TALKBACK 2000: July

 

 July 01/2000/ELAN: Scholarships are a farse

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

From: Ronald Nigh <danamex@ >

Dear Lucio,

The article merely informs us of World Council of Churches reactions and Wrold Bank statement. I posted it because I thought it would be of

interest. The article does not say anything about the program, it simply reports Buarque statement.

Let's see, can anyone support a claim that something is invisible?

At 10:25 AM 1/07/00 -0700, you wrote:

> Dear Ronald, can anybody else in Mexico support your claim that

>"scholarships are a farse"?, who keeps these statistics or tracks the

>progress of these programs in Mexico?. The program there seems to be of a >considerable size. What about the Brazil component of the project, is= there>evidence in Brazil that this project has been implemented? or is being>implemented?, who tracks the progress of these projects in Brazil?. Any>opinion from Brazil?.

> Credibility is a big issue when dealing with effective policy. To= avoid>situations or claims like this is why I believe that resources for= achieving>poverty reduction must be collected and come from outside-in through a>global institutions which can follows not just the trace where the money is>coming from and where is going to, but it also trace ongoing monitoring and>accountabililty.

> The other thing is that if you assert that these scholarships are a>farse, why did not you say so when you made the posting of this article to>ELAN?. I gave me the impression that you read it and agree with it and now>you said it is a farse? Can you explaing?

>Greetings;

> Lucio

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

>

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

>From: Ronald Nigh <danamex@ mx>

>To: <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

>Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 8:09 AM

>Subject: Scholarships are a farse

>

>> > > Cristovam Buarque, the former governor of the Brazilian capital,>> >>Brasilia, presented a plan to pay families what the child could earn>> from working>> > > provided the child goes to school instead. The scheme has already put>up>> > > to 100,000 Brazilian children and 5 million Mexican children into>school,>> > > Buarque said.

>> I have seen this story repeatedly in the international press. It is not>> mentioned in the national press. Internationally, some Mexican and World>> Bank official make much of this so called scholarship fund. What Mexicans>> would like to know is where are these supposed five million children>> receiving these scholarhips? Business Week reported with great awe that>> 2,000,000 children in Chiapas were receiving these scholarships. But= where>> are they? No parents in Chiapas have ever hear of this program. The only>> programs in Chiapas are hand-outs given by the official party in return>for>> people's votes. This is a farse. There is no scholarship program of which>> parents and children or teachers in Chiapas have ever heard.

>> The multilateral agencies and governments justify to the world that they>> are carrying out programs to alleviate property. This is false. Does the>> truth not matter any more? Can officials and institutions just say what>> ever they want regardless of the reality? I guess we can't let a little>> matter of the truth about these programs stand in the way of the really>> important processes of economic growth and globalization.

>> Ronald Nigh

 

July 01/2000/WORLD BANKD CDF CONFERENCE: Questions for week 3

From: "eyup yuksel" <yukyup@hotmail.com>

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

SHIFT TO SECTORS WHICH DEPEND MORE ON HUMAN CAPITAL AND HIGH TECHNOLOGY

INSTEAD OF NATURAL (ENVIRONMENTAL) CAPITAL AND GIVEN INCOME

I would like to kindly add some comments on Lucio's reflections. In case of "....for those with less than the basic resources (the landless and marginalize)", there may be room, perhaps partition like niche concept of ecological organization, for another opportunity which is not solely based on the use of basic resources, like the benefits of services sector and high technology.

Without postpone the poverty reduction procedure, we can increase the

contribution of country-driven education in the given countries, which is particularly focused on bringing highly skilled young people up on high technology (i.e. we can or will sooner add beneficiary capacity of

technology just like the addition of environment, as implementing CDF may reveal us in near-term ) such as electronics, and biotechnology, even though their infrastucture is absent in these countries, and novel services which can be considered as being quite diverse and rich and sophisticated. These highly skilled young people could first be recruited abroad, particularly in developed countries in order to gain highly valuable experience, which in turn readily will give them as having being educated as human capital; welfare and prosperity in the near-term.. I would be tried or at least tested pilotwise, or the experience of the past may give us some idea regarding this challenge.

This short-term beneficiary will be able to considerably to change the ratio of social stratification values in favor of distributing justice, in the given developing country, though exerting its positive effects indirectly. Its contribution will be, of course, extremely higher than those of distributing earned income and right and justice. However, the importance of integrating environment and economy sectors, and contribution of managing natural resources via economic instruments (e.g. taxes, revenues) should not be neglected.

My best regards

Eyüp Yüksel

 

July 02/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: More that one value

From: Jim Shields <JimS@sf.nsw

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 8:41 PM

Subject: RE: More than one value

I have read your messages in reverse order, and so will definitely have a look at your articles. I enclose for your further appreciation of my

proposal the full text of the scientific paper I have authored to fully

argue the case and explore the possibilities of Biodiversity Credits in theBios system. This is an accepted but unpublished manuscript, and I hope you will keep it in confidence in the short term, as it contains original equations that can easily be misconstrued. <<Biodiversity Credits.rtf>>

Cheers, Jim

James M. Shields PhD

 

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

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

Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 3:05 AM

To: Jim Shields

Subject: Re: More than one value

Dear Jim, I am convinced that you will find my articles on

Sustainability interesting, in a couple of them I point out/use the argument that under the traditional economic development model, whole ecosystems simplified by forested areas had negative value because they were perceived as barriers to economic development, which obviously this includes biodiversity values. As you know the hart of the traditional economic model was the conversion of forested areas to deforested areas assuming social and environmental externalities either zero or minimal.

However, I found some of your views still based on the

Traditional economic theories which I argue in another article that no longer hold. Once you include biodiversity values, by reason or default, you are leaving the traditional economic model and you are moving to what I call the ECO-ECONOMIC MARKET, and this is a totally new world. I have the feeling that your views are within the eco-economic development model, but your arguments are being sopported on the old theories, and this may be a weakness. If the world bank moderator do not post my reply to your long posting, I will send it to you directly as I think that you better know my view on the same issues so that you can calibrate/reasses your views. It is too bad that, as you may know, not everything is accepted for different reasons, even when it is obvious that honest interaction is taking place.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

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

From: Jim Shields <JimS@sf.nsw.gov

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2000 11:38 PM

Subject: More than one value

 

> Lucio - thank you for your reply. I agree that there are many

types of values for differenet parts of the world around us. My point in this discussion has been to get people thinking about the fact that

biodiversity - on its own, in a self sustaining ecosystem - has no positive economic value at all, in the present system. I propose that we start a new system where biodiversity - unharvested, in nature - is given a very high economic value. That doesn't detractr from any other value biodiversity may have,> such as social or spriritual or traditional, but provides a way to maintain biodiversity in a world that would otherwise consume it. Cheers,

Jim

> James M. Shields

>

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

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

> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 6:45 PM

> To: Jim Shields

> Subject: Fw: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

>

> Dear Jim, the Bank did not pass this message and advised me to

send it to you directly. I send another replying to another posting of you, but they have not posted it yet.

