TALKBACK 2000: June 16-30

 

 June 16/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Targeting systemic dysfunction

From: "Desta Mebratu" <dmebratu@hotmail.com>

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

Greetings,

This is Desta Mebratu from Ethiopia. I am a chemical engineer by background with a specialization in environmental management and policy (MSc) and industrial environmental economics (PhD). I currently work in the field of sustainable industrial development. It is unfortunate that I too missed the earlier discussion on CDF. Nevertheless, I believe that the term ‘Framework’ implies a continuously evolving and adapting mechanism. I guess that is what the WB is implying too when it says that ‘CDF is not a blueprint’. Hence, contrary to Kalus’s implied consideration of the four principles as given, I would like to emphasis the practical need for revisiting the conceptual foundations and the principles of CDF on a continuous basis.

To begin with the general framework, I believe CDF is a step in the right direction since it recognizes the importance of addressing both the economic and social sides of a country’s balance sheet. But, as was mentioned by Lucio, I wonder where the socio-ecological dimension fits in within this framework. Numerous studies indicate that the mismatch between demographic pattern and carrying capacity is acting as the major driver that perpetuates the vicious circle of poverty-environmental degradation-underdevelopment.

The continuous trend of natural resource degradation is a much more complex issue that requires systemic measures that go beyond planting trees and building terraces. In this context, for CDF to be a useful development framework in promoting sustainable development it needs to bring in the socio-ecological dimension as one of the principal sides of the ‘balance sheet’. This will also provide the basis for ‘mainstreaming’ environmental considerations in national development undertaking rather than bringing it as an ‘add-on’ element, as it seems to be the case now.

Going to the implementation side, the term ‘comprehensive’ and ‘holistic’ are some of the few buzzwords that have become popular amongst development agencies in the 1990’s. Africa has seen a number of international and regional initiatives that emphasize ‘comprehensiveness’ just like CDF. The pitfall with these kinds of approach is that they have the tendency of creating ‘detailed complexities’ with a long-list of required measures that mainly focus on facilitating factors (or symptoms) rather than on the

fundamentals (or root-causes), and hence with little results in the end. While I do not have any objection on the principles of CDF (as facilitating factors), I am afraid CDF will end up the same way unless it devises a mechanism of re-focussing national development efforts on the fundamentals.

I presume that the principal goal of CDF is to achieve poverty reduction through the promotion of sustainable development in the developing world. In my opinion, the key prerequisite for poverty reduction on a sustainable basis is the (all-rounded) empowerment of each and every individual and communities to fight poverty. This will require addressing various kinds of systemic dysfunction that continuously undermine the productive capacity of individuals and communitiues at the local level. The following are some of the major ones from the African perspective.

Dysfunctional property right regimes

One of the major systemic dysfunction we have in most sub-Saharan African countries is the absence of property-right regimes that promote productive capacities of individuals and communities. Numerous studies have indicated that dysfunctional property right regimes are one of the major contributors to the disturbing rate of natural resource degradation and the continuous erosion of the productive capacities in a number of African countries. The state of inequitable and dysfunctional land ownership is being used as source of political power in a number of countries and hence a source of civil discontent and conflict. As an issue that has a strong socio-economic, socio-ecological and socio-political dimension it holds a key position in poverty reduction and sustainable development. In this context, addressing the issue of dysfunctional property right regimes without subscribing to any single form of property right regimes becomes a fundamental requirement.

Disoriented education systems

In recent years, encouraging initiatives have been launched by a number of institutions, including the World Bank, that promote the provision of education as one of the measures to achieve poverty reduction. In the case of Africa, however, the issue of education is not limited to expanding its limited coverage (or enrolment). But, it has much to do with its RELEVANCE too. The African education system, that has its genesis in the generation of public servants for the colonial administration, needs fundamental re-orientation measures to be instrumental in promoting poverty reduction and sustainable development. In this context, if CDF is to have a catalytic impact in the societal transformation process at the national level, it should make effort on improving the relevance of education and the creation of an organic link between the traditional/indigenous knowledge base and modern knowledge systems.

Reversing the global-local dynamics

I believe that poverty and underdevelopment in the South should be seen in the context of the adverse impact of the globalization process over the last centuries, not decades. (For more on this you may refer to my contribution to the online conference on ‘Globalization, Development and Poverty’ at <http://www.worldbank.org/devforum> ) The global-local dynamics of the twentieth century was characterized by a globalization process dictated by those groups with the capital power imposing ‘single-model’ solutions and conditions that were subservient to their interest. I believe that the global-local dynamics of the twenty first century will require a globalization process that is based on ‘multiple-models’ that are reflective of the diversity of local realities and the commonality of the global inter-dependencies. This will require reversing the currently dominant global-local dynamics that is tilted towards global domination in favor of the rich and the developed at the expense of incalculable destruction and misery at the local level. For CDF to be more than rhetorical and be an effective development framework, it needs to provide mechanisms for facilitating the reversal of this trend both at the national and global level.

Finally, I would say that understanding the dynamic complexity of poverty and underdevelopment and identifying and focussing on the fundamental factors is an essential prerequisite to achieve poverty reduction and sustainable development. Reorienting CDF in such a way that it targets the sources of systemic dysfunction will provide the basis to promote CDF as a ‘dynamic development framework’ (DDF) that promotes societal transformation on a sustainable basis.

My Regards,

Desta Mebratu (PhD)

 

June 16/2000/RESECON: Carbon sequestration

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

From: Jim Roumasset <jimr@HAWAII.EDU>

In addition to Martin's suggestion, Natasha Landell-Mills also notes that"Forests Trends ( http://www.forest-trends.org/ ) are

organising considerable work on this issue."

Jim R

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 17/2000/Communication: Checking Carbon Leaks

From: David Kaimowitz <d.imowitz@iar.org>

To: 'Polex Listserve' <polex@cgnet.com>

Cc: mburnham@.org

Over the next few months leading up to the fifth Conference of the Pa=

rties(COP-5) of the Climate Change Convention in Bonn in October you will hear a lot about carbon and forests. Previous conferences established the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows developed countries to receive credit for certain projects they finance in developing countries when they calculate whether they have complied with the carbon emissions targets they agreed to in Kyoto. One big issue at COP - 5 will be whether projects that use forests as carbon sinks will be included under the CDM. At present the short-term outlook does not look good in that regard, but that may change.

Much of the controversy over whether to include forest projects in th=

e CDM revolves around accounting, monitoring, and leakage. How can we reliablmeasure how much carbon forests contain and how long they will retain it?

How can governments verify claims about forest carbon stocks in a

cost-effective, transparent, and credible fashion? How do we know that if we stop loggers and farmers from working in one forest they won't simply move elsewhere and keep on carrying out activities that release carbon into the atmosphere?

To answer such questions, several governments and utilities companies=

Have financed pilot forest carbon projects to see how the whole thing might work in practice. One such project, the Noel Kempff Climate Action Project in Bolivia, recently released a set of 'Technical Operating Protocols for Carbon Monitoring, Leakage Monitoring, Accounting and Reporting, and Verification and Supervision' that explain exactly how the project plans to address these issues. That Noel Kempff project involves the expansion of a national park and payments to holders of forest concessions to stop logging in the region.

The protocols address both micro and macro level leakage. Micro level

leakage refers to what the specific logging companies and local farmers who lost access to the forest as a result of the project go on to do. The project has signed leakage agreements with the logging companies and it has financed activities designed to involve farmers that live near the park inactivities that emit less carbon. It also attempts to monitor both groups'activities and uses control sites to compare the amount of carbon emitted or sequestered in project areas and in similar locations where the project is not present. At the macro level, the project will study the general trends in land use, timber harvesting, and markets in the region to try to identify signs of the projects possible effects at that level.

To send comments to the authors of the protocols or obtain a free ele=

Ctronic version in English or Spanish, you can write Margo Burnham at:

mburnham@tnc.org

If you would like to terminate your subscription to the POLEX mailing=

list, send an e-mail to LISTSERV@CGNET.COM containing the message:

 

June 19/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comments on Doelle and Primavesi 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: Monday, June 19, 2000 6:35 AM

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

Cc: Horst Doelle; Odo Primavesi

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

Doelle

Dear Doelle, I also agree with the comments you made and the ones

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

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

b) no sustainable demand, not sustainable supply

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

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

Hence, the solution is simple if there is will from key players:

search for ways to provide income(earned or given) to at least sustained a basic demand, which will provide the profits needed to sustained a basic supply for at least a medium term plan. Such a plan has the potential to sustained a targeted market of basic food security; to impact the poverty gap directly; to guaranteed basic food on the table with the nutritious level that can be afforded; to increased the demand for local technologies to reduce production costs or keep them low; and to provide the income farmers need to higher professional help to sustain higher demands that may come with sustained income and decreasing poverty gaps.

The problem I see is that the goal of poverty reduction belongs to the world bank and the problem of food security which is a function of poverty belongs to the NARS/FAO. Hence, it looks like the NARS can not solve the problem of UNSUSTAINABLE SUPPLY(FARMERS) until the world bank solves the problem of UNSUSTAINABLE DEMANDS(CONSUMERS). We can not achieve a sustainability outcome using non-sustainability frameworks, we need conjuctural frameworks.

My humble opinion is that the POVERTY ERADICATION OR SIGNIFICANT

REDUCTION NEEDED for the NARS to have a chance to fix the supply problems may never materialize unless we separate the two main goals of the world bank: poverty reduction and economic efficiency. I think that the creation of a body such as THE WORLD POVERTY FUND could take care of poverty reduction alone, and the world bank can dedicate all its time to maximize economic efficiency subject to sustainability concerns. This way poverty reduction or elimination can lead to both: a sustainable supply and to a sustainable framework for economic efficiency where developing countries also have comparative purchasing power and equal rights. Since the solution of the UNSUSTAINABLE DEMAND PROBLEM is the short term problem preventing SUSTAINABLE SUPPLIES, then

addressing poverty seems to be a short term priority.

However, the CDF framework being discussed right now by the world

bank has " A LONG-TERM HOLISTIC GOAL" to development. Therefore, my humble recommendation to the NARS are to take the long-term goals of the world bank as given a plan for a more unstable future for farmer's profits and for the basic needs of the poorest.

My warm greetings to all;

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

 

June 19/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Response by Tankou

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

From: taoum@un.org [SMTP:takoum@un.org]

Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:18 PM To:

RAFS2000 Subject:

Re: Questions - Week 2

Dear Colleagues,

Here we are at Week 2 faced with more challenging issues. There is no doubt that, as during week 1, We are going to hear very good things. Let me try to say some words about these new topics.

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:

I believe Mr. Munoz has succinctly raised some of the major issues related to the application of biotechnology in developing countries. I will further elaborate on these issues and discuss some strategic directions that could be pursued by the NARS.

Since I am not an expert in the field of biotechnology, I would like to

share with you some of the things that I learned through my readings and that I believe answer the question raised by the E Team. Biotechnology provides great opportunities for finding solutions to the problems of food security and poverty in developing countries. Biotechnology can make life better for the poor as well as for less vulnerable groups of households by producing higher than usual yields with less inputs, higher yields in a wider range of environments, better rotations to conserve natural resources, and more nutritious harvested products that keep much longer in storage and transport. Improved animals can resist diseases more effectively, have carcass structures that carry higher weights safely and healthily, have more

efficient weight gains, and offer better quality meat and other products.

The application of modern biotechnology to agricultural research systems in developing countries, however, involves new investments, changes in resource allocation, and new responsibilities for policymakers, research managers, and scientists. The new responsibilities include determining the benefits and risks of biotechnology applications in a particular country, identifying

the key productivity constraints, and deciding the extent to which a

national research agenda should embrace biotechnology.

Given these difficulties and responsibilities, the key question national agricultural research systems (NARS) have to face is, How are biotechnology programs best initiated and integrated with ongoing, conventional agricultural research and national priorities? This process of integration cannot succeed without taking into account the characteristics particular to biotechnology, including high development costs; new demands on human, financial, and managerial resources; opportunities for international collaboration; the challenge of negative public perception; biosafety; and intellectual property rights.

To determine if modern biotechnology can benefit the poor in developing

countries, NARS, policymakers at the national, regional, and international levels need to analyze the problems that are currently constraining agricultural productivity or damaging the environment, assess whether these problems may be solved by integrating modern biotechnology with conventional R&D, and prioritize solutions. This may seem self-evident but such strategic analyses are indispensable for anticipating the potential benefits and risks that may arise while using modern biotechnology to solve specific problems.

In addition to analyses, both public and private resources for R&D need to be mobilized if the poor in developing countries are to profit from the genetic revolution.

The impact of biotechnology on food production, post harvest losses, and the nutritional value of food could improve the livelihoods of millions of poor people. But just as with natural evolution and breeding through the ages, gene changes through biotechnology can produce problems as well. Breeding to improve one characteristic can have negative effects on another. Breeding also modifies the concentration of beneficial or harmful ingredients, because it changes the internal chemistry of organisms. Common genes in our cultivated crops could become more commonplace in wild relatives by outcrossing and subsequent selection, leading to possible disturbance of

existing ecosystems. New plants or animals may generate husbandry practices that damage the environment. New strains could reduce biodiversity in agriculture. These sorts of issues are well known to breeders and farmers all over the world. They are increasingly becoming a matter of public debate in many countries. The benefits and risks associated with improved plants and animals are frequently perceived differently from place to place. Local decisions should prevail but be consistent with globally accepted, science-based criteria and international agreements. Most current discussions about the benefits and risks of the new gene technology, however, are based on the first transgenic crops of today. Instead, a strategic, long-term view of needs and opportunities is required that looks beyond these initial products. Relevant scientific knowledge and understanding and the genes available to meet needs are evolving rapidly.

Soon the scientific base underpinning plant and animal breeding will be

extraordinarily different from that of the past.

However, modern biotechnology will not solve all the problems of food

insecurity and poverty. Improvements in productivity using modern

biotechnology are therefore only a part of a larger and more complex set of factor that need to be taken into account. There is a need for the formulation of a set of appropriate policies at national, and international levels to steer the development and application of new technologies. These policies should guide (1) increased public investments in R&D, including that in modern biotechnology; (2) regulatory arrangements that inform and protect the public from any risks arising from the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs); (3) intellectual property management to encourage

greater private-sector investment; and (4) regulation of the private seed and agricultural research sector to protect the interests of small farmers and poor consumers in developing countries.

I hope this synthesis of my readings will enhance our discussions of

week 2.

Note: For more details, Biotechnology for Developing-Country

Agriculture: Problems and Perspectives, 2020 VISION, FOCUS 2, IFPRI,

October 1999.

QUESTION 6. How can the NARS take advantage of these technologies

for enhancing the communications between and sharing of results with

end-users?

Until recently, many NARS where operating in isolation. With their

limited budget they could not afford the high costs of traveling or

maintaining permanent communication with other NARS, scientists and research centers located abroad. Even the regional agencies within the same country could not communicate frequently. They have to rely on mailed correspondences, telephone, fax, or annual meetings at the headquarters. In general, the communication system was poor, costly and not always reliable.

Now advances in the communication and information technology and

management offer a tremendous opportunity to the NARS for enhancing the flow of information, knowledge and resources at national, sub-regional, regional and global level. At the global level, the NARS could cooperate with established research centers in the world regardless of their location; promote South-South cooperation on specific fields. These global alliances should be used to strengthen regional and sub-regional activities in this way expertise can be mobilized to contribute to research irrespective of the physical location of the people.

In short, NARS can take advantage of these advances in communication and information technology to build strategic alliances so as to create new forms of research networks that would be open to those interested in contributing to scientific and technological development in the developing world irrespective of their origin and association. Given the growing role of the private sector in scientific research, the NARS should rely only on public institutions for technological cooperation. Collaboration between government institutions, academia, and the private sectors should be

strengthened.

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 organization?

The expected increase in the flow of agricultural technologies responsive to the needs and production conditions of resource-poor farmers in Africa has not occurred, in spite of efforts undertaken the last two or three decades.

