of sustainable food security.

I. NEW TECHNOLOGIES: New technologies and frontiers in science, including biological technology and information and communications technologies, are becoming available and rapidly changing the way in which work is done around the globe. These technologies will transform approaches to research and development.

A. BIOTECHNOLOGY -Biotechnology is making important contributions to

agriculture, forestry and fisheries development. It holds promise for

increasing the yield, quality, efficient processing and utilisation of

products, for decreasing reliance on agrochemicals and other external inputs and for improving conservation and use of genetic and other natural resources. The potential for biotechnology is far from being fully exploited since applications are being held in check by the need for still more research and knowledge. Recent trends in development and application of biotechnology have given rise to certain socio-economic, environmental, legal and policy concerns.

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:

The Household Level? (specifically address this for both limited

resource/vulnerable groups as well as less vulnerable groups)

The National Level?

B. COMMUNICATIONS/INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY. Advances in

information and communications technology and management are rapidly

increasing our ability to connect to one another and exchange and manage our information. These tools can provide a cost effective means to facilitate information sharing and partnership building among stakeholders in all stages of research planning and implementation. Access to these tools is becoming more widely available to a greater number and broader array of users; however, there are still many who are electronically selected 'out' of the information loop.

QUESTION 6. How can the NARS take advantage of these tools to facilitate partnership building among scientists, collaborative efforts in research planning and implementation, and the sharing of research results?

QUESTION 7. What are the implications of these technologies for enhancing the communications between and sharing of results with end-users such as:

- farmers with limited or little resources or their organisations?

- more affluent farmers or their organisations?

QUESTION 8. From your experience, what limits the effective use of

information and communication technologies in your institution?

II. EXTERNAL ISSUES AND TRENDS - Globalisation of Trade, Urbanisation,

Decentralisation of Decision-making, Privatisation of Research and

Development, and Property Rights Issues are among those external issues and trends that directly or indirectly influence food production and

availability.

QUESTION 9. How will the following external issues or trends affect the direction of NARS research and what should be the research strategies for the future regarding:

a) Globalisation of Trade?

b) Urbanisation (i.e. feeding the cities)?

c) Decentralisation of Decision Making?

d) Privatisation of Research and Development?

e) Property Rights Issues?

We look forward to your responses to these questions.

Best Wishes,

The E-Team

 

June 14/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week one

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

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

My name is Francisco Molina an Economist from El Salvador. From reading the CDF I found that my country is a non-pilot country. However I am not aware of how the World Bank is supporting the implementation of the CDF principles in El Salvador nor the government of El Salvador has mentioned in public that El Salvador is a non-pilot country. Thus I can not give an opinion on El Salvador’s limited partnership in the CDF.

I will give my views on the efforts (government and civil society) on

designing a country strategy. In the second half of the 90s, several

consultation efforts have taken place, involving a statistically

significant representation of El Salvador’s civil society. Including

NGOs, private institutions, academics, labor organizations. In my view

the most important effort has been the " Nation Plan". The process with the encouragement and support of the government and led by civil

society began in 1997. To elaborate the strategy a country wide

consultation effort was carried out and more than 8,000 citizens were

interviewed, more than 220 professionals of different fields

participated in the discussions and workshops and with the support of

34 NGOs. A central part of the strategy was poverty reduction. By

January 1999 the core of the "Nation Plan" (NP) was finished. However

the consultation process continued and it was presented to the new

government in June 1999 and in October of 1999 the NP was presented to

the public. The new government claimed full support for the strategy

and a Steering Committee was established to oversee its implementation.

Nothing has been done since and it does not seem that the government is

willing to claim ownership and support the strategy. It seems that is

going to be another wasted effort.

What are the lessons we can learn from this process? One lesson is that

a broad base consensus, inclusiveness and support of the governmetn to

carry out the consultation process, does not guarantee that their voice

will be hear, that civil society views will be taking into consideration nor that the strategy developed will be implemented. One thing is to encourage the process, to empower the people, another thing is to taken them seriously. People want results and are growing tired of meetings, consultative groups, etc.

In other words, one of the main obstacles is that in our low quality

democracy, its harder to translate the will of the people-consultation,

participation- into actions. To do so it will require a new type of

politicians and government. A government that is accountable to its

people.

Meanwhile we are waiting for Godot.

Saludos

Franciso

 

June 14/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Response by Munoz

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Key Issues - Week 2, Response by Munoz

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

From: Lucio Munoz [SMTP:munoz1@sprint.ca]

Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2000 9:47 PM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Re: Questions - Week 2

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.

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: The Household Level? (specifically address this for both limited resource/vulnerable groups as well as less vulnerable groups)The National Level?

Response:

For biotechnology to really 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 initiatives are not targeted to addressing local specificity; 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 globalisation forces should be expected to try to walk away from those three requirements at all levels.

QUESTION 6. How can the NARS take advantage of these tools to facilitate partnership building among scientists, collaborative efforts in research planning and implementation, and the sharing of research results?

QUESTION 7. What are the implications of these technologies for enhancing the communications between and sharing of results with end-users such as:

Response:

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 maximum so that the value of existing data bases can be justified. In my personal web page 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 empirical 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 meaningful information from it is to me what is needed on the

ground. Can the NARS do something similar?