> Greetings;

> Lucio

>

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

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

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

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

> Subject: Re: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

>

> > Dear Jim, I would would like to call to your attention that just

a forest can have economic, social, and environmental values,

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

> > Greetings;

> > Lucio Munoz

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

> >

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

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

> > To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

> > <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

> > Subject: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

> >

> > > The discussion below relates to the dichotomy between poverty

> and biodiversity. I refer this discussion to the previous entry I

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

> > >

> > > The key concepts here are:

> > >

> > > 1) Positive Economic Value for Biodiversity

> > > and

> > > 2) Direct Economic Rewards for Sustainable Development

> > >

> > > James M. Shields PhD

 

July 02/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: More than one value

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

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

Lucio - thank you for your reply. I agree that there are many types of

values for differenet parts of the world around us. My point in this

discussion has been to get people thinking about the fact that biodiversity- on its own, in a self sustaining ecosystem - has no positive economic value at all, in the present system. I propose that we start a new system where biodiversity - unharvested, in nature - is given a very high economic value. That doesn't detractr from any other value biodiversity may have, such as social or spriritual or traditional, but provides a way to maintain biodiversity in a world that would otherwise consume it. Cheers, Jim

James M. Shields

 

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

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

Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 6:45 PM

To: Jim Shields

Subject: Fw: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

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

Greetings;

Lucio

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

From: Lucio Munoz <munoz1@sprint.ca>

To: <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

Subject: Re: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

 

> Dear Jim, I would would like to call to your attention that just a forest can have economic, social, and environmental values, biodiversity can also different values. This leads to the possibility that even ecosystems with no economic value, have social or environmental value or a combination of both. So we should not think in terms of economic values only to incorporate non-economic market values. On the other hands, rewards could 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 <JimS@sf..gov.au>

> To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

> <biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

> Subject: [biodiversity] Lovejoy and Munoz Dichotomy

>

> > The discussion below relates to the dichotomy between poverty

and biodiversity. I refer this discussion to the previous entry I

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

> >

> > The key concepts here are:

> > 1) Positive Economic Value for Biodiversity

> > and

> > 2) Direct Economic Rewards for Sustainable Development

> > James M. Shields PhD

Jule 02/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Summary week 1

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

From: gacharya@worldbank.org

Biodiversity Conservation and Use: An Internet Seminar

Summary of Week 1

There were about 70 postings during the first week and a fantastic wealth of ideas. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all participants for their inputs and request them to keep it up. This note attempts to summarize the main points that have emerged from the discussions.

It is clear that conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and/or ecosystems is fraught with problems. The international nature of the biodiversity management problem is highlighted by the concerns expressed by the discussions in reference to the role of the global community. The search for economic and ecological rationales for conserving biodiversity and informing policy decisions has produced a rich literature on the valuation of use and non-use values associated with biodiversity and ecological services. While there may be little consensus on whether or not the various elements of biodiversity can or cannot be valued in economic terms, there is increasing recognition of these values and the role of biodiversity in maintaining essential ecological services. Attempts to identify missing and imperfect markets, specification of property rights and other incentive mechanisms have been offered to address the public good

nature of biodiversity.

The problem of assuring the conservation and sustainable use of

biodiversity as an environmental public good is one that is being addressed in part by agencies such as the GEF and its focus on the incremental costs of providing global benefits. But in general, international development agencies often have limited impacts because their conservation projects pay little attention to overall community development and their continued focus on short lived projects as opposed to long term programs.

The discussions so far have addressed many of these issues as well as noted various successful examples and initiatives, balancing development and conservation. Many participants have emphasized the need to disseminate both the positive and negative experiences widely as a means to further our understanding of the biodiversity conservation and use. Some key issues that have been addressed are:

1) Biodiversity conservation and community development. Seminar

participants overwhelmingly supported the strong involvement of local

communities, including community associations and cooperatives. The

community is seen as being in the best position to identify the local

constraints and opportunities, and as having the highest stakes and the

resources (especially time) to manage the resource sustainably. Finally, strong community arrangements were also seen as ways to ensure that individual actions were in harmony with collective interests and averting the "tragedy of the commons" that is the common plight of open access resources.

Linking biodiversity conservation with community development is desirable but often incompatible with conservation projects designed by international development agencies which focus almost exclusively on the technical aspects of biodiversity management. As one participant noted, "Interventions to help reduce poverty through biodiversity conservation has a better chance of sustainability, if action is focussed more on the social parameters of community development rather than on the technical aspects of biodiversity conservation (alone)".

In this context the report, Investing in Biodiversity, looking at ICDP

experience in Indonesia, points to the difficulty in giving conservation a "human face". A key prerequisite is the need to have central and provincial government commitment to protecting conservation areas and their surroundings. Another is the need to build awareness among all levels of society on the multiple benefits of nature conservation. And finally, the need to be innovative, for example, to pay cash to local governments and/or NGOs to manage protected areas subject to independent performance reviews.

2) Species-Based vs. Ecosystem Approaches to Biodiversity Conservation. In the context of valuation there were several suggestions that our focus should be on estimating the ecosystem services rather by the valuation of individual species. An ecosystem approach is likely to lead to holistic and better solutions, which a species-based approach may miss.

Indeed, the resilience of ecosystems and their continued ability to provide ecological services that we are dependent on, is of critical importance to economic development and human welfare. The implications of biodiversity for the healthy functioning of ecosystems are a question for both ecologists and economists to grapple with. It is increasingly evident however that the focus of valuation studies will have to move towards ecosystem functions rather than the willingness to pay for species preservation if our objective is to capture the value of life-support services performed by natural capital.

3) Market Mechanisms to Promote and Conserve Biodiversity. Participants pointed out that identifying market "niches" and opportunities to increment value-added activities for marketable biological resources is an important way to ensure conservation and sustainable use (But, "there is a need to draw a line between the need for the market and the greed to over harvest"). Several successful examples have been quoted from around the world--medicinal plants from India, China and Vietnam, shade grown coffee in Central America, agroforestry in many tropical countries, etc. The promise and risks of ecotourism were also mentioned.

Building viable local enterprises and processing for higher value-added, strengthening marketing channels and collaborating with the private sector are some examples offered by participants of ways in which to provide incentives for market protection of biodiversity.

4) Legal Issues in Conservation of Biodiversity, protected area networks, trade regimes etc. Rules and regulations at best should promote conservation and at the least should not hinder it. Two examples posted by participants deserve mention. First, in the case of India, the 1991 amendments to the National Wildlife Act imply that no commercial harvesting or felling of wildlife resources is allowed from any type of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. This discourages park managers from undertaking any people oriented programs as there is no scope to compensate the people for loss of access to resources. On the other hand, Mozambique has relatively progressive policies and legislation. The legislation gives rights to the rural poor to enter into partnership with the private sector in sustainably utilizing biodiversity-in which communities can use land as collateral in enterprise based biodiversity conservation programs.

It is critical to examine how laws should be modified to remove their

anti-conservation bias and to examine how laws may be further strengthened so that stakeholders are fully aware of their rights. In addition, protected area networks can provide real protection only when there are additional mechanisms in place to induce the allocation of resources and commitment by local communities. Legal and financial mechanisms must in turn be supported by monitoring and careful supervision activities.

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

The next two weeks:

Thank you for your many contributions over the 1st week of this month-long seminar. The need to systematically disseminate the successful and

unsuccessful experiences across the globe has also been emphasized. In

fact, we hope that this seminar will provide a useful forum for

dissemination. After assessing the level of interest and enthusiasm with regard to certain key topics, we have formed 3 breakout groups to focus the discussions on 3 specific issues. We now invite you to join any or all of these groups which will be moderated by experts in the field. We hope to be able to highlight the relevance of these issues and invite you share your knowledge and experience while learning from others. After 2 weeks we will return to the main list for a wrap-up and summary. Please note there fore that you should not unsubscribe from this main biodiversity list - just join 1,2 or all of the three sub-lists in addition.