Weak linkages between research and technology users are one of the basic causes of this failure. The absence of these linkages resulted in the generation of technologies that either do not respond to the needs of farmers or that are not easily available to farmers.

The revolutionary developments in information and communication technology offer great opportunities for reducing poverty in developing countries.

Traditional information and communication technologies, such as wired

telephone, faxes fail to reach large share of the rural poor partly because they were expensive, or because the wires were either not in place or not maintained in rural areas and partly because existing institutions favor the rich who could afford the high cost of their services. Now, new technologies such as Satellite-based cell phones, internet, coupled with the decrease in the cost of solar and wind energy make it feasible for the rural poor to power ICT, including cell phones, internet access, radio, and TV.

This open new opportunities for the NARS to set up dialogues with small

farmers or their organization through the organizing of

electronic-discussion and training seminars, dissemination of information and new research results, dissemination of best practices, provision of extension services in remote areas, identification of farmers needs and feedbacks on new technologies, and on market opportunities for their productions.

- More affluent Farmers or their organizations?

More affluent farmers who can afford access to ICT are also those who use technology the most. ICT developments will help the NARS not only to provide the same services as to small farmers but also to raise their awareness in the need to support research efforts that could improve their productivity and competitiveness.

I would like to conclude this section by saying that NARS have now a tool to establish effective partnership with technology users who should be considered as part of the research system and not simply elements of its environment.

QUESTION 8. From your own experience, what limits the effective

use of information and communication technologies in your institution?

In Africa, access to ICT especially in rural areas is constrained by

relatively high costs, lack of adequate infrastructures, and appropriate institutions and policies. Harnessing information for the economic and social development of African countries is one of the priority areas of the Economic Commission For Africa (ECA). In this regard the Development Information and Statistics Division was established with the objective of promoting the use of information technology (IT) in Africa.

QUESTION 9. How the following external issues or trends affect the

direction of NARS research and what should be the research strategies for the future regarding:

a) Globalization of Trade?

In the context of globalization competitiveness is the main problem of

agriculture development. This means that developing countries will have to reduce their agricultural production costs (i.e. increase agricultural productivity per worker and per unit of land) but also improve the quality of their products. Therefore, the NARS will have to redirect their research programmes to meet the exigencies of more and more competitive markets. One way of accomplishing this goal will be to identify market niches For details, see Calestous Juma, Science, Technology and Economic Growth: Africa?s Biopolicy Agenda in the 21st Century, UNU/INRA Annual Lectures, ECA, published by the United Nations University, April 2000, such as the commercialization of traditional crops. These market niches are important for a number of reasons. First, they enable a less developed country to enter in the technology market without being required to compete at the frontier of its development. Niches can therefore be used to buy time and

acquire the requisite technological knowledge. Second, market niches may be an important way of applying the new techniques to local problems for which there is little interest among multinational corporations. Finally niches may be an important step in the sequence of technological development. This approach would involve working closely with the private sector and offer opportunities for a country to promote technological development.

b) Urbanization (i.e. feeding the cities)

The rapid growth of the urban population is already posing serious problems of food security in the major cities of the developing world. As a consequence of the rapid urbanization, a substantial development of the ?street food? sector. Although this sector plays a very important socio-economic role by providing access to food to a large proportion of urban dweller at affordable prices, it also raise a certain number of environmental, sanitary, and nutritional issues that need to address. The NARS, will have to play an important role in addressing these issues especially in terms of food safety, nutritional value of street foods, culinary and conservation methods. All these areas are potential areas for research.

c) Decentralization of decision-making

With the decentralization there will be no more blue print for research

activities. Research will become local specific. The NARS will have to work at the community level and local people should be involved in the

identification of their problems and in finding solution that take into

account their socio-economic, cultural and environmental context. In short all the stakeholders at local level should be involve in the design, and implementation of the research programmes so that they claim its ownership.

d) The privatization of research and development

The privatization process will result in a situation were research will activities will become more and more demand driven. Public and private research institution will have to compete in responding to the needs of technology users. This calls for the NARS to rethink their institutional organization, improve their resource management in order to become more efficient. This does not mean that the NARS should abandon their efforts in providing for the mobilize the necessary resources for this purpose but make sure that the problems and priorities are well defined. In summary, the NARS should

establish or strengthen their linkages with the technology user at all

levels as well as effective partnership will private research institutions.

No research activity should be carried out in the vacuum be it a fundamental research (there are a great deal of concrete problems that need fundamental research efforts should be concentrated on them).

e) Property Rights Issues

The purpose of Intellectual Property Right is to protect loca inventions and promote legal access to technologies developed elsewhere. If I am right, the NARS in most developing countries are considered as public institutions and do no benefit from these protection rights. A proper management of intellectual property developing countries would allow the NARS to patent their innovation which in turn could facilitate the mobilization of private

investments in their programmes. This means that the NARS should be managed mission of responding to the technological needs of the poor farmers.

 

June 19/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Communication

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

From: doelle <doele@omail.com.au>

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

Dear Lucio,

A very brief an short comment to one vital issue: poverty eliminatoin:

We cannot wait for the World Bank or any Government to act. We can do a lot with old existing technologies, as is been shown at pesent in Bangladesh and Vietnam and has started in Cambodia. We can use waste products for cheaper production of valuable products such as boienergy and biofertilisers, to eliminate payment for energy. We can also produce cheap food such as mushrooms from our waste. I believe mushrooms is an enormous protein resource and can be produced easily of lignocellulosic wastes. We only have to teach the farmer and the poor people how to do it. There we reqiure money. Biogas [energy] can be produced in every household of a family size of 4-6, which is very common on these countries. Mushrooms can be produced by a community and requires simply a shed.

Developed countries do not need these technologies and have different

priorities. It is amazing how a community pulls together if they can see profit. A lot of the work in Asia is done without government or other assistance, IF the people are convinced and trained in these areas of biotechnology.

We have to have a strategy in this particular area and spent many on

education AND DEMONSTRATION, the money will come, if it requires only 2-3 years to pay back installations.

Otherwise, many thanks for your support as we seem to see the situation

very similar.

Best wishes

Horst Doelle

At 09:34 18/06/00 -0700, you wrote:

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

>

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

>b) no sustainable demand, not sustainable supply

>c) and therefore, a tightly skewed market where poverty is rampant and the

>level of nutrition of food is irrelevant as just the act of having something>to eat matters(how good tortilla and salt taste when there is nothing else>to eat!).

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

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

>guaranteed basic food on the table with the nutritious level that can be>afforded; to increased the>demand for local technologies to reduce production costs or keep them low;>and to provide the

>income farmesr need to higher professional help to sustain higher demands>that may come with sustained income and decreasing poverty gaps.

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

>until the world bank solves the problem of UNSUSTAINABLE DEMANDS(CONSUMERS).>We can not achieve a sustainability outcome using non-sustainability>frameworks, we need conjuctural>frameworks.

>My humble opinion is that the POVERTY ERRADICATION OR SIGNIFICAN REDUCTION>NEEDED for the NARS to have a chance to fix the supply problems may never>materialize unless>we separate the two main goals of the world bank: poverty reduction and>that the creation of a body such as THE WORLD POVERTY FUND could take care>of poverty

>reduction alone, and the world bank can dedicate all its time to maximize>economic efficiency subject>to sustainability concerns. This way poverty reduction or elimination can>lead to both: a sustainable supply>and to a sustainable framework for economic efficiency where developing>countries also have comparative>purchasing power and equal rights. Since the solution of the UNSUSTAINABLE>DEMAND PROBLEM

>is the short term problem preventing SUSTAINABLE SUPPLIES, then addressing>poverty seems to be a>short term priority.

>However, the CDF framework being discussed ritht now by the world bank has>" A LONG-TERM HOLISTIC GOAL" to development. Therefore, my humble>reccomendation to> the NARS are to take the long-term goals of the world bank as given a plan>for a more unstable>future for farmer's profits and for the basic needs of the poorest.

>My warm greetings to all;

>Sincerely;

> Lucio Munoz

> Vancouver, Canada

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

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

>tml

>

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

>From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

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

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

>

>

> > From: doelle [SMTP:dole@ozeml.com.au]

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

> > To: RAFS2000

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

> >

> > Dear Odo and everybody else,

> >

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

> > agree with all your answers. I have been involved in numerous UNESCO > > Training courses teaching the basics in microbial technology to >researchers> > and other infrastructure in developing countries. There is still an>enormous> > demand for such courses to spread the simple technology. However, even> > UNESCO, ICRO, UNDP and UNIDO and may be all the other international>agencies> > unfortunately know only molecular and genetic engineering.

> > I have said many times before, the environmental and health problems> > in developing countries need help, the soil improvement needs help. We do> > not need modern genetics and so-called improvements in developing>countries> > as yet. I wished FAO and other agencies would wake up to the fact that> > cleaning up the environment and reduce the enormously high mortality rate> > due to environmental pollution in these countries. This can be done>without> > plant improvements etc.

> > I fully agree with Odo that the plight for nutritious food is a joke> > and I wonder where in the world it is needed. Poverty has absolutely>nothing> > to do with nutritious food. It is there, but we have to make sure that the> > families have enough income to obtain the food. It has been demonstrated>in> > some countries of SE Asia that socio-economic biotechnology in the form of> > bio-integrated systems is helping poor families in Bangladesh, Vietnam,> > Cambodia and has spread now also slowly to India.

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

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

> > We have the technology for that and should teach these technologies,> > but unfortunately these technologies are not fashionable and thus do not> > attract finance, not even from our international agencies.

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

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

> >

> > Horst Doelle

 

June 19/2000/WORLD BANK GLOBALIZATION CONFERENCE: Communication

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

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

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

Dear Senor Lucio Munoz

Thank you for your e-mail.

 

----- Original Message -----=20

From: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

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

Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2000 5:37 AM

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

LM: We have different views on how this can be done.

CNR: I noticed more in common than the differences.

LM: Your view of "poverty busting" falls within two of the basic

sustainability set under which the proposal I made in the e-discussion

of creating the WORLD POVERTY FUND, and I am working right now on writing formally this proposal. I would be happy to get your feedback on it when ready so I can some how incorporate your views to improve it.

CNR: I am happy to be quoted with acknowledgement.

LM: I will provide you three comments on your postings as food for

thoughts: a) you may have to extend your poverty busting set a little

more to at least HEETHNi, where Ni =3D Basic(s) environmental busters, otherwise it would not be sustainable.

CNR: Actually, Lucio, I do consider environmental issues as part of

poverty busting. For some time, I considered them, as you have done, to

be a separate entity from the HEETH principle. Then I realised that

rather than consider them separately, they need to be considered within

each of the other 5 principles.

Health itself involves environmental responsibilty to prevent many of

the illnesses and diseases affecting both animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms on this planet.

Education requires input on environmental issues within our primary

schools so that our children will become aware of the need for

environmental resposnsibility at the commencement of their formal

education.

Employment needs to take on some environmental responsibility so that

employees are not used as environmental vandals but restorers.

Transport issues include the responsible use of fuels and their

emissions,especially encouraging the use of solar energy.

Housing includes habitat responsibility so we do not imperialise the

habitat of other species as we continue to do as well as the use of

solar energy in architecture.

My thesis is that environmental responsibility is germane to every other issue

LM: Please, visit my website at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz

and look at the theory there; b) local control under the "responsibility principle" can be as bad as global control under the "rationality principle", we need to create a responsible rational man to achieve local-global consistency.

CNR: I agree. Infrastructure does not preclude personal and corporate moral responsibilty. I'd include rational human being to include man, woman and child.

LM: Please, read my article called "Rationality, Responsibility, and

Sustainabililty: When Can Human Behaviour Have A Chance To Be

Sustainable? in Sustainability Review Issue 20 section 3 you can find

the link at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/sustain1.htm;

CNR: I'll have to think about that one. Can you summarise your

conclusions for me as a start?

LM: and c) the "one hectare one vote" model could work for the

benefits of rural communitities as you desired under the past paradigm

based only on economic goals as it could drive local economic

development, but under today's eco-economic model, your one "hectare one vote" could very soon give the environmental sector a golden change to dominate your views as you could easily then "buy the model" openly with money as the land would be in the hands of environmental stakeholders, then environmenal development would seek a maximization position leading to a process of reversion of non-forest ares to forest uses. All this happenning under current unequal conditions

in income and land tenure.

CNR: Yes, it could happen that way and has happened this way here in

Australia in a sort of gerrymander. I have preferred this model in order to brake the slide into that black hole called the city and to highlight responsibility to the whole land. For my system to work, as you say, there would have to be conditions written in to ensure that income and land tenure differences do not dominate the procedures. Actually, real estate is valued more in the city than in the rural areas per hectare so the small land-owner has the same space as the rich owner of the high-rise city tenament block.

LM: Please, read my article called "An Overview of Some of the Policy Implications of the Eco-Economic Development Market and Their Policy Implications", it may have some views relevant to your position. It is in January/2000 MBC/International Journal in Environmental Management and Health.

CNR: Thanks.

Shalom,

Chris

Rev. Christopher N. Ridings

 

June 19/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Synopsis of week 1 responses

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Synopsis of Week 1 Responses

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

We wish to thank those of you who provided insights and responses to the Questions for Week 1. The synopsis below (approximately 5 pages) covers 47 exchanges received through Wednesday 14 June. There have since been additional Week 1 related interventions and we will ensure that these summaries are updated and included in the final summary.

For those of you who wish to read the Extended Summary of Week 1

interventions, it is posted on the E-Conference Web Page at

www.fao.org/nars/rafs2000 <http://www.fao.org/nars/rafs2000> under Phase I within the Record of Contributions.

We welcome feedback on either the synopsis or the summary documents.

Again, thank you for your participation and contributions.

Best wishes,

The E-Team

Synopsis of Week 1 Responses for E-Conference on Integrating Sustainable Food Security Dimensions into the Research Agenda of the NARS

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?

The participants provided the following key points:

- the need to adequately define "food access" (Beninati), and notably who is really food insecure (Marcoux and Munoz)

- the need to precisely define income generation and food allocation

strategies within households and farm production units (Tankou and Aphane)

- the major problem is not supply (and thus the overall level of

production), but rather the problem of sufficient income for lower income farmer households even when produce is going to market. Opportunities and levels of income generation are the key issues (Bunch, Doelle, Egan, Katsir, Munoz, Quiros, Ramirez, King)

- given the previous point, the solution is NOT simply more export-led

production which has no direct correlation to greater food security for

lower income households or vulnerable groups (commentators included Egan, Katsir, Munoz, and Quiros)

- there was considerable debate on the merits of regional specialisation and comparative advantage: general agreement that many countries cannot produce all the food necessary for their population, but also agreement that alternative crops for market or other economic activities must not lead to vulnerability to market volatility and declining revenues from overproduction (and lower prices) (Balasubramanian, Beninati, Katzir).

Smallholders need reasonable profits and current trends in globalisation and the role of middle-men can have negative impacts (Bunch, Doelle, Qureshi, Ramirez, and Whittaker).

- Ramirez suggested that local government agencies and producer-consumers' associations could play key roles to regulate and improve the conditions for production and income.

- the inescapeable importance of urban populations as consumers and

producers was emphasised by several (Doelle, Egan, Primavsei, and Ramirez).

b) increasing food production?

The combined impacts of changes in the climate, soils, water were emphasised as limiting factors (Doelle, Freeden, Munoz, Quiros), but also the need to look carefully at diversification, sustainable types of use of inputs and other technological developments (such as biotechnology and native foods) to address food security for rural areas and smallholders (Balasubramanian, Egan, Ramirez, Tankou). This approach would also address the potentially negative impacts of intensified techniques and industrialised monocropping

(Alphane, Bunch, Doelle, Primavesi).

Participants all agreed that a broad constituency of stakeholders must be involved (Alphane, Munoz and many others), including farmers, extension services, research institutions and even consumers (Pires for last point). Qureshi emphasised the involvement of scientists in setting the agenda.