QUESTION 9. How will the following external issues or trends affect the direction of NARS research and what should be the research strategies for the future regarding: a) Globalisation of Trade? b) Urbanisation? c) Decentralisation of Decision Making? d) Privatisation of Research and Development? e) Property Rights Issues?

RESPONSE: c)

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 is 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 15/2000/RESECON: Carbon Sequestration is long gone dead

Sender: Land & Resource Economics Network <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

From: Bob MacGregor <rdmacggor@GOV.PE.CA>

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

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 Benford 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,

> Frank Benford

 

June 15/2000/RESECON: Carbon sequestration markets

From: Bob MacGregor <rdcgregor@gov.pe.ca>

To: munoz@INTERCHANGE.UBC.CA

Lucio,

Another reason that these markets are still in their infancy is that the international community hasn't agreed to the specifics of how to measure sequestration offsets. I am still wondering how the permanency of sequestration under such a market agreement will be policed. If I accept payment for sequestering carbon in a standing forest (ie, a new planting), will this be inperpetuity; will there be penalties for harvest (and, if so, how calculated); what management requirements will be in place?

Optimal sequestration may involve cycling wherein mature wood is harvested and converted into products (like furniture or houses or, even, paper) that have some sequestration value themselves. This would free up the land to be cycled back into a higher rate of carbon fixation than is the case with a mature (or overmature) forest.

A lot of functional details have yet to be worked out.

Finally (my own personal prejudice, here) I remain unconvinced that any of this will make an appreciable difference to the progress of global climate change over the next century or so-- it is mostly socio-political window dressing.

BOB

 

June 15/2000/RESECON: Carbon sequestration is long gone dead

From: Bob MacGregor <rdmacegor@gov.e.ca>

To: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

Lucio,

You need to build in the possibility that the developing countries' marginal benefits from continued (increased?) fossil fuel energy use may be greater than those for developed countries. At any rate, barring some revolutionary technological solution to energy for development, developing countries are likely to see fossil fuels as the energy source for economic development. Indeed, they may be justified in being a bit put out that the West has used this resource to put itself at the pinacle of economic prosperity and now wants to put international limits on further use of the resource.

Clearly, the worst-case scenarios for global warming are bad for both developing and developed countries, so (with more confidence in the accuracy of these forecasts) there would be incentive for international cooperation both to limit further emissions of greenhouse gases and to find ways to try to sequester some of what we have already emitted. Unfortunately, the reality is that the changes are slower than the pace of political expediency-- politicians react to shorter-term pressures; things that are decades away are hard to face. This is no less true in Bangladesh than it is in the US, Canada or the EU.

I expect carbon markets to ocntinue to develop. However, their existence will be driven by legislation, international agreements and/or incentives, not any realistic expectation that they will make a difference. I don't think that they will result in any appreciable impact on the course of global warming during my lifetime, anyway.

BOB

 

June 15/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Message by Munoz

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

To: "CDF E-Consultation" <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 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/RESECON: Carbon Sequestration

Sender: Land & Resource Economics Network <RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU>

From: Martin van Bueren <m.vanbueren@ADFA.EDU.AU>

To: RESECON@LSV.UKY.EDU

Colleagues,

For those of you who would like to get up to date with recent Australian developments in carbon trading, I can recommend the following website which has been put together by the Sydney Futures Exchange.

http://www.carbontrading.com.au/

Regards,

Martin van Bueren

 

June 16/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Communication

From: =?iso-8859-1?q?John

Subject: Re: Did you receive this mail

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Shalom Lucio and thank you for contacting me on the

above subject. No, I did not receive this posting.

The issues you raise are quite pertinent. As a power

systems engineer, I am involved in electricity

generation expansion planning and the short-, medium-

and long-term considerations of demand growth and the

concequent effect on generation are standard factors

we take into account in planning. I once dicussed the

problem of rural electrification with renewable energy

sources as the backbone of the supply system with an

Energy Economists from the World Bank. My ideas got

short down by this guy because he thinks that they led

to central planning which must be avoided. I lost the

chance to get bank funding for my research ideas.

Actually, this guy sounded very hostile and to tell

you the truth, I did not think he was worth much

intellectually. My impression from then on was that

the WB does not like economic views that sounded like

supporting central planning.

The point therefore is that while the long term view

is supported by the WB, it supports the fact that

civil society must be given a chance to do what it

wants to eradicate poverty without necessarily

following set plans developed by central governments.

As long as the efforts of civil society are orderly

and follow just a minimum of regulation from the

state, its action are welcome if results are positive

in all fronts. At least this is the impression I got.

I might be wrong but that is what I have gathered

since from various position papers coming out of

development organisations. Come to think of it,

perhaps it makes some sense if you consider the fact

that in developing countries, governments have

generally been stumbling blocks to development (they

are usally undemocratic, lack the capacity to

organise, lack good investment and taxation policies

etc).

You raised quite a number of issues which I share but

I wonder if the WB did not take issues with some of

them.

Best wishes and once more let me emphasis that I glad

to have read your contribution.

John

 

June 16/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Communication

From: =?iso-8859-1?q?John=m>

Subject: Re: CDF

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

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 could not

see it at the time I replied your querry.

 

Shalom

 

John

 

June 16/2000/Communication: Call for Papers

From: "Mudacumura, Gedeon" <gmu

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

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:

Gedeon M. Mudacumura

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