The three sub-lists are as follows:

biodiv-1 : Community participation in biodiversity conservation and use.

To join, simply send a blank email to: join-biodiv-1@lists.worldbank.org

Moderator: Tony Whitten, World Bank.

biodiv-2 : Financial and economic mechanisms to promote conservation and

sustainable use of biodiversity.

To join, simply send a blank email to : join-biodiv-2@lists.worldbank.org

Moderators: Frank Vorhies and Andrea Bagri, IUCN.

biodiv-3 : The role of international conventions and trade agreements in biodiversity conservation and use.

To join, simply send a blank email to : join-biodiv-3@lists.worldbank.org

Moderator: Manuel Rodriguez, Andean Center for Sustainable Development,

Colombia.

Thank you!

Nalin Kishor & Gayatri Acharya, WBIEN.

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: PRESERVATION PLUS VIEW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

d) when talking about deforested area/forested area

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

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

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

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

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

fixed market where developed countries are the buyers and developing

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

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

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

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

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

interesting.

Sincerely;

Lucio Munoz

Vancouver, Canada

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

 

June 28/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: People in deforested areas, biodiversity in forested areas, and the world bank policy

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

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

Dear Friends, I think that it is important to mention that to find ways to promote both poverty reduction and biodiversity conservation, we have to look at inconsistencies in institutional policies. As you may know, the mission of the world bank is to reduced poverty, but most of the world bank efforts have been directed to remaining forested area protection where less poor people actually lives. I made the observation that there is an inconsistency here that in the long-term as we are seeing now it will work against the same forest being protected. I suggested that it is time, if the policy of the bank remains poverty reduction to attack the poblem head by given attention to the deforested areas where most poor people lives while protecting as much remaing forested areas as possible, but in my view you

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

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

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

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

From: Redwood Mary <redwoodm@ >

To: Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar

<biodiversity@lists.worldbank.org>

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

Subject: [biodiversity] Biodiversity Connection To Human

Economics/Activities

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

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

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

 

July 03/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Views on successful biodiversity management

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

To: "Biodiversity Conservation and Use E-Seminar"

Lucio - I have learned much and enjoyed the exchange of views on the way to successfully manage biodiversity and reduce poverty. The last message below explains some of the different areas of concern that should be addressed.

It appears that my central theme - valuing biodiversity highly in economic terms - causes some concern with regard to alleviating poverty as a result. This is generally the anti-thesis of my proposal. By giving biodiversity economic value - independent of harvest or economic value in a traditional sense - it follow directly that the areas with high biodiversity and high poverty would be better positioned to move forward in terms of both environmental and economic progress. The key is to link the value directly to the communities and people who are linked to the biodiversity - the on-site or natural owners of the resource and the new economic value (be they marginalised, nomadic or displaced - the hook is natural stewardship).

Some of the people I have directly in mind are indigenous Australians, who have retained some land that is very high in biodiversity value, low in traditional economic value, and where the people and the ecosystems could use support from those can afford to give it.

I look forward to the next phase of discussion when we may find some

synthesis and resolution to the important questions surrounding biodiversity values and human conditions.

James M. Shields PhD

 

July 03/2000/CAEE GROUP: Mitigating desasters in developing countries

From: "Rafael E. Salazar" <.usda.gov>

To: mharritt@, icvez@usaid.gov

CC: Central American Environment <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Developing countries bear the greatest losses due to natural disasters,

while having the least resources to respond effectively. To confront

this problem, the World Bank recently launched the ProVention

Consortium, a global partnership of government agencies, international

organizations, academic institutions, private businesses, private

citizens, and anyone interested.

The Consortium hopes to reduce disaster risk in developing countries by

making disaster prevention and mitigation an integral part of

development initiatives.

For more information about the Consortium is available from the internet site http://www.worldbank.org or by contacting Alcira Kreimer at (202)473-1378.

 

July 03/2000/CAEE GROUP: Mitigating desasters in developing countries

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

To: "Rafael E. Salazar" <rafael@.usda.gov>, <mharritt@.gov>,

<ichavez@usaid.gov>

Cc: "Central American Environment" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Dear Rafael, this is good news. Several times since 1996 I have pointed out the need of something like this in discussion groups such as ELAN as this is a basic policy here in developed countries, at least in Canada. No doubt that such an institutional support may help to deal with the human component of desasters such as prevention and mitigation aspects. Now let's hope that the scope of the project is consistent with the size of the problem. Again, I think this is a good step in the right direction.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

From: Rafael E. Salazar <rafael@bo.fsc.usda.gov>

To: <mharritt@usaid.gov>; <ichavez@us.gov>

Cc: Central American Environment <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 8:13 PM

Subject: Mitigating Disasters in Developing Countries

 

> Developing countries bear the greatest losses due to natural disasters,

> while having the least resources to respond effectively. To confront

> this problem, the World Bank recently launched the ProVention

> Consortium, a global partnership of government agencies, international> organizations, academic institutions, private businesses, private> citizens, and anyone interested.

>> The Consortium hopes to reduce disaster risk in developing countries by> making disaster prevention and mitigation an integral part of

> development initiatives.

>> For more information about the Consortium is available from the internet> site http://www.worldbank.org or by contacting Alcira Kreimer at (202)> 473-1378.

 

July 04/2000/CAEE GROUP: Metigating desasters in developing countries

From: "Joe Franke" <jfranke@teort.com>

To: "Rafael E. Salazar" <rafael@gsbo.fsc.usda.gov>, <mharritt@us.gov>,

<ichavez@usd.gov>

Cc: "Central American Environment" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

I will be very interested to see how the World Bank reconciles its new (and overdue) stated goal of protecting watersheds with its long standing policy of funding destructive, macro infrastructure projects such as the central African pipeline and mega-dams in various parts of the world. Is it known yet who will be handling the forest conservation portion of this initiative?

Joe Franke, MS

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

From: Rafael E. Salazar <rafael@esbo.fsc.usda.gov>

To: <mharritt@id.gov>; <ichavez@id.gov>

Cc: Central American Environment <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 8:13 PM

Subject: Mitigating Disasters in Developing Countries

 

> Developing countries bear the greatest losses due to natural disasters,> while having the least resources to respond effectively. To confront> this problem, the World Bank recently launched the ProVention

> Consortium, a global partnership of government agencies, international> organizations, academic institutions, private businesses, private> citizens, and anyone interested.

>> The Consortium hopes to reduce disaster risk in developing countries by> making disaster prevention and mitigation an integral part of

> development initiatives.>

> For more information about the Consortium is available from the internet> site http://www.worldbank.org or by contacting Alcira Kreimer at (202)> 473-1378.