Katzir and Pires emphasised the farmers' engagement while others

differentiated areas of interest (Munoz) and participatory technology

(Bunch).

All also noted the importance of interdisciplinary approaches to research to get at a host of questions, including the dynamics of food security, population growth and the environment (Tankou) and overall livelihoods analysis (Egal and Mitti).

c) improving food nutritional value?

Primavesi and Qureshi noted the impact of improvements in harvest and

transport for food integrity and nutritional value. Several noted the

importance of new crop varieties (Aphane and Tankou), popularising

traditional foods and food preparation, and education (Beninati, Ramirez, Villalobos). Assessment of the possible risks of chemical inputs and biotechnology needs to be examined in the light of the need for better and greater production (Pires, Primavesi, Ramirez, Villalobos, Whittaker).

d) reducing food losses?

Participants noted inter alia the significance of changes in post-harvest technologies (Balasubramanian, Primavesi, Villalobos), transformation (Ramirez, Tankou) and systems for decentralisation of the use of technologies and sharing information (Balasubramanian, Ramirez).

QUESTION 2. How do research strategies for improving national food security relate to those aimed at addressing household food security?

Political dimension

Tankou pointed out that, while NARS can play key roles in achieving food security and sustainable development, political will and government commitment are crucial. Political dimensions including the unequal distribution of wealth (Primavesi), unequal distribution of land (Martinez), and land tenure (Villalobos) and access (Roland) were stressed as root causes of food insecurity.

National policies

Munoz questions why national food security is often defined in terms of

production while household food security is defined in terms of access.

Tankou argues that national food security cannot be developed without

household food security.

Research should assess the opportunity cost of investments and technological changes in agriculture. For governments to be willing to invest in agricultural research and development, the opportunity cost must be greater than in other sectors (Ardila). It should also focus on how to improve current agricultural policies and implement them in ways that can enable small farmers to continue producing staple foods and high demand vegetables, so that they will not abandon farming and move to cities (Villalobos).

Regional scope

Whittiker pointed out that in the era of information technology the term "national' has lost its viability. Some participants (Whittaker, Ardila) pointed out that a regional and sub-regional scope would enable research programs to coordinate their goals and activities and accommodate sub-national variation in climatic conditions, soil characteristics and water availability (Katzir).

To Ardila, Latin America and the Caribbean could increase production and participation in international markets if trade protection to the most developed countries was lifted.

Data needs

Villalobos stressed the need for collecting and processing national level statistics on population and food production, household composition and income, food distribution, purchases, preferences, etc., in order to know what and how much of the kinds of foods people want. Efforts should be directed to develop a monitoring system that generates such data and the institutional strategies for using it.

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?

Several participants emphasized the important role forests play in providing in quantity and quality food and income for rural households, and also in regulating climate (Tankou). Primavesi noted that environmental policies focus only on legislation but not on educating farmers about the ecological function of natural forests for agriculture.

Munoz pointed out that not all are primary forests, some are 'altered'

(plantations, reforestation) and need to be looked at differently. Fredeen stressed the need to research the uses of wood as fuel and other associated benefits of tree farming.

b) fisheries?

Fisheries are important components of small-holder production systems and can enhance the multifunctional use of land (Primavesi). Tankou stressed the important role they play in livelihood systems in coastal areas and calls for research on reproduction and nutrition and for efforts to identify species that can be raised in inland aquaculture. Munoz pointed out that aquaculture constitutes an instance of 'altered' fisheries which needs to be addressed differently from fishery management in natural areas.

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-favored 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?

Tankou maintained that agricultural research and resulting technologies can help both to increase production and to protect the environment.

Balasubramanian called for joint efforts to raise the efficiency of

production, enhance the quality and productivity of resources, ensure the protection of forests and natural habitats, maintain biodiversity, and minimise the adverse effects of climate variability, especially on fragile areas. Munoz called for attention to the potential negative impacts on food security of extensive resource protection policies.

Some questioned the definition of "marginal lands," since some such areas may actually contribute to fast-paced economic development and have social and environmental values (Munoz). King proposed that we ask the question of why have certain lands become "marginal?" Was it through unsustainable use? Regeneration through agroforestry can bring back important functions, such as water retention and management, increasing organic bulk, sheltering crops and animals, and providing timber and wild products. Martinez pointed to the potential for restoring degraded lands by means of participatory land planning processes that hinge on appropriate use options and integrate

indigenous knowledge systems. Tankou reiterated that evidence shows that degraded resources can be rehabilitated, and argues that even agricultural intensification of fragile lands is possible although obviously the strategies and technologies must be different from what applies to higher potential areas.

If the public, and especially resource users (farmers) were more educated on the environmental function, they might be more willing to invest time and money in long-term preservation (Primavesi). Primavesi also commented that

environmental education should be directed to restoring healthy management of highly degraded agricultural environments as well as preserving natural environments and reducing pollution.

Research should aim at developing mixed farming systems that integrate

annual crops with perennial crops, livestock and trees, and emphasize soil fertility management, organic matter, moisture conservation, erosion control, and nutrient recycling. The focus should be on increasing yields of crops that form a large part of poor people's diet and income (Tankou).

Mphuru also stressed agroforestry (particularly by fast growing and nitrogen fixing trees), intercropping, and organic farming as well as the rehabilitation of traditional foods.

Primavesi called for an evaluation of the productive potential of natural vegetation (fruits, gums and wood) as well as of bare soil through agroecological zoning and development of sustainable practices for extraction of products. Balasubramanian pointed out that unconventional crops can both conserve soil and generate income (such as with herbal medicines and essential oils).

COMMENTS AND CONCERNS

Basic needs

Munoz encouraged an integrated perspective on livelihood, pointing out that food is only one of a set of basic needs (education, health, shelter, etc) and pointed to the right to "not to be poor". Tankou emphasized a basic needs approach to maintaining and improving human welfare. Egal stressed the need for a comprehensive approach to livelihood security at the household level beyond food production and procurement.

Sustainability

A great deal of discussion has occurred around the concept of

sustainability. Munoz clarified that while many organizations use

'sustainable' as synonymous with 'sustained', in fact sustainable means

"self-sustained", which has a more systemic dimension. Sustainability in food security does not need to be limited to self-provisioning but entails sustainable market activity at producer and consumer levels.

Tankou asked whether food security is a state or a process: should we regard sustainability as at the minimum subsistence level or as an improvement of diet in various groups? Foster also questioned what is the reference point for sustainability.

Evidence links these questions and the effects of poverty, land constraints, overpopulation, lack of appropriate technology, low education, the low status of women, high fertility rates, and traditional agricultural practices (Tankou). These linkages, which describe the conflict between survivability and sustainability faced by many rural households, need to be further explored by research.

The discussion of sustainability leads to broader questions concerning the goals of development. Primavesi warned against over-emphasizing short term economic goals at the expense of ecological and social wellbeing while Pires warned against excessive reliance on economic indicators that confound the social and environmental aspects of market-driven globalization.

Munoz and Foster argued for management in ways that ensure

inter-generational accountability.

Population

The issue of over-population, and its possible linkages to food insecurity and environmental degradation, aroused intense discussions. Some pointed out how demographic pressure is exacerbated by the excessive consumption and exploitation of resources by the First World (Foster). But Primavesi commented that over-population is actually a relative concept, since the carrying capacity of land and resources (used by humans and animals) varies according to their state of relative health or degradation. Fredeen called for the governments of developed nations to make population issues and policies a priority, and for efforts by people in developing countries to reduce vulnerability. King argued that population planning should be a

component of land use planning and that efforts should be directed to making family planning widely available as well as educating and empowering women.

Education

The role of materialism ('the tyranny of the economical') in exacerbating unsustainable exploitation of resources calls for efforts to restore a different kind of resource management ethic based on social and ecological values and on global and holistic perspectives through education programs (Primavesi, also Foster, Katzir). Doelle commented that building awareness of the value of local resources and products can help us move away from the ideology that whatever comes form developed countries must be good because their citizens have higher standards of living. This has influenced views on development and agricultural policies until now. Pires introduced the

concepts of "sustainable food habits" and "honest nutritional knowledge", as potentially having a major impact on sustainability of food production and marketing and on bridging the gap between farmers and consumers. Enhancing consumer and producer consciousness about the value of local resources can build resistance against misleading food marketing information (such as portraying biotechnology as the only remedy to global food insecurity).

 

June 19/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week two

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

From: cdf@worldbank.org

 

Thank you for your responses to Question One. A summary will be posted

later this week.

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

****QUESTION FOR WEEK TWO (June 19-26)****

Implementing the CDF Principles--Benefits and Challenges for External

Partners, such as donor and International development agencies.

The main benefit for external partners is expected to be more effective and sustainable development to reduce poverty.

The May 2000 Progress Report offered some insights into the challenges

including:

*the need to harmonize policies, procedures and practices, including--for analytical and diagnostic work--appraisal, implementation, procurement, monitoring, supervision, reporting, accounting and evaluation.

* developing selectivity

* focusing on development outcomes, such as primary school enrollment, and reducing child mortality, etc.

* essential changes to internal culture of aid donors, including providing partner countries more room to take control of their development process.

What are your views, and can you give any practical examples of where these issues are being addressed, and the lessons learned?

 

June 20/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Communication

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

Subject: Re: CDF

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Hi Lucio,

Please just be patient with me. I need time to comment

on your posting. Right now I am taken up by

examinations and all that it takes to end an academic

year. After all is behind me, I'll take some time off

to share my views with you.

Thank you and bye for now.

John

--- Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca> wrote: > Dear John,

perhaps the confusion arose because they did not place my name in

> the sender and allocated a number instead which I do

> not understand why.

> Any way it was good to get in touch with you as we

> seem to have the ability to put together ideas that make them feel

> unconfortable as they do not seem to have either the theoretical nor the practical ability to fight back for the moment. Your perception of the bank preference for non-central planning approaches to poverty reduction, but yes to orderly social change is right according to me, but it bears that heart of the contradiction and delima for

> the bank: there can not be progress toward poverty reduction led by

> compartamentalized systems(unorganized society) without central ideas, and that is the reason of pushing these CDF principles,

> but compartamentalized principles are not good guiding principles, and may make things worse, and since they are based on a long-term strategy without short-term check and goals, the answers will be in at a time we can not go back for readjustments.

> If you look carefully at the content of my posting, it simply says that based on sustainability theory, the set of principles is not sustainable, and they do not make up a sustainability plan. So

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

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

> Greetings;

> Lucio

>

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

> From: John.com>

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

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

> Subject: Re: CDF

 

> > Dear Lucio,

> >

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

> > Actually, your contibution was posted. It was

> hidden> > among several messages in my mail box and I could

> not> > see it at the time I replied your querry.

> >

> > Shalom

> > John

 

June 20/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Questions week 3

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Questions - Week 3

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

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

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

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

Questions:

A. Participatory, Demand-Driven Research: Participatory research

approaches have been evolving over the past decades. "Participatory" has meant everything from inviting the end-users for consultations to empowering end-users to drive the research process. Participatory research approaches imply the promotion of meaningful participation of marginalised groups such as resource poor farmers, women, youth, farm workers, and the landless.

QUESTION 11. From your experience, what are the PREREQUISITES for

integrating participatory research strategies into the NARS, in particular to address the sustainable food security needs and priorities of marginalised groups such as resource poor farmers, rural women, youth, farm workers and the landless? Will the same strategy work for all of these groups?

B. Interdisciplinary Research - Food security is determined by a number of economic, social, and agricultural factors. Constraints to sustainable food security are not bounded by distinct technical categories and disciplines.

Addressing these complex issues thus calls for an interdisciplinary approach that transcends traditional boundaries among the agricultural, ecological and social sciences.

QUESTION 12. In your view, which are the MOST IMPORTANT disciplines that must be mobilised to address sustainable food security in an integrated fashion?

C. Institutional Partnerships and Policy-Research Relationships. By virtue of the cross-cutting nature and breadth of food security issues, no one institution or type of institution can be expected to address its many aspects. For this reason, institutions are forging partnerships between public, private, civil, and intergovernmental sectors to address these issues. Further, for research to be effective, conducive national policies and actions as well as long-term strategies for research must be in place.

QUESTION 13. In your opinion, what is the BEST MECHANISM for ensuring a

linkage between national policies that influence food security and the

research agenda aimed at addressing food security? (how and by whom?

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

We look forward to your responses to any or all of the above questions.

With best regards,

The E-Team

 

June 20/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comments by Tankou

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

From: tankoum@.org [SMTP:tankoum@unrg]

Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 11:07 PM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 2, Comments

Nimbkar sceptical views on the potential contribution to the improvement of food security in developing countries and on the poor performance of NARS are certainly well founded. But I believe that we should not condemn ourselves because of the past failures. What is needed is to remove the constraints that are impeding the development and application of technology in the developing world.

Failure to narrow the technology gap between developed and developing will simply leads to more food insecurity, environmental degradation, and greater reliance on external aids. We need to harness new as well as exiting technology to tape our resources in a sustainable manner. Therefore, we should learn lessons from the past and take what ever measures are necessary to reverse the downward trends. This may require drastic changes in the way developing countries establish and manage their institutions, putting the right person at the right place, at identifying problems and setting clear objectives and priorities, enforcing accountability.

All this lead us to the issue of good governance.

I really enjoyed reading Kedarnath's response on biotechnology. the

precautionary attitude that he recommended in the development and

application of biotechnology is a very important issue of concern. A

consensus should be reach among researchers as whether these new products are in fact safe. In other words it is better to safe than to risk being sorry.

I agreed with Doelle that training is a key factor in harnessing technology for development. Unfortunately, There has been not enough investment in human resources to enhance a broad-based development approach.

The issue of the indivisibility of development raised by Munoz is very

important. This none of the element of sustainable development can be solved in isolation these are a nexus of issues that need to be address with a nexus of solution.

The issue of investing in e-communication raised by Florence is very

important. Unless scientific breakthroughs are translated in language

understandable to the farmers their impacts will be considerably reduced.

 

June 20/2000/Communication: personal research opinion

From: "Mudacumura, Gedeon"

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

Dear Lucio,

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

Using a metaparadigm approach, I am currently building a general

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

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

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

Keep in touch.

Gedeon

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

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

> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2000 1:43 PM

> To: Mudacumura, Gedeon

> Subject: Re: Call for paper proposals

>

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

> I first started contrasting traditional sustainable development with

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

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

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

> the first time around is a matter of luck to me or of good advising. All this time my ideas have been out only positive comments have come to me, which encourages me. Have you visited my site at

> http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz ?. I have give access there to a few articles already published and to some articles that hold key ideas that I would like people to be familier with and if possible reply to me to test the possible reaction to the work available for review. Again positive comments are coming. I even gave access to an article where I proposed a version of sustainability theory and I show how it could be used to improved the practice of agenda 21 sustainable development indicators, it had good reviews recently but it was considered too long and it did not call much attention when first wrote. The reason I provided both detailed theory and detailed practical use in this original article was the unfamiliarity(expected skepticism) of editors and practitionners with the nature of these theories, and I wanted to get them both out at the same

> time. Now that other pieces of the puzzle have been published I may be able to break this articles into two componets: one theory, and one how it can be put into practice. Can you take a look at it in my website? it is in the SUSTAINABILITY section. As you will see in my site, I am trying to provide a variety, but consistent set of ideas.

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

> looking forward to hear from you.

> Sincerely yours;

> Lucio

>

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

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

>

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

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

> Subject: Call for paper proposals

>

> > Dear Lucio,

> >

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

> > Since the concept of sustainable development was brought to

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

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

> > This symposium attempts to address the above and other sustainable

> > development's historical, theoretical, and pragmatic issues. Scholars and practitioners interested in approaching this concept from the mentioned perspectives are encouraged to submit their proposals (up to two pages). The proposal should contain the paper's title and abstract, and include the primary focus, theoretical or pragmatic.

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

> >

> > 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

 

June 21/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Response 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 20, 2000 8:59 PM

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

Subject: Re: Questions - Week 3

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

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

effective analysis: participation, integration, interdisciplinary, and

monitoring. The framework is as follows:

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

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

c) effective interdisciplinary approaches must be able to handled

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

d) effective monitoring requires a framework consistent with effective

participation, effective integration, and effective interdisciplinarities.

Problems:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Solutions

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

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

tools for those local conditions

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

detail-generality consistencies within the research outputs;

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

exclusion and promote consensus;

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

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

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

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

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

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

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

 

June 21/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Summary of week 2 responses

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

We wish to offer our thanks to those of you who provided responses and

questions during Week 2. The summary below (approximately 5 pages) covers 15 exchanges in response to Questions 5-9 that were received through Tuesday 20 June. Any additional responses received related to Week 2 will certainly be included in the final summary.

Again, thank you for your contributions. We look forward to your continued participation.

Best Wishes,

The E-Team

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

strategies to capitalize 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?

Jonnalagadda critiqued the 'either-or" approach that has informed much of the debate on biotechnology, stressing the need for: a) a more rigorous definition of biotechnology to guide the discussion. Doelle reminded us the word biotechnology has been coined in 1938 by an Hungarian agricultural economist and the internationally accepted meaning is "the use of biological systems [microorganisms, plants and animals] and parts thereof to produce commercial products". Genetic engineering is therefore part of biotechnology and has only been added in the last 3 decades.

According to Tankou biotechnology may contribute to food security by

enabling farmers to obtain higher yields and higher quality foods with less inputs in a wider range of environments. Improved animals can resist diseases, have better weight gains, and offer higher quality meat and other products. Primavesi granted that biotechnology can be of use with microorganisms under controlled environmental conditions but argues that the only significant impact in agriculture is the possibility to introduce or to magnify the nitrogen fixation by grasses (National level) and to produce pest enemies or organic pesticides, detoxifiers, etc. (Household level).

Given his view that biotechnology hinges on industrialization of food

production and absence of quality control by consumers, Primavesi doubted that it can contribute to producing higher quality food. Munoz argued that unless poverty issues such as low productivity (supply) and lack of income (demand) are squarely addressed, food quality will remain irrelevant. The main problems with biotechnology, are limited access by resource poor farmers, lack of local control, and inadequate adaptation to local specificity (Munoz). Nimbkar warned about the possibility of misuses or the risk overproduction. Tankou agreed that there are risks entailed in breeding, including the concentration of harmful ingredients, disturbance of existing ecosystems, and reduction of biodiversity. Jonnalagadda was also concerned about risks and loss of diversity and questions of how long will the benefits of biotechnology last.

The discussion pointed to the need for an assessment of the benefits and risks of biotechnology applications in a specific country before deciding the extent to which a national research agenda should embrace them (Tankou). Such an evaluation needs to be place-specific and empower local decisions, as long as they are consistent with global scientific criteria and

international agreements. It should start by determining whether specific problems may be actually solved by integrating modern biotechnology with conventional R&D (Tankou).

Since biotechnology alone cannot solve all food security problems,

assessment should lead to the development of appropriate policies at the national level, and at international levels to steer their development and application. These policies should guide (1) increased public investments in R&D; (2) regulatory arrangements that inform and protect the public from any risks; (3) intellectual property management to encourage greater private-sector investment; and (4) regulation of the private seed and agricultural research sector to protect the interests of small farmers and poor consumers in developing countries (Tankou).

For more details, see "Biotechnology for Developing-Country Agriculture: Problems and Perspectives, 2020 VISION", FOCUS 2, IFPRI, October 1999(Tankou).

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?

According to Escobar, electronic communication is both more efficient and more cost-effective than conventional methods. He sees great opportunities in the application of electronic communication, both as a source of data and information and as a means to share experiences, results, methods, and evaluations. In fact, there are a number of collaborative projects that are being exclusively developed through electronic means. But, Nimbkar called for greater accountability in the NARS, particularly with regard to the additional investments entailed by the new technologies. Tankou agreed that the NARS need to become more accountable and more efficient, by settingclear objectives and priorities. Failure to do so will only widen the gap between developed and developing countries and lead to greater food insecurity and dependency on external aid.

Tankou believes that advances in communication and information technology offer a tremendous opportunity to the NARS for enhancing the flow of information, knowledge and resources at national, sub-regional, regional and global levels. They enable global alliances with established research centres, regional and sub-regional research networks, South-South cooperation on specific fields, and inter-institutional collaboration between public and private sectors. Primavesi responded that they should remain the domain of researchers but enable communication among researchers, extension service, and farmers. It is through these partnerships, rather than by the isolated work of research, that we can address the main challenge: focusing on real needs to move forward in the sustainable development of healthy food production and to promote the core principles that sustain it. Electronic communication can serve an important function in sociological and environmental education as well as in technology transfer (Nimbkar agreed).

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

Several respondents concurred that developments in information and

communication technology, coupled with the decrease in the cost of solar and wind energy to power them, offer great opportunities for technology transfer to rural areas. However, they also recognize that access to electronic means of communication is not usually available to limited resource farmers. It is mostly affluent farmers who can afford access and who use these technologies (Escobar, Egal, Primavesi, Tankou). Nimbkar assumed that if information is made available by the NARS to the latter, it may eventually trickle down to small farmers, and Tankou hoped that it would contribute to raising their

awareness for the need to improve their productivity and competitiveness.

Primavesi stressed that technology transfer to limited-resource farmers

still requires extension services, but unfortunately their capacity is very weak in many developing countries. In some cases, the only active outreach is done by the chemical input industry, which is focused on marketing products. Escobar clarified (and Primavesi agreed) that this kind of communication is not meant to replace on-farm activities or extension agents. They are most useful in facilitating partnerships among scientists and collaborative efforts in research planning and implementation. Egal and Primavesi pointed to the key roles NGOs and other producers' associations, religious institutions, etc. can play as relays to convey and interpret information that is available through electronic means for limited-resource producers. Escobar comments calls for an assessment of the use of electronic facilities by farmers' organizations.

According to Egal, the most immediate challenge is to develop and

disseminate information that is relevant to limited-resource farmers. New communication and information technologies can enable NARS to set up dialogues with farmers or their organizations to better understand their needs, to disseminate research results, to obtain feedback on new

technologies, and to inform producers on market opportunities (Tankou,

Nimbkar). It can also educate small farmers to the need to support research efforts that can improve their productivity and competitiveness (Tankou).

Development of relevant and responsive technologies is only one side of the picture: Egal and Tankou emphasized that they should also be disseminated in a language which is understandable and that promotes interactive information systems. Munoz agreed, emphasizing that what people need is not just raw data but meaningful knowledge, complemented by information about the ways it is generated so that the techniques can be copied and replicated according to local conditions. Translating research results into information useful to farmers takes time and effort: Egal wondered about potential sources of funding for this kind of work. Tankou agreed on the need to invest in this area.

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

information and communication technologies in your institution?

Projects that operate at the field level are constrained by the number and quality of linkages to electronic communication facilities. But it must be recognized there is also a high proportion of research and development practitioners who are unfamiliar or uncomfortable with using electronic communication means (Escobar). Tankou pointed out that in Africa, especially in rural areas, access is constrained by the relatively high costs, lack of adequate infrastructures, and appropriate institutional policies. Harnessing information for the economic and social development of African countries is one of the priority areas of the Economic Commission for Africa, which

established a Development Information and Statistics Division specifically for this purpose.

Primavesi stressed the need to ensure that scientific research addresses the priority concerns of producers: to transform research findings into knowledge that can be understood and used by them, to validate technologies at the farm level, and to strengthen collaboration with the extension service. The specialization of research organizations is also a constraint, since farmers need to take the whole production system as well as cost considerations into account in making decisions. Food security research needs to encompass the whole product chain (from production to consumption) not only an isolated component. Aphane also pointed to the rigidity of vertical institutional structures, where each discipline or sector has separate programs or resources, as a major challenge to achieving true interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral synergies.

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?

a) Globalization of trade

Nimbkar hoped that it will open new opportunities for investments, thus

easing pressure on land (which at present is the only viable form of

investment in parts of India). Tankou sees competitiveness as a main problem to overcome: farmers in developing countries will have to increase quality and NARS will have to redirect their

programs to meet these exigencies. The identification and development of market niches may be a solution to the problem of competitiveness and an important step in technological development.

For details, see Calestous Juma, "Science, Technology and

Economic Growth: Africa's Biopolicy Agenda in the 21st Century", UNU/INRA Annual Lectures, ECA, published by the United Nations University, April

2000.

b) Urbanization

Tankou pointed to the growing significance of 'street food' in feeding urban populations at affordable prices and providing income to urban households.

Potential areas for research are the issues of food safety, the nutritional value of street foods, culinary and conservation methods, and environmental impacts.

c) Decentralization of Decision Making?

Primavesi argued that in a globalized market, decisions are more centralized than ever. But Buenavista responded that a decentralized system of governance is becoming a prevailing policy that NARS and other research organizations, especially those working at the local level, must take into account as they identify their clients and ways to serve and to reach them.

For instance, in the Philippines stakeholders include the civil society. Decentralization further provides the opportunity for the NARS to examine the link between research and policy at different hierarchies of decision making as well as tailor capacity building activities for decentralized agencies which may not be directly involved in research but are the new consumers of research products. But she questions to what extent the institutional structure and policy direction of the NARS is responsive to these shifts in governance.

d) Privatization of research and development

Primavesi expressed concern that the priority placed on short time money making will reinforce an unsustainable approach to agriculture, while Tankou sees the privatization trend as an opportunity. As research becomes more demand driven, public and private institutions will have to compete in responding to the needs of technology users. This calls for the NARS to improve their resource management in order to become more efficient and strengthen their linkages with users at all levels. But rather than shifting their focus away from the needs of resource poor farmers, this should help them mobilize the necessary resources and better define problems and priorities. At the same time, public funds should continue being used to address the needs of limited-resource producers.

e) Property Rights Issues (Tankou)

Primavesi considered property rights a constraint to the diffusion of

technology and products. Tankou disagreed, stressing that they protect local inventions and promote legal access to technologies developed elsewhere. NARS could patent their innovations, which in turn could facilitate the mobilization of private investments.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

Munoz pointed to the need to address the relationship between income and food security. He proposed a separation of functions among the major global organizations to address the basic contradiction between goals of economic efficiency and poverty reduction. He advocated the creation of a World Poverty Fund that would focus exclusively on the latter, while the World Bank should continue dealing with the former, as long as it conforms to sustainability concerns.

Greater income will sustain the demand, not only for food, but also for

information and competencies that are becoming available and are needed for new biotechnologies and electronic communications, creating among other things a market for professionals holding

 

June 21/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week two

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

Subject: [cdf] Question for Week Two

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

THE FOUR CDF PRINCIPLES: CHALLENGES AND ISSUES FOR

EXTERNAL PARTNERS

Before I go on to make my contribution to the second week's debate, please allow me the luxury to say something on the Executive Summary of the 'Progress Report to the World Bank's Executive Board May 2000.

In going through the report, one realises that certain remarks made by Mr. Lucio Munoz's last week seem to be valid. He states that and I quote, "Also the holistic vision appears to include only economic and social values, where are the environmental concerns in such a vision", end of quote. I might as well include democracy and good governance to his query. As shown in the progress report, implementation in some cases has been slowed by political upheavals. One of the challenges for external partners is to help developing countries lay the structures for a stable civil service and a stable civil society. Let me begin by pointing out that the scale of the problem is quite large and the sources of funding and funds themselves look, probably to me as an outsider, grossly inadequate to provide solutions to poverty alleviation worldwide. In that case, what are the criteria used by willing external partners for selecting which countries to work with?

So far, development agencies, even among UN agencies, seem to have been in competition with one another. In its publication entitled "Basic Facts About the United Nations, DPI/991 - 40791, 1989 - 65M" the UN lays out the mandate of each of its agencies. For example, UNESCO's aims and activities are primarily to contribute to peace and security in the world by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science, culture and communication. Other agencies have mandates that have nothing to do with education. Yet, that has not stopped these agencies carrying out activities in education (UNICEF for

example) in the same country as UNESCO. The fact that there is duplication of roles may not necessarily be bad. What is, is the fact that there is no consultation and co-ordination of activities in the

same area in the same country. Experience in many countries show that the impact of one or the other's or both of these Agencies activities has been marginal or unfelt. This is especially true in countries that

are not only poor but have large populations as well. Developed countries' aid Agencies on their part, some more than others, have sort to work apart with the objective of influencing developing countries'

governments on trade (consumer goods, arms purchase, investments in industry and banking etc.) issues. This approach cannot be expected to have an impact even if one developed country had the whole field to itself in a developing country. Given the scale of the problem, assuming also that developed countries accept free trade and globalisation, could it not have been better for willing agencies and governments to co-ordinate their activities in order to achieve better results? At the point of writing the first progress report, even though continuous progress has been made, the fact remains that the pace and depth has been uneven. As the report claims, rightly so too, this is due to differences in country circumstances. The challenge, as is evident, for willing agencies and governments is to help develop, strengthen and sustain the structures (democratic and stable governments, continuous aid in capacity building in the areas of strategic thinking and management, etc) required to keep progress in the implementation of CDF principles. In other words, should implementation depend on the whims and caprices of party politics in democratic and stable national institutions? In my view it should not. Frequent changes in Italian governments since the war have not stopped the economy from steaming ahead and at one point overtaking Britain's. In spite of the ups and downs of Italian politics, the civil service and civil society have remained stable and in the process continued to implement development principles (state, company or family and personal). Admittedly, it took decades and centuries for Italian

entrepreneurs (small or big) to develop capacity for starting and running businesses successfully. The country has had the structure required for successful development and ups and downs in party politics have not stopped these structures from doing just that. How they got the money to start and run businesses and enterprises is another matter. This is the challenge developing countries themselves must face up to. The role of willing external partners is helping to develop, even with time, such solid and stable structures However, what the Italian experience shows is that the small entrepreneur is a force to be taken into account in development. The lesson from this experience points to the fact that external partners should pay particular attention to capacity building in the area of small business development and entrepreneurial skills. Given a stable civil service and skills in abundance, this group of people has been shown to keep

a country's economy bouyant even when there is political instability.

Clearly, there are several fronts to be confronted all at once in this process and no single country and/or external partner is able to handle the situation alone. Should external partners regroup around a specific point or several points of the four principles? It might be more useful if willing partners did not stretch themselves thin. Rather, partners should align themselves behind specific issues. Whatever the case, external partners shouldvnot be rivals in providing support to the country strategy.

John

 

June 21/2000/ WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Summary of week one discussion

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

From: cdf@worldbank.org

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

On June 19, the 2nd Online Dialogue on the World Bank’s Comprehensive

Development Framework (CDF) began with 1014 of subscribers, including

many from developing countries. We would like to thank this week’s

participants for taking the time to review the CDF May 2000 Progress

Report and to respond to our first discussion question on the

implementation of the CDF. Since one of our primary goals is to make

this a highly inclusive discussion, we appreciate your suggestions for

ways to include the views of a broad array of individuals and groups.

Focusing this week on the benefits and challenges for governments and

civil society in developing countries in implementing the CDF

principles, already we are encouraged by the constructive exchange of

ideas and experiences among participants. A high level of participation based upon the sharing of first-hand observations and concrete experiences is essential for this Dialogue to be a worthwhile and meaningful endeavor. As this Dialogue proceeds, we hope other

subscribers will join the discussion. In particular, we urge

subscribers from developing countries where the CDF has been piloted, as well as those from non-piloted developing countries, to provide us with their insights on CDF implementation. Below is a summary of the main ideas, suggestions and concerns arising from the discussion during the first week.

*** Question for Week 1 (June 19-26)

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 experiences?