>

July 04/2000/CAEE GROUP: Mitigating desasters in developing countries

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

To: "Joe Franke" <jfranke@t.com>,

"Rafael E. Salazar" <rafael@gawsbo.fsc.usda.gov>,

<mharritt@usai >, <ich@usaid.gov>

Cc: "Central American Environment" <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Dear Joe, I personally do not think that it will be difficult for today's world bank to balance environmental protection and macro-economic development as much as before as it is being driven by a partnerships of environmental and economic stakeholders. The lesson that I think may be behind this positive move is the realization that prevention and mitigation may provide an effective framework to integrate eco-economic policies with social concerns. In any case, it may lead to a better scenario than the status quo.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

From: Joe Franke <jfranke@eport.com>

To: Rafael E. Salazar <rafael@gawaynefsc.usda.gov>;

<mharritt@usa >; <ichavez@ud.gov>

Cc: Central American Environment <caee@ocean.washington.edu>

Sent: Monday, July 03, 2000 11:23 PM

Subject: Re: Mitigating Disasters in Developing Countries

> I will be very interested to see how the World Bank reconciles its new(and> overdue) stated goal of protecting watersheds with its long standing policy > of funding destructive, macro infrastructure projects such as the central > African pipeline and mega-dams in various parts of the world. Is it known> yet who will be handling the forest conservation portion of this initiative?

>

> Joe Franke, MS

 

July 05/2000/ELAN: World Bank, IMF blamed for poverty

From: "Robert Mowbray" <rnmowbray@.net>

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

<elan@csf.colorado.edu>,

"Ronald Nigh" <danamex.internet.com.mx>

Poverty is caused by the greed of those who control the political economic systems in developing and developed countries. International institutions such as the World Bank, the IMF, or the proposed World Poverty Fund can only impact on poverty if the national institutions responsible for spending the international funds are independent of the political and economic leaders in the country in question.

Robert Mowbray

 

July 05/2000/ELAN: World Bank, IMF blamed for poverty/Additional comments

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

To: "Robert Mowbray" <rnmowbray@.att.net>, <elan@csf.colorado.edu>,

"Ronald Nigh" <danamex@mail.internet

Dear Robert, my views indicate that systems break down from inside out,

specially when you are dealing with dominant component induced system

failures. Under dominant component induced system failures, accountability enforcement is avoided because protecting the reputation/aims of the failing system is deemed as more important than restoring the sustainability of the system as a whole. As I indicated in my e-mail, the solution to this type of system failure must come from inside out to be able to restore accountability from inside out too. However, to ease the working of such a solution, enabling resourcesd(money/pressure) must come from outside in for

at least two reasons: changes can take place without making feel dominant components that they will bear the full cost and making them undertand that there can be a free rider opportunity in spill over benefits; and it can be seen internally as a fair way to deal with the problem in a systematic and inclusive manner and with clear accountability threats. Of course, independence and single focus are the key for a global program to work fairly specially for a redistribution based institution such as the proposed

World Poverty Fund, which if implemented should be separated from the world bank. In my opinion, one of the main problems compromising the work of the world bank in poverty reduction terms is economic efficiency, which only appears to be consistent with the concept of "earned income". Poverty levels mostly fall outside the earned income bracket, plus other types of income also are capable of inducing more development activity through demand enabling factors or conservation enabling factors or a combination of both.

Whether we like it or not, globalization may open the door for something like the World Poverty Fund because it will allow us to tackle poverty as it truely is, A GLOBAL PROBLEM.

Thank you for your comment;

Sincerely;

Lucio

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

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

From: Robert Mowbray <rnmowbray@ att.net>

To: Lucio Munoz <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>; <elan@csf.colorado.edu>; Ronald

Nigh <danamex@mail.internet.com.

Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 10:23 PM

Subject: Re: World Bank, IMF Blamed for Poverty

> Poverty is caused by the greed of those who control the political economic> systems in developing and developed countries. International institutions> such as the World Bank, the IMF, or the proposed World Poverty Fund can only> impact on poverty if the national institutions responsible for spending the> international funds are independent of the political and economic leaders in> the country in question.

>

> Robert Mowbray

>

July 06/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Summary of week 3

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

From: cdf@worldbank.org

The moderating team for the Second Online Dialogue on the World Bank’s

Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) would like to thank again all

the participants who have joined us in discussing the implementation of

the CDF. During the past week, the preparation of Poverty Reduction

Strategies (PRS) on the basis of CDF principles in several countries

received careful review. More specifically, several participants took

the time to examine the recent experiences of four CDF pilot

countries--Bolivia, Ghana, Uganda, and Vietnam--in preparing Poverty

Reduction Strategies (PRS). We found that these contributions to the

discussion highlight the challenges facing developing countries as they

prepare Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRS) on the basis of CDF

principles and identify preconditions that must be met in order to

achieve poverty reduction.

Before summing-up this discussion, however, the moderators would like to respond briefly to the feedback on the second summary. In the second summary, we noted that several participants were critical of the

development resources spent on foreign experts and technology. Based on their experiences, these participants found that such expenditures

"proved not to be cost effective nor effective in attaining the desired

development outcomes." In response, a participant this past week

suggests developing comprehensive development web sites and organizing

quick access to development experts through the internet as perhaps a

more effective way to utilize foreign experts and technology. The

development of these web sites and use of the internet would not only

allow local experts to access foreign experts, information and

technology, but, as another participant points out, allow local experts

to share local knowledge and experiences with the development community

more broadly.

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

Implementing the CDF Principles in Poverty Reduction Strategies

The CDF principles are being applied in the Poverty Reduction Strategie

(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.

***Summary of Week Three Discussion on Implementing the CDF Principles

in Poverty Reduction Strategies

The third week of this Dialogue began with a discussion of the poverty

reduction tools embraced by the CDF. On the one hand, there are

participants that favor social development investments, particularly in

education, to improve the poor’s capacity to earn income in a stable

market economy. According to participants, this is the approach that

provides the basis for the CDF. On the other hand, however, there are

participants that advocate redistributive reforms as the only way to

address inequality and, thus, reduce poverty. These participants

suggest that the CDF needs to focus more on redistribution than earned

income. A lively exchange of views ensued during which some

participants questioned the effectiveness of redistributive reforms in

reducing poverty. Others, however, contend that redistributive reforms

are the key to "leveling the playing field" for all groups, particularly for the most marginalized--the landless, rural poor and poor women--and, therefore, should be a basis for the new development framework.

While the tools embraced by the CDF to reduce poverty prompted debate

among participants, there is general agreement on some of the

preconditions that need to be met to reduce poverty. Several

participants concur with the finding of the May 2000 Progress Report

that political stability is a precondition for reducing poverty. In the cases of Ghana and Uganda, two of the pilot countries engaged in

implementing CDF Principles in Poverty Reduction Strategies, political

stability is identified as an essential "backdrop for substantial

reductions in poverty." For developing countries implementing CDF

Principles in Poverty Reduction Strategies, maintaining political

stability is an essential challenge.

In addition to political stability, several participants in this week’s

discussion also identify peace as an important precondition for reducing poverty. For these participants, overcoming ethnic strife, civil wars, and regional wars to ensure public security is an additional challenge.

To meet this challenge, one of the participants suggests that

organizations like the World Bank should support efforts to strengthen

the role of the United Nations in war and peace issues. Otherwise, in

countries like Ghana and Uganda, the potential threat of war endangers

the process of implementing CDF principles in Poverty Reduction

Strategies.