***Summary of Discussion on Implementing the CDF Principles-the Benefits and Challenges for Developing Countries

With one notable reservation, nearly all the participants support the

four CDF principles—holistic vision, country ownership, partnerships,

and results oriented--as elaborated in the May 2000 Progress Report.

The contributions of these participants focus more, therefore, on

implementing these principles than on the principles themselves. Before turning to these contributions, however, it is important to acknowledge the reservations of a few participants about the framework itself. This latter group identifies the environment as a significant area of concern neglected by the CDF. According to these participants, poverty reduction, a principle goal of the CDF, requires measures to promote sustainable development and reduce environmental degradation. Yet, the participants are concerned that in its current form, the CDF appears to not give sufficient consideration to the environmental dimension. They feel the challenge of the World Bank is to make the environmental dimension a more integral part of the CDF.

Turning now to the issue of implementation, the contributions we

received identify an array of challenges for developing countries in

general and for governments and civil society within these countries

more specifically. For developing countries in general, some

participants consider creating a shared understanding of the CDF

principles among the main actors (government, civil society, donors,

etc.) a priority. These participants are highly doubtful that such a

shared understanding exists and argue that the lack of such an

understanding will seriously hamper implementation efforts. Other

participants expressed less concern about the need for such a shared

understanding of CDF principles as a prerequisite for implementation.

In fact, they appear to suggest that such an understanding will emerge

during the implementation process itself through mechanisms like the

national consultations that have occurred in many of the piloted

countries. Furthermore, as one participant suggests, even this Dialogue represents an ongoing way to establish a shared understanding of CDF principles.

Beyond discussing this general issue on how the principles of the CDF

are understood in developing countries, our focus has been either on the challenges facing developing country governments or civil society in implementing the CDF principles. For those contributions focusing on developing country governments, three main challenges for CDF

implementation are highlighted. First, there are serious reservations

about how extensively CDF principles are accepted among government

officials and at different levels of government (national, regional, and local). Second, even where CDF principles are accepted, participants question whether developing country governments possess the administrative capacity and know-how to implement CDF principles. More than any other reform advocated in the CDF Progress Report, bureaucratic reform was prioritized by participants concerned with developing country governments and CDF implementation. Finally, some participants argue that CDF implementation requires the development of mechanisms to ensure government accountability. For these participants, the experience of the national consultation process in El Salvador is illustrative of the need for accountability mechanisms beyond elections.

Even more complex are the challenges that accompany civil society

participation in the implementation process. As the CDF May 2000

Progress Report underlines, civil society is assigned key roles in

achieving country-led development, forging partnerships and reducing

poverty. Yet, as several participants in this discussion point out, the diverse nature of civil society complicates its involvement in the

implementation process. Several participants favor national

consultations as one way to organize civil society’s participation,

however it is unclear whether this is the most effective mechanism.

Beyond this practical difficulty, one participant raises the issue of

the representative quality of civil society in some developing countries and urges us to consider carefully whether civil society organizations "represent" the interests of the poor and other excluded groups like women and ethnic minorities. And, while there are benefits for civil society, there may be costs as well. As civil society organizations increasingly become partners with government and donors via this development framework, there is the danger that they also will abandon their watchdog and advocacy roles.

Finally, one additional challenge that emerged from our discussion

concerns the country level focus of CDF implementation. In this era of

globalization, characterized by capital mobility and market volatility,

a few participants question the wisdom of a framework that apparently is limited to the country level. They call on the World Bank to consider extending the implementation of the CDF principles beyond developing country borders.

 

June 22/2000/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:odo@cppse.embrapa.br]

Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 9:18 PM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 3, Response by Primavesi

 

Good day, Colleagues!

We have to keep in mind that the NARS solely cannot do anything!!!! We need to consider the chain structure and process NARS-Extension Service-Farmers Association/Cooperatives-Consumers, or Agricultural policies (national/international)-NARS-Extension Service-Farmers (basic food, commodities for export)-Consumers, with strong interference of the importation companies, the bank interests and the alienation/lack of responsibility of urban population (main political power) with respect to the need to maintain the healthy structure and processes of the national rural environment and welfare for their own sustainability in cities. And within the NARS we need to consider the basic researchers and the development researchers (validate and transfer the concepts and technologies with extension service in pilot farms).

Countries without a good articulated extension service (private/NGOs or

governmental) or consumers without a healthy knowledge on the importance for them of the rural, will maintain the NARS only as a decorative structure, or as a structure to introduce first world technologies, not needed by most of the farmers, but spending or turning away the so needed money to improve the national main structure of a healthy agriculture (water and soil conservation service, extension service - based on agroecological concepts, storage capacity, transportation facilities, etc). Improving the first world

economy! So, the insistence in tray to forward these new technologies are a confirmation that the so 'good willed' relationship first-third world is only to guarantee, for the first, the sustainability of the own economy, but not the food security and quality of anybody in the whole world (first or third). The honest solutions are so simple and visible! We need not new technologies. We need the diffusion of the ground/general concepts on ecology on which the local NARS and farmers could build up their own technological packets.

QUESTION 11. From your experience, what are the PREREQUISITES for

integrating participatory research strategies into the NARS, in particular to address the sustainable food security needs and priorities of marginalised groups such as resource poor farmers, rural women, youth, farm workers and the landless? Will the same strategy work for all of these groups?

We need to improve the development researchers in NARS to allow the link to extension service and farmers in pilot validation farms. But these few peoples cannot save the world. We need a well structured extension service (not this of the input industry; they could help to transfer ground concepts which would help to increase the efficiency of the inputs - my experience at BASF and Agrofertil where I did do this) to spread out the validated concepts and technologies. We need to improve the association of these poor farmers, and grow up and community view of life, where the women, youth, farm workers and landless are included. Individualism, competition, up boosting of efficiency of the individual, interests, middle men, etc will

kill all the sustainable possibilities of food security. Re-establishing the social and environmental ethics and community life (against the individualism) all these named groups will be attended: in the third and also first world. A very good program on this issue was the Parana Rural Parana state in Brazil) with the leadership of the Instituto Agronomico do Parana (research) in partnership with Emater (extension service), and I think with part of the financial support from world bank. In this programme they created the development researcher working together with the extension service and the farmer (little and medium).

B. Interdisciplinary Research - Food security is determined by a number of economic, social, and agricultural factors. Constraints to sustainable food security are not bounded by distinct technical categories and disciplines.

Addressing these complex issues thus calls for an interdisciplinary approach that transcends traditional boundaries among the agricultural, ecological and social sciences.

QUESTION 12. In your view, which are the MOST IMPORTANT disciplines that must be mobilised to address sustainable food security in an integrated fashion?

No isolated disciplines!!!!! At first we need to diffuse the social ethics and ecological concepts (and to viabilize the praxis) trough all

disciplines, from the kindergarten to the post-doctorate courses, to the whole population, mainly at the level of leading social layer. Also

associativism and cooperative work.

The ecological concepts will attend ideas on nutrition/consumerism,

Local/global climate, water and soil conservation, waste reduction and

processing, ecological soil management to improve production potential,

agroforestry, multifunctional use of land etc. As Munoz stated in previous contribution we have to distinguish between the production complex and the consumption complex. The biggest problem remains in the consumption power of the so called poor (also in the first world). It is not a question to reduce production costs (the middle man will increase the prices to the consumer, and gain more money, increasing the difference rich-poor; or the supermarkets... there is a limit for the production costs, below of which the farmer need to give up: we have to stop to grow up the population with lower income, promoted by the today's economical system).

So in the economical area we have to introduce big changes in their view (also the holistic short time) before thinking in introduce new disciplines or interdisciplinarity in research.

C. Institutional Partnerships and Policy-Research Relationships. By virtue of the cross-cutting nature and breadth of food security issues, no one institution or type of institution can be expected to address its many aspects. For this reason, institutions are forging partnerships between public, private, civil, and intergovernmental sectors to address these issues. Further, for research to be effective, conducive national policies and actions as well as long-term strategies for research must be in place.

QUESTION 13. In your opinion, what is the BEST MECHANISM for ensuring a

linkage between national policies that influence food security and the

research agenda aimed at addressing food security? (how and by whom?)

National policies? I think that we need a integrated development programme in all levels (national downwards to regional and municipal; why not also a continental or even global, coordinated by FAO and World Bank?: growing up the working capital and the natural resources production potential will increase the consumers potential to speed up the global economy! Today the system is reducing the working capital and destroying the production potential of natural resources, expecting for an increase of profits??!!), based on recovering of natural resources (resident water, soils and strategically located forests) producing structures and functions.

Establish a dense net on environmental education (ecological concepts to support the development or validation of local technologies) and social behavior ethics, with practical solutions or giving the way to put these concepts in practice. Also education on healthy nutrition and alternatives, and on sanitary behavior. Then a agricultural programme to produce food for internal consume and export based on internal and external demand. The research agenda need to be more linked to the validation and transfer of technologies to the extension service and farmers, and also agroindustry.

The restoration of an extension service. In a second level also the

research on reduction of harvest losses, post-harvest maintenance of product quality (transport, storage, transformation, etc). By whom? A cooperative effort of institutions linked to the Agricultural, Education, Economy-Planning, Transport, and Health Ministries.

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

Participatory? Individualism, hard competition among individuals and

institutions for funds and acknowledgement. The economic system wants this.

Interdisciplinarity? without a global and holistic view of the systems

(global downwards to local) it is difficult to see the different

interactions (internal and external). The actual economic system forces to maximisation of few disciplines linked to short time success!!! (in a never sustainable way!!!). World Bank need to study a way in which we have to optimise (not maximise) the monetary gain, including social and

environmental components. We see the reduction of these components in

European countries in view to allow a better competition power with North American products. Anything is wrong. And this will certainly affect the world food security and social security. Anything better than hard competition is needed to allow an economic security for all countries and so the food security for the world population.

The representation of the Southern Hemisphere as the rooting system for the northern first world flowering and fruiting trees is very significant. We have nothing against to be the rooting system. But let us be a healthy rooting system. Today we see a strong mortality of this rooting system, and we don't need to be experts or seers to preview a heavy loss or death of the beautiful fruiting tree!!! Third world NARS cannot help because of the not willingness of the first world economic system imposed to world. Introducing star war systems are not the solutions.

With best regards,

Odo

 

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

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

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

Cc: "Desta Mebratu" <.com>

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

I will continue sharing my ideas with the participants whenever it is

appropriate to do so.

Please, receive my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

June 23/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Deadline for week two questions

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

From: cdf@worldbank.org

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

We need to receive any contributions to the Question for Week Two, below stated, by Monday, 3 p.m., Washington, D.C. time. We will then post the Question for Week Three and subsequently, the Summary for the Discussion of Week Two.

****QUESTION FOR WEEK TWO (June 19-26)****

Implementing the CDF Principles--Benefits and Challenges for External

Partners, such as donor and International development agencies.

The main benefit for external partners is expected to be more effective and sustainable development to reduce poverty.

The May 2000 Progress Report offered some insights into the challenges

including:

*the need to harmonize policies, procedures and practices, including--for

analytical and diagnostic work--appraisal, implementation, procurement,

monitoring, supervision, reporting, accounting and evaluation.

* developing selectivity

* focusing on development outcomes, such as primary school enrollment, and reducing child mortality, etc.

* essential changes to internal culture of aid donors, including providing partner countries more room to take control of their development process.

What are your views, and can you give any practical examples of where these

issues are being addressed, and the lessons learned?

 

June 25/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Comments on Bertelsen By Munoz

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

From: Lucio Munoz

To: RAFS2000

Cc: Odo Primavesi

Sent: 6/24/00 12:19 AM

Subject: Re: Key Issues - Week 3, Response by Bertelsen

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

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

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

unsustainable supply still active in developing countries despite the

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

NARS should work to ensure a healthy supply of public knowledge in a

decentralized fashion to maximize individual innovations that are usually the source of new practical knowledge in and around farms. Those local innovations need to be identified, supported, and replicated.

Effective local research implies active local participation, active local integration, active local interdisciplinary approaches, and active local monitoring structure in such a way that can produce research output that can be validated using either internal or external or both approaches. Only this way, local research will lead to locally fit research outputs, and rich countries and international organizations should promote the organization of research in all countries in all areas this way for achieving consistencies.

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

in more sustainability friendly attitudes as local self esteem is a strong force toward positive change.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

me that to be able to balance the socio-economic concerns of one approach and the environmental concerns of the other approach, we need to develop "sustainable development plus " approaches to minimize environmental concerns or "preservation plus "approaches to

minimize socio-economic concerns. Any thoughts? Is there somebody out there working in these lines of thoughts right now?;

Greetings:

Lucio

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

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

 

June 25/2000/Communication: SD Indicators

From: Marly Cardenas <mcardenas@ific.net.ph>

To: munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

Subject: SD Indicators

Hi Lucio,

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

that I had difficulty downloading the Appendix tables to your article

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

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

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

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

Thanks and keep up the good work.

Marly Cardenas

 

June 26/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Format and organization of the seminar

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

From: nkishor@worldbank.org

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-biodiversity-Format and Organization of the Seminar

The internet seminar will mimic the format of a face-to-face seminar,

consisting of a plenary at the beginning, several parallel breakouts, and a final plenary to wrap up.

* Plenary Session (Duration: 1 week, June 26-30).

General discussion of issues in biodiversity and the specific problems and challenges in participant countries

It is suggested that the discussions be based on the background papers

made available for the seminar. The discussions will be moderated by 2-3 renowned biodiversity experts. A summary of the discussions will be

provided at the end of the week. A key expected outcome is to develop a

priority list of topics based on the discussions.

* Three to four Parallel Breakout Discussions (Duration: 2 weeks, July

3-14).

Detailed discussion of the top priority issues identified by participants in step 1 above

Anticipated topics are: Contributions of biodiversity to poverty reduction and food security; Incentives to conserve and invest in biodiversity, and examples of global/local success stories; Roles, responsibilities and constraints faced by signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD).

Additional key papers (as suggested by participants and experts) may be

posted to guide discussions. Each breakout will be moderated by an expert who will also post a summary of the discussion at the end of the 2 weeks.

* Concluding plenary (Duration: 1 week, July 17-21).

Wrap-up and highlight next steps

A moderated discussion will pull together the conclusions of the breakouts and make them available in a summary report. This will help identify directions for future focus.

(Further details will be provided as the seminar progresses.)

 

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

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

From: tlovejoy@worldbank.org

List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:leave-biodiversity-

Current debates seem to pit biodiversity "hotspots" against regional

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

A similar debate pits protected areas against community development

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

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

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

Tom Lovejoy

Chief Biodiversity Advisor to the WB President

Lead Biodiversity Specialist for Latin America and the Caribbean

The World Bank

 

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

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

From: cdf@worldbank.org

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

Thank you for your responses to Question Two. A summary will be posted

later this week. Please note that sources of the summaries will not be

attributed.

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

Implementing the CDF Principles in Poverty Reduction Strategies

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

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

 

June 27/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Reconciling true dichotomies

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

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Lovejoy" <tlovejoy@worldbank.org>

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

people/biodiversity.

The problem can be constructed simply as follows: a) forest areas(FA) are by function of development(D) converted into deforested areas; b) during this process poverty(P) and lost of biodiversity(BL) takes place; c) increased poverty and increased biodiverstiy lost worsen the conditions of remaining forested areas and existing deforested areas; and d) the process repeat itself endlessly through time and now we are witnessing the consequences, environmental and social degradation.

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

So far forest protection has increased and poverty has increased too as the main policy of the bank has been on forest protection. A few months ago I made the comment that the main goal of the bank in theory, poverty reduction, was inconsistent with bank's policies on the ground, preservation policies, and that both should be encouraged at

the same time by integrating deforested area development programs with

forested area development programs, but so far this is not the case. We all know that as more remaining forested areas are converted to non-forest uses more biodiversity is lost and more poverty means more pressures on remaining forested areas and on biodiversity.

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

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

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

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

specially when preservation is based on one time debt swaps to achieve

land use change as the roots of poverty are left practically

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

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

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

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

Your comments are welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Independent researcher/Vancouver, Canada

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

 

June 27/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Using simple market mechanism to conserv & promote Biodiversity

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

From: Dgiovannucci@worldbank.org

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

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

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

b) Offer locally relevant environmental and resource education. Local

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

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

Developing various mechanisms such as eco- friendly and/or organic

certification or community-based biodiversity monitoring has been greatly facilitated by collaboration with private enterprise, nonprofits, NGOs, and other civil society organizations (CSOs) who often have specific expertise and only require integration. This can help save a lot of time in implementation and helps to avoid a steep learning curve.

Such an initiative, now developing in at least three Latin American

nations, now has the potential to be the driving factor in linking the

important Mesoamerican Biological Corridor through eight countries.

Dual impact: Poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation

Incomes of smallholders are improved by creating access to new markets and increasing the value of their products while conserving the natural

resources that are critical to the long-term viability of not only their products but also their communities.

Sustainability

Fast growing consumer interest in environmentally sustainable products,and increased worldwide awareness and interest in protecting environmentally fragile or biodiversity-rich areas, strengthen the sustainability of this approach. These multi-billion dollar markets are less volatile than those for mainstream commodities, and the project also emphasizes fostering independence, innovation, and a focus on long-term viability among the producers.

Partners in developing the methodology include:

a) Donor and government agencies and task managers with extensive

experience in environment sector projects and participatory development :

GTZ (German Development Agency)

IICA (Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture)

World Bank

b) NGOs with field experience in community organizations, environmental conservation, and smallholder development:

CARE (conducts a number of community-based sustainable development

projects)

Rainforest Alliance (develop the Eco-OK certification program with local partners)

Conservation International (monitors "Hot spots" and has sustainable

cocoa/coffee programs around the world)

Enterprise Works (has sustainable tree crops programs in Latin America and Africa and develops cooperatives)

The Small Enterprise Education and Promotion (SEEP) Network (represents dozens of leading NGOs)

The Nature Conservancy (develops local institutions, provides environmental services and is actively expanding into "compatible economic development")

The Consumers Choice Council (represents a number of NGOs and is actively supporting work on sustainable coffee production)

A number of local institutions including Salvanatura, IDESMAC,

Pronatura,Certimex, Procafe.

c) Private sector team members with considerable global experience in

developing market channels and smallholder capabilities, and who also have the market contacts needed to help ensure realistic approaches and

successful outcomes for project participants:

Starbucks (currently in partnership with us and conservation organizations for shade grown coffee)

Colombian Coffee Federation ( The Juan Valdez folks are developing a new sustainable coffee program)

Denzil Phillips International (leading European consulting firm specialized in marketing and development of natural products)

Sustainable Harvest (pioneer and importer of organic and shade grown

coffee)

The Body Shop (international retailer of numerous forest products,

including herbs, oils, perfumes, soaps)

We are very much interested in others' experience and invite you to

comment or participate in our process. For more information you can

contact the sector leaders or task managers for Mexico and Central America

or: Daniele P. Giovannucci -- Dgiovannucci@worldbank.org

 

 June 27/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: A comment on Munoz by Primavesi

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

 

From: Odo Primavesi [SMTP:odo@cse.embrapa.br]

Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:25 PM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Comment on Munoz

Dear conferees!

I agree with Lucio's statement.

And in praxis this is happening or happened all around the world, like the case I told on IAPAR's Parana Rural : researcher/scientist team feeding the researcher/development team which worked with extension service on farms to validate technologies, on watershed level. From these representative validation farms, the technologies and knowledge were spread out by the extension service (public or private/NGO's). In Brazil we have also the Farmers Associations and Cooperatives that also research new technologies with a great impact.

But I will reinforce the idea that we need to grow up a global view of the real value of agriculture, the remaining natural landscapes, the life quality of the consumers, to make it possible a sustainable way of life on local level. With the today's split (very specialized) view of world and nature no food security will be achieved despite of the excellent structural organization of research in countries, and the modern available technology.

With best regards,

Odo

 

June 27/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Questions week 4

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

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

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

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

With these points in mind, we do ask that for the topics you choose to

address please specify:

a) the associated constraints;

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

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

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

The issues raised below are those that we perceived participants as

identifying as crucial. Please feel free to raise alternative issues and respond with the information noted above. We look forward to your

responses, insights and ideas during the coming week.

Prioritising Research Efforts

A. Disaggregating, Mapping and Monitoring - Participants often stressed the importance of various agro-ecological zones and the implications of

differentiation within the farmer community (vulnerability/population

density/market access/infrastructure, for lower income or marginal areas, with or without market access and alternative economic opportunities, etc).

QUESTION 15. How can improved analysis through disaggregation, mapping and monitoring efforts of food insecure regions, communities and households by NARS and other institutional partners serve to prioritise research?

QUESTION 16. How can NARS better contribute to understanding of differing farmer circumstances? How can farmers participate in developing research strategies best adapted to their circumstances? (Please provide examples!)

B. Supply and Demand - Given the significance of the dynamics of supply and demand, the market plays a key role in sustaining or undermining food security. E-discussants have often noted the need to address questions of competitive advantage and market opportunity to sustain farmer production and revenues. Long-term demand for agricultural products and sustaining adequate revenues are critical to farmer households and rural viability.

Specific challenges face farmers in marginal areas, with limited resources or scarce alternatives, and groups with little or no direct access to land.

The following questions address common concerns, but for groups with

different profiles:

QUESTION 17a. How can NARS assist farmers/producers in identifying promising alternatives for agriculture, land and farming systems with high, long-term competitive advantage (in particular agricultural commodities that benefit from the greatest elasticity in demand)?

QUESTION 17b. How can NARS assist subsistence farmers in marginal areas where there are limited market opportunities or with severe limits to income generation?

C. Producers and Consumers - Several E-discussants noted the need to

involve producers and consumers in setting priorities and the research

agenda. In this regard, the term "consumer" includes those who consume

food, but also those involved in the consumer industry (food distributors, etc.). Addressing consumer interests must include their concerns regarding prices, availability, food safety and diversity, as well as the increasing importance of the urban market. On the other hand, producers need a consistent and reasonable return on agriculture.

QUESTION 18. How can NARS address the interests of both producers and

consumers? What mechanisms can be used to involve both groups in decision making on research? How can consumers participate in assessment of the impact of technology (in particular, on the environment and health)?

 

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

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

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

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

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: <jdixon@worldbank.org>

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

Subject: [biodiversity] Local Costs and Global Benefits

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

> -- by John A. Dixon and Stefano Pagiola

>

> The question of the conservation of global biodiversity presents an

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

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

> loom large to the local population.

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

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

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

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

>

> John Dixon

> Lead Economist

> The World Bank

 

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

From: "Durval Olivieri" <olivieri@sntec.ba.gov.br>

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Greetings,

I would qualify the assertion as a present situation of the market. In the long run when biodiversity is sufficiently emphasized and when it becomes also a market need I think biodiversity will then be conserved. There are already signs that biodiversity, at least, as a question to precaution has become important to present day markets, principally if one considers the pollution reduction and environmental management as good points towards conservation. I agree that the present trends are still of enlarging human habitats and conditions even with degradation of biodiversity, but examples of the opposite are already beginning to show.

Best regards

Durval

Bahia

Brazil

 

June 27/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week three

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

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

Cc: "Desta Mebratu" <.com>

Dear Friends, there are at least 7 ways to address poverty reduction through earned income, given income, and existing wealth redistribution. It appears to me that the CDF framework is based around only the earned income option as it is the one that better reflects or that is expected to reflect supposely sound market conditions. Does the CDF framework considers/promote or will consider/promote the given income and/or existing wealth distribution options as valid poverty reduction tools too?. Are there strategies among the ones being put in place according to the world bank message below in developing countries consistent with above trichotomy poverty reduction strategy?. If not, how does the CDF framework will incorporate existing initial unequal endowments to address the poverty gap?.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz/Independent researcher

Vancouver, Canada

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

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Using simple market mechanisms to conserve & promote biodiversity

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

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

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

Please, receive my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz / Independent Researcher

Vancouver, Canada

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

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Human made biodiversity UNDER SUSTAINABLE DEMAND

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

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Franco Cavalleri CSST" <csst@libero.it>

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

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

hand, it is easier to conserve more biodiversity in developing

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

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

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

DEMAND.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

 

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

From: Franco Cavalleri CSST <csst@lio.it>

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

Subject: [biodiversity] human made biodiversity

 

> Dear colleagues,

>

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

> journalist in Como, northern Italy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> completely wooded area.

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

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

>

> Franco Cavalleri

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Wealth Distribution

From: "Al Andersen" <Tom.Inst@worldnet.att.net>

To: <cdf@lists.worldbank.org>

Cc: "Alfred F. Andersen" <, <munoz1@sprint.ca>

This is my first response in the existing series, The reason I have not

responded sooner is that in World Bank forums I was involved in several

months ago my offerings were rejected. The fact that the moderators of

this list have posted Lucio Munoz's succinct and perceptive message of

"Monday., June 26, 2000 11:25 AM" gives me hope that the moderators may

be ready to entertain a suggestion which speaks directly to Lucio

Munoz's observation.

I refer to his asking the following question: "Does the CDF framework

consider/promote or will [it] consider/promote the given income and/or

existing wealth distribution options as valid poverty reduction tools?"

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, then I have a

suggestion for not only reducing poverty, but eliminating it entirely.

The means of doing so simply follows from granting the most fundamental

of economic *rights* to everyone on earth. I emphasize "rights" because

most suggestions from those concerned about poverty are based on helping "the poor" out of compassion, and out of helping "these poor souls" who are not able to help themselves.

In contrast, I suggest that the most basic reason "they are not able to help themselves" and we have billions of poor people in this world is

because they are being denied the most fundamental of economic rights;

namely:

They are being denied a fair share of the financial and other benefits

of a very specific, and most fundamental, kind of *wealth*. They are

being denied a fair share of the financial and other benefits from our

common-heritage *natural* wealth. In basically agrarian economies they

are being denied their fair share of income from productive land -- by

being denied a fair share of such land for cultivation. In more

technological economies they are also being denied their fair share of

income from the technology handed down by previous generations (such as

in the form of the urban infrastructure, reflected in urban land rents

far in excess of rents for agricultural land). They are being denied

their fair share of income from natural resources. And in today's most

"developed" economies they are *also* being denied a fair share of

income from that part of our common-heritage wealth called cyberspace.

And on all levels of economic development the overwhelming bulk of the

earth's inhabitants are being denied a fair share of income from

*acceptable* impact on the environment.

To explain this latter point, there is a certain amount of impact from

which our common-heritage environment is programmed to recover -- such

as land cultivation by organic means, and a certain amount of water and

air pollution (such as from burning wood for heating a home). At

present, not only acceptable impact is monopolized by the most

aggressive, but impact far beyond the acceptable. The result is that

poor people are forced to impact the environment in UNacceptable ways in order merely to survive -- all acceptable impact (and beyond) has

already been monopolized by an aggressive elite.

In short, what I am suggesting is that if the renewable parts of our

common-heritage wealth were held in local-to-global Trusts, with

democratically elected Trustees, leased out (but only for socially and

ecologically responsible uses) and the income distributed in some fair

way among the earth's sentient inhabitants then we would not only see

the end of poverty but a more sustainable environment and more wholesome individual, family, and community life around the world. And if the bulk of the income from NONrenewable resources (such as fossil fuels) was used to generate alternative energy and other resources for future generations (along with fair economic structures) then we could also largely assure economic justice in future generations also.

If this offering is posted, then I will be happy to be more specific. =

For those who can access our URL, below, there are specifics there =

galore.

Warm greetings,

Alfred F. Andersen

Tom Paine Institute

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Eco-system management

From: Bastian Louman <blouman@catie.ac.cr>

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

forest management of the Tropical Agricultural Centre for Investigation

and Higher Education(CATIE) in Costa Rica with experience in Bolivia, Papua New Guinea and the(sub)tropical moist forests of Central America.

I fully agree with Don Phelps and Julia Arnscheidt in the importance of

management ecosystems rather than specific species and share the views

of Daniele Giovannucci and his team looking for involvement of local

people in the management of forest ecosystems, promoting their

participation through, among other strategies, providing a link between

producers and markets.

Over the last few years we have been confronted with these challenges on more than one occasion and in different parts of Central America. For example, What to do with the forests outside protected areas that contain Swietenia macrophylla (mahogany) as the major or only commercially attractive species? Manage mahogany at the costs of other species through the imitation of large and intensive disturbances, or manage the forest at the cost of the presence of mahogany, maintaining disturbances at a much smaller scale and lower intensity? At the moment we assist different organizations in monitoring the results of selective harvesting followed by different silvicultural treatments in different socioeconomic settings. Promising is understorey clearing in secondary forests with abundant natural regeneration in Honduras, and enhancing growth of existing regenartion through reducing competition of canopy trees in Guatemala. However, it is much too early to be able to recommend specific practices.

How to reduce deforestation due to shifting cultivation practices?

Co-management in a 2000 hectare operational management area in Honduras

reduced agricultural activities in the managed forest to almost nil,

while the rate of deforestation in community concessions in the mutliple use zone of the Maya Biosfere Reserve in Guatemala is similar, at times lower, than in the nearby national park areas.

How to improve logging practices of both companies and local

communities, in order to reduce impacts while maintaining efficiency? We found that chainsaw operators trained in directional felling practices caused considerably less damage to the remaining forest and, although initial productivity was lower than before, rapidly recovered

productivity and efficiency to original levels and at times above those

levels. The introduction of harvest planning in the operations of a

company in Bolivia improved productivity per hectare almost fivefold at

the same reducing the forest area disturbed by road and skidtrail

construction.

One way CATIE has been looking for answers to these questions is through assisting local efforts to come to co-management of forest areas (government and communities in El Peten in Guatemala and the atlantic north coast of Honduras, and government-companies-communities in Nicaragua) by offering training in different aspects of forest

management, disseminate results of recent research on the effects of

forest management practices to different audiences, and follow up on the processes of adaptive management adopted in the different sites.

In Honduras and Nicaragua, this has been complemented with promotion of

the formation of local operational horizontal networks, where government officials, academics, locally operating NGOs, and producers or producergroups meet to exchange experiences and identify problems and objectives they have in common, in order to plan joint training, technical assistance and research activities.

While we are still far away of being able to answer above mentioned

questions according to all the needs of each of the management sites,

the experiences of co-management and horizontal networking have thus far greatly contributed to an increased environmental awareness, to higher quality forest management (several management areas have been certified according to FSC standards) and decreased deforestation.

Many different components of the experiences have been documented in

MSc-thesis, in scientific and technical journals, in the CATIE series of technical reports, and in the newsletter of the Unidad de Manejo de

Bosques Naturales (UMBN) as well as in publications of our mayor

partners in forest management (CONAP in Guatemala, COHDEFOR in Honduras, INAFOR in Nicaragua, and newsletters of some of the networks).

Those of you that are interested in obtaining more information can

contact Ms Lorena Orozco (lorozco@catie.ac.cr) or undersigned

(blouman@catie.ac.cr).

 

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

From: Jim Shields <JimS@sf..gov.au>

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

The discussion below relates to the dichotomy between poverty and

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

The key concepts here are:

1) Positive Economic Value for Biodiversity

and

2) Direct Economic Rewards for Sustainable Development

These are two concepts that have not been directly elucidated, for a variety of good reasons. They are nonetheless a key to resolving the dichotomy between poverty and biodiversity. The previous entry explains the idea formally, and may have been inappropriate for this forum. However, I think these two concepts are essential in resolving a positive way forward for the human condition and the environmental health of the planet.