We found, however, that Dialogue participants consider ensuring a fully

participatory process to be the greatest challenge in preparing Poverty

Reduction Strategies on the basis of CDF principles. In fact, some

participants are highly doubtful that this challenge can be met. They

are concerned that "experts" from the World Bank and other international development institutions are exercising undue influence over the preparation of these Poverty Reduction Strategies. According to these participants, either through the direct involvement of foreign experts or through the imposition of external requirements, "foreigners are driving the process," and, thus, a significant obstacle to country

ownership and partnership. Other participants, however, are encouraged

by the experiences of Uganda and Bolivia. In these pilot cases, a

diverse group of stakeholders--donor agencies, government officials, the private sector and civil society organizations—have participated in the process of preparing Poverty Reduction Strategies. For these

participants, the involvement of the poor themselves in poverty

assessment work is most noteworthy and should be encouraged in all

countries engaged in this process. Furthermore, local stakeholder

involvement, including the poor themselves, is supported, not only in

the preparation of these strategies, but also in their implementation,

monitoring and assessment. Finally, as one participant in this

discussion points out, it is critical that we begin to identify the

factors that explain differences in participation among countries and

share lessons learned from concrete experiences.

During the final week of this Dialogue, the moderating team continues to welcome your thoughts, suggestions, and concerns on the key challenges in implementing the CDF principles. Your input will likely inform efforts to apply CDF principles in the Poverty Reduction Strategies that will be prepared over the next two to three years. Therefore, we strongly urge subscribers to take this final opportunity to share with us your experiences and first-hand knowledge of implementation of CDF principles.

 

July 06/2000/ Communication

From: "Arq. Jorge Gallardo" <centro@ com.mx>

To: <munoz@interchange.ubc.ca>

I have read your coments and are very realistic, you Know about regional development?, please answer because now I=B4m working on it.

Greetings jorge gallardo centro interactivo de estudios estrat=E9gicos.

p.s. I=B4m working too in a matter of railroad relocalization out of the city of celaya, gto. m=E9xico.

 

July 07/2000/FOA FOOD SECURITY CONFERENCE: Additional Response by Munoz

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Overcoming Constraints - Week 4, Additional Response by Munoz

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

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

Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 1:49 AM

To: RAFS2000

Subject: Re: Additional Questions - Week 4

Dear Friends, I can summarise my contributions and my views on constraints, opportunities and lesson learns in the following framework thought as an ongoing cycle leading to better and better research outputs through time:

The framework has the following steps:

a) data production stage:

we have to organize research initiatives so that we can produce consistently both traditional knowledge and scientific knowledge at the same time.

b) data dissemination stage:

we have to organized data dissemination initiatives so that we can

consistently spread traditional and scientific knowledge through normal

education and extension channels at the same time.

c) replication stage:

we have to use both local and non-local research tools to produced

consistently both traditional information and scientific information, which brings us back to the data production stage.

As we all know, the production of traditional knowledge is not as much

promoted as the production of scientific knowledge; the dissemination of information in both formal educational channels and extension services is not usually achieved; and the application of local techniques is not well appreciated too. Hence, there is opportunity for improvement in all stages of the research process as described above. The lesson learned is that without correcting those issues, we are going to continue to have research strategies that are incomplete and a little less tune to produce the information needed to address what we all may agree is a difficult target, food security.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

 

July 06/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Week 4 question

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

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

Cc: "Richard Blake" <richblake@o.com>

Looking carefully at the posting made by Mr. Jason Calder on participatory aspects of PRSPs, and the role of the Carter Centre in the Guyana project, the experience indicates to me that the only binding political will can come from civil society participation, and that the breaks in political will may mostly come from the gap between those who claim to represent or represent civil society and those working with, directly or indirectly, civil society at large. It also shows that usually development approaches first bypass civil society, but sooner or later, they will come back under civil society's domain again. It seems that we should expect similar results in other places if the same approach is followed. This indicate that to create the political will sooner, external forces should seek the incorporation of

civil society from the beginning even though we all know that this is or may be a slower process. However, the long term relevance of the outcome may justify the slower pace of the project if this is the case. And this seems to be consistent with Mr. Blake's view of the relevance of involving effectively civil society when dealing with the CDF framework to ensure success. And doing this means to me that the CDF framework improves in conjuctural terms.

Greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

July 06/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Strengthening partnership

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

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

Cc: "Georges Drouet @brutele.be>

I think that the skepticism expressed my Mr. Drouet about the role and real power of existing organizations to deal with underdevelopment and poverty may be more widespread than we think as I can see from participating in several forums.

I see a world based on specialized external and internal institutional

fragmentation. External fragmentation refers to the high number development organizations usually totally unconnected and outside of third party monitoring forces. For example, the FAO goal is to ensure agriculture and food sustainablity by supporting specially the supply side(local production) of development while the world bank goal is to ensure income stablitiy by supporting specially the demand side(poverty reduction), yet their policies are not or appear not connected even though they are more or less influencing the opposite side of the same market.

Internal framentation refers to institutions having several objectives at the same time also usually totally unconnected and outside third party monitoring forces. For example, the world bank has to achieve the goal of poverty reduction and of economic efficiency at the same time, which many could argue are two goals that put or may put in conflict the priorities of the Bank.

If we truely are aiming at a global community, we may not need too many

global institutions. There are three aspects relevant to sustainability, social, economic, and environmental aspects which have to be made consistent with the only two sides of any market, supply and demand, should not the institutional framework for establishing, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing sustainability plans be consistent with the above structure to minimize bureacratic innefficiencies at all levels?.

To keep the global institutional balance of power, if we have WTO(World

Trade Organization), we need WEO(World Environment Organization). But this also means that we need the WSO(World Social Organization). This also means that we need a common head organization to ensure internal fairness and accountability, which could be the UN(United Nations) or a new organization with effective control of all development pieces such as the SWO(Sustainable World Organization). And finally, the above means that we would need a third party monitoring organization to ensure external fairnes and accountability such as the SMO(Sustainability Monitoring Organization). A similar institutional structure may be needed at the local, regional, and national level closedly connected to the world institutional structure.

Then conjuntural development efforts may lead to better outcomes specially in poverty reduction terms and less criticism.

Greetings;

Lucio

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

 

July 06/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Additive thinking and component gaps

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

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

Cc: <Profitinafrica@aol.com>

The observations of Mr. Burgess are consistent with what to me are normal aspects within the additive thinking framework.

The gaps I see you identify are: value adding/lossing gaps; theory/practice gaps; local/non-local need gaps; responsibility/accountability gaps; local/non-local resource efficiency gaps; local/non-local priority gaps; and market/non-market issue gaps. Under conjuctural thinking, these gaps should disappear, hence leading to a situation similar or parallet to the one you envision.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

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

From: <Profitinafrica@aol.com>

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

Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 4:36 PM

Subject: [cdf] Implementing CDF Principles in Poverty Reduction Strategies

 

July 10/2000/FAO FOOD SECURITY CONFERENCE: Summary week 4 responses

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Summary - Week 4 Responses

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

We thank you for your contributions to the two sets of questions posed

during Week 4. Below, please find a summary of your responses. Any

additional comments received for Week 4 will be included in the final

summary. Again, thank you sincerely for your interventions. We look

forward to your continued participation.

Best wishes,

The E-Team

 

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?