To expand on point (1), at present, biodiversity has no positive economic value in its own right. It can have value if in some way the biodiversity can be "harvested" (either literally or figuratively in the sense of ecotourism). In most developed or heavily populated countries, biodiversity has negative economic value through its protection by environmental legislation, which requires - quite rightly - that human development cannot go ahead if biodiversity is threatened. This protection is obviously only partial - after the environmental impact process has been completed, mitigating conditions are usually issued, and the development proceeds. In countries with large areas of natural systems and hence biodiversity values, the only way to become more wealthy is to convert some of the natural systems to revenue-generating human enterprises (agriculture, harvest of the

aforementioned biodiversity values, urban and industrial development and so forth). If those who possess high biodiversity values could be economically rewarded for its positive management, the whole structure changes.

With regard to point (2), if those individuals, businesses and governments that manage human developments were economically rewarded, rather than penalised by the "cost" of environmental protection" for positive management of biodiversity, the structure of the conservation landscape changes dramatically.

If a system which promoted these two concepts into economic reality could be developed, a path forward which eliminates poverty as it preserves biodiversity could be mapped.

For the consideration of the seminar - how could this be done? What

parameters need to be defined to allow a system of economic reward for

positive biodiversity management and economic reward for sustainable

development?

James M. Shields PhD

Principle Ecologist

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Local costs and global benefits

From: "Ole Skovmand" <ole.sknd@wanadoo.fr>

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

I tend to agree with Lucio that there is too much air in this debate. Even it would be very nice to have local people interested in biodiversity preservation and couple that with their economic interest, it often will not work in a developing country as it have not done in most of the now industrial countries where farmers increased output is being paid by reduced biodiversity. Only central planning and conservation in these countries saves large areas, not farmers incentitive or their economic interest. Why is it that nature conservation organisations often have local socities, farmer organisations or industry as their opponents ? of course, because it

is interest in nature, environment, biodiversity versus economic interest in exploiting the same areas.

There is very few examples in the world of people acting in long term

interest on their treatment of the environment, even when it is their

survival resource. Just look at the continous fight between fish industry and biologist in fishing ministries on quota sizes to be picked of various fish species. Though fishermen organisations recognize the need for some regulation not to empty the sea, they always think there are reasons that their organisation can have higher quota and that the quota in general are too low.

This is the old problem of the village fringe land that everybody of the village can use. If I put a cow extra out there to the 4 I already have, I increase my income 20 % whereas the damage to the common land (where there are 100 cows from all of us together) is just 1 %, so without a strong village committee to restrict me from doing so, I do (and so do the others) and the land is destroyed. The way we are trying to solve these problems now in West Europe - where you might think the high level of education of everybody brought people insight in the long termed interest of preserving biodiversity - is by stronger and stronger ministries of environment that put more and more restrictions on land use and economic incentitives to take better care of the land (like paying farmers for not using marginal land, not destroying rivers, etc). Globally, big nature preservation organisations

are quitely starting to buy land they think should be preserved thus to ave the right of a land user in developing countries and often add to that money to pay the local people not to destroy it.

You could also take examples from the national parks of Africa. In East

Africa, most parks are well guarded, in West they are not. The parks in West Africa are emptied by poachers (and foreign hunters), and photo tourists are more and more rare since there is less and less to see (except for a few very well guarded, small parks close to bigger towns). In East Africa, armed guards protect animals and in this way the tourist industry, and though some village co-operation programs now start working in some places, they probably would not if the guards were redrawn.

I agree this is a pessimistic view point, but if anyone has better and long lasting experience from nature or biodiversity preservation based on local understanding of the advantage hereoff without economic incentitives given (to compensate for their short term loss in income), I would gladly hear about it.

Ole Skovmand

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Reconciling the true dichotomies

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar" <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

From: Bala <pla@sltnet.lk>

Subject: [biodiversity] RE: Reconciling the True Dichotomies

I agree with Lucio Munoz on the dichotomies. But how can preservation alone help? Conservation is preservation with sustainable use!

It may be inconsistent with Banks' policies at this moment. But careful

planning and consideration of available options on linking biodiversity and development would help reverse this trend. All of us know that development is high on everyone's agenda (and has the best political backing also!) and conservation, biodiversity is low. If we can pursuade policy and decision makers that poverty and biodiversity are linked, we are a 'big hit'. How to do this is a question. Poverty to a commom man is not the diminishing GDP and devalued currencies but access to food ( I am reminded of M K Gandhi's quote here "To The Hungry God is Bread"). If we can communicate the messge

that poor environmental management is directly proportional to increasing poverty (via loss of biodiveristy) we will succeed.

P. Balakrishna

Head, Regional Biodiversity Programme - Asia

IUCN-The World Conservation Union

 

June 28/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Response by Munoz

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Overcoming Constraints - Week 4, Response by Munoz

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

 

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

Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 10:58 AM

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

Cc: Odo Primavesi

Subject: Re: Sharing my thoughts Week 4

Dear Friends, I will share a simple qualitative framework with you, which can be used to get an insight into the questions you post in a systematic manner.

Terminology:

F = Food security f = food insecurity

P = sustainable production p = unsustainable production

C = sustainable demand c = unsustainable demand

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

F = P + C

This leads to four different scenarios:

a) unsustainable demand(F1 = Pc)

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

b) unsustainable supply(F2 = pC)

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

c) total unsustainability(F3 = pc)

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

d) total sustainability(F4 = PC)

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

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

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

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

unsustainable demand as Pc/PC = c/C;

3) if we assume that P = AB, where A = producers and B = intermediaries and if we assume that C = L.E , where L = local consumers and E = non-local consumers, then the total sustainability scenario can be rewritten as follows:

F4 = PC = (AB)(LE)

This means that sustainable food security depends on the sustainable

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

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

F4 = PC = (ABL)(E)

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

F4 = PC = ABLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

These are my views and your comments are much welcome.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz / independent researcher

Vancouver, Canada

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

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Question two summary

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

From: cdf@worldbank.org

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

Thank you to all participants for continuing to share with us your

thoughts and observations on the implementation of the Comprehensive

Development Framework (CDF). Particularly noteworthy were the

contributions sharing concrete experiences and lessons learned from

developing countries, including the Philippines, Haiti, Nigeria, Turkey

and Ethiopia, among others. These contributions proved to be the most

insightful ones as we discussed the benefits and challenges for external partners, such as donor and international development agencies, in implementing the CDF principles. During next week’s discussion, we encourage others to reflect on their experiences as they consider the benefits and challenges of preparing Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) on the basis of CDF principles.

While we again think it is important to sum-up our most recent

discussion, we first would like to respond briefly to your comments on

the first summary. Several participants found that the first summary

implies that the four CDF principles are given and, thus, not subject to challenge nor debate. From the perspective of the moderating team,

these four principles are but a basis for a new, more comprehensive

development framework. And, in fact, we did prominently note the

suggestion by a few participants that the principles be modified to include a dimension on the environment. In practice, as these CDF principles are implemented, we are fully aware of and strongly encourage ongoing discussion of the principles. We also very much agree with another participant who stated that it will be important "to revisit these principles" on a periodic basis.

***Question for Week Two (June 19-26)

Implementing the CDF Principles--Benefits and Challenges for External

Partners, such as Donor and International Development Agencies

The main benefit for external partners is expected to be more effective

and sustainable development to reduce poverty.

The May 2000 Progress Report offered some insights into the challenges

including:

*the need to harmonize policies, procedures and practices,

including--for analytical and diagnostic work--appraisal,

implementation, procurement, monitoring, supervision, reporting,

accounting and evaluation.

*developing selectivity

*focusing on development outcomes, such as primary school enrollment and reducing child mortality, etc.

*essential changes to internal culture of aid donors, including

providing partner countries more room to take control of their

development process.

What are your views, and can you give any practical examples of where

these issues are being addressed, and the lessons learned?

***Summary of Week Two Discussion

Turning now to the contributions on the benefits and challenges for

external partners implementing the CDF principles, we found that

changing the internal culture of aid donors and development agencies is

viewed as essential and be given priority among the challenges listed in the May 2000 CDF Progress Report. Without this change, many of you

argue it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to implement the CDF principles. In addition, changing the internal culture of aid donors and development agencies requires not only "providing partner countries more room to take control of their development process," as stated in the Progress Report, but, more specifically, requires relying on and supporting local knowledge and expertise.

Several first-hand observations reveal that too many development

resources are spent on foreign experts and technology. In many cases,

this expenditure proved not to be cost effective nor effective in

attaining the desired development outcomes. Moreover, our discussion on this issue suggests that preference for foreign experts and technology makes it less likely that development projects and initiatives will be sustained locally. Given the importance the CDF assigns to building local capacity, several participants call on aid donors and development agencies to respect local knowledge, involve local experts, and rely on local technology as much as possible. This change in thinking and practice needs to occur not only in project implementation, but, more importantly, in project design and monitoring. Carrying out this change does not mean an end to foreign experts or technology, but rather a change in their role to one more supportive of local knowledge and the development of local mechanisms for ensuring accountability.

A related challenge facing external partners is the need to harmonize

policies, procedures and practices. Many of you consider harmonization

as essential for CDF implementation and dependent on changing the

internal culture of donor and international development agencies .

However, it is perhaps not surprising that several participants also are skeptical that these external partners are prepared to adopt the

necessary changes in thinking and practice. Based on experience,

several participants observe that there is much more evidence of

competition than coordination among donor and international development

agencies. As one participant points out, while duplication of

development efforts by these actors is not necessarily problematic, it

often is due to a lack of "consultation and coordination of activities

in the same area and the same country."

Finally, two primary concerns arose on the challenges of developing

selectivity and focusing on development outcomes. First, while perhaps

many participants favor the trend toward "democratizing donors’

partnership practices" to include NGOs as partners, several of you

expressed reservations about this trend. According to these

participants, it is critical that selection criteria be developed and

utilized to ensure that NGO partners possess credibility with local

communities and stakeholders as well as the skills and knowledge

required to achieve development outcomes. In addition, they encourage

donor and international development agencies to select partners not only from the NGO community, but also from among the various groups that make up civil society more broadly, including professional and private sector associations and institutions and indigenous grassroots organizations.

Developing selectivity also is linked to the focus on development

outcomes. A second concern repeatedly expressed by participants is the tendency to focus on the symptoms of poverty and inequality rather than the root causes as a basis for selecting development programs and initiatives. For example, primary school enrollment and child mortality are viewed as indicators that can be easily measured as symptoms of poverty. The challenge for the Bank and other donor and international development agencies, therefore, is to identify root causes, target resources at addressing these causes, and promote institutions assuring the sustainability of these efforts, particularly democratic structures.

During this third week of the Dialogue, we urge subscribers to share

their thoughts, suggestions and concerns with us on the benefits and

challenges of preparing Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) on the basis

of CDF principles. We also welcome your feedback on this summary.

 

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

From: Donelps@aol.com

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

Lucio

Your latest comments on the CDF Framework are interesting to consider but it made me think of the saying. Give a man a fish and feed him for a day Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.

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

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

Bad as it seems the earned income option is the one that rewards initiative while instilling pride of accomplishment.

Don

 

June 29/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Using simple market mechanisms to conserve and promote biodiversity

From: Dgiovannucci@worldbank.org

To: Munoz1@sprint.ca

Hi Lucio,

The existing projects work with a protected forest model exhibiting great biodiv. and also with a deforested area where reforestation is part of the shaded coffee plan.

Daniele

 

"Lucio Munoz" <munoz1@sprint.ca> on 06/27/2000 01:25:05 PM

Please respond to biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org

 

To: "Biodiversity Conservation And Use E-Seminar"

<Biodiversity@Lists.Worldbank.Org>

cc:

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

promote Biodiversity

 

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

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

Please, receive my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz / Independent Researcher

Vancouver, Canada

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

 

June 29/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Biodiversity internet seminar

From: "Gayatri Acharya" <gacharya@worldbank.org>

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

Subject: biodiveristy internet seminar

Mr. Munoz,

I think your message below is better suited as an individual email to

Mr. Balakrishna. May I request you to kindly re-send you message

directly to him. Thank you,

Gayatri Acharya

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

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

June 29/2000/FAO CONFERENCE ON FOOD SECURITY: Week three summary

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

Our enthusiastic thanks to all of you who provided responses, comments and further comments during Week 3. The summary below (approximately 6 pages) covers the exchanges in response to Questions 11 to 14. The additional responses for Week 3 will certainly not be forgotten, you will find them reflected in the final, overall summary of the electronic conference.

Enjoy the results of your discussions!

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

Summary of Week 3

QUESTION 11. From your experience, what are the PREREQUISITES for

integrating participatory research strategies into the NARS, in particular to address the sustainable food security needs and priorities of marginalized groups such as resource poor farmers, rural women, youth, farm workers and the landless? Will the same strategy work for all of these groups?

Most participants convened that no single strategy or discipline in itself will ensure sustainable food security and address the needs of all social groups. Tankou advocated a clearly defined systems perspective, encompassing all institutions and disciplines as a part of an integrated knowledge and information system whose mission is generating, transferring, and applying technology to improve the well-being of society .

At the same time, several participants stressed the need to customize

approaches according to needs and priorities of target groups, based on past experience and open communication between scientists and field level (extension, development, etc) staff (Sahr's remarks, for example). Villalobos called for an evaluation of different research approaches that have been proven effective for each group, with particular attention to the different needs of urban and rural populations and of developed and developing countries. Sahr also stressed "getting to know your clients" which ensures the relevance of research outputs and Barraga emphasized encouraging direct involvement and critical thinking by end-users.

Lack of linkages with technology users is a major constraint according to Tankou, who advocates the formation of partnerships composed of farmers' groups, extension services, and the research system. Primavesi responded that partnerships need to be formed even among researchers themselves, particularly between basic and applied scientists. He also argues that research in itself is sterile unless it can diffuse its conceptual and technological findings results through a well structured extension service (one which is not dependent on the input industry). A very good example of researchers, extensionists, and farmers testing innovations on pilot validation farms is the World Bank-funded program carried out by the Instituto Agronomico of Parana State in Brazil, in partnership with the extension service (EMATER) (Primavesi).

According to Katzir, farmers remain the most important element in these

partnerships, and others (Martinez and Primavesi) agreed, stressing the

important role that farmers' associations and cooperatives can play,

particularly in the case of resource poor farmers for Primavesi. Several participants discussed agricultural extension models that have been applied and have proven effective at different times in different regions. Barraga mentioned farmer-to-farmer extension (which hinges on farmers' ability to communicate knowledge to fellow farmers), farmer field schools (with farmers directly involved in technology selection and adaptation), and participatory technology development (interaction between farmers and facilitators to develop relevant, feasible, useful innovations).

But according to Martinez there is still a need to define the various

meanings of participation and what constitute participatory methods and

procedures. The involvement of local communities not only as sources of data but also as decision makers is a critical element. Research must hinge on local land use planning processes and on the integration of local knowledge systems. Munoz stressed that participation requires effective processes and tools, that are consistent with local values and needs, and that reflect local resources and skills.

Sahr also commented that, for partnerships between farmers and researchers to be feasible and effective, NARS scientists must gain a thorough understanding and knowledge of participatory research concepts and practice. But this may require more fundamental transformations than undergoing a training on participatory approaches. For Villalobos and Egal it may entail a change in human resources and recruitment requirements, such as bringing in new staff to complement the very specialized background of NARS researchers. Egal emphasized the need to make sure that they are placed in positions of enough influence to be able to actually affect existing procedures and approaches.

Others advocated changes in the research agenda or research methods. For instance, Martinez pointed to the need for NARS research to be more

responsive and relevant to local needs, rather than to academic objectives, donor and financing agency interests, government priorities, etc. Furthermore, Munoz challenges scientists to let go of the illusion of precision associated with traditional research methods, replacing it with a concern for consistency between efforts at generalisation and the specificity of each case. In particular, he recommended the use of Rapid Assessment Techniques and Qualitative Comparative Analysis approaches (see Munoz' article at http://www.interchange.ubc.ca/munoz/ART1.htm). Besides the internal capacity and prevailing methods of NARS, the policy and institutional environments in which they operate needs to be conducive to the adoption of collaborative, participatory approaches. E-Participants

stressed the need for operational policies and linkage of strategies that promote synergy among institutions, committed leadership and political support, and managerial accountability to ensure a better use of limited human and financial resources within each institution (for example, see the remarks of Tankou and Sahr). Moreover, for Sahr transparency is the key word for viable partnerships.