Jonnalagadda began the debate by clarifying that from a management point of view, 'monitoring' means different things at different levels. Strategies, tactics, and operations call for different kinds of monitoring efforts and activities. Once objectives have been established, strategies break them down into their respective components and structuring them in a hierarchy of sub-objectives. Tactics refers to the process of formulating a research design and master plan towards achievement of strategic objectives. Finally,

an operational plan guides the implementation of this master plan towards the targets defined by objectives.

Russell proposed that farm management specialists should occupy key

positions in research institutions. The way research is evaluated must

change, to integrate assessments of the applicability and impacts of

research results in the definition of indicators of success. In terms of prioritisation and monitoring of research efforts, Martinez and Russell stressed the need to shift the emphasis from production of scientific publications to the provision of valuable information and technologies to farmers.

Munoz proposed a framework based on the recognition that sustainable food security depends on the conjunctural interaction of four categories of people: producers, intermediaries, and local and non-local consumers. This understanding can help assess compatibilities and incompatibilities among them, understand linkages among them in relation to each products, identify market opportunities, and integrate consumers' needs/views on food access, safety, quality, etc. But he reiterated that the main constraints to food security at the local level are actually a question of demand not of production.

Martinez and Tankou stressed the multifaceted nature of the problems faced by the food insecure and call for an integrated approach that encompasses environmental, economic, political, and institutional aspects. Prioritisation of research requires a clear understanding of the problems(their magnitude, location, causes, and effects) and an objective assessment of how research can solve these problems (Martinez). Mapping and monitoring can contribute to the process of prioritisation, especially to better understand the specific needs of each group. However, it is important toavoid methodological 'blueprints' (Tankou).

Martinez introduced the concept of "Land Use Planning", as a participatory process for identifying and prioritising problems related to land use, conservation, restoration, productivity, and sustainability. Definition of research needs and goals is a key component of the process, which can be methodologically assisted by a Land Evaluation approach. This considers spatial variation of land properties and qualities in order to produce land suitability maps. The results can then be integrated with population, social conditions, and economic status maps for research prioritisation. Spatial analysis can also be applied to the prioritisation of research in relation to ecologically fragile or valuable areas.

According to Russell, continuity in research processes (which too often are time-bound interventions) and linkages with extension and with farmers are critical to producing sustainable research outputs. Egal (with agreement of Russell) suggested piggybacking onto existing programs as a mechanism for developing linkages between different disciplinary and professional backgrounds and for ensuring relevance and feasibility of research results.

Primavesi responded by highlighting that the main factor limiting the

ability of research institutions in developing countries to monitor food insecurity is the lack of funds, which exacerbates competition among institutions and hinders multidisciplinary collaboration. Dearth of resources also impedes the adoption of technological packets by small farmers, who are seen as a low return investment, NARS therefore tend to address their research to large farmers or agro-companies. Mapping and monitoring of food insecure regions will require the removal of this constraint, as well as concerted action to educate stakeholders at all levels (from regional to local) in agroecological concepts. They need to agree to the long-term importance of research on family subsistence (for food, water, health, and education) and environmental health as priorities over focus on short-term economic returns.

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).

Primavesi responded that validating new technologies on farms that are

representative of differing conditions by researchers, extension workers, and farmers working together will ensure their relevance and suitability, as in the case of the Parana Rural Program. But he also pointed out the need for education grounded in concepts of agroecology and holistic approaches that can be applied in a variety of circumstances rather than emphasis on punctual transfer of technology.

Tankou stressed the need to sustain interactions with farmers to learn about their problems, perceptions, aspirations, and, especially, their own approaches to addressing problems. Local knowledge and community

organization are two important dimensions of adaptation of knowledge that researchers need to explore and address.

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)?

Several respondents stressed the need for farmers need to diversify their outputs (Primavesi, Tankou, Egal), especially by shifting from starchy staples to higher value commodities with better marketing prospects. Egal pointed out that diversification should be geared to ensuring that foods needed for a balanced diet are locally available and affordable. In so doing, cultural factors need to be considered as well as economic or nutritional ones. Food security can be enhanced by agricultural diversification if it strengthens the resilience of farming systems to climatic and economic shocks, thus contributing to disaster prevention and preparedness

Tankou added that research should focus on analysing market trends to

identify emerging opportunities for the commercialisation of agricultural commodities. What these commodities may be is specific to each country, but all need to be suited to production by a large number of small farmers under environmentally sustainable conditions and to have a high income elasticity and extra-local market outlets. Once the optimal commodities are identified, NARS should aim their research to remove constraints on smallholders'production.

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

For Yanes, participatory research methodologies can be applied to identify needs and develop relevant technologies for food production. Tankou responded that we must take into account the specificity of each marginal area: the optimal strategy will depend on what makes an area marginal (especially lack of cash earning opportunities, isolation from markets, and environmental constraints). He provided the following reference that addresses this issue:

See Delgado et al. Agricultural Linkages in Sub-Saharan Africa.

IFPRI. 1998.

Primavesi stressed the role of farmers' associations and cooperatives in enhancing production capacity and market options, although food security should remain a priority since income can be provided by non-farming activities, such as handicrafts.

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)?

Tankou identified three basic groups that need to participate in priority setting but who have differing goals and agendas: 1) producers, who need to make a profit from their products; 2) consumers, who need an adequate supply at affordable prices; and 3) other stakeholders, such as processors of agricultural commodities and input manufacturers. Information exchange and linkage mechanisms among these groups and with research institutions are very important to ensure that their respective concerns are integrated into NARS agendas.

Primavesi stressed the role of urban consumers, and particularly of

consumers associations, in pressuring research institutions to address

issues of food quality and environmental health and in working together with NARS and NGOs in developing and evaluating technologies that can achieve these goals.

Second Set of Questions - Week 4

QUESTION 20. How can greater awareness of the overall implications of food security be incorporated into and influence the research agenda (awareness for and by whom)?

Primavesi called for educational efforts to revert from the excessive

specialisation of researchers' training and restore holistic awareness among urban consumers of the interrelationships between food security,

environmental health and quality of life by means of a dense network

encompassing schools, media, professional groups, non-governmental

associations, etc. Urban constituencies can be instrumental in exerting

political pressure on the NARS to move in the right direction. But it is also essential to educate rural populations because environmental

legislation and controls will fail unless farmers are convinced that

sustainable food security is advantageous to them as well.

Tankou stressed the importance of commitment by all actors involved: this is why awareness raising is a crucial first step. This is particularly in educating actors about the impacts of food security (i.e. policy makers need to understand that food security will contribute to national development, increasing efficiency in the labour force and reducing health costs). He believes that researchers must play a lead role and take the initiative in catalysing this commitment. But raising awareness cannot only be the NARS' job. Governments also have an important role to play (see the ISNAR Briefing Papers on Linkage Issues). Primavesi added that current globalisation trends mean that world trade and financial organizations also need to be sensitised on food security issues (but the reality is that current global trade policies are short-term profit-oriented and unfavourable to local food production security).

Egal (and Tankou agreed) added that awareness-raising should be an

interactive rather than a unilateral process, whereby researchers seek to understand the viewpoint of stakeholders in the identification of needs and problems to be addressed and stakeholders are educated on the role research can play in addressing their concerns.

QUESTION 21. How can NARS (along with other partners such as universities) develop more effective messages and information exchange amongst researchers, extension services, producers and consumers? What are the implications of this for better designing information systems?