QUESTION 12. In your view, which are the MOST IMPORTANT disciplines that must be mobilized to address sustainable food security in an integrated fashion?

Food security is a multifaceted issue which relates as much as to how

society is organized as to technical aspects of resource use: therefore it cuts across disciplines (as noted by Tankou, Sahr, Martinez and Primavesi).

But interdisciplinary integration is more than the cumulative input from scientists of different disciplines, it is a holistic framework which reflects how farmers actually think and operate (from Martinez and Primavesi).

Given the complex and conjunctural nature of food security issues, some

participants were reluctant to identify one or a few disciplines as the most important. For instance, Sahr stressed that it depends on the policy approach of a particular country: if food security hinges on food imports, then economics and political science are key; if it relies mostly on production, agronomy, ecology and hydrology are more crucial. Primavesi argued that we should focus on multidimensional principles rather than on disciplines, such as social ethics and ecological concepts, association and cooperation, water and soil conservation, waste reduction and processing, ecological soil management, and multifunctional land use.

Among those who did identify disciplines, in addition to the agricultural sciences, ecology, geography, demography and biology were mentioned. The importance of the social sciences (particularly of anthropology), economics, environmental management and communications was also highlighted (Villalobos, Tankou, Munoz). In the same vein, Katzir and Primavesi emphasized agricultural extension, which is able to ensure two-way communication between farmers and researchers.

Katzir and Sahr also responded that collaboration is needed not only across disciplines but also amongst key institutions, such as government authorities, marketing agencies, input companies, research and extension services, and farmers representatives. Likewise Primavesi called for a multi-sectoral, coooperative effort amongst ministries respnsible for agriculture, education, health, transport and economic planning. Sahr stressed the need for a mix between the public and private sectors.

However, for interdisciplinary, inter-institutional and inter-sectoral

partnerships to be effective, partners must be able to work as a team

(Villalobos) and the process must ensure consistency of social and

technological integration (Munoz).

QUESTION 13. In your opinion, what is the BEST MECHANISM for ensuring a

linkage between national policies that influence food security and the

research agenda aimed at addressing food security? (how and by whom?).

According to Tankou, the relevance of the research agenda to the national context is fundamental. the research program must be tailored to specific needs and constraints rather than academic interests. Martinez agreed that NARS must become more responsive to local realities, particularly those of resource poor farmers, rather than serving the better endowed producers through high-input, capital intensive approaches. In order to do so, we need interdisciplinary teams (Katzir) working on research programs that cut across food production issues (Villalobos). The research agenda must link

research to validation and transfer of technologies to extension services and farmers (Primavesi).

According to Tankou, the best mechanism is a structural reform of research systems through decentralization and strategic planning. Primavesi agreed but argued that, even if reformed, the NARS in themselves cannot ensure sustainable food security. The entire complex of policy-research-extension-farmer-consumer needs have to be taken into account, particularly with regard to the influence of financial, commercial, and urban interests. Without a good extension service that links it with farmers' realities, even an effective and responsive NARS system remains nothing more than an avenue for the promotion of First World technologies in developing countries, diverting scarce resources to the benefit of developed countries. On the other hand, Villalobos believes that private business can potentially play a positive role in funding public research in developing countries.

Others emphasized government policy as the most crucial mechanism,

especially those decisions on budget allocations to agricultural research and extension, farmers' subsidies and input distribution, production and marketing infrastructure, and export and import of agricultural commodities (Katzir, Sahr). But others cautioned that even good policy can only go so far, its effectiveness depending on government leadership and political will in establishing food security as a priority (Sahr, Villalobos).

Bertelsen introduced the concept of the Research Pole, which is currently being implemented by the 9 Sahelian states that make up the CILSS (Comité Permanent Interétats de Lutte Contre la Sécheresse dans le Sahel). The approach promotes coordination and integration of research initiatives according to comparative advantage amongst various countries. For instance, in natural resources management (NRM) four main areas and leadership roles have been identified: soil and water conservation (Burkina Faso), irrigated systems (Niger), agroclimatology (Mali), and symbiotic nitrogen fixation (Senegal). The West African NRM Research Pole is committed to applying a participatory and inter-disciplinary approach.

Munoz disagreed with this approach, which may further concentrate research in the hands of the few, far away from the supposed users of research outputs, and further promote research dependency. He stresses that rather than enforcing regional integration, we need to address local-regional output consistency problems. Otherwise research outputs from one locality can even be useless for others. In fact, the limitations in skills, resources and time in developing countries should be an incentive to becoming more innovative at the local level. NARS should work to identify, test, and support local innovations in a decentralized fashion, bringing research closer to, not farther from, resource-poor farmers. He advocates local independence for research at all levels, yet consistent with non-local or other NARS concerns. This will require more flexible and cost-effective tools that can fit local conditions and limitations.

On the other hand, Primavesi stressed the need for diffusing general

concepts of ecology that support the development or validation of local

knowledge, rather than the transfer of new technology per se, through the promotion of social ethics as actual behavior for the environment,

nutrition, and health (Primavesi).

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

Several participants agreed that lack of resources, especially human,

financial and infrastructural, is on of the main constraints (Tamboli,

Bertelsen, Sahr). This problem is compounded by the uncertainty of timely release or resources (Tamboli) and the short-time framework of most projects (Sahr). The dearth of resources encourages competition amongst NARS rather than integration (Sahr) and makes the NARS research agenda vulnerable to donors' priorities and vested interests (Bertelsen, Tankou, Munoz).

Influence by outsiders often results in a lack of fit between approaches and tools developed by the NARS and local conditions and resources (Munoz). For instance, Primavesi pointed to the over-specialization of NARS research, which first replicate world science models, while farmers operate in ways that cross over sectors and disciplines. The persistence of top-down approaches also results in the neglect of farmers' knowledge by NARS research (Tankou).

The discussion also pointed to the importance of political will and the

appropriate policy environment to support the right approaches (Katzir,

Bertelsen, Tankou). For instance, a shift towards true regional integration in management of resources for national research entails difficult political decisions, including definition of priority areas, funding and resource reallocation and greater accountability and efficiency, which all need political backing (Bertelsen).

Institutional policies that promote individualism and competition, and more generally, group dynamics based on exclusion, intolerance, and inequality of access to resources and power, also hinder the adoption and implementation of collaborative and participatory approaches (Munoz, Sahr, Primavesi). Lack of experience and/or clarity in how to work as a team and the tendency of scientists to work with colleagues of the same discipline also need to be overcome (Tankou, Villalobos).

Primavesi emphasized that the lack of a cooperative orientation and

interdisciplinary integration is not just a feature of NARS institutional policy but also reflects a global ideological trend fostered by the current economic system. This promotes short-term material goals, pursuit of individual gain, and maximization of efficiency rather than a sustainable and holistic approach to livelihood. This trend is responsible for the lack of appreciation for the value of agriculture as a key dimension of the quality of life and the perception of farmers as second class citizens (Primavesi).

Primavesi also lamented the weakness of farmers' organizations and the poor state of the extension services in many countries, which need to serve as key linkages between farmers and research. Tamboliand Tankou also recognized the importance of linkages of strategies and mechanisms amongst key actors and institutions.

COMMENTS

Doelle pointed to an underused human resource that could considerably reduce the cost of training and advance more holistic approaches: retired scientists. Many of them may be willing to work on an expenses-paid basis. Because they are not under the pressures of their younger colleagues and because their training was not as specialized as it is today, they can work across disciplines more effectively and make an important contribution to capacity building in the NARS.

*******************************************************************8

 

Thank you for the continued effort and sustained contributions. We look

forward to participation in Week 4 and beyond...

Many thanks, the E-Team.

 

June 30/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Biodiversity internet seminar

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

From: Bala <pla@sltnet.lk>

Dear Lucio Munoz,

I agree with your argument. I did not mean in my mail linkage between

sustainable use and distribution efficiency. Sustainable use is possible only when we can think of a package of intervention ranging from policy to law to community resource right recognition to market forces.

Balakrishna

At 09:07 AM 6/29/00 -0700, you wrote:

>

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

>From: Gayatri Acharya

>To: "Lucio Munoz"=20

>Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 7:46 AM

>Subject: biodiveristy internet seminar

>

>

>Mr. Munoz,

>

>I think your message below is better suited as an individual email to Mr. Balakrishna. May I request you to kindly re-send you message directly to him. Thank you,

>

>Gayatri Acharya

>

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

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

June 30/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week three

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

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

Cc: <Donelps@aol.com>

The CDF framework is not systematicallyholistic as claimed as it appears to leave available options out that couldprovide a conjuctural way of dealing with the problem of poverty head on bypaving over existing inequalities gradually, but for sure from now and on.

For those with more than the basic resources to developed marketable skills,the earned income option works the best as as you said it gives you prideand satisfaction; and competition under equal conditions is GOOD to showthat you are worth the extra buck, but for those with less than the basicresources(the landless and marginalize) to start with, the option of givenincome or redistribution of existing wealth may be needed to give then theedge they need so that in the future, two or three generations from now,they also can enter the by then world earned income bracket. We have tosolve the poverty issue from inside out as I believe that this is the way toquicker close the poverty gap. As you may know, an unsystematic long-termholistic approach is disigned to deal with problem of poverty in the future.

Per Don Phelp's comments, THIS SOUNDS TO ME AS THE SAYING "LET'S DO IT

TOMORROW, AND WE KNOW THAT TOMORROW IS NOT COMING ANY TIME SOON. The bank was created to eradicate poverty now, not to tranfer the problem to future generations. I believe that if we used the thichotomy strategy wisely, we can create TRUE FISHERMANS with sustainable skills. Through time, pride will spread all over and nobody will want to stay in the given income position as you can make more by applying your excellent skills given that the market for your skills exist.

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

Please, recieve my warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

June 30/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Biodiversity internet seminar

From: Nkishor@worldbank.org

Subject: Biodiversity Internet Seminar

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

Dear Mr. Munoz,

I think that this e-mail is better suited to be sent directly to Mr. Shields.

Thanks,

Nalin.

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

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

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Jim Shields To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

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

Subject: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

> The discussion below relates to the dichotomy between poverty and

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

> 1) Positive Economic Value for Biodiversity>> and>

> 2) Direct Economic Rewards for Sustainable Development>>> James M. Shields PhD

> Principle Ecologist> State Forests of NSW> Australia>> ---

> You are currently subscribed to biodiversity as: munoz1@sprint.ca

> To unsubscribe send a blank email to

leave-biodiversity-21383F@lists.worldbank.org>

Nalin Kishor, Natural Resource Economist,

Environment & Natural Resources Division

World Bank Institute

 

June 30/2000/ELAN: World Bank, IMF blamed for poverty

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

To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>, "Ronald Nigh" <danamex@mail.internet.com.mx>

Dear Friends, I am interested in taking a look a this Joint UN et al report. I would appreciate if Ronald can send me the URL where the document is or send me copy of it. I have exchanged ideas with Mr. Buarque on the issue on how to better address poverty. I made a comment to him recently that while I believe that such a program of debt swaps for education could be feasible, this is still a little away from the required basic sustainability set to attack poverty world wide head on.

My view is that there needs to be a different institution which I called the World Poverty Fund to deal simple and exclusively with the provision world wide of this basic sustainability set, where education is obviously one of them. However, funding could also come from alternative sources: a globalization tax, international debt swaps, national debt swaps, technology

swaps, environmental income, and so on. As it was highlighted in the

discussion on globalization and poverty sponsored by the world bank, we

leave in one unequal world where globalization is taking over therefore we have to start looking at poverty as a global problem and as a global

responsibility. I believe that poverty needs to be erradicated from inside out by the enabling resources must be collected and provided from outside in and this must be done through an organization separated from the world bank and independent. The world bank can continue with its goal of economic efficiency subject to sustainability concerns which would provide a single and clear goal to the bank so that accountability could be cristal clear and conflicting missions and goals can be avoided.

I am putting this ideas together right now and it is encouraging to me to see that Mr. Buarque's ideas on scholarships for basic education is being discussed. However, I want to call to the attention that the statement made" the project will also reduce immigration from poor countries to reach ones" may not be true in the short-term, specially if done if some countries, but not in others. In the short-term, more education may mean more emmigration to richer places or regions or countries as your skills could earn better returns in more developed places that needs them as you may all know, for example, the inducement of qualified immigration to developed countries is a cost-effective reality. I will read this report with interest when I can get it.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

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

From: Ronald Nigh <danamex@.internet.com.mx>

To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:55 AM

Subject: World Bank, IMF Blamed for Poverty

 

> > Wednesday June 28 5:14 PM ET

> >

> > World Bank, IMF Blamed for Poverty

> >

> > By NAOMI KOPPEL, Associated Press Writer

> >

> > GENEVA (AP) - Eighty church and grass-roots groups on Wednesday accused the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund of causing poverty and criticized the U.N. secretary-general for being sucked into a``propaganda exercise'' with the financial institutions.

> > The coalition of groups said they were ``outraged'' by a report on

poverty that was issued jointly by the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the World Bank and IMF.

> > ``This report was received with great astonishment, disappointment and even anger,'' said Konrad Raiser, general secretary of the World

Council of Churches, in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

> > The report was released Monday at the start of a U.N. General Assembly special session on poverty reduction. It presented poverty-cutting goals, including enrollment of all children in primary school and a two-thirds cut in child mortality by 2015.

> >The report marked the first time the four international rganizations had worked together on social issues.

> > Raiser, whose group represents non-Roman Catholic Christian churches around the world, described the study as ``a propaganda exercise for international finance institutions whose policies are widely held to be at the root of many of the most grave social problems facing the poor.''

> > The IMF and World Bank have attracted criticism for failing to

alleviate global poverty with their efforts on debt relief and other matters.

> > Anti-globalization activists believe the operating rules of the World Trade Organization, the IMF and the World Bank are rigged in favor of wealthy multinational corporations at the expense of poor people, labor unions and the environment.

> > Annan's office defended the United Nations' role in the report, saying it had brought a commitment from the financial organizations to social goals and poverty reduction.

> > ``This means that these institutions are promising to make a serious effort toward these goals,'' Annan's senior executive officer, Georg Kell, said. He said the United Nations ``continue to pressure'' the institutions to work for the goals.

> > Mamphela Ramphele, managing director of the World Bank, rejected the coalition's criticism, insisting the bank is sensitive to the problems of the poor.

> > ``There is much that one can say about the need for the World Bank and the IMF to continue to improve their engagement with development issues, but it is also fair to acknowledge the changes that have happened at the World Bank,'' said Ramphele, a South African former anti-apartheid activist.

> > ``It didn't invent poverty. It is engaged with the poorest of the poor. We are learning from the mistakes we made to do things better.''

> > The weeklong U.N. meeting, convened to issue a declaration on how to tackle poverty over the next years, is a follow-up to a 1995 U.N.

summit in Copenhagen that failed to deliver any real help to the world's poor.

> > Wednesday's sessions heard proposals for a scheme aimed at eliminating child labor and getting all children into school in five African countries.

> > Cristovam Buarque, the former governor of the Brazilian capital,

Brasilia, presented a plan to pay families what the child could earn from working provided the child goes to school instead. The scheme has already put up to 100,000 Brazilian children and 5 million Mexican children into school, Buarque said.

> > To do the same for 9.5 million children in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi and Rwanda would cost $765 million - about 70 percent of the services the five countries currently pay on their external debt. Buarque said he hopes creditor countries will be prepared to transfer the debt to the new scheme.

> > ``There are some advantages for the rich countries,'' Buarque told The Associated Press. ``From an ethical point of view there is a value in it, to finish the shame the wealthy people have today. This project will also reduce immigration from poor countries to rich countries.''

> >

> Ronald Nigh