As Primavesi also indicated earlier, Tankou stressed interrelations between research, extension, and users. Effective linkages at national, regional and international levels are pre-requisites to ensure a flow of relevant technologies. Percy-Smith agreed with Tankou on the need for linkages and especially with the fact that, while this need is often theoretically understood, its practical implications are not. According to Tankou, effective and responsive information systems must: a)sensitise researchers, extension workers, and stakeholders to the importance of linkages; b) carry out diagnoses to identify needs for and constraints to linkages; c) develop linkage strategies and reach consensus about them; and d) develop action plans and monitoring mechanisms.

Percy-Smith asks who should exercise leadership in developing these

linkages, since institutional incentive structure does not always allocate human and financial resources to it or reward efforts in this direction. Tankou agreed with Percy-Smith that leadership is a key that is often missing. Ideally a Ministry of Scientific Research should fulfill this role and ensure that linkages are developed at the national level.

QUESTION 22. How can communication, information and education be used

effectively for scaling up of research results and lessons learned?

Tankou stressed the importance of communication to identify problems, to avoid duplication, and to disseminate best practices. Getting input from all stakeholders will lead to greater acceptance and adaptation of results. Primavesi agreed that awareness raising and environmental education of both producers and consumers are key to ensuring results and lessons that have practical value. He is developing a module to promote a holistic perspective on quality of life and to counteract the dominant ideology of short-term, materialist goals that is already well received in urban milieus (among students, teachers, professionals, and NGOs).

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

King pointed out that generally farmers are sceptical of changes. A key

element is trust in the extension workers, which in some areas is difficultto achieve because of high turnover of extension staff. But if farmers perceive the institution to be unequivocally supportive, this will be less of a problem.

 

July 07/2000/WORLD BANK CDF CONFERENCE: Week 4 question

From: DonPhelps@aol

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

I find it ironic that this entire discussion is being held between the

highest educated people in the world on how to help the economically

disadvantaged. Where is the contribution from the masses? They do not need education to be of the highest intelligence but they do need to have time free of making a living in order to participate. Perhaps we should all be sitting in the slums and barrios of the world holding this discussion while trying to live on a dollar a day.

 

July 11/2000/ELAN: Interesting twist

From: "Robert Mowbray" < ldnet.att.net>

To: "Michael R. Meuser" <meuser@enknowledge.com>,

<envtecsoc@csf.colorado.edu>, <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Considering the funding source for the study, I am not surprised at the

results, nor do I have much confidence in their accuracy. Unfortunately, in the interest of short-term profits, many U.S. industrialists will continue to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this serious problem until it is too late. We will become the first species to have caused its own extinction and the irresponsible industries will no longer need to be concerned about their own

survival. How about a good impartial study on who will be hurt if we do not take action soon to REDUCE greenhouse gas emissions.

If the results of this study prove to be accurate, we will need to find a way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a more equitable manner, but we must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Robert N. Mowbray

Tropical Forest Ecologist/Natural Resource Management Specialist

e-mail: rnmowbray@worldnet.att.net

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

From: Michael R. Meuser <meuser@nowledge.com>

To: <envtecsoc@csf.colorado.edu>; <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:33 PM

Subject: interesting twist

 

source: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jul2000/2000L-07-07-09.html

MINORITIES COULD BE HARD HIT BY KYOTO PROTOCOL

WASHINGTON, DC, July 7, 2000 (ENS) - American minorities

would suffer more than white Americans if the Kyoto climate

change treaty is ratified by the U.S. Senate, argues a study

released this week. The study, supported by minority business

groups and underwritten by a coal industry group, the Center for

Energy and Economic Development, warns that the Kyoto Protocol

would cause a 10 percent drop in earnings among some 25 million

black and Hispanic American workers.

 

July 11/2000/ELAN: Interesting twist/Possible way out

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

To: ELAN <ELAN@csf.colorado.edu>, Robert Mowbray <rnmowbray@wnet.att.net>

Dear Friends, this is a positive comment. Recently I have been

suggesting the idea of creating the World Poverty Fund separated from the world bank, which besides of ensuring the provision of a basic

sustainability set could take care of situations like this which for sure will show up as we introduced/enforced required environmental/ social policy.

If the World Poverty Fund could pick up such a price tag to

induced zero local impact of implementing the policy on these groups of

concern, then it would both eliminate such fears on the accuracy or not of the data generated and would protect minorities and marginalized groups if needed. On the other hands, it could show that even developed countries could benefit from such a world institution as poverty and marginalization is a global sustainability phenomena. Hope the idea can be explored more in the near future by those in a position of driving change.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

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

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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Robert Mowbray wrote:

> Considering the funding source for the study, I am not surprised at the> results, nor do I have much confidence in their accuracy. Unfortunately, in> the interest of short-term profits, many U.S. industrialists will continue> to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this serious problem until it is> too late. We> will become the first species to have caused its own extinction and the> irresponsible industries will no longer need to be concerned about their own> survival. How about a good impartial study on who will be hurt if we do not> take action soon to REDUCE greenhouse gas emissions.

> If the results of this study prove to be accurate, we will need to find a> way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a more equitable manner, but we> must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

>

> Robert N. Mowbray

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

> From: Michael R. Meuser <meuser@eedge.com>

> To: <envtecsoc@csf.colorado.edu>; <elan@csf.colorado.edu>

> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2000 5:33 PM

> Subject: interesting twist

>

> source: http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jul2000/2000L-07-07-09.html

>

> MINORITIES COULD BE HARD HIT BY KYOTO PROTOCOL

>

> WASHINGTON, DC, July 7, 2000 (ENS) - American minorities

> would suffer more than white Americans if the Kyoto climate

> change treaty is ratified by the U.S. Senate, argues a study

> released this week. The study, supported by minority business

> groups and underwritten by a coal industry group, the Center for

> Energy and Economic Development, warns that the Kyoto Protocol

> would cause a 10 percent drop in earnings among some 25 million

> black and Hispanic American workers.

 

July 11/2000/ELAN: Interesting twist/Possible way out

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 11:58:40 -0700 (PDT)

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

To: ELAN <ELAN@csf.colorado.edu>, Robert Mowbray < orldnet.att.net>

Subject: Re: interesting twist/possible way out

Dear Friends, this is a positive comment. Recently I have been

suggesting the idea of creating the World Poverty Fund separated from the world bank, which besides of ensuring the provision of a basic

sustainability set could take care of situations like this which for sure will show up as we introduced/enforced required environmental/social policy.

If the World Poverty Fund could pick up such a price tag to

induced zero local impact of implementing the policy on these groups of

concern, then it would both eliminate such fears on the accuracy or not of the data generated and would protect minorities and marginalized groups if needed. On the other hands, it could show that even developed countries could benefit from such a world institution as poverty and marginalization is a global sustainability phenomena. Hope the idea can be explored more in the near future by those in a position of driving change.

My warm greetings;

Lucio Munoz

munoz@interchange.ubc.ca

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

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

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Robert Mowbray wrote:

> Considering the funding source for the study, I am not surprised at the> results, nor do I have much confidence in their accuracy. Unfortunately, in> the interest of short-term profits, many U.S. industrialists will continue> to bury their heads in the sand and ignore this serious problem until it is> too late. We> will become the first species to have caused its own extinction and the> irresponsible industries will no longer need to be concerned about their own

> survival. How about a good impartial study on who will be hurt if we do not> take action soon to REDUCE greenhouse gas emissions.

> If the results of this study prove to be accurate, we will need to find a> way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a more equitable manner, but we> must take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

>

> Robert N. Mowbray

>

July 13/2000/FAO FOOD SECURITY CONFERENCE: The way forward/Response by Munoz

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: The Way Forward - Week 6, Response by Munoz

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

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

Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2000 6:55 PM

To: RAFS2000

Cc: Odo Primavesi

Subject: Re: Questions - Week 6: vision: TRUE SUSTAINABILITY

Dear Friends, my view is that the vision should be "true

agricultural sustainability", but the institutional structure needed for this is not in place as the way the institutional setting is today food security does not reflect all sustainability concerns.

A sustainability vision has the following characteristics:

a) it is proactive;

b) it is holistic

c) it is inclusive;

d) it is optimal;

e) it is flexible

g) it is conjunctural

One direct implication of the above is that we should not look at

agricultural sustainability in isolation as changes in agricultural

conditions have internal and external effects, and the external effects can also be considerable. Hence, the need of the vision of "true agricultural sustainability" exists.

The actual institutional setting dealing with food

security/agriculture production is FAO, CGIAR, GFAR, and other development organizations(WB,IMF,...), which mostly reflect the economic concerns of food security/agricultural production. There seems to be a need to incorporate social concerns and environmental concerns formally by including social consulting groups(SCG) and environmental consulting groups(ECG) to induce a little more optimal outcome. It has been said in the conference that we need to incorporate social and environmental concerns to ensure the

sustainability of the supply side, but this requires institutional

consistency in my view.

The six characteristics mentioned above are relevant when dealing

with components such as production/consumption; supply/demand;

farmers/researchers/intermediaries/consumers; data

collection/dissemination/replication; local/non-local techniques;

scientific/non-scientific knowledge; formal education/extension services....

My warm greetings to all;

Sincerely yours;

Lucio Munoz

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

 

July 18/2000/FAO FOOD SECURITY CONFERENCE: Concluding Remarks from e-team

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Concluding Remarks from the E-Team

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

Dear E-Colleagues,

We wish to offer our sincere thanks to each of you for your participation in the E-Conference on 'Integrating Sustainable Food Security in the NARS research agenda.'

We have found it to be an absolute pleasure to work with you over the past 6 weeks. We know that each of you has multiple demands on your time and have therefore made an exceptional effort to find the time and energy to contribute to this process. Thank you for your commitment.

We thank you for all of the valuable ideas and insights that were offered with such enthusiasm during the e-conference. We attempted to accomplish a great deal in a short time and your collaboration has allowed us to succeed.

We also appreciate your helping us stay on track. This has been an

enlightening effort and we will make every effort to ensure the guidelines reflect the many views, concerns and proposed solutions.

On that note, we would like to ask if any of you wishes to volunteer to

review the guidelines before they are finalised? We would hope that a few individuals representing different sectors would be willing to take a last look at them and offer comments before they go to press. The timeframe should be in late September and early October. If you are willing to join the review process, please send an email to us at RAFS2000@fao.org.

Lastly, we wish to ask each of you to remain subscribed. In the near future, we can send you the next summaries, the highlights of the e-conference, and also advise you once the guidelines are prepared.

Again, we wish to thank you for all of the effort and dedication with which you approached this topic. We wish you all the best.

Best regards,

Isabel Alvarez, Abubaker Maddur, Henry Mwandemere, Maria Zimmerman, and

Rainer Krell from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (FAO)

Fernando Chaparro and Christian Hoste from the NARS Secretariat

Constance Neely, Carla Roncoli, Thomas Price, David Stewart, and Julia Earlfrom the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Program(SANREM), University of Georgia

 

July 18/2000/FAO FOOD SECURITY CONFERENCE: Concluding remarks from Mr. Santiago Funes

From: RAFS2000 <RAFS2000@fao.org>

Subject: Concluding Remarks from Mr. Santiago Funes

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

[This message is available in English, French and Spanish below.

Ce message est disponible en anglais, français et espagnol au dessous.

Este mensaje está disponible en el inglés, el francés y el español abajo.]

Dear E-Conference Colleagues,

On behalf of the FAO Director General, we would like to thank each of you for participating in the Electronic Conference on Integrating Sustainable Food Security Dimensions into the Research Agenda for the NARS.

Food security is of paramount importance to FAO. As a result of this event guidelines for integrating sustainable food security dimensions into the NARS agenda will be elaborated.

Without your collaboration this could not be possible. We wish to thank you for your contributions and commitment to the conference - for sharing your insights, your experience and suggesting innovative mechanisms aimed at placing research on food security as a top priority. The devotion of your precious time and high level of professional discussion confirm the need to continue to address these challenges in the broadest possible international forum.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the E-Conference

Management Team consisting of individuals from the NARS Secretariat, SANREM and FAO for their hard work and dedication during this process.

With this message we are formally closing the Electronic Conference. We cannot, however, view this as an end of the process, which lead to the effective use of the exciting results. We look forward to sharing the guidelines with you and proceeding to the next steps to ensure that they serve their purpose.

In closing, we thank each of you once more for your participation, valuable contributions and personal engagement in the process.

Sincerely,

Santiago Funes

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

Sustainable Development Department

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

 

July 21/2000/WORLD BANK BIODIVERSITY CONFERENCE: Concluding ramarks

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

From: gacharya@worldbank.org

*Concluding remarks by Michele de Nevers, Manager, World Bank Institute

Environment and Natural Resources Division.*

Dear Participants,

In his opening note, Vinod Thomas, Vice President of the World Bank

Institute observed that "by bringing together a large body of policymakers, academics and representatives from the private sector and civil society, I hope that this internet seminar will provide the opportunity to exchange innovative solutions among development practitioners across the globe."

The World Bank Institute believes strongly in the role of information in furthering global understanding of and ability to address the goals of conservation and development. This seminar on Biodiversity Conservation and Use had over 779 members, many of whom have contributed various successful and unsuccessful examples and initiatives aimed at balancing development and conservation. Many participants have emphasized the need to disseminate both positive and negative experiences widely as a means to further our understanding of the biodiversity conservation and use.

The discussions have revolved around a number of factors which are

important causes of biodiversity loss including access to resources,

incentives to undermine biodiversity, resource availability, inadequate

government policies and the relative absence of community representation in planning, implementing and monitoring biodiversity programs. Many have argued that successful programs and projects must ensure community participation. Yet the difficulties with ensuring such participation are equally evident and we have much to learn in working successfully with communities.

What this essentially suggests is that while there are no easy answers to grappling with biodiversity conservation, there are clearly opportunities. Global and national efforts must therefore be far more vigilant and far more committed to a truly participatory approach to conservation, in order to meet the goals of biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation.

We thank you very much for your participation. We found that the

discussion allowed us to share views with individuals and groups from whom we don't often hear, and for connections to be made between groups not normally in touch with each other. We also found that the discussion highlighted areas for further research. Among others, these might include a) identifying best practices for community involvement in the conception, design, implementation and monitoring of programs and b) the sustainability of incentive systems designed to create benefits for and participation by local communities and c) promoting the use of decision making tools, such as economic valuation of ecosystem services for policy reform. If you have further suggestions in this area, please let us know. Again, thank you.

 

Michele de Nevers

Manager, World Bank Institute

Environment and Natural Resources